Suchergebnisse

Political parties differ in the geographic distribution of their support. This article argues that a regionalized distribution of a party's votes facilitates its participation in government, because it produces a tendency to prioritize demands for locally targeted goods that are more conducive to the negotiation of reciprocal logrolling agreements with potential partners. Using a measure based on the Gini coefficient, I empirically evaluate the extent to which the geographic concentration of votes plays a role in the formation of governments, taking Spanish local elections from 1987 to 2011 as a test bed. With around 500 formation opportunities and 20,000 potential governments, multinomial choice models are estimated (conditional and mixed logits) and a very sizable effect is documented: A one-standard deviation increase in the electoral geographic concentration of the members of a potential government almost doubles the likelihood of its formation. These findings are relevant for students of government formation, regional parties, and political geography.

Political parties differ in the geographic distribution of their support. This article argues that a regionalized distribution of a party's votes facilitates its participation in government, because it produces a tendency to prioritize demands for locally targeted goods that are more conducive to the negotiation of reciprocal logrolling agreements with potential partners. Using a measure based on the Gini coefficient, I empirically evaluate the extent to which the geographic concentration of votes plays a role in the formation of governments, taking Spanish local elections from 1987 to 2011 as a test bed. With around 500 formation opportunities and 20,000 potential governments, multinomial choice models are estimated (conditional and mixed logits) and a very sizable effect is documented: A one-standard deviation increase in the electoral geographic concentration of the members of a potential government almost doubles the likelihood of its formation. These findings are relevant for students of government formation, regional parties, and political geography.

Decentralization shapes the way policy authority is shared between the national and regional levels and that, I argue, will have consequences for government formation. In particular, I contend that the allocation of portfolios in regional coalition governments will be affected by the degree of decentralization of each policy. To analyze this relationship I exploit the cross-time, cross-regional, and cross-policy variation of the process of competence devolution to the Spanish Autonomous Communities between 1980 and 2010. I find that, as expected, an increase in the competences managed by the region in a given policy jurisdiction makes the related portfolio more attractive to all coalition parties, although the effect seems to be particularly significant in economically strong and fast-track regions.

In this article I argue that coalitions will tend to employ control mechanisms to facilitate the adoption of compromise policies only when the expected benefit of their use is high enough. When partners are already satisfied with log-rolling policies (compartmentalized by jurisdiction), or when compromise is already attainable self-enforcingly, there are few incentives to use them. Conversely, when partners are interested in compromise policies but are unable to reach that outcome in equilibrium, then control mechanisms are likely to be implemented. The empirical evidence offered tends to support the two main hypotheses of this work: control mechanisms are less necessary when the tangentiality of partners' preferences is high and when they foresee frequent mutual interactions. However, that seems to work better for the allocation of watchdog junior ministers rather than for the writing of comprehensive policy agreements.

Reseña del libro 'Sistema político español', editado por Josep Mª Reníu, Barcelona: Huygens Editorial, 2012, 395 pp.

In this article I argue that coalitions will tend to employ control mechanisms to facilitate the adoption of compromise policies only when the expected benefit of their use is high enough. When partners are already satisfied with log-rolling policies (compartmentalized by jurisdiction), or when compromise is already attainable self-enforcingly, there are few incentives to use them. Conversely, when partners are interested in compromise policies but are unable to reach that outcome in equilibrium, then control mechanisms are likely to be implemented. The empirical evidence offered tends to support the two main hypotheses of this work: control mechanisms are less necessary when the tangentiality of partners' preferences is high and when they foresee frequent mutual interactions. However, that seems to work better for the allocation of watchdog junior ministers rather than for the writing of comprehensive policy agreements.

Spanish parties evaluate whether or not to close deals with other parties for a number of reasons, the coalition preferences of their voters being a likely one. This work explores to what extent party preferences and ideological proximity in the two main dimensions of political competition in Spain affect voters' coalition preferences. Using survey data from 2009, we find that voters' coalition preferences are greatly affected by ideological proximity especially in the left-right axis, whereas preferences for decentralization happen to be much more salient for the supporters of regionalist parties. However, this general pattern varies depending on the assessed coalition.

This article argues that long periods out of office make parties impatient and more willing to make concessions over portfolio allocation in exchange for participation in a coalition cabinet. Two hypotheses are analysed: on the one hand, being in opposition for a long time should put parties at a disadvantage when bargaining over office payoffs. On the other, this effect should not apply to the formateur party, since formation offers are based on the receivers' impatience. The empirical results largely support these expectations. Additional evidence of the causality of the main effect is obtained through the use of matching techniques based on the propensity score.

This article argues that long periods out of office make parties impatient and more willing to make concessions over portfolio allocation in exchange for participation in a coalition cabinet. Two hypotheses are analysed: on the one hand, being in opposition for a long time should put parties at a disadvantage when bargaining over office payoffs. On the other, this effect should not apply to the formateur party, since formation offers are based on the receivers' impatience. The empirical results largely support these expectations. Additional evidence of the causality of the main effect is obtained through the use of matching techniques based on the propensity score.

Els governs de coalició poden, per una banda, dividir-se les tasques i funcionar de forma compartimentalitzada, on cada soci decideixi sol les polítiques sota les seves jurisdiccions ministerials. Per contra, també poden optar pel compromís entre els partits i decidir col•lectivament en cada àrea sectorial, amb independència del repartiment de carteres. En el seu primer paper, aquesta tesis ofereix un marc teòric per entendre aquesta variació, amb la intenció d'identificar les condicions sota les quals és més probable un tipus de governança coalicional o altra. El segon paper testa empíricament les implicacions d'aquests arguments sobre la manera com els membres d'una coalició es vigilen mútuament mitjançant l'ús de mecanismes de control. Finalment, en el tercer paper s'ofereix un exercici empíric on s'analitza fins a quin punt els votants jutgen de manera diferent cada un dels socis de govern en funció del tipus de coalició a què s'enfronten. ; At an extreme, coalition partners can divide tasks and individually decide policy in their ministerial jurisdictions in a compartmentalized way. At the other extreme, parties sharing office can compromise and collectively set policy in each dimension regardless of portfolio allocation. In its first paper, this dissertation provides a theoretical account of this variation, trying to unravel the conditions under which one type of governance is more likely than the other. The second paper tests empirically the implications of these arguments on the way coalition partners keep tabs on each other through the establishment of control mechanisms. Finally, an empirical exercise is offered in the third paper to study the extent to which voters assess each coalition partner differently depending on the type of coalition they face. Variation in the types of coalition governance, we conclude, is an important factor to take into account in political science research in the field.