Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:59:09.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unity in Diversity? The Development of Political Parties in the Parliament of Canada, 1867–2011

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2015

Jean-François Godbout  and
Bjørn Høyland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What explains the development of legislative party voting unity? Evidence from the United States and Britain indicate that partisan sorting, cohort replacement effects, electoral incentives, and agenda control contributed to enhancing party cohesion during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Here, these mechanisms are evaluated by analysing a dataset containing all the recorded votes from the Canadian House of Commons, 1867–2011. Overall, we find that partisan sorting and the government’s ability to control the agenda are central to the consolidation of parties over time. Our results underscore the need to integrate institutional rules and legislative agendas into models of parliamentary voting behaviour and suggest that strict party discipline can lead to the development of a multi-party system in the legislative arena.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 545 - 569
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Political Science, University of Montreal (email: jean-francois.godbout@umontreal.ca); Department of Political Science, University of Oslo (email: bjorn.hoyland@stv.uio.no). An earlier version of this article was entitled ‘Parties and Voting in Parliament’. The authors would like to thank the following research assistants for their help in completing this project: Eve Bourgeois, Monika Smaz and Alison Smith. Support for this research was provided in part by Princeton University’s Center for the Study of Democratic Politics, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant no. 410-2009-2907) and the Norwegian Research Council (grant no. 222442). A supplementary online appendix and replication data and code are available at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=JPS. Data replication sets are available at http://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS. Online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000368

References

REFERENCES

Aldrich, John H. 2005. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Aydelotte, William O. 1977. Introduction. Pp. 3–27, in The History of Parliamentary Behavior, edited by William O. Aydelotte. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, J. Murray. 1968. Pendulum of Power: Canada’s Federal Elections. Scarborough, Ont: Prentice-Hall of Canada.Google Scholar
Berrington, Hugh. 1968. Partisanship and Dissidence in the Nineteenth-Century House of Commons. Parliamentary Affairs 21:338–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Farrell, David M., and Katz, Richard S.. 1999. Party Cohesion, Party Discipline and Parliaments. Pp. 3–22, in Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government, edited by Shaun Bowler, David M. Farrell and Richard S. Katz. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, David W., Cooper, Joseph, and Hurley, Patricia A.. 1979. The Decline of Party in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1887–1968. Legislative Studies Quarterly 4:381–409.Google Scholar
Brady, David W., and Althoff, Phillip. 1974. Party Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1890–1910: Elements of a Responsible Party System. Journal of Politics 36:753–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John. 2007. Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science 51:92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carty, R. Kenneth. 1988. Three Canadian Party Systems: An Interpretation of the Development of National Politics. Pp. 15–30, in Party Democracy in Canada: The Politics of National Party Convention , edited by George Perlin. Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice Hall Canada Inc.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1987. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson-Schmich, Loise K. 2003. Part 2: Discipline. The Development of Party Discipline in New Parliaments: Eastern German State Legislatures 1990–2000. Journal of Legislative Studies 9:88–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, William Foster. 1965 [1962]. Procedures in the Canadian House of Commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Depauw, Sam. 2003. Government Party Discipline in Parliamentary Democracies: The Cases of Belgium, France and the United Kingdom in the 1990s. Journal of Legislative Studies 9:130–146.Google Scholar
Depauw, Sam, and Martin, Shane. 2009. Legislative Party Discipline and Cohesion in Comparative Perspective. Pp. 103–120, in Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments in Parliamentary Democracies , edited by Daniela Giannetti and Kenneth Benoit. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott W. 2005. Correcting for Small Group Inflation of Roll-Call Cohesion Scores. British Journal of Political Science 35:731–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, and Feddersen, Timothy J.. 1998. Cohesion in Legislatures and the Vote of Confidence Procedure. American Political Science Review 92:611–621.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activities in the Modern State. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C., and Spirling, Arthur. 2014a. Party Cohesion in Westminster Systems. Inducements, Replacement and Discipline in the House of Commons, 1836–1910. British Journal of Political Science. Published online, 13 October 2014, doi: dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000362.Google Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C., and Spirling, Arthur. 2014b. Ministerial Responsiveness in Westminster Systems: Institutional Choices and House of Commons Debate, 1832–1915. American Journal of Political Science 58:873--887.Google Scholar
English, John. 1977. The Conservatives and the Decline of the Party System 1901–1920. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Leon D. 1964. A Comparative Study of Canadian Parties. American Political Science Review 58:46–59.Google Scholar
Epstein, Leon D. 1967. Political Parties in Western Democracies. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, Charles J., and Rohde, David W.. 2008. War for the Floor: Partisan Theory and Agenda Control in the US House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly 33:35–61.Google Scholar
Garner, John. 1969. The Franchise and Politics in British North America, 1755–1867. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Godbout, Jean-François. 2014. Parliamentary Politics and Legislative Behaviour. Pp. 171–197, in Comparing Canada: Methods and Perspectives on Canadian Politics, edited by Luc Turgeon, Martin Papillon, Jennifer Wallner and Stephen White. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godbout, Jean-François, and Høyland, Bjørn. 2011. Legislative Voting in the Canadian Parliament. Canadian Journal of Political Science 44:367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godbout, Jean-François, and Høyland, Bjørn. 2013. The Emergence of Parties in the Canadian House of Commons (1867–1908). Canadian Journal of Political Science 46:773–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, Reuven Y. 2003. Introduction: Does Cohesion Equal Discipline? Towards a Conceptual Delineation. Journal of Legislative Studies 9:1–11.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon, Noury, Abdoul, and Roland, Gerald. 2006. Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huber, John D. 1996. The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies. American Political Science Review 90:269–282.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Terence A. 1996. Parliament, Party, and Politics in Victorian Britain. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard, Blais, André, Brady, Henry, and Crête, Jean. 1992. Letting the People Decide: The Dynamics of Canadian Elections. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark P., and Hwang, Wonjae. 2005. Party Government in Presidential Democracies: Extending Cartel Theory beyond the U.S. Congress. American Journal of Political Science 49:267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Christopher J. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Christopher J. 2014. Party Discipline. Pp. 399–417, in The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Politics, edited by Kaare Strom and Shane Martin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Katznelson, Ira. 2011. Historical Approaches to the Study of Congress: Toward a Congressional Vantage on American Political Development. Pp. 115–40, in The Oxford Handbook of the American Congress, edited by George C. Edwards, Frances E. Lee and Eric Schickler. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 2000. Party Discipline and Measures of Partisanship. American Journal of Political Science 44:212–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laakso, Markku, and Taagepera, Rein. 1979. ‘Effective’ Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12:3–27.Google Scholar
Lee, Frances. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U. S. Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lowell, A. Lawrence. 1908. The Government of England Volume II. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Malloy, Jonathan. 2003. High Discipline, Low Cohesion? The Uncertain Patterns of Canadian Parliamentary Party Groups. Journal of Legislative Studies 9:116–129.Google Scholar
March, Roman R. 1974. The Myth of Parliament. Scarborough, Ont: Prentice-Hall of Canada.Google Scholar
McLean, Ian. 2001. Rational Choice and British Politics: An Analysis of Rhetoric and Manipulation from Peel to Blair. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, W. L. 1967 [1950] The Progressive Party in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Audrey, and Marc, Bosc. 2009. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2nd edn. Ottawa: House of Commons.Google Scholar
Olson, David M. 2003. Conclusion – Cohesion and Discipline Revisited: Contingent Unity in the Parliamentary Party Group. Journal of Legislative Studies 9:164–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrogorski, Moisei. 1902. Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ozbudun, Ergun. 1970. Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis, Comparative Politics Series (01-006, Vol. 1). Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology and Congress, 2nd rev. edn. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.Google Scholar
Rice, Stuart A. 1925. The Behavior of Legislative Groups. Political Science Quarterly 40:60–72.Google Scholar
Rush, Michael. 2001. The Role of the Member of Parliament since 1868: From Gentlemen to Players. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rush, Michael, and Giddings, Philip. 2011. Parliamentary Socialisation: Learning the Ropes or Determining Behaviour? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis, Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scarrow, Susan E. 2006. The Nineteenth Century Origins of Modern Political Parties: The Unexpected Emergence of Party-based Politics. Pp. 16–25, in The Handbook on Political Parties, edited by Richard S. Katz and Willam Crotty. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1942. Party Government. New York: Rinehart.Google Scholar
Sieberer, Ulrich. 2006. Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Legislative Studies 12:150–178.Google Scholar
Spirling, Arthur. 2014. British Political Development: A Research Agenda. Introduction to the Special Issue. Legislative Studies Quarterly 39:435–437.Google Scholar
Spirling, Arthur, and McLean, Iain. 2007. UK OC OK? Interpreting Optimal Classification Scores for the U.K. House of Commons. Political Analysis 15:85–96.Google Scholar
Stecker, Christian. 2013. How Effects on Party Unity Vary across Votes. Party Politics. Published online, 15 November 2013, doi: 10.1177/1354068813509514.Google Scholar
Stewart, John B. 1977. The Canadian House of Commons: Procedure and Reform. Montreal and London: McGill–Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2011. Party Organizational Strength and Party Unity in Post-Communist Europe. European Political Science Review 4:409–431.Google Scholar
Ward, Norman. 1963. The Canadian House of Commons: Representation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Western, Bruce, and Kleykamp, Meredith. 2004. A Bayesian Change Point Model for Historical Time Series Analysis. Political Analysis 12:354–374.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Godbout and Høyland supplementary material

Appendix

Download Godbout and Høyland supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 517.1 KB