Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:18:03.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Cross-National Measure of Electoral Competitiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Mark Andreas Kayser  and
René Lindstädt
Mark Andreas Kayser*
Affiliation:
Hertie School of Governance, Friedrichstrasse 180, 10117 Berlin, Germany
René Lindstädt
Affiliation:
Department of Government, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, Essex, CO4 3SQ, U.K. e-mail: [email protected]
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Electoral competitiveness is a key explanatory construct across a broad swath of phenomena, finding application in diverse areas related to political incentives and behavior. Despite its frequent theoretical use, no valid measure of electoral competitiveness exists that applies across different electoral and party systems. We argue that one particular type of electoral competitiveness'electoral risk'can be estimated across institutional contexts and matters most for incumbent behavior. We propose, estimate, and make available a cross-nationally applicable measure for elections in 22 developed democracies between 1960 and 2011. Unlike extant alternatives, our measure captures vote volatility and is constructed at the party (not system) level, exogenous to most policy predictors, and congruent with the perceptions and incentives of policy-makers.

Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , Spring 2015 , pp. 242 - 253
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology

Footnotes

Authors' note: The authors gratefully acknowledge comments and suggestions from Francisco Cantu, Harold Clarke, John Curtis, David Fortunato, Jeff Gill, Bernard Grofman, Jude Hays, Simon Hix, Ellen Immergut, Drew Linzer, Michael McDonald, Shaun McGirr, Matthias Orlowski, Thomas Plümper, Ronald Rogowski, Tal Sadeh, Peter Selb, Jon Slapin, Stuart Soroka, Piero Stanig, Daniel Stegmüller, Randy Stevenson, Jack Vowles, and Robert Walker. Versions of this paper were presented at the Annual Meeting of the European Political Science Association and at the University of Essex, the University of Exeter, the Hertie School of Governance, the London School of Economics, the University of Oxford, and the University of Zurich. The authors thank Tanya Bagashka, Aaron Gallant, Patrick Lam, and Kong Joo Shin for the original data collection in 2006 and Johannes Kleibl, Arndt Leininger, Grzegorz Wolszczak, and Mathew Wong for more recent research assistance. Eric Chang, Miriam Golden, Bing Powell, Lawrence Ezrow, and Margit Tavits have kindly provided them with replication data that they have used for validity checks in various domains. Replication materials (Kayser and Lindstaedt 2015) are available on Dataverse. Loss probability data are available on author websites.

