Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:43:43.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Alternative Paths to Party Polarization: External Impacts of Intraparty Organization in Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Abstract

Although party polarization is one of the most significant focal points in the study of contemporary US politics, a limited number of studies have examined its theoretical implications for other countries. In addition, a great deal of effort has been made in the study of the changes in voting bases (i.e., constituencies or interest groups). However, little attention has been given to the features of party organization. In this study we look at the process of polarization between two major parties in Japan in recent years and analyze the way Japanese parties took an alternative path to polarization. We argue that party polarization can be caused by the strategic position-taking of the party executive in addition to the centralization of the party organization.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, James. 2001. “A Theory of Spatial Competition with Biased Voters: Party Policies Viewed Temporally and Comparatively.” British Journal of Political Science 31, 1: 121158.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Merrill, Samuel III, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Farrell, David M., and Katz, Richard S.. 1999. “Party Cohesion, Party Discipline, and Parliaments.” In Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government , ed. Bowler, Shaun, Farrell, David M., and Katz, Richard S., 323. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, David, Han, Hahrie, and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2007. “Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step with the Primary Electorate?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 32, 1: 79105.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry. 2004. “Candidate Positioning in US Congressional Election.” British Journal of Political Science 34, 2: 211227.Google Scholar
Callander, Steven, and Wilson, Catherine. 2007. “Turnout, Polarization, and Duverger's Law.” Journal of Politics 69, 4: 10471056.Google Scholar
Carlson, Matthew. 2012. “Financing Democracy in Japan: The Allocation and Consequences of Government Subsidies to Political Parties.” Party Politics 18, 3: 391408.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., and Takana, Aiji. 2007. “The Patterns of Party Polarization in East Asia.” Journal of East Asian Studies 7, 2: 203223.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Estévez-Abe, Margarita. 2006. “Japan's Shift Toward a Westminster System: A Structural Analysis of the 2005 Lower House Election and Its Aftermath.” Asian Survey , 46, 4: 632651.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris, Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2010. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. 3rd ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth, and Morton, Rebecca. 1998. “Primary Election System and Representation.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 14, 2: 304324.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 2004. “Downs and Two-Party Convergence.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 2456.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacobs, and Pierson, Paul. 2004. Off Center. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ito, Atsuo. 2008. Minshuto [DPJ] . Tokyo: Shinchosha.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben. 1994. “The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilizational Effects.” Comparative Political Studies 27, 2: 155189.Google Scholar
Iwai, Tomoaki. 1988. Rippo Katei [Legislative process] . Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
Karol, David. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, Junko, and Laver, Michael. 2003. “Policy and Party Competition in Japan After the Election of 2000.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 4, 1: 121133.Google Scholar
Katz, Richard, and Mair, Peter. 2002. “The Ascendancy of the Party in Public Office.” In Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges , ed. Gunther, Richard, Montero, Jose Ramon, and Linz, Juan J., 113135. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2005. “When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections.” American Political Science Review 99, 2: 185199.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1989. “The Internal Politics of Parties: The Law of Curvilinear Disparity Revisited.” Political Studies 37, 3: 400421.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krauss, Ellis S., and Nyblade, Benjamin. 2005. “‘Presidentialization’ in Japan? The Prime Minister, Media and Elections in Japan.” British Journal of Political Science 35, 2: 357368.Google Scholar
Krauss, Ellis S., and Pekkanen, Robert J.. 2011. The Rise and Fall of Japan's LDP: Party Organization as Institutions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lipscy, Phillip Y., and Scheiner, Ethan. 2012. “Japan Under the DPJ: The Paradox of Political Change Without Policy Change.” Journal of East Asian Studies 12, 3: 311322.Google Scholar
Macedo, Stephen, et al. 2005. Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation and What We Can Do About It. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Machidori, Satoshi. 2005. “The 1990s Reforms Have Transformed Japanese Politics.” Japan Echo 32, 3: 3843.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E. 2006. “Polarizing the House of Representatives: How Much Does Gerrymandering Matter?” In Red and Blue Nation? Characteristics and Causes of America's Polarized Politics , Vol. 1, ed. Nivola, Pietro S.and Brady, David W., 263283. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shimbunsha, Nihon Seikei. Kokkai Binran, each issue .Google Scholar
Park, Cheol Hee. 2001. “Factional Dynamics in Japan's LDP Since Political Reform: Continuity and Change.” Asian Survey 41, 3: 433434.Google Scholar
Porter, Michael. 1980. Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham Jr. 2006. “Election Laws and Representative Governments: Beyond Votes and Seats.” British Journal of Political Science 36, 2: 291315.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham Jr. 2009. “The Ideological Congruence Controversy: The Impact of Alternative Measures, Data, and Time Periods on the Effects of Election Rules.” Comparative Political Studies 42, 12: 14751497.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83, 1: 93121.Google Scholar
Rohde, David. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scheiner, Ethan. 2012. “The Electoral System and Japan's Partial Transformation: Party System Consolidation Without Policy Realignment.” Journal of East Asian Studies 12, 3: 351379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takenaka, Harukata. 2006. Shusho Shihai [Prime minister's rule] . Tokyo: Chuokoronsha.Google Scholar
Taniguchi, Masaki, Uenohara, Hideaki, and Sakaiya, Shirô. 2010. “Who Ended the LDP's Reign?” Japan Echo 37, 1: 1925.Google Scholar
Theriault, Sean. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar