Advertisement

Electoral Reform in Italy and Japan: Unanticipated Outcomes?

  • Ethan Scheiner
  • Filippo Tronconi
Part of the Studies in Public Choice book series (SIPC, volume 24)

Abstract

During the 1980s and into the 1990s, citizens in Italy and Japan grew fed up with the politics of their country. The elite politician class of both countries faced problems of accountability and corruption. Finally, news of scandals in both countries in the early 1990s provided the impetus for substantial institutional change. By 1994, both Italy and Japan reformed the rules they used to elect politicians, with both countries instituting mixed-member electoral systems that provided simultaneously for a candidate-based single member district (SMD) tier and a larger seat magnitude proportional representation (PR) tier.

Keywords

Electoral System Party System Proportional Representation Liberal Democratic Party Electoral Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Andrews, Josephine T., and Robert W. Jackman. 2005. Strategic fools: electoral rule choice under extreme uncertainty. Electoral Studies 24: 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, A., and E. Scheiner. 2007. Electoral system effects and ruling party dominance in Japan: a counterfactual simulation based on adaptive parties. Electoral Studies 26: 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartolini, Stefano, Alessandro Chiaramonte, and Roberto D’Alimonte. 2004. The Italian party systems between parties and coalitions. West European Politics 27(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartolini, Stefano, and Roberto D’Alimonte. 1996. Plurality competition and party realignment in Italy: the 1994 parliamentary elections. European Journal of Political Research 29: 105–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christensen, Ray. 1998. The effect of electoral reforms on campaign practices in Japan: putting new wine into old bottles. Asian Survey 38(10): 986–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen, Ray, and Paul Johnson. 1995. Toward a context-rich analysis of electoral systems: the Japanese example. American Journal of Political Science 39: 575–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cotta, Maurizio, and Luca Verzichelli. 2007. Political institutions in Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making votes count: strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cox, Karen E., and Leonard J. Schoppa. 2002. Interaction effects in mixed-member electoral systems: theory and evidence from Germany, Japan and Italy. Comparative Political Studies 35(9): 1027–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. D’Alimonte, Roberto. 2001. Mixed electoral rules, partisan realignment, and party system change in Italy. In M. S. Shugart and M. P. Wattenberg (eds.), Mixed member systems: the best of both worlds? New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. D’Alimonte, R. 2005. Italy: a case of fragmented bipolarism. In M. Gallagher and P. Mitchell (eds.), The politics of electoral systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferrara, Federico, Erik S. Herron, and Misa Nishikawa. 2005. Mixed electoral systems: contamination and its consequences. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallagher, Michael. 1998. The political impact of electoral system change in Japan and New Zealand. Party Politics 4(2): 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herron, Erik S., and Misa Nishikawa. 2001. Contamination effects and the number of parties in mixed-superposition electoral systems. Electoral Studies 20: 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirano, Shigeo. 2006. Electoral institutions, hometowns, and favored minorities: evidence from Japan’s electoral reforms. World Politics 59: 51–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katz, R. S. 2001. Reforming the Italian electoral law, 1993. In M. S. Shugart and M. P. Wattenberg (eds.), Mixed-member electoral systems: the best of both worlds? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 96–122.Google Scholar
  17. Kitschelt, Herbert, and Steven I. Wilkinson. 2007. A research agenda for the study of citizen-politician linkages and democratic accountability. In Herbert Kitschelt and Steven I. Wilkinson (eds.), Patrons or policies? Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maeda, Ko. 2008. Re-examining the contamination effect of Japan’s mixed electoral system using the treatment-effects model. Electoral Studies 27: 723–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morlino, Leonardo. 1996. Crisis of parties and change of party system in Italy. Party Politics 2 1: 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rae, Douglas. 1971. The political consequences of electoral laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Reed, Steven R. 2001. Duverger’s law is working in Italy. Comparative Political Studies 34: 312–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reed, S. 2005. Japan: haltingly toward a two-party system. In M. Gallagher and P. Mitchell (eds.), The politics electoral systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Scheiner, Ethan. 2005. Pipelines of pork: a model of local opposition party failure. Comparative Political Studies 38(7): 799–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scheiner, Ethan. 2006. Democracy without competition in Japan: opposition failure in a one-party dominant state. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Scheiner, Ethan. 2007. Clientelism in Japan: the importance and limits of institutional explanations. In Herbert Kitschelt and Steven I. Wilkinson (eds.), Patrons or policies? Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Scheiner, Ethan. 2008. Does electoral system reform work? Electoral system lessons from reforms of the 1990s. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shugart, M. 2005. Comparative electoral systems research: the maturation of a field and new challenges ahead. In M. Gallagher and P. Mitchell (eds.), The politics of electoral systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shugart, Matthew Soberg, and Martin P. Wattenberg. 2001a. Conclusion: are mixed member systems the best of both worlds? In M. S. Shugart and M. P. Wattenberg (eds.), Mixed member electoral systems: the best of both worlds? New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 571–596.Google Scholar
  29. Thies, Michael F. 2001. Keeping tabs on partners: the logic of delegation in coalition governments. American Journal of Political Science 45(3): 580–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations