Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More Than Others

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2006

TORBEN IVERSEN
Affiliation:
Harvard University
DAVID SOSKICE
Affiliation:
Duke University, London School of Economics and Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin

Abstract

Standard political economy models of redistribution, notably that of Meltzer and Richard (1981), fail to account for the remarkable variance in government redistribution across democracies. We develop a general model of redistribution that explains why some democratic governments are more prone to redistribute than others. We show that the electoral system plays a key role because it shapes the nature of political parties and the composition of governing coalitions, hence redistribution. Our argument implies (1) that center-left governments dominate under PR systems, whereas center-right governments dominate under majoritarian systems; and (2) that PR systems redistribute more than majoritarian systems. We test our argument on panel data for redistribution, government partisanship, and electoral system in advanced democracies.

Type
ARTICLES
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.

References

Aarts Kees, André Blais and Hermann Schmitt. Forthcoming Political Leaders and Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Acemoglu Daron, and James Robinson. 2005. Political Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aldrich John. 1993. “Rational Choice and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 24678.Google Scholar
Aldrich John. 1995. Why Parties? The Origins and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Alesina Alberto, and Edward Glaeser. 2004. Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ansell Ben. 2005. “From the Ballot to the Blackboard? Partisan and Institutional Effects on Human Capital Policy in the OECD. Department of Government.” Harvard University. Typescript.
Austen-Smith David. 2000. “Redistributing Income Under Proportional Representation.” Journal of Political Economy 108 (6): 123569.Google Scholar
Bawn Kathleen, and Frances Rosenbluth. 2006. “Coalition Parties versus Coalitions of Parties: How Electoral Agency Shapes the Political Logic of Costs and Benefits.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (2): [page nos still pending]. 89 (September): 63448.Google Scholar
Bénabou Roland. 1996. “Inequality and Growth.” In National Bureau of Economic Research Macro Annual, ed. Ben S. Bernanke and Julio J. Rotemberg, Cambridge: MIT Press, Vol. 11, pp. 1174.
Besley Timothy, and Stephen Coate. 1997. “An Economic Model of Representative Democracy.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (1): 85114.Google Scholar
Boix Carles. 1998. Political Parties, Growth and Equality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Boix Carles. 1999. “Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies.” American Political Science Review 93: 60924.Google Scholar
Bradley David Evelyn Huber, Stephanie Moller, François Nielsen, and John Stephens. 2003. “Distribution and Redistribution in Postindustrial Democracies.” World Politics 55 (2): 193228.Google Scholar
Brady David. 2003. “Rethinking the Sociological Measure of Poverty.” Social Forces 81 (3): 71552.Google Scholar
Castles Francis, and Peter Mair. 1984. “Left-Right Political Scales: Some Expert Judgments.” European Journal of Political Research 12: 7388.Google Scholar
Cox Gary W., and Jonathan N. Katz. 2002. Elbridge Gerry's Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reappointment Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curtice, Cusack Thomas R., and Lutz Engelhardt. 2002. “The PGL File Collection: File Structures and Procedures.” Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
Cusack Thomas R., and Susanne Fuchs. 2002. “Documentation Notes for Parties, Governments, and Legislatures Data Set.” Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
Downs Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
Estevez-Abe Margarita, Torben Iversen, and David Soskice. 2001. “Social Protection and the Formation of Skills: A Reinterpretation of the Welfare State.” In Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, ed. Peter A. Hall and David Soskice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodrich Benjamin. 2004. “Problems with and Solutions for Two-Dimensional Models of Continuous Dependent Variables.” Department of Government, Harvard University. Typescript.
Gross Donald A., and Lee Sigelman. 1984. “Comparing Party Systems: A Multidimensional Approach.” Comparative Politics 16: 46379.Google Scholar
Hibbs Douglas. 1977. “Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy.” American Political Science Review 71 (December): 146787.Google Scholar
Hicks Alexander, and Duane Swank. 1992. “Politics, Institutions, and Welfare Spending in Industrialized Democracies, 1960–82.” American Political Science Review 86 (3): 64974.Google Scholar
Huber Evelyn, Charles Ragin, and John Stephens. 1993. “Social Democracy, Christian Democracy, Constitutional Structure and the Welfare State.” American Journal of Sociology 99 (3): 71149.Google Scholar
Huber Evelyne, and John D. Stephens. 2001. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Huber John D., and Ronald Inglehart. 1995. “Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies.” Party Politics 1: 73111.Google Scholar
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. 1997. Voter Turnout from 1945 to 1997: A Global Report on Political Participation. Stockholm: IDEA Information Services.
Iversen Torben. 2005. Capitalism, Democracy and Welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Iversen Torben, and David Soskice. 2001. “An Asset Theory of Social Policy Preferences.” American Political Science Review 95 (4): 87593.Google Scholar
Kedar Orit. 2003. Balancing the Seesaw: Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University 2003.
Kitschelt Herbert. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Korpi Walter. 1983. The Democratic Class Struggle. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Korpi Walter. 1989. “Power, Politics, and State Autonomy in the Development of Social Citizenship—Social Rights During Sickness in 18 OECD Countries Since 1930.” American Sociological Review 54 (3): 30928.Google Scholar
Kwon Hyeok Yong, and Jonas Pontusson. 2003. “The Zone of Partisanship. Parties, Unions and Welfare Spending in OECD Countries, 1962-99.” Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Political Science, Cornell University.
Laasko Markku, and Rein Taagepera. 1979. “Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Applications to Western Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12 (3): 327.Google Scholar
Laver Michael, and W. Ben Hunt. 1992. Policy and Party Competition. New York: Routledge.
Lijphart Arend. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-90. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lijphart Arend. 1997. “Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma.” American Political Science Review 91: 114.Google Scholar
Mackie Thomas T., and Richard Rose. 1991. The International Almanac of Electoral History, 3rd edition. London: Macmillan.
McCarty Nolan, Kieth Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Meltzer Allan H., and Scott. F. Richard. 1981. “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government.” Journal of Political Economy 89: 91427.Google Scholar
Milanovic Branko. 2000. “The Median-Voter Hypothesis, Income Inequality, and Income Redistribution: An Empirical Test with the Required Data.” European Journal of Political Economy 16: 367410.Google Scholar
Moene Karl Ove, and Michael Wallerstein. 2001. “Inequality, Social Insurance and Redistribution.” American Political Science Review 95 (4): 85974.Google Scholar
Monroe B. L. and A. G. Rose. 2002. “Electoral Systems and Unimagined Consequences: Partisan Effects of Districted Proportional Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 6789.Google Scholar
OECD. 1995. “Income Distribution in OECD Countries: Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study.” Social Policy Studies No. 18.
Osberg Lars Timothy Smeeding, and Jonathan Schwabisch. 2003. “Income Distribution and Public Social Expenditure: Theories, Effects, and Evidence.” Typescript.Google Scholar
Osborne Martin J. and Al Slivinski. 1996. “A Model of Political Competition with CitizenCandidates.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 111 (1): 6596.Google Scholar
Perotti Roberto. 1996. “Growth, Income Distribution and Democracy: What the Data Say.” Journal of Economic Growth 1 (2): 14987.Google Scholar
Persson Torsten, and Guido Tabellini. 1999. “The Size and Scope of Government: Comparative Politics with Rational Politicians.” European Economic Review 43: 699735.Google Scholar
Persson Torsten, and Guido Tabellini. 2000. Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Persson Torsten, and Guido Tabellini. 2003. The Economic Effects of Constitutions MIT Press.
Persson Torsten, Gerard Roland, and Guido Tabellini. 2004. “How Do Electoral Rules Shape Party Structures, Government Coalitions, and Economic Policies?CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1115; IGIER Working Paper No. 251.Google Scholar
Powell Bingham. 2002. “PR, the Median Voter, and Economic Policy: An Exploration.” Paper presented at the 2002 Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
Ross Michael. 2005. “Does Democracy Reduce Infant Motality?Paper presented in Workshop on Democratic Institutions and Economic Performance. Duke University. April 1–2, 2005.
Rae Douglas. 1968. “A Note on Fractionalization of Some European Party Systems.” Comparative Political Studies 1: 413418.Google Scholar
Rodden Jonathan. 2005. “Red States, Blue States, and the Welfare State: Political Geography, Representation, and Government Policy Around the World.” Typescript, Department of Political Science, MIT.
Roemer John. 2004. “Does Democracy Engender Equality?” In Political Knowledge and the Public Interest, ed. Edward J. Mansfield and Richard Sisson. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
Rogowski Ronald and Mark Andreas Kayser. 2002. “Majoritarian Electoral Systems and Consumer Power: Price-level Evidence from the OECD Countries.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 52639.Google Scholar
Rokkan Stein. 1970. Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Schlesinger James. 1984. “On the Theory of Party Organization.” Journal of Politics 46, 369400.Google Scholar
Soskice David, and Torben Iversen. 2005. “Why Governments Diverge From the Preferences of the Median Legislator.” Department of Government, Harvard University. Typescript.
Visser Jelle. 1989. European Trade Unions in Figures. Deventer/Netherlands: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
Visser Jelle. 1996. “Unionization Trends Revisited.” Mimeo, University of Amsterdam.
Warwick P. V. 1996. “Coalition Government Membership in West European Parliamentary Democracies.” British journal of Political Science 26 (4): 47199.Google Scholar
Wallerstein Michael, and Karl Ove Moene. 2003. “Earnings Inequality and Welfare Spending: A Disaggregated Analysis.” World Politics 55 (4): 485516.Google Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 354
Total number of PDF views: 2659 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 16th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-77fc7d77f9-cjctk Total loading time: 0.256 Render date: 2021-01-16T10:05:59.658Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Sat Jan 16 2021 09:51:33 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": true, "languageSwitch": true, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More Than Others
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More Than Others
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More Than Others
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *