Abstract
Recent work has argued that institutional characteristics of political systems, such as presidentialism vs. parliamentarianism, or majoritarianism vs. proportionality, will have significant effects on the stability of government and the nature of redistributive politics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
In Schofield et al. (2011a) we estimated the candidate positions using the same survey questionnaire.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
A similar result has been obtained for the 2008 U.S. Presidential election (Schofield et al. (2011b).
- 7.
Respondent’s opinion on each of these issues was recorded on an 11-point scale with the first option given scored as zero and the second option scored as ten. See Appendix 1 for the exact question wording.
- 8.
For 2001, the positions of the LPR PO, PSL, SLD and UW are almost identical to those estimated by Benoit and Laver (2006), thus providing some justification for our method of estimating party positions.
- 9.
Lech Kaczyński became President after that election, but died in the airplane crash on April 10, 2010, on his way to Russia to commemorate the Katyn massacre of Polish officers in 1940.
- 10.
After President Lech Kaczyński’s death in the plane crash in April, 2010, his brother, Jaroslaw Kaczyński, ran against acting president Bronislaw Komorowski in the presidential election on 20 June. Kaczyński received 36.46% of votes in the first round, while Komorowski received 41.54%. In the second round, Kaczyński was defeated with 47% of the vote to Komorowski’s 53%.
- 11.
See Schofield et al. (2010) for full details of these joint models.
- 12.
Because the Hessians have positive eigenvalues, the party preference correspondences are not convex valued, so no general argument can be used to assert existence of pure strategy Nash equilibria (PNE). If a PNE were to exist it would coincide with one of the LNE.
- 13.
We may refer to the logic of these choices as “hunting the heart”.
- 14.
See Bunce and Wolchik (2010) for a general discussion of the wave of democratic change that has occurred in the last 20 years in post-Soviet countries, sometimes leading from autocracy to democracy and then back again. See also Muskhelishvili (2010).
- 15.
Because of the survey design, AXCP and MP were not differentiated and are regarded as one party block. See question wording in Appendix 5 for vote choice.
- 16.
The variable ‘city’ is a binary variable indicating whether the respondent resides in city area or not. The category 1,2 and 3 in the question ‘type of location’ are coded as city, and 4 and 5 are coded as non-city residents.
- 17.
Among the two parties, the sample voteshare is (0.76, 0.24).
- 18.
Fragmentation can be identified with the effective number (Laakso and Taagepera 1979). That is, let H υ (the Herfindahl index) be the sum of the squares of the relative vote shares and \( env = H_\upsilon^{ - 1} \) be the effective number of party vote strength. In the same way we can define ens as the effective number of party seat strength using shares of seats.
- 19.
We could of course measure ens in terms of party strength in Congress, giving a value close to 2.0.
- 20.
See Carothers (2002) for the difficulty of transition from an anocracy to a full democracy.
References
Anable D (2006) The role of Georgia’s media-and western aid-in the rose revolution. Harvard Int J Press/Polit 11:7–43
Bawn K, Rosenbluth F (2005) Short versus long coalitions: electoral accountability and the size of the public sector. Am J Polit Sci 50:251–265
Benoit K, Laver M (2006) Party policy in modern democracies. Routledge, London
Broers L (2005) After the ‘revolution’: civil society and the challenges of consolidating democracy in Georgia. Central Asian Surv 24:333–350
Budge I, Robertson D, Hearl DJ (eds) (1987) Ideology, strategy, and party change: spatial analyses of post-war election programmes in 19 democracies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Budge I, Klingemann H-D, Volkens A, Bara J, Tannenbaum E (eds) (2001) Mapping policy preferences-estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945–1998. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bunce V, Wolchik S (2010) The regional tradition. In: Bunce V, Wolchik S (eds) Democracy and authoritarianism in the post Communist world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Carothers T (2002) The end of the transition paradigm. J Democracy 13:5–21
Cheterian V (2008) Georgia’s rose revolution: change or repetition? tension between state-building and modernization projects. Nationalities Papers 36:689–712
De Vries CE, Edwards EE (2009) Taking Europe to its extremes. Party Polit 15:5–28
Dow JK (2001) A comparative spatial analysis of majoritarian and proportional elections. Elect Stud 20:109–125
Dow JK (2011) Party-system extremism in majoritarian and proportional electoral systems. Br J Polit Sci 41:341–361
Downs A (1957) An economic theory of democracy. Harper and Row, New York
Duverger M (1954) Political parties: their organization and activity in the modern state. Wiley, New York
Epstein D, Bates R, Goldstone J, Kristensen I, O’Halloran S (2006) Democratic transitions. Am J Polit Sci 50:551–568
Ezrow L (2010) Linking citizens and parties. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ezrow L (2011) Reply to Dow: party positions, votes and the mediating role of electoral systems. Br J Polit Sci 41:448–452
Fidrmuk J (2000a) Economics of voting in post-communist countries. Elect Stud 19:199–217
Fidrmuk J (200b) Political support for reforms: economics of voting in transition countries. Eur Econ Rev 44:1491–1513
Fjelde H (2010) Generals, dictators and kings. Conflict Manage Peace Res 27:195–218
Gandhi J, Vreeland J (2004) Political institutions and Civil War: unpacking anocracy. In: Working paper, Emory University
Grzymala-Busse A (2002) Redeeming the communist past. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Huber J, Bingham Powell G Jr (1994) Congruence between citizens and policy makers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Polit 1:73–111
Kitschelt H, Mansfeldova Z, Markowski R, Toka G (1999) Post-communist party systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Laakso M, Taagepera R (1979) Effective number of parties: a measure with applications to west Europe. Comp Polit Sci 12:3–27
Laver M, Schofield N (1990) Multiparty government: the politics of coalition in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Reprinted 1998. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
Markowski R (2006) Polish elections of 2005: pure chaos or restructuring of the party system. West Eur Polit 29:814–832
Markowski R, Tucker J (2010a) Euroskepticism and the emergence of political parties in Poland. Party Polit 1–26
Markowski R, Tucker J (2010b) Subjective vs. objective proximity in Poland: new directions for the empirical study of political representation. In: Working paper, New York University
Mitchell L (2008) Democracy bound. Natl Interest 95:70–76
Muskhelishvili M (2010) Georgia in a new wave of transformation: the Caucasus & globalization. J Polit Econ Stud 4:35–41
Muskhelishvili M et al (2009) Georgia’s ongoing struggle for a better future continued: democracy promotion through civil society development. Democratization 16:682–708
Owen A, Tucker JA (2010) Past is still present: micro-level comparisons of conventional vs transitional economic voting in three polish elections. Elect Stud 29:25–39
Persson T, Tabellini G (2000) Political economics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Persson T, Tabellini G (2003) The economic effect of constitutions. MIT Press, Cambridge MA
Powers DV, Cox JH (1997) Echoes from the past: the relationship between satisfaction with economic reforms and voting behavior in Poland. Am Polit Sci Rev 91:617–33
Regan PM, Bell SR (2010) Changing lanes or stuck in the middle: why are anocracies more prone to civil wars? Polit Res Quart 63:747–759
Riker WH (1953) Democracy in the United States. Macmillan, New York
Riker WH (1962) The theory of political coalitions. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
Riker WH (1980) Implications from the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions. Am Polit Sci Rev 74:432–46
Riker WH, Ordeshook PC (1973) An introduction to positive political theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Schofield N (1999) The heart and the uncovered set. J Econ Suppl 8:79–113
Schofield N (2007) The mean voter theorem: necessary and sufficient conditions for convergent equilibrium. Rev Econ Stud 74:965–980
Schofield N, Zakharov AV (2010) A stochastic model of the 2007 Russian Duma election. Public Choice 142:177–194
Schofield N, Ozdemir U, Tavits M (2010) Elections in Poland. In: Working paper, Washington University in Saint Louis
Schofield N, Claassen C, Gallego M, Ozdemir U (2011a) Empirical and formal models of the United States presidential elections in 2000 and 2004. Chapter 9 in this volume
Schofield N, Claassen C, Ozdemir U, Zakharov AV (2011b) Estimating the effects of activists in two-party and multi-party systems: comparing the United States and Israel. Soc Choice Welf 36:483–518
Schofield N, Gallego M, Jeon J (2011c) “Leadership” in the elections in Great Britain 2005 and 2010. Electoral Studies 31:in press
Schofield N, Gallego M, Jeon J, Ozdemir U (2011d) Modelling elections in Canada. In: Working papers, Washington University in Saint Louis
Schofield N, Gallego M, Ozdemir U, Zakharov AV (2011e) Competition for popular support: a valence model of elections in Turkey. Soc Choice Welf 36:451–482
Stokes D (1963) Spatial models and party competition. Am Polit Sci Rev 57:368–377
Stokes D (1992) Valence politics. In: Kavanagh D (ed) Electoral politics. Clarendon, Oxford
Sumbadze N (2009) Saakashvili in the public eye: what public opinion polls tell us. Central Asian Surv 28:185–197
Szczerbiak A (1998) Electoral politics in Poland: the parliamentary elections of 1997. J Communist Stud Trans Polit 14:58–83
Tavits M, Letki N (2009) When left is right: party ideology and policy in post-communist Europe. Am Polit Sci Rev 103:555–569
Tucker JA (2006) Regional economic voting: Russia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Vreeland J (2008) The effect of political regime on Civil War. J Conflict Res 52:401–425
Wade L, Lavelle P, Groth AJ (1995) Searching for voting patterns in post-communist Poland’s Sejm elections. Communist Post-Communist Stud 28:411–425
Welt C (2010) Georgia’s Rose Revolution. In: Bunce V, Wolchik S (eds) Democracy and authoritarianism in the post Communist world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on work supported by NSF grant 0715929 and a Weidenbaum Center grant to Schofield. An earlier version on Polish elections was presented at the Conference on Democratic Institutions, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 2009. A later version was completed while Schofield was the Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford, 2010. Muskhelishvili expresses her gratitude for a Fulbright Fellowship at Washington University in the 2009–2010 academic year. The authors thank Merab Pachulia, Director of GORBI, Tbilisi, Georgia for making the survey data for the 2008 election in Georgia available, and thank Rauf Garagozov, Leading Research Fellow, International Center for Social Research, Institute of Strategic Studies of the Caucasus, Baku, Azerbaijan. He and his colleagues, Tair Faradov and Rajab Sattarov, of the International Center for Social Research (ICSR) carried out the survey in Aizerbaijan. We thank Maria Gallego for help in preparing this survey.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1: Question Wording for Poland
These question wordings are based on the 2001 PNES. We have also indicated any noteworthy differences in question wording for the other years.
Vote Choice
“For which party or coalition candidate did you vote in the Sejm elections?”
The issue positions of voters
“A variety of solutions and policies aimed at solving the above mentioned issues are conceivable. On subsequent CARDS we present opposite solutions to each issue. Please read them carefully and tell me, where would you place your own opinions and stances. In doing so, please use the 11-point scale, where: 0 – means full acceptance of the statement (solution) proposed on the left side of the CARD, 10 – means full acceptance of the statement (solution) – on the right side, 5 – means that you favor solutions lying in between both opposite ones, and the remaining scale points indicate different levels of acceptance of each of those opposite statements”.
Economic Dimension
-
(1)
Privatization
-
00) State owned enterprises should be privatized quickly; the inefficient ones should be liquidated
-
10) Enterprises should remain state property and their modernization financed from the state budget
-
-
(2)
Unemployment
-
00) Fighting unemployment should be an absolute policy priority of the government, even if it leads to higher spending and inflation
-
10) Many other – more important than unemployment – issues should be governmental priority, i.e. balanced budget, fighting inflation, etc.
-
-
(3)
Income tax
-
00) The higher one’s income, the higher the percentage it should be taxed
-
10) Everyone should be taxed the same percentage of his/her income, irrespectively of the income level
-
-
(4)
Subsidies to agriculture
-
00) Agriculture should receive subsidies from the budget, otherwise many farms will go bankrupt
-
10) Agriculture should not receive subsidies from the budget, because no single social group should live at the expense of society
-
-
(5)
State vs. individual responsibility for social welfare
-
00) The state should grant its citizens the widest possible social safety net, i.e. health care, social welfare, free education, etc.
-
10) Citizens should take care and responsibility of their health, self-help, children’s education, etc on their own
-
Social Values Dimension
-
(6)
Church and state
-
00) The Church should be completely separated from the state and should not interfere with politics
-
10) The Church should exert influence over politics and state policies
-
-
(7)
Decommunization
-
00) Individuals occupying high positions under communism (‘nomenclatura’) should now be forbidden to perform responsible state functions
-
10) These individuals (‘nomenclatura’) should have the same rights as all others in competing for public offices and state positions
-
-
(8)
Abortion
-
00) Women should have abortion right regardless of situation
-
10) Abortion should not be allowed regardless of situation
-
We reversed the coding on Privatization and Decommunization so that (00) could be regarded as a more left wing, or pro-communist response.
We used factor analysis to obtain the positions of voters on the economic and social values dimension.
Sociodemographics
For the sociodemographic variables we used the responses to the following questions.
-
(1)
Income
-
“What was your average monthly income last year?”
-
The measure is recorded in Polish zloty.
-
-
(2)
Age
-
“Your year of birth…”
-
We subtracted respondent’s year of birth from the year of election to obtain respondent’s age in years.
-
-
(3)
Communist party membership
-
“Did you ever happen to be a member of PZRP, ZSL, or SD?”
-
1.
Yes
-
2.
No
-
1.
-
The 2005 survey had an additional option (3) “Was too young.” We collapsed this with “no” in order to maintain a dichotomous measure.
The 2005 survey asked about membership in PZRP only and not in the other two communist regime satellite parties. The 1997 survey asked about membership in each of the ex-communist parties separately. We only used the information about former PZRP membership because this was the main communist party whereas the others were satellites that cooperated with the regime.
-
(4)
Religion
-
“How would you describe your attitude towards religion? Are you: (1) atheist (2) agnostic (3) believer (4) devout believer”.
-
We collapsed the first two and last two categories to obtain a dichotomous measure of 1 = religious, 0 = not religious.
-
Appendix 2: Factor Loadings for Poland
Appendix 3: Question Wording for Georgia
Data: Post-election surveys conducted by GORBI-GALLUP International from March 19 through April 3, 2008. In the original dataset n = 1,000. Among the respondents, 745 answered that they cast a vote on the election day. In the case of listwise deletion of missing data, the number of observation is n = 399. Those 399 voters (1) cast a vote; (2) to one of the four candidates who got more than 5% of the vote; and (3) answered all the questions used in the factor analysis.
[Vote Choice]
Please tell me which candidate did you vote for during the presidential elections on the 5th of January 2008? 1 Levan Gachechiladze; 2 Badri Patarkatsishevili; 3 Davit Gamkrelidze; 4 Shalva Natelashvili; 5 Mikheil Saakashvili; 6 Gia Maisashvili; 7 Irina Sarishvili; 8 Against all; 9 NA (recoded) 1 Saakashvili, 2 Gachechiladze, 3 Patarkatsishevili, 4 Natelashvili, NA:NA
[Questions Used in Factor Analysis]
-
(1)
In your opinion, are things in Georgia generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?
1 Right direction; 2 Wrong direction; 9 DK/NA
-
(2)
In general would you say that currently democracy works in Georgia very well, rather well, rather poorly, very poorly?
1 very well, 2 rather well, 3 DK, 4 rather poorly, 5 very poorly, 9 NA.
-
(3)
Tell me your overall opinion of USA.
1 very favorable; 2 somewhat favorable; 3 somewhat unfavorable; 4 very unfavorable; 9 NA
-
(4)
Tell me your overall opinion of EU.
1 very favorable; 2 somewhat favorable; 3 somewhat unfavorable; 4 very unfavorable; 9 NA
-
(5)
Tell me your overall opinion of NATO.
1 very favorable; 2 somewhat favorable; 3 somewhat unfavorable; 4 very unfavorable; 9 NA
-
(6)
How much confidence do you have that upcoming parliamentary elections will be transparent and fair?
