Journal of Chinese Political Science

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 89–102 | Cite as

Competing Political Visions in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

This study analyzes the degree to which the issues of democracy and the relationship between Hong Kong and Mainland China have polarized Hong Kong’s elite politics. By analyzing roll call voting behavior in the Legislative Council (LegCo, 1998–2012), I present empirical findings that these competing political visions have been the single most important cleavage in the legislature. At the same time, however, there are substantial differences among the LegCo members on the salience of this Beijing/democracy issue dimension. The political elites who are directly elected are less aligned to the main issue dimension. Roll call voting behaviors of the independents and the minor party members are also less explained by the major political issue cleavage. These findings provide an additional lens for a better understanding of the political landscape in Hong Kong.

Keywords

China Hong Kong Legislative Representation Democracy Roll Call Votes Political Cleavage 

References

  1. 1.
    Lau, Siu-Kai, and Hsin-Chi Kuan. 2000. Partial democratization, Foundation moment and political parties in Hong Kong. China Quarterly 163: 705–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baum, Richard. 2000. Democracy deformed: Hong Kong’s 1998 legislative elections-and beyond. China Quarterly 162: 439–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ma, Ngok. 2007. Political development in Hong Kong: State, political society, and civil society. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geping, Rao, and Wang Zhenmin. 2007. Hong Kong’s ‘One country, Two systems’ expe- rience under the basic law: Two perspectives from Chinese legal scholars. Journal of Contemporary China 16(August): 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lam, Wai-Man, Percy Luen-Tim Lui, and Wilson Wong. 2012. Contemporary Hong Kong government and politics. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lam, Jermain. 2000. The political dynamics of Hong Kong under the Chinese Sovereignty. New York: Nova Science Pub Incorporated.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loh, Christine, and Civic Exchange (eds.). 2006. Functional constituencies: A unique feature of the Hong Kong legislative council. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ma, Ngok. 2005. Civil society in self-defense: The struggle against National Security Legislation in Hong Kong. Journal of Contemporary China 14(August): 465–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ma, Ngok, and Chi-keung Choy. 2003. The impact of electoral rule change on party campaign strategy: Hong Kong as a case study. Party Politics 9(May): 347–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Winkler, E. 1970. Institutionalization and participation on Taiwan: From hard to soft authoritarianism? China Quarterly 99: 481–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang, Baohui. 2011. Democratizing Hong Kong: Functional representation and politics of institutional change. Pacific Affairs 84(4): 643–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moser, Robert G, and Ethan Scheiner. 2012. Electoral systems and political context: How the effects of rules vary across new and established democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shugart, Matthew S., and Martin P. Wattenberg. 2001. Mixed-member electoral systems: The best of both worlds? USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lau, Siu-kai, and Hsin-chi Kuan. 2002. Hong Kong’s stunted political party system. China Quarterly 172(September): 1010–1028.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuan, Hsin-chi, and Siu-kai Lau. 2002. Cognitive mobilization and electoral support for the democratic party in Hong Kong. Electoral Studies 21(4): 561–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lam, Jermain. 2010. Party institutionalization in Hong Kong. Asian Perspective 34(2): 53–82.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang, Yu, and Ming-gang Peng. 2012. Party unity in Hong Kong’s legislative council: An empirical study of 1998-2011. Paper Published in the 6th Asian Political and International Studies Association Congress.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheng, Joseph Y.S. 2010. Maintaining the political status quo? Hong Kong’s legislative council elections, September 2008. Issues and Studies 46(March): 181–216.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ma, Ngok. 2001. The decline of the Democratic Party in Hong Kong. Asian Survey 41(October): 564–583.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scott, Ian, and Joan Y.H. Leung. 2004. Dysfunctional elections and the political system in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Political Science 12(September): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sing, Ming. 2009. Politics and government in Hong Kong: Crisis under Chinese sovereignty. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clinton, Joshua D., Simon Jackman, and Douglas Rivers. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98(2): 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Poole, Keith T. 2005. Spatial models of parliamentary voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hansen, Martin E. 2008. Reconsidering the party distances and dimensionality of the Danish Folketing. Journal of Legislative Studies 14(September): 264–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hix, Simon, and Hae-Won Jun. 2009. Party behaviour in the parliamentary arena: The case of the Korean national assembly. Party Politics 15(October): 667–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jones, Mark P., and Wonjae Hwang. 2005. Party government in presidential democracies: Extending cartel theory beyond the US congress. American Journal of Political Science 49(2): 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Enelow, James M, and Melvin J Hinich. 1984. The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Arrow, Kenneth J. 1963. Social choice and individual values. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Black, Duncan. 1948. On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy 56(1): 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McKelvey, Richard D. 1979. General conditions for global intransitivities in formal voting models. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 47(5): 1085–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why parties?: The origin and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde. 2001. The logic of conditional party government: Revisiting the electoral connection. In Congress reconsidered, 7th ed, ed. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and leaders in the Postreform house. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2005. Setting the agenda: Responsible party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2007. Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house, 2nd ed. Berkeley: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1979. Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science 23(1): 27–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Barry R. Weingast. 1981. Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice 37(3): 503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kwong, Bruce Kam-Kwan. 2007. Patron–client politics in Hong Kong: A case study of the 2002 and 2005 chief executive elections. Journal of Contemporary China 16(August): 389–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lo, Sonny Shiu-Hing. 2010. Competing Chinese political visions: Hong Kong vs. Beijing on democracy. Santa Barbara: Praeger Security International.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ferrari, Silvia, and Francisco Cribari-Neto. 2004. Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics 31(7): 799–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Paolino, Philip. 2001. Maximum likelihood estimation of models with beta-distributed dependent variables. Political Analysis 9(August): 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Smithson, Michael, and Jay Verkuilen. 2006. A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychological Methods 11(1): 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Norris, Pippa. 2004. Electoral engineering: Voting rules and political behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Reilly, Ben. 2001. Democracy in divided societies: Electoral engineering for conflict management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Chinese Political Science/Association of Chinese Political Studies 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations