Public Choice

, Volume 167, Issue 1–2, pp 67–94 | Cite as

Competition in fragmentation among political coalitions: theory and evidence

Article

Abstract

This article proposes a game-theoretic setting to explain the fragmentation of majority and opposition coalitions in governments. The model is two-stage: (1) the leaders of each coalition control the size of the parties in their group so as to maximize the political power of their coalition, and (2) the political party leaders in each coalition decide their degree of participation in their coalition’s collective action. The main conclusion is that the concentration in the two opposing coalitions will be related when the competition between them is fierce. This is shown to hold for the Left-wing and Right-wing coalitions in French local governments, revealing competition in fragmentation in these coalitions.

Keywords

Political fragmentation Political coalitions Political competition 

JEL Classification

C35 D70 H40 H72 

References

  1. Ashworth, J., & Heyndels, B. (2005). Government fragmentation and budgetary policy in ’good’ and ’bad’ times in flemish municipalities. Economics and Politics, 17, 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandyopadhyay, S., & Oak, M. (2004). Party formation and coalitional bargaining in a model of proportional representation. Working Papers 2004.98, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, N. (2001). Time-series-cross-section data: What have we learned in the past few years? Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 271–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Besley, T., & Coate, S. (1997). An economic model of representative democracy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blais, A., & Indridason, I. H. (2007). Making candidates count: The logic of electoral alliances in two-round legislative elections. Journal of Politics, 69, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, W., & Golder, M. (2006). Strategic modifying effects of electoral laws. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 679–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox, G. (1997). Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dhillon, A. (2004). Political parties and coalition formation. The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 697, Department of Economics, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  9. Duverger, M. (1954). Political parties. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Guengant, A., Josselin, J. M., & Rocaboy, Y. (2002). Effects of club size in the provision of public goods: Network and congestion effects in the case of the French municipalities. Papers in Regional Science, 81, 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansen, B. E. (1997). Approximate asymptotic p values for structural-change tests. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 15, 60–67.Google Scholar
  12. Jackson, M., & Moselle, B. (2002). Coalition and party formation in a legislative voting game. Journal of Economic Theory, 103, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Le Maux, B., & Rocaboy, Y. (2012). A simple microfoundation for the utilization of fragmentation indexes to measure the performance of a team. Economics Letters, 116, 491–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Le Maux, B., Rocaboy, Y., & Goodspeed, T. (2011). Political fragmentation, party ideology and public expenditures. Public Choice, 147, 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Le Maux, B., & Zhang, W. (2013). Does incrementalism stem from political fragmentation? An empirical test. Papers in Regional Science, 92, 535–553.Google Scholar
  16. Levy, G. (2004). A model of political parties. Journal of Economic Theory, 115, 250–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lijphart, A. (1990). The political consequences of electoral laws, 1945–85. American Journal of Political Science, 84, 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neto, O., & Cox, G. (1997). Electoral institutions, cleavage structures, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ordeshook, P., & Shvetsova, O. (1994). Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 100–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Osborne, M. J., & Slivinski, A. (1996). A model of political competition with citizen candidates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Osborne, M. J., & Tourky, R. (2002). Party formation incollective decision-making. Working papers series no. 844, Department of Economics, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  22. Padovano, F., & Venturi, L. (2001). Wars of attrition in Italian government coalitions and fiscal performance: 1984–1994. Public Choice, 109, 15–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rattsø, J., & Tovmo, P. (2002). Fiscal discipline and asymmetric adjustment of revenues and expenditures: Local government responses to shocks in denmark. Public Finance Review, 30, 208–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Riviere, A. (2004). Citizen candidacy, party formation and Duverger’s law. Discussion paper dpe00/1, Royal Holloway, University of London.Google Scholar
  25. Wand, M., & Jones, M. (1995). Kernel smoothing. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zeleis, A., Kleiber, C., Krämer, W., & Hornik, K. (2003). Testing and dating of structural changes in practices. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 44, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Condorcet Center for Political EconomyUniversity of Rennes 1, CREM-CNRSRennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations