Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T18:09:03.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining candidate turnover. Evidence from a comparative analysis in 10 European established democracies with a list-PR system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2023

Gertjan Muyters Open the ORCID record for Gertjan Muyters [Opens in a new window]  and
Bart Maddens
Gertjan Muyters*
Affiliation:
KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Public Governance Institute, Parkstraat 45 3000, Leuven, Belgium
Bart Maddens
Affiliation:
KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Public Governance Institute, Parkstraat 45 3000, Leuven, Belgium
*
*E-mail: gertjan.muyters@kuleuven.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates determinants of candidate turnover in 10 European established democracies with list-PR electoral systems. We identify party and election variables that affect the supply and demand of new candidates on the parties’ lists. In addition, we apply a weighted candidate turnover measure to investigate the dynamic of renewal on high-ranked list positions. We built an original dataset that contains 3344 electoral lists of represented political parties. Hypotheses are tested by means of a multilevel analysis of political party list renewal rates. At the party level, leadership change and larger party size in terms of members are found to coincide with higher general turnover. At the system level, general turnover is higher in elections with closed lists and high electoral volatility. At higher positions on the list, candidate turnover appears not to be affected by the party- and system-level variables identified in the broader literature.

Keywords

candidate turnoverelectoral competitionelectoral systempolitical partyrisk-averse elites
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , August 2023 , pp. 353 - 372
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Consortium for Political Research

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

Abdelnour, S., Hasselbladh, H. and Kallinikos, J. (2017), ‘Agency and institutions in organization studies’, Organization Studies 38(12): 1775–1792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ACE. (2021), ‘The electoral knowledge network’, Retrieved 21 October 2021 from https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/pc/pcc/pcc02/pcc02a/pcc02a1 Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, S., Hansen, J.M., Hirano, S. and Snyder, J. (2007), ‘The incumbency advantage in US primary elections’, Electoral Studies 26(3): 660–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnea, S. and Rahat, G. (2011), ‘Out with the old, in with the “new”: what constitutes a new party?’, Party Politics 17(3): 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bértoa, F.C. and Weber, T. (2019), ‘Restrained change: party systems in times of economic crisis’, The Journal of Politics 81(1): 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1086/700202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjarnegård, E. (2013), Gender, Informal Institutions and Political Recruitment: Explaining Male Dominance in Parliamentary Representation, Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breyer, M. (2022), ‘Populist positions in party competition: do parties strategically vary their degree of populism in reaction to vote and office loss?’, Party Politics (published online). https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688221097082 Google Scholar
Burke, W.W. (2018), Organisational Change: Theory and Practice, Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
Carey, J.M. and Shugart, M.S. (1995), ‘Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas’, Electoral Studies 14(4): 417–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotta, M. and Best, H. (2007), Democratic Representation in Europe: Diversity, Change and Convergence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahlerup, D. (2006), Women, Quotas, Politics, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Daniel, W.T. (2016), ‘First-order contests for second-order parties? Differentiated candidate nomination strategies in European Parliament elections’, Journal of European Integration 38(7): 807–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Däubler, T. and Hix, S. (2018), ‘Ballot structure, list flexibility and policy representation’, Journal of European Public Policy 25(12): 1798–1816.10.1080/13501763.2017.1361465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Coninck, I. (2020), Rewarding Parliamentary Work ? The effect of MEP Performance on Re(s)election. Ph.D.-dissertation. Leuven: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Ecevit, Y.A. and Kocapınar, G. (2018), ‘Do party lists matter? Political party strategies in legislative candidate nominations’, Parliamentary Affairs 71(3): 697–716.10.1093/pa/gsx083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elff, M., Heisig, J.P., Schaeffer, M. and Shikano, S. (2016), ‘No need to turn Bayesian in multilevel analysis with few clusters: how frequentist methods provide unbiased estimates and accurate inference’, SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/z65s4 Google Scholar
European Parliament. (2009), ‘The Selection of Candidates for the European Parliament by National Parties and the Impact of European Political Parties’, Directorate-General for internal policies.Google Scholar
Ferrari, S. and Cribari-Neto, F. (2004), ‘Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions’, Journal of Applied Statistics 31(7): 799–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
François, A. and Grossman, E. (2015), ‘How to define legislative turnover? The incidence of measures of renewal and levels of analysis’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 21(4): 457–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galasso, V. and Nannicini, T. (2015), ‘So closed: political selection in proportional systems’, European Journal of Political Economy 40: 260–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, M. (1988), ‘Introduction’, in Gallagher, M. and Marsh, M. (eds.), Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics, London: SAGE, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Galvis, D.M., Bandyopadhyay, D. and Lachos, V.H. (2014), ‘Augmented mixed beta regression models for periodontal proportion data’, Statistics in Medicine 33(21): 3759–3771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, A. (2006), ‘Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models’, Bayesian Analysis 1(3): 515–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden, M.A. and Picci, L. (2015), ‘Incumbency effects under proportional representation: leaders and backbenchers in the Postwar Italian chambers of deputies’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 4(40): 509–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouglas, A., Katz, G., Maddens, B., and Brans, M. (2020), ‘Transformational party events and legislative turnover in West European democracies, 1945–2015’, Party Politics: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068820944703.Google Scholar
Gouglas, A., Maddens, B. and Brans, M. (2017), ‘Determinants of legislative turnover in Western Europe, 1945–2015’, European Journal of Political Research 57(3): 637–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, K.M. and Kosiara-Pedersen, K. (2014), ‘Cyber-campaigning in Denmark: application and effects of candidate campaigning’, Journal of Information Technology & Politics 11(2): 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, R.Y. and Rahat, G. (2010), Democracy within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, S.B. and De Vries, C.E. (2015), ‘Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty competition’, Comparative Political Studies 48(9): 1159–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, M. and Dassonneville, R. (2014), ‘Party members as an electoral linking mechanism: an election forecasting model for political parties in Belgium, 1981–2010’, Party Politics 20(3): 368–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, J.A. and Banducci, S.A. (2007), ‘Party mobilisation and political participation in new and old democracies’, Party Politics 13(2): 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, M.-S. and Solt, F. (2017), ‘The dynamics of party relabeling: why do parties change names?’, Party Politics 23(4): 437–447.10.1177/1354068815603240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskimaa, V., Mattila, M., Papageorgiou, A. and von Schoultz, Å. (2021), ‘Revamping the menu – or just offering what’s in stock? Candidate list volatility in open-list PR systems. Evidence from Finland’, European Political Science Review 13(4): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Maas, C.J.M. and Hox, J.J. (2005), ‘Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling’, Methodology 1(3): 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matland, R.E. and Studlar, D.T. (2004), ‘Determinants of legislative turnover: a cross-national analysis’, British Journal of Political Science 34(01): 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, R.G. (1999), ‘Electoral systems and the number of parties in postcommunist states’, World Politics 51(3): 359–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudde, C. (1996), ‘The paradox of the anti-party party: insights from the extreme right’, Party Politics 2(2): 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musella, F. (2015), ‘Personal leaders and party change: Italy in comparative perspective’, Italian Political Science Review 45(3): 227–247.Google Scholar
Muyters, G., Put, G.-J. and Maddens, B. (2021), ‘Gender bias in candidate turnover: a longitudinal analysis of legislative elections in Flanders/Belgium (1987–2019)’, Party Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688211038238 Google Scholar
Muyters, G., Put, G.-J. and Maddens, B. (2022), ‘A longitudinal analysis of party level candidate turnover drivers in the flexible-list PR system of Flanders (Belgium) (1987–2019)’, Acta Politica, published online 1–32.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (2004), Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, P. and Lovenduski, J. (1993), ‘“If only more candidates came forward”: supply-side explanations of candidate selection in Britain’, British Journal of Political Science 23(3): 373–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P. and Lovenduski, J. (1995), Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D.Z. and Schomer, Y. (2013), ‘A cross-national analysis of party switching’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 38(1): 111–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papke, L. and Wooldridge, J.M. (1996), ‘Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401 (k) plan participation rates’, Journal of Applied Econometrics 11(6): 619–632.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, M.N. (2000), ‘The incremental transformation of the Danish legislative elite: the party system as prime mover’, in Cotta, M. and Best, H. (eds.), Parliamentary Representatives in Europe 1848–2000: Legislative Recruitment and Careers in Eleven European Countries, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 29–50.Google Scholar
Put, G.-J., Muyters, G. and Maddens, B. (2021), ‘The effect of candidate electoral experience on ballot placement in list proportional representation systems’, West European Politics 44(4): 969–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahat, G. and Hazan, R.Y. (2001), ‘Candidate selection methods. An analytical framework’, Party Politics 7(3): 297–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, M.S., Valdini, M.E. and Suominen, K. (2005), ‘Looking for locals: voter information demands and personal vote-earning attributes of legislators under proportional representation’, American Journal of Political Science 49(2): 437–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikk, A. and Köker, P. (2015), ‘Candidate turnover and party system change in central and Eastern Europe’, ECPR General Conference Paper: 1–14.Google Scholar
Slegten, C. and Heyndels, B. (2021), ‘Sex differences in incumbents’ turnover odds: the role of preference vote performance and the party leader’s sex’, Acta Politica. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-021-00214-7 Google Scholar
Snijders, T.A.B. and Bosker, R.J. (2012), Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modelling, London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Söderlund, P., von Schoultz, Å. and Papageorgiou, A. (2021), ‘Coping with complexity: ballot position effects in the Finnish open-list proportional representation system’, Electoral Studies 71, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, K. (1990), ‘A behavioral theory of competitive political parties’, American Journal of Political Science 34(2): 565–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudulich, L. and Trumm, S. (2017), ‘A Comparative Study of the Effects of Electoral Institutions on Campaigns’, British Journal of Political Science 49(1): 381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdini, M.E. (2012), ‘A deterrent to diversity: the conditional effect of electoral rules on the nomination of women candidates’, Electoral Studies 31(4): 740–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdini, M.E. (2019), The Inclusion Calculation: Why Men Appropriate Women’s Representation, Oxford: University Press Scholarship Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Trappen, S. (2021), ‘To adapt or not to adapt? An experimental test of whether the selection of ethnic minority candidates is affected by interparty diffusion’, Politicologenetmaal conference paper (online): 1–31.Google Scholar
Verzichelli, L. (2019), ‘Degradable elites? Modes and factors of parliamentary turnover in Europe in the early twenty-first century’, in Vogel, L., Gebauer, R. and Salheiser, A. (eds.), The Contested Status of Political Elite: At the Crossroads, London: Routledge, pp. 87–107.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Muyters and Maddens supplementary material

Muyters and Maddens supplementary material

Download Muyters and Maddens supplementary material(File)
File 524.2 KB