French Politics

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 439–468 | Cite as

Explaining MPs’ constituency service in multilevel systems: the case of Belgium

Original Article

Abstract

Political representation – the core of modern democracies – essentially refers to a relationship between a representative and those represented by him or her. Therefore, the linkage between citizens and political decision makers is one of the most important topics in the study of democratic political systems. However, the literature on parliamentary systems has concentrated on what MPs do inside parliament on the one hand and on the impact of the electoral system on MPs’ behavior on the other hand. This aim of this article is twofold. First, it provides a more comprehensive description of the activities of Belgian MPs on the basis of a mixed-method approach, using data from a survey, interviews as well as field observations. Second, it addresses four other factors that could have an influence on MPs relations to the district, besides the electoral system: the level at which they are elected (regional vs. federal), the accumulation of mandates, the distinction between older and newer parties, and MPs seniority.

Keywords

constituency service political representation Belgium mixed methods regional MPs 

References

  1. André, A., Bradbury, J. and Depauw, S. (2014) “Constituency service in Multi-level democracies”, Regional and Federal Studies, 24(2): 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. André, A. and Depauw, S. (2013a) “Electoral Competition and the Constituent-Representative Relationship”, World Political Science Review, 9(1): 337–355.Google Scholar
  3. André, A. and Depauw, S. (2013b) “District Magnitude and Home Styles of Representation in European Democracies”, West European Politics, 36(5): 986–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. André, A., Depauw, S. and Sandri, G. (2013a) “Belgian Affairs and constituent preferences for ‘good constituency members’”, Acta Politica 48: 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. André, A., Freire, A. and Papp, Z. (2013b) “Electoral Rules and Legislators Vote-Seeking”, in Deschouwer, K., Depauw, S. (eds), Representing the People, Oxford, Oxford University Press: 87–109.Google Scholar
  6. André, A., Gallagher, M. and Sandri, G. (2013c) “Legislators’ constituency orientation”, in Deschouwer, K., Depauw, S. (eds), Representing the People, Oxford, Oxford University Press: 166–187.Google Scholar
  7. André, A., Depauw, S., Shugart, M. (2013d) “The effect of electoral institutions on legislative behaviour”, in Martin, S., Saalfeld, T., Strom, K. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies, Oxford, Oxford University Press: 237–249.Google Scholar
  8. Best, H. and Cotta, M. (2000) Parliamentary representatives in Europe, 18482000: legislative recruitment and careers in eleven European countries, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Blomgren, M. and Rozenberg, O. (2012) Parliamentary Roles in Modern Legislatures, London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Bowler, S. and Farrell, D. (1993) “Legislator Shirking and Voter Monitoring: Impacts of European Parliament Electoral Systems upon Legislator-Voter Relationships”, Journal of Common Market Studies 31(1): 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradbury, J. and Mitchell, J. (2007). “The Constituency work of members of the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly of Wales: Approaches, relationships and rules”, Regional and Federal Studies, 17 (1): 117–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bräuninger, T., Brunner, M. and Däubler, T. (2012) “Personal Vote-seeking in flexible list systems: how electoral incentives shape Belgian MPs’ bill initiation behaviour”, European Journal of Political Research 51: 607–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buck, V. J. and Cain, B. E. (1990) “British MPs in their constituencies”, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15 (1): 127–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cain, B. E., Ferejohn, J. A. and Fiorina, M. P. (1987) The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carey, J. and Shugart, M. (1995) “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas”, Electoral Studies, 14(4): 417–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carman, C. (2006) “Public Preferences for Parliamentary Representation in the UK: An Overlooked Link?”, Political Studies, 54(1): 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Costa, O. and Kerrouche, E. (2007) Qui sont les députés français? Enquête sur des élites inconnues, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  18. Coleman, S. (2003) “The lonely citizen: Indirect representation in an age of networks”, Political Communication, 22(1).Google Scholar
  19. Dahl, R. (1994) “Democratic Dilemma: System Effectiveness versus Citizen Participation”, Political Science Quarterly, 101(1): 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davidson, R. H. (1969) The Role of the Congressman, New York, Pegasus.Google Scholar
  21. De Winter, L. (1997) “Intra and Extra-parliamentary Role attitudes and Behaviour of Belgian MPs”, Journal of Legislative Studies, 3(1): 128–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Winter, L. and Baudewijns, P. (2014) “Candidate-centred campaigning in a party-centred context. The case of Belgium”, Electoral Studies, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  23. Deschouwer, K. (2010) “Political representation at multiple levels: Is there a regional style of representation?”, paper presented at the APSA annual Meeting, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  24. Eulau, H. and Karps, P. (1977) “The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness”, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 2(3): 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fenno, R. (1977) “U.S. House Members in their Constituencies: An Exploration”, American Political Science Review, 71 (4): 883–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fenno, R. (1978) Home Style: House Members in their Districts, Boston, Little Brown.Google Scholar
  27. François, A. and Navarro, J. (2013) Le cumul des mandats en France. Causes et conséquences. Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  28. Heitshusen, S., Young, G. and Wood, D. (2005) “Electoral Context and MP constituency focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and United Kingdom”, American Journal of Political Science, 49(1): 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jewell, M. (1983) “Legislator-Constituency Relations and the Representative Process”, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 8(3): 303–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kerrouche, E. (2004) “Appréhender le rôle des parlementaires: études comparatives de recherches menées et perspectives”, in O. Costa, E. Kerrouche and P. Magnette (eds), Vers un renouveau du parlementarisme en Europe?, Brussels, Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles: 35–55.Google Scholar
  31. Lijphart, A. (ed.) (1981), Conflict and Coexistence in Belgium. The Dynamics of a Culturally Divided Society, Berkeley, Institute of International Studies, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Martin, S. (2014) “Why electoral systems don’t always matter: The impact of ‘mega-seats’ on legislative behavior in Ireland”, Party Politics, 20(3):467–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mayhew, D. R. (1974) Congress, The Electoral Connection, New Haven, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mitchell, P. (2000) “Voters and their representatives: Electoral institutions and delegation in parliamentary democracies”, European Journal of Political Research, 37(3):335–351.Google Scholar
  35. Mughan, A., Box-Steffenmeier, J. and Scully, R. (1997) “Mapping Legislative socialization”, European Journal of Political Research, 32(1): 93–106.Google Scholar
  36. Nay, O. (2002), “Le jeu du compromis. Les élus régionaux entre territoire et pratiques d’assemblée”, in O. Nay, A. Smith (eds), Le gouvernement du compromis, courtiers et généralistes de l’action politique, Paris, Economica.Google Scholar
  37. Norris, P. (1997) “The Puzzle of Constituency Service”, Journal of Legislative Studies 3(2): 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Norton, P. (2002) Parliaments in Contemporary Western Europe, London, Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  39. Norton, P. and Wood, D. (1993) Back from Westminster: British Members of Parliament and their Constituents, Lexington, University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  40. Patzelt, W. J. (2007) The Constituency Roles of MPs at the Federal and La¨nder Levels in Germany, Regional & Federal Studies, Vol.17, No.1, pp. 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pitkin, H. (1967) The Concept of Representation, Berkeley, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pilet, J-B., Freire, A. and Costa, O. (2012) “Ballot structure, district magnitude and constituency orientation of MPs in Proportional Representation and Majority Electoral Systems”, Representation 48(4): 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pilet, Jean-Benoit (2013) “Le cumul des mandats en Belgique”, In: François Abel and Navarro Julien (2013). Le cumul des mandats en France. Causes et conséquences. Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, pp. 81–97.Google Scholar
  44. Russell, M. and Bradbury, J. (2007) The Constituency Work of Scottish and Welsh MPs: Adjusting to Devolution, Regional & Federal Studies, Vol.17, No.1, pp. 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schindler, D. (2013) “The Exceptional First Term? – Seniority Effects for German MPs’ District Activities”, ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux.Google Scholar
  46. Scully, R. and Farrell D. (2001) “Understanding Constituency Representation in the European Parliament”, paper presented at the ECSA meeting.Google Scholar
  47. Searing, D. (1994) Westminster’s World. Understanding Political Roles, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Shapiro, S., Stokes, E., Wood, J. and Kirshner, A. (2010) Political Representation, New York, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shomer, Y. (2009) “Candidate Selection Procedures, Seniority, and Vote-Seeking Behavior”, Comparative Political Studies, 42(7): 945–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shugart, M., Valdini, M. and Suominen, K. (2005) “Looking for Locals: Voter Information Demands and Personal voter-earning attributes to Legislators Under Proportional Representation”, American Journal of Political Science, 49 (2): 437–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Studlar, D. T., McAllister, I., “Constituency Activity and Representational Roles Among Australian Legislators”, The Journal of Politics, vol.58, n°1, 1996, pp. 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tavits, M. (2010) “The effect of local ties on electoral success and parliamentary behavior: the case of Estonia”, Party Politics, 16: 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Uslaner, E. M., Zittel, T. (2008), “Comparative Legislative Behaviour” in Rhodes, R.A.W., Binder, S., Rockman, B., The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 455–473.Google Scholar
  54. Van Haute, E. and Depauw, S. (2010) “Les préférences des citoyens en termes de représentation politique» in Deschouwer, Kris, Delwit, Pascal, Hooghe, Marc & Walgrave, Stefaan (eds), Les voix du peuple. Le comportement électoral au scrutin du 10 juin 2009, Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, pp. 177–198.Google Scholar
  55. Walczak, A., van der Brug, W. (2013) “Representation in the European Parliament: Factors affecting the attitude congruence of voters and candidates in the EP elections”, European Union Politics, 14(1): 3-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wessels, B. (1999) “Whom to Represent? Role Orientations of Legislators in Europe” in H. Schmitt and J. Thomassen, Political representation and legitimacy in the European Union, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CevipolUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations