Abstract
Having created the theory of fractious parties, this chapter empirically analyzes whether political parties are able to concentrate power in their members despite the chaotic nature of Paraguay’s legislature. I analyze two dependent variables: roll-rates and win-rates. Roll-rates capture the negative power of legislators, and win-rates capture positive and negative powers of legislators. I then attempt to understand these outcomes using: (1) unidimensional, non-partisan models; (2) unidimensional, partisan models; (3) multidimensional, non-partisan models; and (4) multidimensional, partisan models. The empirical analyses of this chapter show that both unidimensional and multidimensional models suggest that political parties matter in Paraguay. However, unidimensional models miss the dynamics of intra-party competition. By analyzing the dynamics of inter- and intra-party competition using multidimensional models, this chapter finds that although short-term intra-party conflicts can in fact debilitate a majority party’s ability to concentrate benefits in its members in the short term, in the long term political parties have been capable of concentrating benefits in their members. In short, despite short-term instability, parties can still benefit their members by Skewing Chaos in their favor in the long term.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For more information on how to estimate the uncovered sets, please refer to Bianco et al. (2004), and/or view the source code and documentation of the R function I developed to be able to estimate uncovered sets and yolks easily, which can be found here: https://github.com/acarrizosa/uset.
- 2.
Recall from Chap. 3 that UNACE was an intra-party faction of the Colorado party that later became an independent, splinter party, only to return to the Colorado party again in 2012. Therefore, it is often useful to treat these two parties as a single party.
- 3.
This same model for win-rates rather than roll-rates is contained in 13.9 of the Appendix to this chapter. Results are substantively the same.
- 4.
References
APSR. (1950). Summary of conclusions and proposals. The American Political Science Review, 44(3), 1–14.
Bianco, W., Jelizakov, I., & Sened, I. (2004). The uncovered set and the limits of legislative action. Political Analysis, 12, 256–276.
Cox, G. (1997). Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge University Press.
Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (2005). Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge University Press.
Krehbiel, K. (1993). Where’s the party? British Journal of Political Science, 23, 235–266.
Krehbiel, K. (1998). Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. University of Chicago Press.
Smith, S. S. (2007). Party Influence in Congress. Cambridge University Press.
Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carrizosa, A. (2023). Skewing Chaos: Partisan Benefits Without Legislative Stability. In: Skewing Chaos. Springer Series in Electoral Politics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18625-7_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18625-7_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-18624-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-18625-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)