Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-fg2fv Total loading time: 0.381 Render date: 2021-10-20T00:08:12.458Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Bridging the Gap: Lottery-Based Procedures in Early Parliamentarization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2019

Alexandra Cirone
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Cornell University email: aec287@cornell.edu
Brenda Van Coppenolle
Affiliation:
University of Leiden email: b.k.s.van.coppenolle@fsw.leidenuniv.nl

Abstract

How is the use of political lotteries related to party development? This article discusses the effects of a lottery-based procedure used to distribute committee appointments that was once common across legislatures in nineteenth-century Europe. The authors analyze the effects of a political lottery in budget committee selection in the French Third Republic using a microlevel data set of French deputies from 1877 to 1914. They argue that the adoption and benefit of lottery-based procedures were to prevent the capture of early institutions by party factions or groups of self-interested political elites. The authors find that partial randomization of selection resulted in the appointment of young, skilled, middle-class deputies at the expense of influential elites. When parties gained control of committee assignments in 1910, selection once again favored elites and loyal party members. The authors link lottery-based procedures to party development by showing that cohesive parties were behind the institutional reform that ultimately dismantled this selection process. Lottery-based procedures thus played a sanitizing role during the transformation of emerging parliamentary groups into unified, cohesive political parties.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 2019 

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

Abramson, Scott. 2016. “The Economic Effects of Leaders’ Economic Interests: Evidence from Election by Lot in the Florentine Republic.” Working Paper. University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amar, Akhil Reed. 1984. “Choosing Representatives by Lottery Voting.” Yale Law Journal, 93 no. 7: 1283–308. At https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol93/iss7/6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aulard, François Victor Alphonse. 1895. Récit des Séances: Des Députes Des Communes, Depuis le 5 Mai 1789 jusqu’au 12 juin suivant, Réimpression, Société de l’Histoire de la Révolution française. Paris, France : Au Siège de la Société.Google Scholar
Barnett, Anthony, and Carty, Peter. [1998] 2008. The Athenian Option: Radical reform for the House of Lords. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Bodley, John E. C. 1898. France, Vol. II, Book III: The Parliamentary System. London, UK: MacMillan & Co.Google Scholar
Boix, Carles. 1999. “Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies.” American Political Science Review 93, no. 3: 609–24. doi: 10.2307/2585577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun. 2010. “Private Members’ Bills in the UK Parliament: Is There an ‘Electoral Connection’?Journal of Legislative Studies 16. no. 4: 476–94. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2010.519457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britz, Volker, and Gersbach, Hans. 2014. “Experimentation in Democratic Mechanisms.” CER-ETH Center of Economic Research Working Paper 14/199. Zurich, Switzerland: Center of Economic Research, ETH Zurich. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2466010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, David E., and Butler, Daniel M.. 2015. “Do Better Committee Assignments Meaningfully Benefit Legislators? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in the Arkansas State Legislature.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2, no. 2: 152–63. doi: 10.1017/XPS.2014.30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, James M. and Tullock, Gordon. 1962. The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstein, Hubertus, and Hein, Michael. 2009. “Randomizing Europe: The Lottery as a Decision-Making Procedure for Policy Creation in the EU.” Critical Policy Studies, 3 no. 1: 2957. doi: 10.1080/19460170903158081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto. 2009. “The Competitive Road to Proportional Representation: Partisan Biases and Electoral Regime Change under Increasing Party Competition.” World Politics 61, no. 2 (April): 254–95. doi: 10.1017/S0043887109000100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capoccia, Giovanni, and Ziblatt, Daniel. 2010. “The Historical Turn in Democratization Studies: A New Research Agenda for Europe and Beyond.” Comparative Political Studies 43, no. 8–9: 931–68. doi: 10.1177/0010414010370431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cirone, Alexandra. 2017. “Essays on Historical Political Economy: The Case of the French Third Republic.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University: 81130. doi: 10.7916/D8SQ9BV5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cirone, Alexandra, and Van Coppenolle, Brenda. 2018. “Cabinets, Committees, and Careers: The Causal Effect of Committee Service.” Journal of Politics, 80 no. 3: 948–63. doi: 10.1086/697252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cirone, Alexandra, and Van Coppenolle, Brenda. 2019. “Replication Data for: Bridging the Gap: Lottery-Based Procedures in Early Parliamentarization.” Harvard Dataverse, V1. doi: 10.7910/DVN/GKPMOG.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Alistair, and Campbell, Peter. 1989. French Electoral Systems and Elections since 1789. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
