9 dpi415 legislative representation - harvard university comparative...legislative representation...
TRANSCRIPT
3/23/2010
1
Legislative representation
DPI-415
2
Structure
I. Comparing types, roles and powers of legislatures
II Legislative representation and electoral systemsII. Legislative representation and electoral systems1. Public knowledge about candidates
2. Contact with elected members
3. Election of women
4. Representation of minorities
III. Conclusions & implications
3
Readings
Caramani ch 7 Legislatures (Kreppel)
Newton and Van Deth Ch 6 Multilevel governancegovernance
Further Resources:
Inter-parliamentary Union www.ipu.org
4
Legislative capacity building
You are asked to advise the parliament in the Netherlands how to make members more responsive to constituents.
You are asked to advise the parliament in Iraq how to strengthen members oversight of budgetary decision-making and procurement.
You are asked by the Egyptian parliament how best to increase the proportion of women in elected office.
What would you advise?
5
Types of legislatures
Assembly, parliament, or congress
Local, regional, national or supranational
Separation of executive legislature powers Separation of executive-legislature powers (presidential executives) or fused powers (parliamentary democracies)
6
Roles (Kreppel)
Which roles are most important? How do they function?
– Legislature as agent• Linkage
• Representation• Debating
• Legitimating
– Legislature as principal• Control
• Oversight
– Legislature as lawmaker• Policy -making
• Policy-influencing
3/23/2010
2
7
Powers
Ref Steven Fish and Matthew Kroenig 2009. The Handbook of National Legislatures CUP
Parliamentary Power indexParliamentary Power index• The legislature’s influence over the executive
• Institutional autonomy
• Specific powers
• Institutional capacity
Experts, constitution and media accounts
8
Legislative powers
9
Legislative Powers
11
II: Legislative roles & electoral systems
Ref: Norris Electoral Engineering: CUP 2003Theoretical framework(i) Politicians are rational vote-maximizers in pursuit of elected office(ii) There are 4 basic types of ballot structure:
• Candidate-ballots, ,• Dual-ballots, • Preference-ballots, and • Party ballots
(iii) The type of ballot structure influences the provision of particularistic or programmatic benefits
(iv) The type of ballot structure influences the selection of homogeneous or diverse candidates for legislative office
(v) The behavior of politicians influences electorate(vi) Reforming the rules could potentially alter legislatures (in the long-term)
• Either increase local accountability or strength central party discipline• Can increase diversity of political representatives
12
Electoral Systems
Majority26
Plurality65
Majoritarian91
Independent21
Dependent8
Combined29
STV2
Party List62
PR64
No direct elections7
Nation States191
Candidate-Ballot
AV2
Candidate-ballot
2nd Ballot24
26
Candidate-ballot
FPTP54
Party-Ballotor
Preference-ballot
Block Vote9
Preference-ballot
SNTV2
65 21
Dual-ballot
8
Preference-ballot
2
Party-ballot35
Preference-ballot27
62
3/23/2010
3
13
Candidate-Ballot14
Combined (Mixed) Ballot
15
Party-ballot (open or closed)16
Other rules
17
Evidence
CSES Module 1 (June 2002) 32 nations & 37 presidential & parliamentary elections
‘Most different’ research strategyMost different research strategy• Older & newer democracies
• Postindustrial & industrial
• Electoral systems
• Presidential & parliamentary executives
18
CSES Coverage
Countries in the CSES Module 1
Excluded (159)Included (32)
3/23/2010
4
TYPE OF DISTRICTS
Candidate-ballots
Australia
Canada
UK
USA
Dual-ballots
Japan
Korea, Republic of
Russia
Taiwan
Ukraine
Germany
Hungary
New Zealand
Mexico
Thailand
Preference-ballots
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Peru
Poland
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
Party ballots
Iceland
Israel
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Romania
Spain
20
Contact with members% With contact
16
12
All Candidate-ballots
All
8
9
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
All Party-ballots
All Preference-ballots
All Dual-ballots
Note: Q: “During the last twelve months, have you had any contact with a Member of Parliament/a Member ofCongress] in any way?” Source: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2002.
21
Model I Model II
B SE Sig. B SE Sig.
SOCIAL CONTROLS
Level of development 3.18 .220 .000 2.82 .253 .000
Age .002 .001 .012 .001 .001 .130
Gender (male) .365 .029 .000 .375 .029 .000
Education 249 015 000 225 015 000
Contact w. elected members
Education .249 .015 .000 .225 .015 .000
Income .098 .011 .000 .101 .011 .000
BALLOT STRUCTURE
Candidate-ballot .297 .054 .000
Dual-ballot .329 .045 .000
Preference-ballot -.196 .041 .000
Mean district magnitude -.004 .000 .000
Constant -6.25 -5.36
% Correctly predicted 89.0 89.0
Nagelkerke R2 .040 .053
Note: Q: “During the last twelve months, have you had any contact with a [Member of Parliament/a Member of Congress] in any way?” Source: ComparativStudy of Electoral Systems, 1996-2002. Party-ballots are the default (reference) category in logistic regression models.
22
Knowledge of Candidates% None Correct
41
47
All candidate-ballots
All
66
45
41
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
All party-ballots
All preference-ballots
All dual-ballots
Note: Q: “Do you happen to remember the name of any candidates who ran/stood in you [lower house primary electoral district] in the last [parliamentary/congressional] election? [If YES] What were their names?”Source: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2002.
23
Knowledge of candidatesModel I Model II
B SE Sig. B SE Sig.
SOCIAL CONTROLS
Level of Development 1.09 .195 .000 7.72 .246 .000
Age -.012 .001 .000 -.038 .001 .000
Gender (male) .140 .026 .000 .264 .030 .000
Ed ti 092 013 000 103 016 000Education .092 .013 .000 .103 .016 .000
Income .067 .010 .000 -.019 .012 .129
BALLOT STRUCTURE
Candidate-ballot 6.82 1.37 .000
Dual-ballot 1.11 .049 .000
Preference-ballot 1.00 .035 .000
Mean district magnitude -.009 .000 .000
Constant .413 -5.81
% Correctly predicted 69.1 80.8
Nagelkerke R2 .017 .395
Note: Q: “Do you happen to remember the name of any candidates who ran/stood in you [lower house primary electoral district] in the las[parliamentary/congressional] election? [If YES] What were their names?” (i) Only two categories were coded in Australia. Source: Comparative Study oElectoral Systems, 1996-2002. Party-ballots are the default (reference) category in logistic regression models.
24
Women’s representation
Rhetorical Equal opportunities Positive action
Options
RhetoricalEg speeches and conventions
Equal opportunitiesEg training and finance
for women and men
Voluntary gender quotasby party rules
Legal gender quotasby statute
Reserved seatsby statute
Positive action
Least opposition -------------------------------------------- Most opposition
3/23/2010
5
25
Electoral systems% Of women, 2000 Number of nations
All Majoritarian 8.5 91 Alternative Vote 11.2 2
Block vote 7.1 92nd Ballot 9.6 24
First-Past-The-Post 8 5 54First Past The Post 8.5 54
All Combined 11.3 29Combined Independent 8.7 21
Combined Dependent 18.0 8
ALL Proportional 15.4 64Single Transferable Vote 10.6 2
Party List 15.6 62
TOTAL 11.7 182Note: The percentage of women in the lower house of national parliaments 2000, 182 nations worldwide. Source: Pippa Norris Electoral Engineering Table 8.2
26
Legal gender quotasCountry Date % Quota % Before % After Change
Argentina 1991 30 6 27 +21Ecuador 1997 20 4 15 +11Paraguay 1996 20 11 18 +7Peru 1997 30 11 18 +7Venezuela 1998 30 6 13 +7Belgium 1994 33 18 23 +5Costa Rica 1997 40 14 19 +5Dominican Rep 1997 25 12 16 +4Panama 1997 30 8 10 +2Venezuela 1998 30 8 9 +2France 1999 50 11 12 +1Bolivia 1997 30 11 12 +1Mexico 1996 30 15 16 +1Bolivia 1997 30 4 4 0Paraguay 1996 20 3 3 0Brazil 1997 30 7 6 -1Mexico 1996 30 17 16 -1Average 30 10 14 +4
Note: Legal gender quotas for the lower house of national parliaments: laws which specify that each party must include a minimum proportion of women on party lists of candidates. Source: Pippa Norris Electoral EngineeringT bl 8 5
27
Why different impact?
How statutory mechanisms are implemented The level of the gender quota Whether the rules regulate the rank order of gwomen and men candidates on listsWhether party lists are open or closed Levels of incumbency turnover. Any legal-financial penalties
28
Reserved seatsElection Number of seats
reserved for women
% Of seats reserved for
women
Appointed or elected
Tanzania 2000 43 20.0 Appointed
Uganda 2001 53 18.1 Indirectly elected
Pakistan 2002 60 16.8 Elected
Zimbabwe 2000 37 13.5 Appointed
Bangladesh 2001 30 10.0 Appointed
Sudan 2000 35 9.7 Elected
Morocco 2002 30 9.2 Elected
Botswana 1999 2 4.5 Appointed
Lesotho 1998 3 3.8 Appointed
Taiwan 1996 Varies Varies Elected
Note: Reserved seats in the lower house of the national parliament are defined as those that by law can only be filled by women, either by appointment or election. Source: Pippa Norris Electoral Engineering Table 8.4
29
Voluntary gender quotas
Voluntary gender quotas:• Internal party rules, regulations, or constitutions specifying that
the party should include a minimum proportion of women as candidates for elected office.
Evidence from 15-European Union member states, 2000
76 parties (each with at least 10 MPs)• 35 of these parties use voluntary gender quotas
– On average 33% of their MPs are women
• 41 of these parties do not use voluntary quotas– On average, 18% of their MPs are women
30
EU Parties with most womenParty Country Elect.
yearTot
MPs% Women Gender
quota1. VIHR Finland 1999 11 81.8
2. PDS Germany 1998 36 58.3
3. B90/Grüne Germany 1998 47 57.4
4. Centerpartiet Sweden 1998 18 55.6 X5. GroenLinks Netherland
s1998 11 54.5
6. Miljöpartiet de Grona Sweden 1998 16 50.0
7 S i l D t S d 1998 131 49 6 7. Social Democrats Sweden 1998 131 49.6
8. PvdA Netherlands
1998 45 48.9
9. Ecolo Belgium 1999 11 45.5
10.
SDP Finland 1999 51 43.1
11.
D’66 Netherlands
1998 14 42.9 X12.
Vänsterpartiet Sweden 1998 43 41.9
13.
Christian Democrats Sweden 1998 42 40.5
14.
SKL Finland 1999 10 40.0
15.
Socialstick Folkeparti Denmark 1998 13 38.5 X16.
Venstre Liberale Parti Denmark 1998 42 38.1 X17.
KOK Finland 1999 46 37.0
18.
Social Democrats Denmark 1998 63 36.5 X19.
SPÖ Austria 1999 65 35.5
20.
Folkpartiet Liberelna Sweden 1998 17 35.3 Notes: Voluntary gender quotas are defined as internal party rules, regulations, or constitutions specifying that the party should include a minimum proportion of women as candidates for elected office. Source: Pippa Norris Electoral Engineering Table 8.6
3/23/2010
6
31
Voluntary quotas
Effect varies according to…• Levels set (20%, 30%, etc)
• Process of implementation – eg require ranking of women candidates on lists?g q g
• Party organization and culture– Parties of the left more sympathetic
• May have a ‘contagion’ effect on other parties
• May be easier to implement than legal quotas
• Common, important, although not essential for women’s representation
32
Conclusions
Candidate ballots are associated with significantly stronger contact and knowledge than party-ballotsPreference-ballots and dual ballots intermediate categoriesMore women can be elected through positive action strategiesI li i f l l i iImplications for electoral engineering– Candidate ballots promote local accountability and personal
voting in legislatures with weak voter-member linkages– Party-ballots promote party discipline and cohesion in
legislatures with excessive pork-barrel politics– Rules influence diversity of legislatures – What are the pros and cons of these options?
33
Case study: UK Labour party
W om en MPs in UK Parliam ent
120118120
140
1 28
4
14 159
24 2117
24 2529 26 26 23
2719 23
41
60
0
20
40
60
80
100
19181922192319241929193119351945195019511955195919641966197019741974197919831987199219972001
N. o
f W
om
en
34
UK Labour party
1993 –all-women shortlists in 50% of Labour’s target seats
1996 - policy abandoned after legal challenge
The 1997 election doubled the number of women in parliament overnight (from 60-120)
In 2001, 118 women MPs were returned (incumbency)
‘Twinning’ policy adopted for regional assemblies: two seats, each pair selecting one man and one woman candidate