Public Choice

, Volume 158, Issue 3–4, pp 577–588 | Cite as

Institutions, information, and faction: an experimental test of Riker’s federalism thesis for political parties



William Riker Federalism Strategic voting Primaries Elections 



The authors acknowledge the financial assistance of the National Science Foundation. We also thank, without implicating, Alexandra Cooper and the staff of SSRI for assistance in conducting the survey research. And we acknowledge the comments and suggestions Geoffrey Brennan, Amy McKay, Nicholas Miller, and David Rohde on earlier drafts. Finally, we appreciate the very helpful comments of Nikolai Hoberg, Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, Sarah Necker, and Florenz Plassmann at the Public Choice World Congress in March, 2012 in Miami, Florida. Any errors or infelicities that remain are entirely the fault of the authors.


  1. Aldrich, J. (2011). Why parties? A second look. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, W. P. (1973/1987). The measurement of American federalism. In W. H. Riker (Ed.), The development of American Federalism, Norwell: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  3. Feeley, M., & Rubin, E. (2008). Federalism: political identity and tragic compromise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  4. Gordin, J. P. (2004). Testing Riker’s party-based theory of federalism: the Argentine case. Publius, 34, 1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grynaviski, J. (2010). Partisan bonds: political reputations and legislative accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. McKay, D. (2004). William Riker on federalism: sometimes wrong but more right than anyone else. Regional & Federal Studies, 14, 167–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McLean, I. (2002). William H. Riker and the invention of heresthetic(s). British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 535–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Riker, W. H. (1955). The Senate and American federalism. The American Political Science Review, 49, 452–469. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Riker, W. H. (1957). Dutch and American federalism. Journal of the History of Ideas, 18, 495–521. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Riker, W. H. (1964). Federalism: origins, operation, significance. Boston: Little, Brown. Google Scholar
  11. Riker, W. H. (1975). Federalism. In F. I. Greenstein & N. W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science: governmental institutions and processes (pp. 93–172). Reading: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  12. Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism: a confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. San Francisco: Freeman. Google Scholar
  13. Riker, W. H., & Schaps, R. (1957). Disharmony in federal government. Behavioral Science, 2(4), 276–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Riker, W. H. (1987). Plurality and runoff systems and numbers of candidates. In S. Merrill (Ed.), Making multicandidate elections more democratic. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  15. Schwartz, T. (1989). Why parties? Research memorandum, pp. 1–17. Google Scholar
  16. Volden, C. (2004). Origin, operation, and significance: the federalism of William Riker. Publius, 34, 89–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Weale, A. (1984). Social choice versus populism? An interpretation of Riker’s political theory. British Journal of Political Science, 14(3), 369–385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilson, W. (1885). Congressional government: a study in American politics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations