IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v13y2001i4p331-354.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Party Size Baselines Imposed by Institutional Constraints

Author

Listed:
  • Rein Taagepera

Abstract

This theory specifies the party sizes expected on the basis of constraints imposed by simple electoral rules. Duverger's law and hypothesis states that under the single-member plurality rule third parties tend to be eliminated, while proportional representation in multi-seat districts enables more than two parties to thrive. Expanding on Duverger' statements, the seat and vote shares of parties at all size ranks are calculated here, using nothing but two institutional inputs (district magnitude and assembly size) plus the number of voters. These are the baseline values expected if (and only if) institutional constraints were the only factor, with other factors balancing themselves out. The theory is complete in the sense of leading to complete party size structure. Among the relatively simple electoral systems the institutional baselines do reflect the long-term averages in New Zealand, while the residuals indicate the imbalance of inputs by other factors in the case of The Netherlands and Finland, and especially in the case of the UK.

Suggested Citation

  • Rein Taagepera, 2001. "Party Size Baselines Imposed by Institutional Constraints," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 331-354, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:13:y:2001:i:4:p:331-354
    DOI: 10.1177/0951692801013004001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692801013004001
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951692801013004001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Taagepera, Rein & Shugart, Matthew Soberg, 1993. "Predicting the Number of Parties: A Quantitative Model of Duverger's Mechanical Effect," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 455-464, June.
    2. Rein Taagepera, 1999. "Ignorance-Based Quantitative Models and Their Practical Implications," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(3), pages 421-431, July.
    3. Taagepera, Rein, 1986. "Reformulating the Cube Law for Proportional Representation Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(2), pages 489-504, June.
    4. Theil, Henri, 1969. "The Desired Political Entropy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(2), pages 521-525, June.
    5. Riker, William H., 1982. "The Two-party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 76(4), pages 753-766, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Josep M. Colomer, 2005. "It's parties that choose electoral systems (or Duverger's Law upside down)," Economics Working Papers 812, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Konstantinos Matakos & Orestis Troumpounis & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2015. "Turnout and Polarization Under Alternative Electoral Systems," Studies in Political Economy, in: Norman Schofield & Gonzalo Caballero (ed.), The Political Economy of Governance, edition 127, pages 335-362, Springer.
    2. Bishop, Matthew Louis & Corbett, Jack & Veenendaal, Wouter, 2020. "Labor movements and party system development: Why does the Caribbean have stable two-party systems, but the Pacific does not?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    3. Bol, Damien & Matakos, Konstantinos & Troumpounis, Orestis & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2019. "Electoral rules, strategic entry and polarization," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    4. De Santo, Alessia & Le Maux, Benoît, 2023. "On the optimal size of legislatures: An illustrated literature review," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    5. Dario Debowicz & Alejandro Saporiti & Yizhi Wang, 2021. "Redistribution, power sharing and inequality concern," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(2), pages 197-228, August.
    6. Konstantinos Matakos & Riikka Savolainen & Orestis Troumpounis & Janne Tukiainen & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2024. "Electoral Institutions and Intraparty Cohesion," Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(4), pages 883-916.
    7. de Miguel-Arribas, A. & Morón-Vidal, J. & Floría, L.M. & Gracia-Lázaro, C. & Hernández, L. & Moreno, Y., 2024. "Contests in two fronts," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    8. Alastair Smith & Bruce Bueno de Mesquita & Tom LaGatta, 2017. "Group incentives and rational voting1," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(2), pages 299-326, April.
    9. Yläoutinen, Sami, 2004. "The role of electoral and party systems in the development of fiscal institutions in the Central and Eastern European countries," ZEI Working Papers B 13-2004, University of Bonn, ZEI - Center for European Integration Studies.
    10. Piolatto, Amedeo, 2011. "Plurality versus proportional electoral rule: Which is most representative of voters?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 311-327, June.
    11. Jean Forand & Vikram Maheshri, 2015. "A dynamic Duverger’s law," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 285-306, December.
    12. Francesco De Sinopoli & Leo Ferraris & Giovanna Iannantuoni, 2013. "Electing a parliament," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 715-737, March.
    13. Wada, Junichiro & Kamahara, Yuta, 2018. "Studying malapportionment using α-divergence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 77-89.
    14. Laurent Bouton & Micael Castanheira, 2012. "One Person, Many Votes: Divided Majority and Information Aggregation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 43-87, January.
    15. Carol Mershon, 2020. "Challenging the wisdom on preferential proportional representation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(1), pages 168-182, January.
    16. Baskaran, Thushyanthan & Lopes da Fonseca, Mariana, 2013. "Electoral thresholds and political outcomes: Quasi-experimental evidence from a reform in Germany," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 177, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    17. Van Der Straeten, Karine & Sauger, Nicolas & Laslier, Jean-François & Blais, André, 2010. "The Mechanical and Psychological Effects of Electoral Systems: An Appraisal with Experimental Data," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Docweb) 1021, CEPREMAP.
    18. Maria Gallego & Norman Schofield & Kevin McAlister & Jee Jeon, 2014. "The variable choice set logit model applied to the 2004 Canadian election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 427-463, March.
    19. Iain McLean, 2015. "The strange history of social choice, and the contribution of the Public Choice Society to its fifth revival," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 153-165, April.
    20. Bharatee Bhusana, Ferris, J Stephen Dash & Stanley L. Winer, 2018. "Measuring Electoral Competitiveness: With Application to the Indian States," CESifo Working Paper Series 7216, CESifo.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:13:y:2001:i:4:p:331-354. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.