Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-b4m5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T05:14:46.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electoral Incentives in Mixed-Member Systems: Party, Posts, and Zombie Politicians in Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2006

ROBERT PEKKANEN ,
BENJAMIN NYBLADE  and
ELLIS S. KRAUSS
ROBERT PEKKANEN
Affiliation:
University of Washington
BENJAMIN NYBLADE
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
ELLIS S. KRAUSS
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How do electoral incentives affect legislative organization? Through an analysis of Japan's mixed-member electoral system, we demonstrate that legislative organization is strongly influenced not only by the individual legislators reelection incentives but also by their interest in their party gaining power and maintaining a strong party label. Electorally vulnerable legislators are given choice legislative positions to enhance their prospects at the polls, whereas (potential) party leaders disproportionately receive posts with greater influence on the party's overall reputation. Members of Parliament elected from proportional representation (PR) lists and in single member districts also receive different types of posts, reflecting their distinct electoral incentives. Even small variations in electoral rules can have important consequences for legislative organization. In contrast to Germany's compensatory mixed-member system, Japan's parallel system (combined with a “best loser” or “zombie” provision) generates incentives for the party to allocate posts relating to the distribution of particularistic goods to those elected in PR.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 100 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 183 - 193
Copyright
© 2006 by the American Political Science Association

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

Bawn Kathleen, and Michael F. Thies. 2003. “A Comparative Theory of Electoral Incentives: Representing the Unorganized Under PR, Plurality, and Mixed-Member Electoral Systems.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 15 (January): 5– 32.Google Scholar
Carey John, and Matthew S. Shugart. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate the Personal Vote: A Rank Order of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies 14 (December): 417– 39.Google Scholar
Cox Gary W. 1987. The Efficient Secret. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cox Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cox Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan. Berkeley: California.
Cox Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2004. Setting the Agenda. Manuscript, San Diego.
Cox Gary W., Frances Rosenbluth, and Michael F. Thies. 2000. “Electoral Rules, Career Ambitions, and Party Structure: Conservative Factions in Japan's Upper and Lower Houses.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (January): 115– 22.Google Scholar
Curtis Gerald L. 1999. The Logic of Japanese Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Denemark David. 2000. “Partisan Pork Barrel in Parliamentary Systems: Australian Constituency-Level Grants.” Journal of Politics 62 (August): 896– 915.Google Scholar
Epstein David, David Brady, Sadafumi Kawato, and Sharyn O'Halloran. 1997. “A Comparative Approach to Legislative Organization: Careerism and Seniority in the United States and Japan.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (July): 965– 98.Google Scholar
Espino Rodolfo, and Michael M. Franz. 2004. “Retesting Committee Composition Hypotheses for the U.S. Congress.” Political Analysis 12 (Spring): 196– 98.Google Scholar
Farrell David M. 1997. Comparing Electoral Systems. London: Prentice Hall.
Frisch Scott, and Sean Kelly. 2004. “Self-selection Reconsidered: House Committee Assignment Requests and Constituency Characteristics.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (June): 325– 36.Google Scholar
Gamm Gerald, and John Huber. 2002. “Legislatures as Political Institutions: Beyond the Contemporary Congress.” In Political Science: State of the Discipline, ed. Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner. New York: Uttah Norton.
Ismayr Wolfgang. 1992. Der Deutsche Bundestag. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.
Katz Richard S. 2001. “Reforming the Italian Electoral Law, 1993.” In Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? ed. Matthew Shugart Soberg and Martin P. Wattenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krauss Ellis S., and Robert Pekkanen. 2004. “Explaining Party Adaptation to Electoral Reform: The Discreet Charm of the LDP.” Journal of Japanese Studies 30 (1, Winter): 1– 33.Google Scholar
Krehbiel Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor, MI. University of Michigan Press.
Lancaster Thomas, and W. David Patterson. 1990. “Comparative Pork Barrel Politics: Perceptions From the West German Bundestag.” Comparative Political Studies 22 (January): 458– 77.Google Scholar
Lijphart Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mayhew David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
McCubbins Mathew D., and Frances Rosenbluth. 1995. “Party Provision for Personal Politics: Dividing the Vote in Japan.” In Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States. ed. Peter Cowhey and Mathew D. McCubbins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McKean Margaret, and Ethan Scheiner. 2000. “Japan's new electoral system: la plu ça change\ldots” Electoral Studies 9 (December): 447– 77.Google Scholar
Mori Hiroki. 2001. Nihonshakaitou no kenkyuu [Research on the Japan Socialist Party]. Tokyo: Bokutakusha.
Nohlen Dieter. 1990. Wahlrecht und Parteiensystem, 2nd Edition. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.
Ramseyer J. Mark, and Frances Rosenbluth. 1993. Japan's Political Marketplace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Reed Steven R., and Michael F. Thies. 2001. “The Causes of Electoral Reform in Japan.” In Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? ed. Matthew Soberg Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Satō Seizaburō, and Tetsuhisa Matsuzaki. 1986. Jimintō Seiken [LDP Rule]. Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha.
Schlesinger Joseph. 1965. Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.
Scott Adler E., and John S. Lapinski. 1997. “Demand-side Theory and Congressional Committee Composition: A Constituency Characteristics Approach.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (July): 895– 918.Google Scholar
Searing Donald. 1994. Westminster's World: Understanding Political Roles. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shepsle Kenneth A. 1978. The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle: Democratic Committee Assignments in the Modern House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shugart Matthew Søberg, Melody Ellis Valdini, and Kati Suominen. 2005. “Looking for Locals: Voter Information Demands and Personal Vote-Earning Attributes of Legislators under PR.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (April): 437– 49.Google Scholar
Shugart Matthew Soberg, and Martin P. Wattenberg, eds. 2001a. Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shugart Matthew Soberg, and Martin P. Wattenberg. 2001b. “Electoral ‘Efficiency’ and the Move to Mixed-Member Systems.” Electoral Studies 20 (June): 173– 93.Google Scholar
Stratmann Thomas, and Martin Baur. 2002. “Plurality Rule, Proportional Representation and the German Bundestag: How Incentives to Pork-Barrel Differ Across Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (July): 506– 14.Google Scholar
Strøm Kaare. 1997. “Rules, Reasons and Routines: Legislative Roles in Parliamentary Democracy.” Journal of Legislative Studies 23 (Spring): 155– 74.Google Scholar
Taagepera Rein, and Matthew S. Shugart. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tatebayashi Masahiko. 2004. Giin kōdō no seiji keizigaku—Jimintō shihai no seido bunseki. [The Logic of Legislators' Activities: Institutional Analysis of LDP Dominance in Japan]. Tokyo: Yuhikaku.
Tatebayashi Masahiko, and Margaret McKean. 2002. “Vote Division and Policy Differentiation Strategies of LDP Members under SNTV/MMD in Japan.” Paper presented to Association of Asian Studies, Washington DC, April 4–7, 2002.
Thies Michael F. 2002. “Changing How the Japanese Vote: The Promise and Pitfalls of the 1994 Electoral Reform.” In How Asia Votes. ed. John Fuh-shen Hsieh and David Newman. New York: Chatham House.
Tomz Michael, Jason Wittenberg, and Gary King. 2003. “Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.” Journal of Statistical Software 8 (1).Google Scholar
Weingast Barry, and William J. Marshall. 1988. “The Industrial Organization of Congress; or, Why Legislatures, Like Firms, Are Not Organized Like Markets.” Journal of Political Economy 96 (February): 132– 63.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.