IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gov/wpaper/2102.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Making mobilization work: The choice of electoral systems

Author

Listed:
  • Ignacio Lago

Abstract

This paper examines the adoption of electoral systems in the last two centuries. I argue that proportional representation (PR) was adopted to make party mobilization more effective when majoritarian electoral systems with many and geographically small districts were no longer an efficient response to the problem of collective action in mass elections. With the expansion of suffrage and the parallel process of national integration, mass parties became technologically feasible and took care of bringing voters to the ballot box. As primary and secondary mobilization are more effective in electoral systems with few and geographically large districts, majoritarian rules were progressively replaced with proportional rules. PR was endorsed by those parties that found it easier to attract voters using a single mobilization strategy with strong economics of scale, and resisted by locally focused parties. This argument is tested using longitudinal and cross section data at both the country and party levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Ignacio Lago, 2021. "Making mobilization work: The choice of electoral systems," Working Papers. Collection A: Public economics, governance and decentralization 2102, Universidade de Vigo, GEN - Governance and Economics research Network.
    • Handle: RePEc:gov:wpaper:2102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://infogen.webs.uvigo.es/WP/WP2102.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2021
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carles Boix, 1999. "Setting the rules of the game: The choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies," Economics Working Papers 367, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. Morgenstern,Scott, 2017. "Are Politics Local?," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108415132, September.
    3. Rogowski, Ronald, 1987. "Trade and the variety of democratic institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 203-223, April.
    4. Boix, Carles, 2010. "Electoral Markets, Party Strategies, and Proportional Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(2), pages 404-413, May.
    5. Boix, Carles, 1999. "Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 609-624, September.
    6. Cusack, Thomas R. & Iversen, Torben & Soskice, David, 2007. "Economic Interests and the Origins of Electoral Systems," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 373-391, August.
    7. Walter, André, 2021. "Socialist Threat? Radical Party Entry, Electoral Alliances, and the Introduction of Proportional Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 115(2), pages 701-708, May.
    8. Cusack, Thomas R. & Iversen, Torben & Soskice, David, 2007. "Economic interests and the origins of electoral systems," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions, States, Markets SP II 2007-07, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Christian Walter Martin & Nils D. Steiner, 2016. "Economic globalization and the change of electoral rules," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 355-376, December.
    2. Stefan Voigt, 2011. "Positive constitutional economics II—a survey of recent developments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 205-256, January.
    3. Isa Camyar & Bahar Ulupinar, 2019. "Electoral systems and the economy: a firm-level analysis," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 1-30, March.
    4. Carlos Scartascini & Mariano Tommasi, 2012. "The Making of Policy: Institutionalized or Not?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(4), pages 787-801, October.
    5. Pijus Krūminas, 2019. "Public R&D under different electoral rules: evidence from OECD countries," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 300-329, September.
    6. Hoogenboom, Marcel & Kissane, Christopher & Prak, Maarten & Wallis, Patrick & Minns, Chris, 2018. "Guilds in the transition to modernity: the cases of Germany, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87476, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. George Tridimas, 2017. "Constitutional choice in ancient Athens: the evolution of the frequency of decision making," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 209-230, September.
    8. Yeung, Timothy Yu-Cheong, 2017. "Political philosophy, executive constraint and electoral rules," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 67-88.
    9. Garance Genicot & Laurent Bouton & Micael Castanheira, 2021. "Electoral Systems and Inequalities in Government Interventions [“Distributive Politics and Electoral Incentives: Evidence from Seven US State Legislatures.”]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(6), pages 3154-3206.
    10. Timothy Yu-Cheong Yeung & Izaskun Zuazu, 2020. "The impact of electoral rules on manufacturing industries: evidence of disaggregated data of 61 industries of 55 countries," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 458-488, December.
    11. Hideko Magara, 2013. "Introduction: two decades of structural reform and political change in Italy and Japan," Chapters, in: Hideko Magara & Stefano Sacchi (ed.), The Politics of Structural Reforms, chapter 1, pages 1-24, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Santucci, Jack, 2017. "Bad for Party Discipline: Why Unions Attacked the Single Transferable Vote in Cincinnati," SocArXiv aqn5y, Center for Open Science.
    13. David A. Bateman & Dawn Langan Teele, 2020. "A developmental approach to historical causal inference," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 253-279, December.
    14. Megumi Naoi & Ellis Krauss, 2009. "Who Lobbies Whom? Special Interest Politics under Alternative Electoral Systems," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 874-892, October.
    15. Amable, Bruno & Azizi, Karim, 2011. "Varieties of capitalism and varieties of macroeconomic policy. Are some economies more procyclical than others?," MPIfG Discussion Paper 11/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    16. George Tridimas, 2011. "A political economy perspective of direct democracy in ancient Athens," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 58-82, March.
    17. David Hugh-Jones, 2008. "Explaining Institutional Change: Why Elected Politicians Implement Direct Democracy," Jena Economics Research Papers 2008-085, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    18. Timothy Besley & Torsten Persson, 2011. "Pillars of Prosperity: The Political Economics of Development Clusters," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9624.
    19. Xefteris, Dimitrios & Matakos, Kostas, 2009. "An Economic Model of Strategic Electoral Rule Choice Under Uncertainty," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 917, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    20. Carlos Scartascini & Mariano Tommasi & Ernesto Stein, 2010. "Veto Players and Policy Trade-Offs- An Intertemporal Approach to Study the Effects of Political Institutions on Policy," Research Department Publications 4660, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Collective Action; Electoral System; Nationalization; Mobilization; Political Parties; Proportional Representation.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H72 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Budget and Expenditures
    • H74 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Borrowing
    • H77 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gov:wpaper:2102. 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: Patricio Sanchez-Fernandez (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/geviges.html .

    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.