References

Adserà, Alícia, Boix, Carles, and Payne, Mark. 2003. Are you being served? Political accountability and quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 19(2): 445–90.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 2004. Party system compactness: measurement and consequences. Political Analysis 12(1): 46–62.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M., and Stewart, Charles. 2001. Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 136–59.Google Scholar
Bartolini, Stefano, and Mair, Peter. 1990. Identity, competition, and electoral availability: The stabilisation of European Electorates 1885–1985. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Thorsten, Clarke, George, Groff, Alberto, Keefer, Philip, and Walsh, Patrick. 2001. New tools in comparative political economy: The database of political institutions. World Bank Economic Review 15(1): 165–76.Google Scholar
Bischoff, Carina S. 2013. Electorally unstable by supply or demand? An examination of the causes of electoral volatility in advanced industrial democracies. Public Choice 156(3–4): 537–61.Google Scholar
Blais, Andre, and Lago, Ignacio. 2009. A general measure of district competitiveness. Electoral Studies 28(1): 94–100.Google Scholar
Bodet, Marc Andre. 2013. Strongholds and battlegrounds: measuring party support stability in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science 3(46): 575–96.Google Scholar
Boyne, George A. 1998. Party competition and local spending decisions. British Journal of Political Science 28(1): 210–22.Google Scholar
Brancati, Dawn. Global elections database [computer file]. New York: Global Elections Database [distributor]. Date accessed 2013. http://www.globalelectionsdatabase.com.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W., and Cogan, John F. 2002. Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and House members’ voting. American Political Science Review 96(1): 127–40.Google Scholar
Carey, John M., and Hix, Simon. 2011. The electoral sweet spot: Low-magnitude proportional electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 55(2): 383–97.Google Scholar
Chang, Eric C.C., Kayser, Mark A., Linzer, Drew, and Rogowski, Ronald. 2011. Electoral systems and the balance of consumer-producer power. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, Eric C.C., Andreas Kayser, Mark, and Rogowski, Ronald. 2008. Electoral systems and real prices: Panel evidence for the OECD countries, 1970–2000. British Journal of Political Science 38(4): 739–51.Google Scholar
Chen, Jowei, and Rodden, Jonathan. 2013. Unintentional gerrymandering: Political geography and electoral bias in legislatures. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8(3): 239–69.Google Scholar
Döring, Holger, and Manow, Philip. 2012. Parliament and Government Composition Database (ParlGov): An Infrastructure for Empirical Information on Parties, Elections, and Governments in Modern Democracies. Version 12/10-15 October 2012, http://www.parlgov.org.Google Scholar
Elkins, David J. 1974. The measurement of party competition. American Political Science Review 68(2): 682–700.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, and Selb, Peter. 2009. A fully general index of political competition. Electoral Studies 28(2): 291–96.Google Scholar
Gugiu Mihaiela, Ristei, and Centellas, Miguel. 2013. The democracy cluster classification index. Political Analysis 21(3): 334–49.Google Scholar
Hecock, R. Douglas. 2006. Electoral competition, globalization, and subnational education spending in Mexico, 1999–2004. American Journal of Political Science 50(4): 950–61.Google Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., and Klemmensen, Robert. 2008. Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies 41(3): 309–37.Google Scholar
Hollyer, James R., James, B. Rosendorff, Peter, and Vreeland, Raymond. 2014. Measuring transparency. Political Analysis 22(4): 413–434.Google Scholar
Hopkin, Jonathan. 2008. Proportional representation with majoritarian outcomes. In The politics of electoral systems, ed. ed. Mitchell, Paul Gallagher, Michael and 375–96. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Immergut, Ellen M., and Abou-Chadi, Tarik. 2014. How electoral vulnerability affects pension politics: Introducing a concept, measure and empirical application. European Journal of Political Research 53(2): 269–87.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1987. The marginals never vanished: Incumbency and competition in elections to the US House of Representatives, 1952–82. American Journal of Political Science 31(1): 126–41.Google Scholar
Kayser Mark, Andreas, and Lindstädt, René. 2015. Replication Data for: A Cross-National Measure of Electoral Competitiveness (2015). UNF:5:WUwG4tgocRVYI7T1QYkt8g== Dataverse [Distributor] V1 [Version]. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/28591.Google Scholar
Koch, Jeffrey W. 1998. Electoral competitiveness and the voting decision: Evidence from the pooled senate election study. Political Behavior 20(4): 295–311.Google Scholar
Kollman, Ken, Hicken, Daniele Caramani, Allen, and Backer, David. Constituency-level elections archive (CLEA) University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer and distributor]. Date accessed 2013. www.electiondataarchive.org.Google Scholar
Lachat, Romain. 2011. Electoral competitiveness and issue voting. Political Behavior 33(4): 645–63.Google Scholar
Linzer, Drew A. 2012a. The relationship between seats and votes in multiparty systems. Political Analysis 20(3): 400–416.Google Scholar
Linzer, Drew A. Replication Data for: The Relationship between Seats and Votes in Multiparty Systems. IQSS Dataverse Network [Distributor] V1 [Version]. http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/17691.Google Scholar
Linzer, Drew A. 2012c. seatsvotes R package. http://dvn.iq.harvard.edu/dvn/faces/study/StudyPage. xhtml?studyId=75023&tab=files.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E. 1978. Unsafe at any margin: Interpreting congressional elections. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congressional elections: The case of the vanishing marginals. Polity 6(3): 295–317.Google Scholar
Monroe, Burt L., and Rose, Amanda G. 2002. Electoral systems and unimagined consequences: Partisan effects of districted proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 67–89.Google Scholar
Orlowski, Matthias. 2014. Linking votes to power. Measuring electoral competition at the party level. Paper presented at the workshop Measuring Electoral and Political Competition and Their Effects on Political Outcomes, 18 September 2014, Berlin.Google Scholar
Pemstein, Daniel, Meserve, Stephen A., and Melton, James. 2010. Democratic compromise: A latent variable analysis of ten measures of regime type. Political Analysis 18(4): 426–49.Google Scholar
Powell, Bingham G. 1986. American voter turnout in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review 80(1): 17–43.Google Scholar
Powell, Bingham G. 2000. Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Sprague, John. 1971. Concepts in search of explicit formulation: A study in measurement. Midwest Journal of Political Science 15(2): 183–218.Google Scholar
Ranney, Austin. 1976. Parties in state politics. 3rd ed. In Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis, eds. Jacob, Herbert and Nelson Vines, Kenneth, 52–92. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald, and Kayser, Mark A. 2002. Majoritarian electoral systems and consumer power: Price-level evidence from the OECD countries. American Journal of Political Science 46(3): 526–39.Google Scholar
Rozenas, Arturas. 2012. A statistical model for party-systems analysis. Political Analysis 20(2): 235–47.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schleiter, Petra, and Voznaya, Alisa M. 2012. Party system competitiveness and corruption. Party Politics 20(5): 675–686.Google Scholar
Selb, Peter. 2009. A deeper look at the proportionality-turnout nexus. Comparative Political Studies 42(4): 527–48.Google Scholar
Selway, Joel Sawat. 2011. The measurement of cross-cutting cleavages and other multidimensional cleavage structures. Political Analysis 19(1): 48–65.Google Scholar
Sheather, Simon J., and Jones, Michael C. 1991. A reliable data-based bandwidth selection method for kernel density estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological) 53(3): 683–90.Google Scholar
Silverman, Bernard W. 1986. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Solé-Ollé, Albert. 2006. The effects of party competition on budget outcomes: Empirical evidence from local governments in Spain. Public Choice 126(1–2): 145–76.Google Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2005. The development of stable party support: Electoral dynamics in post-communist Europe. American Journal of Political Science 49(2): 283–98.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Kayser and Lindstädt supplementary material

Appendix

Download Kayser and Lindstädt supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 318.9 KB