1 great deal of confidence; 2 fair amount of confidence; 3 no much confidence; 4 no confidence at all; 9 NA
[Questions Considered but not Included in the Factor Analysis]
The question regarding Iraq was loaded heavily (> 0.5) in the democratic dimension, but it was not included because it did not seem to be directly related with democratic attitude. The factor loadings of other questions were mostly around 0.1.
As you know, the plebiscite was conducted during the presidential elections held on the 5th of January. Did you vote for or against that the next parliamentary elections should be held in spring 2008?
1 Yes; 2 No; 9 NA
Did you vote fore or against that Georgia should pursue integration into NATO?
1 Yes; 2 No; 9 NA
To what extent do you approve the Georgian government’s decision to send its armed forces to Iraq?
1 Fully approve; 2 approve; 3 Neither approve nor disapprove; 4 disapprove; 5 totally disapprove; 9 NA
Generally democracy is the best system of government for governing the country comparing with other systems.
Georgia should leave the CIS.
Our opposition is in alliance with the National Movement.
Usage of military methods in order to regain Georgian territorial integrity are approved.
1 strongly agree; 2 somewhat agree; 3 somewhat disagree; 4 strongly disagree; 9 DK; 0 NA
Tell me your overall opinion of Russia. 1 very favorable; 2 somewhat favorable; 3 somewhat unfavorable; 4 very unfavorable; 99 NA
How much confidence do you have that upcoming parliamentary elections will be transparent and fair?
1 great deal of confidence; 2 fair amount of confidence; 3 no much confidence; 4 no confidence at all; 9 NA (recoded NA:NA)
Please tell me to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: If I could I would go back to Shevardnadze’s Georgia.
1 Strongly agree; 2 somewhat agree; 3 neither agree nor disagree; 4 disagree; 5 strongly disagree; 9 NA
[Sociodemographic Variables]
(SD1) gender
male = 1, female 2
(SD2) Age
1 18–24: 2 25–30: 3 31–39: 4 40–50: 5 51–60: 6 60+
(SD3) education
1 pre-primary: 2 primary: 3 incomplete general secondary, vocational: 4 complete specialized secondary: 5 complete general secondary: 6 incomplete higher: 7 PHD, post graduate courses
(SD4) financial situation
1 no money for food, 2 not for clothing, 3 not for expensive things, 4 expensive things, 5 whatever we want, 9 NA
(SD5) region
1 Tbilisi; 2 Kakheti; 3 Shida Kartli; 4 Kvemo Kartli; 5 Samtskhe-Javakheti; 6 Adjara; 7 Guria; 8 Samegrelo; 9 Imereti/Racha/Svaneti; 10 Mtskheta-Tianeti
Appendix 4: Spatial Sociodemographic Model for Georgia (Natelashvili as Baseline)
Variable | Coeff. | Std. error | |t| Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Spatial β | 0.82*** | 0.07 | 11.16 | |
Saakashvili | λ S | 1.75 | 1.35 | 1.29 |
Gender (female) | 0.99* | 0.49 | 2.01 | |
Age | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.95 | |
Education | −0.21 | 0.17 | 1.25 | |
Financial situation | 0.40 | 0.34 | 1.17 | |
Gachechiladze | λ G | 0.27 | 1.39 | 0.19 |
Gender (female) | 0.72 | 0.50 | 1.45 | |
Age | 0.06 | 0.17 | 0.35 | |
Education | −0.15 | 0.17 | 0.87 | |
Financial situation | 0.66 | 0.35 | 1.89 | |
Patarkatsishevili | λ P | 0.94 | 1.49 | 0.63 |
Gender (female) | 1.04 | 0.55 | 1.88 | |
Age | −0.09 | 0.18 | 0.49 | |
Education | −0.25 | 0.19 | 1.30 | |
Financial situation | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.94 | |
n | 399 | |||
Log likelihood | −298.23 |
Appendix 5: Question Wording for the Azerbaijan Election
5.1 Survey Items
[Vote Choice]
[Q23] Are you going to vote for the candidate from political party/block or for the independent candidate?
1. Candidate from political party/block; 2. Independent candidate; 77, 88, 99. NA
[Q24] Here is the list of political parties and blocks, which will run for coming parliamentary elections on 7 November, 2010. Please tell me, which of them you would vote for?
1. Yes, for sure; 2. Very likely; 3. Likely; 4. Indifferent; 5. Not likely; 6. No, for sure; 77. NA; 88. Don’t know/hard to say; 99. Refusal
5.1.1 A. Blocks
1. AXCP-MUSAVAT; 2. KARABAKH (UMID, ADP, AYDINLAR); 3. INSAN NAMINA (VIP, ALP); 4. ISLAHAT (BQP, BAXCP, ADALAT); 5. DEMOKRATIYA (VHP, ADIP)
5.1.2 B. Political Parties
1. KXCP; 2. YAP; 3. ALDP; 4. SOCIAL DEMOKRAT; 5. DADP; 6. ANA VATAN; 7. MILLI DEMOKRAT; 8. MMP; 9. AMIP
[Activist]
[Q14] Some people think of themselves as usually being a supporter of one political party rather than another. Do you usually think of yourself as being a supporter of one particular party or not?
1. Yes (name); 2. No; 3. It is difficult to answer; 4. Refusal
[Survey Items Used for Factor Analysis: Demand for Democracy]
[Q2] Are you satisfied with the current state of democracy in Azerbaijan? 1. Fully satisfied; 2. Partially satisfied; 3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 4. Partially dissatisfied; 5. Completely dissatisfied; 88. Don’t know/hard to say; 99. Refusal
[Q3] Would you agree with the following two statements?
[A]. Azerbaijan is more democratic now than it was 10 years ago.
[B]. People in Azerbaijan are free to express their opinions and concerns.
1. Strongly agree; 2. Agree; 3. Disagree; 4. Strongly disagree; 88. Don’t know/hard to say; 99. Refusal
[Q6] What is the degree of your confidence towards the following institutions?
-
(1)
Parliament (Milli Mejlis)
-
(2)
Government (Cabinet of Ministers)
-
(3)
President of the country
-
(4)
Elections on different levels
1. High; 2. Average; 3. Low; 88. Don’t know/hard to say; 99. Refusal
[Q10.1] As is known, many people in our country are not politically active. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the reason for this?
-
(1)
Lack of freedom and Democracy
1. Fully disagree; 2. To some extent disagree; 3. Neither agree, neither disagree; 4. To some extent agree; 5. Fully agree; 88. Don’t know/hard to say; 99. Refusal
[Q29] Do you believe that forthcoming parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan will be really democratic (free, open, transparent and fair)?
1. Yes; 2. No; 88. Don’t know/hard to say; 99. Refusal
[Demographics]
Type of location: 1. Capital city; 2. Large city; 3. Small city; 4. Village; 5. Camp for IDPs
[Q31] Gender: 1. male; 2. female
[Q32] Age group: 1. 18–24; 2. 25–34; 3. 35–44; 4. 45–54; 5. 55–64; 6. 65+
[Q35] Education: 1. Without any education; 2. Primary school; 3. Incomplete secondary; 4. Complete secondary; 5. Secondary technical; 6. Incomplete higher; 7. Higher
[Q44] Household economic situation: Pick the phrase which best describes the economic situation in your family
-
1.
There is not enough money even for food, we have to go into debt or get help from relatives or friends
-
2.
There is enough money for food, but we have difficulty buying clothes
-
3.
There is enough money for food and clothes, but expensive durable goods such as TV or refrigerator are a problem for us
-
4.
We can buy durable goods from time to time, but the purchase really expensive things, such as an automobile, home, or a trip abroad, are beyond our means
-
5.
Nowadays we can afford many things – an automobile, home, foreign travel – in a word, we do not deny ourselves anything
88. Don’t know/hard to say
99. Refuse
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schofield, N., Jeon, J., Muskhelishvili, M., Ozdemir, U., Tavits, M. (2011). Modelling Elections in Post-Communist Regimes: Voter Perceptions, Political Leaders and Activists. In: Schofield, N., Caballero, G. (eds) Political Economy of Institutions, Democracy and Voting. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19519-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19519-8_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19518-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19519-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)