Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:39:03.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Party Dominance in 18 Countries: The Role of Party Dominance in the Transmission of Political Ideology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2005

Jingjing Huo
Jingjing Huo
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Using OLS regression with World Values Survey data across 18 OECD countries, this article makes two major arguments. Firstly, if a dominant party is ideologically congruent with an individual, its dominance enhances the effect of party ideology on individual ideology. If incongruent, greater dominance only inhibits this effect. Secondly, if individuals find the dominant party ideologically congruent, as their political awareness increases, the effect of that party's ideology rises monotonically. If incongruent, the effect of party ideology first rises and then falls back. Therefore, party dominance leads ultimately to increasing ideological polarization between the dominant party's supporters and opponents.

Résumé. Cet article vise à présenter deux arguments importants en appliquant la “ régression OLS ” aux données du “ World Values Survey ” sur 18 pays de l'OCDE. En premier lieu, s'il y a congruence entre l'idéologie d'un parti dominant et celle de l'individu, la dominance du parti renforce l'effet d'idéologie de parti sur l'idéologie de l'individu. S'il n'y a pas congruence d'idéologies, une dominance plus marquée du parti ne fait qu'entraver davantage cet effet. En second lieu, si les individus trouvent l'idéologie du parti dominant conforme à la leur, au fur et à mesure qu'augmente leur conscience politique, l'effet de l'idéologie de ce parti augmente de façon uniforme. Si l'idéologie du parti dominant n'est pas conforme à la leur, l'effet d'idéologie de parti commence par grandir pour ensuite retomber. Ainsi, la prédominance de parti mène finalement à une polarisation idéologique croissante entre les partisans du parti dominant et ses opposants.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 745 - 765
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

Budge, Ian and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. 2001. “Finally! Comparative Over-time Mapping of Party Policy Movement.” In Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998, eds. Ian Budge, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara and Eric Tanenbuam. New York: Oxford University Press.
Castles, Francis and Peter Mair. 1984. “Left/right Political Scales: Some Expert Judgements.” European Journal of Political Research 12: 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, Yun-Han. 1999. “A Born-Again Dominant Party? The Transformation of the Kuomingtang and Taiwan's Regime Transition.” In The Awkward Embrace: One-Party Domination and Democracy, eds. Hermann Giliomee and Charles Simkins. Australia: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Converse, Philip and Roy Pierce. 1986. Political Representation in France. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Duverger, Maurice. 1959. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley.
Enelow, James and Melvin Hinich. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Giliomee, Hermann and Charles Simkins. 1999. “The Dominant Party Regimes of South Africa, Mexico, Taiwan and Malaysia: A Comparative Assessment.” In The Awkward Embrace: One-Party Domination and Democracy, eds. Hermann Giliomee and Charles Simkins. Australia: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Granberg, Donald and Sörem Holmberg. 1988. The Political System Matters: Social Psychology and Voting Behaviour in Sweden and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Huber, John. 1989. “Values and Partisanship in Left-right Orientations: Measuring Ideology.” European Journal of Political Research 17: 599–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John and Ronald Inglehart. 1995. “Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Democracies.” Party Politics 1: 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoguchi, Takashi. 1990. “The Political Economy of Conservative Resurgence under Recession: Public Policies and Public Support in Japan 1977–1983.” In Uncommon Democracies: the One-Party Dominant Regimes, ed. T. J. Pempel. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Jesudason, James V. 1999. “The Resilience of One-Party Dominance in Malaysia and Singapore.” In The Awkward Embrace: One-Party Domination and Democracy, eds. Hermann Giliomee and Charles Simkins. Australia: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Kim, Heemin and Richard C. Fording. 1998. “Voter Ideology in Western Democracies, 1946–1989.” European Journal of Political Research 33: 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knutsen, Oddbjørn. 1995. “Left-Right Materialist Orientations.” In The Impact of Values, eds. Jan W. Van Deth and Elinor Scarbrough. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knutsen, Oddbjørn. 1998. “The Strength of the Partisan Component of Left-Right Identity: a Comparative Longitudinal Study of Left-Right Party Polarization in Eight West European Countries.” Party Politics 4: 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauss, Ellis S. and Jon Pierre. 1990. “The Decline of Dominant Parties: Parliamentary Politics in Sweden and Japan in the 1970s.” In Uncommon Democracies: the One-Party Dominant Regimes, ed. T. J. Pempel. Ithaca: NY: Cornell University Press.
Laver, Michael and Ian Budge, eds. 1992. Party Policy and Coalition Government. London: Macmillan.
Laver, Michael and W. Ben Hunt. 1992. Policy and Party Competition. New York: Routledge.
Mackie, Thomas and Richard Rose. 1991. The International Almanac of Electoral History. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
Middendorp, C.P. 1991. Ideology in Dutch Politics: the Democratic System Reconsidered, 1970–1985. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.
Munger, Michael and Melvin Hinich. 1994. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
North, Douglass. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ornstein, Michael and H. Michael Stevenson. 1999. Politics and Ideology in Canada: Elite and Public Opinion in the Transformation of a Welfare State. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Panebianco, Angelo. 1988. Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pempel, T.J. 1990a. “Introduction. Uncommon Democracies: The One-Party Dominant Regimes.” In Uncommon Democracies: the One-Party Dominant Regimes, ed. T.J. Pempel. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Pempel, T.J. 1990b. “One-Party Dominance and the Creation of Regimes.” In Uncommon Democracies: the One-Party Dominant Regimes, ed. T.J. Pempel. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Pontusson, Jonas. 1990. “Conditions of Labor-Party Dominance: Sweden and Britain Compared.” In Uncommon Democracies: the One-Party Dominant Regimes, ed. T.J. Pempel. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Rabinowitz, George and Stuart Elaine Macdonald. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scarbrough, Elinor. 1984. Political Ideology and Voting: an Exploratory Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Shalev, Michael. 1990. “The Political Economy of Labor-Party Dominance and Decline in Israel.” In Uncommon Democracies: the One-Party Dominant Regimes, ed. T.J. Pempel. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Schlemmer, Lawrence. 1999. “Democracy or Democratic Hegemony? The Future of Political Pluralism in South Africa.” In The Awkward Embrace: One-Party Domination and Democracy, eds. Hermann Giliomee and Charles Simkins. Australia: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Stanley, Harold and Richard Niemi. 2000. Vital Statistics on American Politics 1999–2000. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
Woldendorp, Jaap, Hans Keman and Ian Budge. 2000. Party Government in 48 Democracies (1945–1998): Composition-Duration-Personnel. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
World Values Study Group. 1999. World Values Survey 1981–1984 AND 1990–1993 (Computer File), 2nd ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research (producer) and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor).
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.