Making a difference? Public perceptions of coalition, single-party, and minority governments

Electoral Studies

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 370-380

  Vowles, Jack ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Accountability; Coalitions; CSES; Minority governments; Public perceptions

Indexed keywords

DEMOCRACY; GOVERNMENT; PARTY POLITICS; PERCEPTION; POLICY MAKING;

EID: 77954642413     PISSN: 02613794     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2010.03.006     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Aarts K., Thomassen J. Satisfaction with democracy: do institutions matter?. Electoral Studies 2008, 27:5-18.
2. Alesina A., Roubini N., Cohen G. Political Cycles and the Macroeconomy 1997, MIT Press, Cambridge.
3. Anderson C., Blais A., Bowler S., Donovan T., Listhaug O. Losers' consent: elections and democratic legitimacy 2005, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4. Armstrong D.A., Duch R.M. Why can voters anticipate post-election coalition formation likelihoods. Electoral Studies 2010, 29(3):308-315.
5. Beck T., Clarke G., Groff A., Keefer P., Walsh P. New tools in comparative political economy: the database of political institutions. World Bank Economic Review 2001, 15(1):165-176.
6. Blais A., Bodet M. Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policy makers?. Comparative Political Studies 2006, 39(10):1243-1262.
7. Bowler S., Lanoue D., Savoie P. Electoral systems, party competition, and strength of partisan attachment: evidence from three countries. Journal of Politics 1994, 56(3):991-1007.
8. Brockington D. The paradox of proportional representation: the effect of party systems and coalitions on individuals' electoral participation. Political Studies 2004, 52(3):469-490.
9. Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 1996-2001, Module 1 Micro-District-Macro Data 2003, University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, Ann Arbor.
10. Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 2001-2006, Module 2 Third Advance Release 2005, University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, Ann Arbor.
11. Downs A. An Economic Theory of Democracy 1957, Harper, New York.
12. Duch R.M., Stevenson R.T. The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
13. Farrell D. Electoral Systems: a Comparative Introduction 2001, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
14. Finer S.E. Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform 1975, Anthony Wigram, London.
15. Fisher S.D., Hobolt S.B. Coalition government and electoral accountability. Electoral Studies 2010, 29(3):358-369.
16. Franzese R. Macroeconomic Policies of Developed Democracies 2002, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
17. Gallagher M., Laver M., Mair P. Representative Government in Modern Europe 2000, McGraw Hill, New York.
18. Gerring J., Thacker S.C. A Centripetal Theory of Democratic Governance 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19. Heston A., Summers R., Aten B. Penn World Table Version 6.2, Center for International Comparisons of Production 2006, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania.
20. Iversen T. Capitalism, Democracy, and Welfare 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
21. Karp J.A., Banducci S.A. Political efficacy and participation in twenty-seven democracies: how electoral systems shape political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science 2008, 38(2):311-334.
22. Katz R.S. Democracy and Elections 1997, Oxford University Press, Oxford,.
23. Kedar O. How diffusion of power in parliaments affects voter choice. Political Analysis 2005, 13(4):410-429.
24. Kedar O. When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: policy balancing in parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review 2005, 99(1):185-199.
25. Kedar O. How voters work around institutions: policy balancing in staggered elections. Electoral Studies 2006, 25(3):509-527.
26. Leahy K. Multicollinearity: when the solution is the problem. Data Mining Cookbook 2000, Wiley, New York. O. Rud (Ed.).
27. Lijphart A. Patterns of Democracy 1999, Yale University Press, New Haven.
28. Listhaug O., Aardal B., Ellis I. Institutional variation and political support: an analysis of data from 29 countries. A Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 1995-2000 2009, H. Klingemann (Ed.).
29. Long J.S., Freese J. Regression Models for Categorical Outcomes Using Stata 2005, Stata Press, College Station, Texas. second ed.
30. Mishler W., Rose R. Political support for incomplete democracies: realist versus idealist theories and measures. International Political Science Review 2001, 22(4):303-320.
31. Pennings, P., 2000. Parliamentary control of the executive in 47 democracies. Paper Presented at the Workshop 'Parliamentary Control of the Executive', 28th Joint Sessions of Workshops of the European consortium for Political research, 14-19 April.
32. Powell G.B. Elections as Instruments of Democracy 2000, Yale University Press, New Haven.
33. Pinto-Duschinsky M. Send the rascals packing: defects of proportional representation and the virtues of the Westminster model. Representation 1999, 36(2):117-126.
34. Przeworski A., Stokes S.C., Manin B. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation 1999, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
35. Rose R., Mackie T. Incumbency in government: asset or liability?. Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change 1983, Sage, Beverley Hills. H. Daalder, P. Mair (Eds.).
36. Shugart M., Carey J.M. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics 1992, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
37. Tsebelis G. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work 2002, Russell Sage, New York and Princeton University Press, Princeton.
38. Vowles J. Rascals and PR: how Pinto-Duschinsky stacked the decks. Representation 1999, 36(2):137-142.
39. Vowles J. Does globalization affect public perceptions of 'Who in power can make a difference'? Evidence from 40 countries, 1996-2006. Electoral Studies 2008, 27(1):63-76.