Colomer, Josep M. 2014. How Global Institutions Rule the World. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creuzé-Latouche, Jacques Antoine. 1789. Journal des États Généraux et du début de l’Assemblée Nationale. 8 mai-29 juillet. At http://bibliotheque.bordeaux.fr/in/details.xhtml?id=mgroup%3Ap+unimarcbu_288362&jscheck=1, accessed January 5, 2019.Google Scholar
Dawson, Philip. 1972. Provincial Magistrates and Revolutionary Politics in France, 1789–1795. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dogan, Mattei. 1979. “How to Become a Cabinet Minister in France: Career Pathways, 1870–1978.” Comparative Politics 12, no. 1: 125. doi: 10.2307/421769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowlen, Oliver. 2009. “Sorting Out Sortition: A Perspective on the Random Selection of Political Officers.” Political Studies 57, no. 2: 298315. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00746.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. North, Barbara and North, Robert, trans. London, UK: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C., and Spirling, Arthur. 2014. “Guarding the Guardians: Legislative Self-Policing, and Electoral Corruption in Victorian Britain.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9, no. 3: 337–70. doi: 10.1561/100.00013098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1989. Solomonic Judgements: Studies in the Limitations of Rationality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engelstad, Fredrik. 1989. “The Assignment of Political Office by Lot.” Social Science Information 28, no. 1: 2350. doi: 10.1177/053901889028001002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, James S. 2011. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederiksen, Oliver J. 1936. “The Bureaus of the French Constituent Assembly of 1789.” Political Science Quarterly 51, no. 3. (September): 418–37. At http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195%28193609%2951%3A3%3C418%3ATBOTFC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2008. Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice After the Deliberative Turn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooch, R. K. 1928. “The French Parliamentary Committee System.” Economica, no. 23: 147–58. doi: 10.2307/2547796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, and Powell, Eleanor Neff. 2013. “Congressmen in Exile: The Politics and Consequences of Involuntary Committee Removal.” Journal of Politics 75, no. 4: 907–20. doi: 10.1017/S0022381613000704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagelstein, G. H. 1991. De parlementaire commissies. Nederlands Parlementsrecht Monografie 6. Groningen, The Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Halévy, Daniel. 1930. La Fin des Notables. Les Cahiers Verts. Paris, France: Bernard Grasset.Google Scholar
Hanley, David. 2002. Party, Society, Government: Republican Democracy in France. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Hansen, Martin. 2016. “Institutional Design under Weak Parties: Voting Behaviour in the Danish Constituent Assembly 1848–1849.” Working Paper, Brunel University.Google Scholar
Howe, Philip J. 2010. “Electoral Institutions and Ethnic Group Politics in Austria, 1867–1914.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 16, no. 2: 164–91. doi: 10.1080 /13537113.2010.490749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huard, Raymond. 1996. La naissance du parti politique en France. Paris, France: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
Huber, John D. and Shipan, Charles R.. 2002. Deliberate Discretion? Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudemann, R. 1979. Fraktionsbildung im Französischen Parlament: Zur Entwicklung des Parteiensystems in der frühen Dritten Republik, 1871–75. Munich, Germany: Artemis Verlag.Google Scholar
Journal officiel de la République française. 1881–1940. Débats parlementaires. Chambre des deputes. Paris, France: Impr. du Journal officiel. At https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb328020951, accessed December 18, 2018.Google Scholar
Kellermann, M., and Shepsle, Kenneth. 2009. “Congressional Careers, Committee Assignments, and Seniority Randomization in the US House of Representatives.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 4, no. 2: 87101. doi: 10.1561/100.00008061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. “Where’s the Party?British Journal of Political Science 23, no. 2: 235–66. doi: 10.1017/S0007123400009741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laakso, Markku, and Taagepera, Rein. 1979. “’Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West EuropeComparative Political Studies 12, no. 1: 327. doi: 10.1177/001041407901200101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leemann, Lucas, and Mares, Isabela. 2014. “The Adoption of Proportional Representation.” Journal of Politics 76, no. 2: 461–78. doi: 10.1017/s0022381613001394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, G. 1950. “Les bureaux de l’Assemblee nationale en 1789. Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française.” January 1, 1950: 22. At https://www.jstor.org/stable/41926170, accessed December 5, 2018.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Cameron, Maxwell A.. 2003. “Democracy Without Parties? Political Parties and Regime Change in Fujimori’s Peru.” Latin American Politics and Society 45, no. 3: 133. doi: 10.2307/3177157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, Peter John, Koop, Royce, Settle, Jaime, and Fowler, James H.. 2014. “A Natural Experiment in Proposal Power and Electoral Success.” American Journal of Political Science, 58 no. 1: 189–96. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenberg, Gerhard. 2003. “Agenda-Setting in the German Bundestag: Origins and Consequences of Party Dominance.” Journal of Legislative Studies 9, no. 3: 1731. doi: 10.1080/1357233042000246846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Guerra, Claudia. 2010. “The Enfranchisement Lottery.” Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10, no. 2: 211–33. doi. 10.1177/1470594X09372206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowell, Abbot Lawrence. 1896. Governments and Parties in Continental Europe, vol. II. New York, N.Y.: Houghton, Mifflin and Co; and Cambridge, UK: The Riverside Press.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam, and Riedl, Rachel Beatty. 2013. “Political Parties and Uncertainty in Developing Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 46, no. 11: 1339–65. doi: 10.1177/0010414012453445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Scully, Timothy R., eds. 1995. Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manow, Philip, Schroeder, Valentin, and Nickel, Carsten. 2011. “Germany’s 1918 Electoral Reform and the Reichstag’s ‘Efficient Secret.’” Working Paper. At http://recursos.march.es/web/ceacs/actividades/miembros/madrid-manow-schroeder-nickel-reichstag.pdf, accessed June 2017.Google Scholar
Mayeur, Jean-Marie. 1984. La Vie Politique sous la Troisième République. Paris, France: Seuil.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1848. “Vindication of the French Revolution of February 1848.” In Dissertations and Discussions: Political, Philosophical, and Historical, Vol. III. New York, N.Y.: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
McPhee, Peter. 2004. A Social History of France, 1789–1914. 2nd ed. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakayama, Yohei. 2009. “Associations, Party Models and Party System: Changing Patterns of Party Networks in Twentieth Century France.” French Politics 7, no. 2: 96122. doi: 10.1057/fp.2009.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, P. Nannestad. 1972. “At the Cradle of a Party System: Voting Patterns and Voting Groups in the Danish Constitutional Convention, 1848–1849.” Scandinavian Political Studies 7, no. A7: 119–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.1972.tb00559.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Roger. 1987. A Social History of Nineteenth-Century France. New York, N.Y.: Holmes and Meier Publishers.Google Scholar
Rasch, Bjørn Erik. 1995. “Parliamentary Voting Procedures.” In Doring, Herbert, ed., Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Rokkan, Stein. 1970. Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Rowley, Charles, and Schneider, Friedrich, eds. 2004. The Encyclopedia of Public Choice. New York, N.Y.: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York, N.Y.: Harper and RowGoogle Scholar
Stone, Peter. 2009. “The Logic of Random Selection.” Political Theory 37, no. 3: 375–97. doi: 1177/0090591709332329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, Keith. 2004. The Party’s Over: Blueprint for a Very English Revolution. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Mildred. 1974. “The Development of the Radical Party in the Third Republic: The New Radical Movement, 1926–32.” Journal of Modern History 46, no. 3: 476501. At www.jstor.org/stable/1877321, accessed November 29, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Claire. 2007. “From the Whole Citizen Body? The Sociology of Election and Lot in the Athenian Democracy.” Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 76, no. 2: 323–45. At https://www.jstor.org/stable/25068022, accessed November 29, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tridimas, George. 2012. “Constitutional Choice in Ancient Athens: The Rationality of Selection to Office by Lot.” Constitutional Political Economy 23, no. 1: 121. doi: 10.1007/s10602-011-9112-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usher, Abbott Payton. 1906. “The Reform of Procedure in the French Chamber of Deputies.” Political Science Quarterly 21, no. 3: 475–97. doi: 10.2307/2140598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallack, Jessica S. 2008. “India’s Parliament as a Representative Institution.” India Review 7, no. 2: 91114. doi: 10.1080/14736480802055422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, Paul, and White, Stephen. 2007. Party Politics in New Democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Brian D., and Indridason, Indridi H.. 2018. “Luck of the Draw? Members’ Bills and the Electoral Connection.” Political Science Research and Methods 6, no. 2: 211–27. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2017.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Woodrow. 1911. The State: Elements of Historical and Practical Politics. Boston, Mass.: D. C. Heath & Co.Google Scholar
Wittreck, Fabien. 2007. “Parliamentary Law in Germany.” In Ziegler, Katja S., Baranger, Denis, and Bradley, Anthony W., eds., Constitutionalism and the Role of Parliaments. London, UK: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Van Reybrouck, David. 2016. Against Elections: The Case for Democracy. London, UK: Vintage Publishing.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Cirone and Van Coppenolle Dataset

Link
7
Cited by

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.

Bridging the Gap: Lottery-Based Procedures in Early Parliamentarization
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.

Bridging the Gap: Lottery-Based Procedures in Early Parliamentarization
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.

Bridging the Gap: Lottery-Based Procedures in Early Parliamentarization
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *