Advertisement

Comparative European Politics

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 249–278 | Cite as

Ethnic heterogeneity and party system size: A district-level analysis

  • Ekaterina R Rashkova
Original Article

Abstract

It has been theoretically and empirically shown that ideological diversity complements the effect of institutions on the development of party systems and the number of political parties that ensue. Thus, students of party and electoral systems now commonly employ ethnic fractionalization as an indicator of ideological differences; however, there is no unilaterally agreed upon data set that scholars use. In addition, extant data sets measure heterogeneity at the national level, rather than at the district level, where electoral competition takes place and where both institutional and social factors matter most. Using a multi-level empirical analysis, this article illustrates the interactive effect of the two main district characteristics – magnitude and heterogeneity – on the number of parties. It demonstrates the analytical benefit of using district-level characteristics in explaining party system size and aims to reduce the data gap by providing a district-level ethnic heterogeneity data set for 18 European states.

Keywords

party system size district-level analysis ethnic heterogeneity index Europe 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Dimiter Toshkov and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and critiques, as well as Scott Morgenstern for his incessant support throughout the way. The financial support of the European Research Council (ERC_Stg07_205660) is also gratefully acknowledged. All errors remain mine.

References

  1. Administrative Atlas of the Republic of Bulgaria. (2005) Sofia, Bulgaria. ISBN 954-705-013-0.Google Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, S. and Wacziarg, R. (2003) Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth 8 (2): 155–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakke, E. and Sitter, N. (2005) Patters of stability: Party competition and strategy in Central Europe since 1989. Party Politics 11 (2): 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brambor, T., Clark, W.R. and Golder, M. (2006) Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analyses 14 (1): 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bundesamt für Statistik. (2006) Wohnbevölkerung nach Hauptsprache 2000, Switzerland, info.census@bfs.admin.ch.Google Scholar
  6. Caramani, D. (2000) Elections in Western Europe Since 1815: Electoral Results by Constituencies. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Celis, K. (2012) Unpublished manuscript, Gender quota interacting with ethnic minority representation. Parties regulating descriptive representation for multiple groups in Belgian local elections. Paper Presented at the Gender & Regulation Workshop, 28–29 June, at Leiden University.Google Scholar
  8. Census Croatia. (2001) Croatian bureau of statistics, http://www.dzs.hr/Eng/censuses/Census2001/Popis/E01_02_02/E01_02_02.html, accessed July 2012.
  9. Census Hungary. (2001) Hungarian central statistical office, http://www.nepszamlalas2001.hu/eng/volumes/06/00/tabeng/4/load01_11_0.html, accessed July 2012.
  10. Census Ireland. (2002) Central statistics office Ireland, http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=1457, accessed July 2012.
  11. Census Slovenia. (2002) Statistical office of the Republic of Slovenia, http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=REG-17E&ti =&path=../Database/Census2002/Statistical_regions/ Population/Demographic-characteristics/&lang=1, accessed July 2012.Google Scholar
  12. Census Spain. (2001) National statistics institute, http://www.ine.es/censo/en/estructura.jsp?k=MDDB.COLECTIVO_P1, accessed July 2012.
  13. Chhibber, P. and Kollman, K. (2004) The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India and the United States. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, W. and Golder, M. (2006) Rehabilitating Duverger's theory: Testing the mechanical and strategic modifying effects of electoral laws. Comparative Political Studies 39 (6): 679–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cox, G.W. (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duverger, M. (1954) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Fearon, J. (2003) Ethnic and cultural diversity by country. Journal of Economic Growth 8 (2): 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hox, J. (1995) Applied Multi-Level Analysis. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: TT-Publikaties.Google Scholar
  19. Institutul National De Statistica. (2002) Romania Pe Regiuni De Dezvoltare Si Judete, http://www.insse.ro/cms/rw/pages/index.ro.do, accessed April 2006.Google Scholar
  20. Moser, R.G., Scheiner, E. and Milazzo, C. (2011) Social diversity affects the number of parties even under first-past-the-post rules, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Seattle, Washington DC, 1–4 September. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1901513.
  21. Ordeshook, P.C. and Shvetsova, O. (1994) Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science 38 (1): 100–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Population Structure 2000 (Publication). (2000) Statistics Finland, http://www.arcticstat.org/Table.aspx/Region/Finland/Indicator/[Population]Ethnicity!Citizenship/2010-05-06-58/13540, accessed July 2012.
  23. Rae, D.W. (1967) The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Roeder, P. (2002) Ethnolinguistic fractionalization (ELF) indices, 1961 and 1985, http://dss.ucsd.edu/∼proeder/elf.htm, last accessed July 2012.Google Scholar
  25. Selway, J. (2011) Cross-cuttingness, cleavage structures, and civil war onset. British Journal of Political Science 41 (1): 111–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Singer, M. and Stephenson, L. (2009) The political context and Duverger's theory: Evidence at the district level. Electoral Studies 28 (3): 480–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Statistisches Bundesamt. (2006) Data for Ausländische Bevölkerung am 31.12.2005, http://www.statistik-portal.de/Statistik-Portal/en/en_jb01_jahrtab2.asp, accessed April 2006.
  28. Steenbergen, M.R. and Jones, B.S. (2002) Modeling multi-level data structures. American Journal of Political Science 24 (1): 218–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stoll, H. (2008) Social cleavages and the number of parties: How the measures you choose affect the answers you get. Comparative Political Studies 41 (11): 1439–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taagepera, R. and Shugart, M. (1989) Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Tavits, M. (2008) Party systems in the making: The emergence and success of new parties in new democracies. British Journal of Political Science 38 (1): 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vander Weyden, P. and Meuleman, B. (2008) Electoral systems and strategic learning in Spain and Portugal? The use of multilevel models. Acta Politica 43 (1): 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ekaterina R Rashkova
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen, Instituut Politieke Wetenschap, Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations