Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:01:25.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voter uncertainty, political institutions, and legislative turnover

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2018

Yanna Krupnikov  and
Charles R. Shipan
Yanna Krupnikov*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
Charles R. Shipan
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Michigan
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The level of legislative turnover in a polity can have significant political consequences. Low turnover may increase the number of legislators who are out of touch with constituents, while high turnover can limit a legislature’s ability to fulfill its duties. Focusing on separation of powers arrangements, a factor overlooked by previous studies, we identify institutional conditions that affect turnover. When the executive and legislature are equally responsible for budgetary outcomes, we argue, this creates ambiguous contexts, leaving voters more likely to re-elect incumbents, thereby lowering turnover. We test our predictions using US state-level data.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 14 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2018 

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

Anderson, C (2000) Economic Voting and Political Context: A Comparative Perspective. Electoral Studies 19, 151–170.Google Scholar
Anderson, C (2003) The Psychology of Doing Nothing: Forms of Decision Avoidance Result from Reason and Emotion. Psychological Bulletin 129, 139–166.Google Scholar
Berry, WD, Berkman, MB Schneiderman, S (2000) Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries. American Political Science Review 94(4), 859–874.Google Scholar
Brace, P Ward, D (1999 The Institutionalized Legislature and the Rise of the Antipolitics Era. In Weber R and Brace P (eds), American State and Local Politics , 71–96. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Breaux, D Jewell, M (1992) Winning Big: The Incumbency Advantage in State Legislative Races. In Moncrief G and Thompson J (eds), Changing Patterns in State Legislative Careers , 87–106. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Carey, JM, Niemi, RG Powell, LW(2000) Incumbency and the Probability of Reelection in State Legislative Elections. Journal of Politics 62, 671–700.Google Scholar
Clynch, EJ Lauth, TP (eds) (1991) Budgeting in the American States – Conflict and Diversity. Governors, Legislatures and Budgets: Diversity Across the American States . New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Crain, WM (1977) On the Structure and Stability of Political Markets. The Journal of Political Economy 85, 829–842.Google Scholar
Dilger, RJ, Krause, GR Moffett, RR (1995) State Legislative Professionalism and Gubernatorial Effectiveness, 1978-1991. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20(4), 553–571.Google Scholar
Dometrius, NC Wright, DS (2009) State-Level Measures of Institutional Budgetary Influence From the American State Administrators Project (ASAP): 1964-1998. Paper presented at the Ninth Annual Conference on State Politics and Policy, Chapel Hill, NC, 22–23 May.Google Scholar
Druckman, JN Bolsen, T (2011) Framing, Motivated Reasoning and Opinions About Emergent Technologies. Journal of Communication 61(4), 659–688.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S Maestas, C (2010) Risk Orientation, Risk Exposure and Policy Opinions: The Case of Free Trade. Political Psychology. 31(5), 657–684.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M (1994) Divided Government in the American States: A Byproduct of Legislative Professionalism. American Political Science Review 88, 304–316.Google Scholar
Francis, WL Kenny, LW (1997) Equilibrium Projections of the Consequences of Term Limits Upon Expected Tenure, Institutional Turnover, and Membership Experience. Journal of Politics 59, 240–252.Google Scholar
Ghirardato, P Katz, JN (2006) Indecision Theory: Weight of Evidence and Voting Behavior. Journal of Public Economic Theory 8, 379–399.Google Scholar
Greene, K (1993) An Economic Investigation of Interstate Variation in Legislative Turnover. Public Finance Quarterly 21, 84–99.Google Scholar
Heinsohn, T (2014) Institutional Determinants of Legislative Turnover in the German State Parliaments: 1947–2012. The Journal of Legislative Studies 20(4), 473–494.Google Scholar
Heinsohn, T Freitag, M (2012) Institutional Foundations of Legislative Turnover: A Comparative Analysis of the Swiss Cantons. Swiss Political Science Review 18(3), 352–370.Google Scholar
Huber, JD Shipan, CR (2002) Deliberate Discretion? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huber, JD, Shipan, CR Pfahler, M (2001) Legislatures and Statutory Control of Bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science 45, 330–345.Google Scholar
Jewell, ME Breaux, D (1988) The Effect of Incumbency on State Legislative Elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly 13, 495–514.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D Tversky, A (1979) Choices, Values and Frames. American Psychologist 39, 341–350.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D, Knestch, J Thaler, R (1991) The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, 193–206.Google Scholar
Kam, CD Simas, EN (2012) Risk Attitudes, Candidate Characteristics and Vote Choice. Public Opinion Quarterly 76(4), 747–760.Google Scholar
Kerby, M Blidook, K (2011) It’s Not You, It’s Me: Determinants of Voluntary Legislative Turnover in Canada. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(4), 621–643.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, DR (1981) Policy-Oriented Voting in Response to Economic Issues. American Political Science Review 75, 448–459.Google Scholar
Kousser, T (2004) Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kousser, T Phillips, JH (2012) The Power of American Governors. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krupnikov, Y Shipan, CR (2012) Measuring Gubernatorial Budgetary Power: A New Approach”. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 12, 438–455.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, MS Stegmaier, M (2000) Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes. Annual Review of Political Science 3, 183–219.Google Scholar
Leyden, KM Borrelli, SA (1995) The Effect of State Economic Conditions on Gubernatorial Elections: Does Unified Government Make a Difference? Political Research Quarterly 48, 275–290.Google Scholar
Maestas, C (2000) Professional Legislatures and Ambitious Politicians: Policy Responsiveness of State Institutions. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25, 663–690.Google Scholar
Matland, RE Studlar, DT (2004) Determinants of Legislative Turnover: A Cross-National Analysis. British Journal of Political Science 34(1), 87–108.Google Scholar
McCann, PC, Shipan, CR Volden, C (2015) Top-Down Federalism: State Policy Responses to National Government Discussion. Publius 45(4), 495–525.Google Scholar
Moncrief, GF (1998) Terminating the Provincial Career: Retirement and Electoral Defeat in Canadian Provincial Legislatures, 1960cy Re. Canadian Journal of Political Science 31(2), 359–372.Google Scholar
Moncrief, G, Niemi, R Powell, L (2004) Time, Term Limits and Turnover: Trends in Membership Stability in U.S. State Legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly 29, 357–381.Google Scholar
Mooney, C (1994) Measuring U.S. State Legislative Professionalism: An Evaluation of Five Indices. State & Local Government Review 26, 70–78.Google Scholar
Mutz, DC (1992) Mass Media and the Depoliticization of Personal Experience. American Journal of Political Science 36, 483–508.Google Scholar
Niemi, R Winsky, L (1987) Membership Turnover in U.S. State Legislatures: Trends and the Effects of Districting. Legislative Studies Quarterly 12, 115–123.Google Scholar
Persson, T, Roland, G Tabellini, G (1997) Separation of Powers and Political Accountability. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, 1163–1202.Google Scholar
Powell, GB Whitten, G (1993) A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context. American Journal of Political Science 37, 391–414.Google Scholar
Rabin, M Thaler, R (2001) Anomalies: Risk Aversion. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15, 219–232.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, A (1974) Turnover in State Legislatures. American Journal of Political Science 18, 609–616.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, A (1998) The Decline of Representative Democracy. Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Rudolph, TJ (2003a) Institutional Context and the Assignment of Political Responsibility”. Journal of Politics 65, 190–215.Google Scholar
Rudolph, TJ (2003b) Who’s Responsible for the Economy? The Formation and Consequences of Responsibility Attributions. American Journal of Political Science 47, 698–713.Google Scholar
Samuels, D (2000) Ambition and Competition: Explaining Legislative Turnover in Brazil. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25(3), 481–497.Google Scholar
Samuelson, W Zeckhauser, R (1988) Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 7–59.Google Scholar
Shor, B McCarty, N (2011) The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures. American Political Science Review 105, 530–551.Google Scholar
Squire, P (2000) Uncontested Seats in State Legislative Elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25, 131–146.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Krupnikov and Shipan Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/1Q2Z92
Link
Supplementary material: File

Krupnikov and Shipan supplementary material

Krupnikov and Shipan supplementary material 1

Download Krupnikov and Shipan supplementary material(File)
File 2.5 MB