Survival and Accountability: An Analysis of the Empirical Support for "Selectorate Theory" (original) (raw)
Related papers
Regime Stability and Presidential Government
Several scholars of comparative politics, including Juan Linz and Arend Lijphart, have argued that presidential democracies are inherently less stable and representative than parliamentary regimes. This viewpoint, which had dominated the discipline, was challenged by Matthew Soberg Shugart and John Carey in Presidents and Assemblies, in which they argued that presidential government per se was not problematic; rather, Shugart and Carey demonstrated that particular institutional designs, such as the concentration of legislative powers in the hands of the president and incoherent party systems, tend to lead to regime instability.
This article challenges a key part of the conventional view of coalitions in presidential systems that sees them as short-lived and ad hoc. The author shows instead that there is wide variation in the durability of governing coalitions across these regimes. She develops a theory of the incentives of parties to participate in the government and the circumstances under which scholars might expect to see the existing governing coalition break down. The author draws on data from 121 cabinets in 12 Latin American countries between the late 1980s and the mid-2000s to show that the dissolution of the cabinet is more likely when the president places less value on coalition building as a policy-making strategy and when parties find it costly to participate in the government. In particular, the author shows that strong unilateral institutional powers tend to diminish the incentives of presidents to compromise with other parties; in contrast, effective legislatures and high rates of approval for the executive contribute significantly to more stable governments.
Leader Survivability in Non-Democracies: The Role of Blame Shifting
Thesis, 2013
This paper presents an alternative explanation for the possible incentives of the incumbents in authoritarian regimes to hold elections by utilizing a formal model that is derived to simulate the strategic interaction between the incumbent and the people. Equilibria of the models show us that, there exists feasible circumstances under which the incumbent would prefer to allow elections to be hold with the purpose of the selection of an officer that the incumbent may later on benefit from by shifting the blame of an external crisis, hence weaken the risk of a regime breakdown. It also discusses 4 countries as case studies from Arab Spring.
Institutions, Outcomes and the Survival of Leaders.¤
2000
Institutional arrangements in°uence the type of policies that leaders pursue. We examine two institutional variables: the size of the selectorate (S){the set of people who have an institutional say in choosing leaders{and the size of the winning coalition (W){the minimal set of people whose support the incumbent needs in order to remain in power. The larger the winning coalition, the greater the emphasis leaders place on e®ective public policy. When W is small, leaders focus on providing private goods to their small group of supporters at the expense of the provision of public goods. The size of the selectorate in°uences how hard leaders work on behalf of their supporters.
Political leader survival: does competence matter?
Public Choice, 2016
We examine whether economic and military competence of political leaders affect their duration in office. We introduce leader heterogeneity in the selectorate theory of Bueno de Mesquita et al. (2003) and derive the hypothesis that in the presence of a revolutionary threat, economic competence is negatively related to political survival, but that the effect is moderated by the size of the winning coalition. As military and economic competence are negatively correlated, the opposite holds for military competence. We present empirical estimates using proxies for military and economic competence in a parametric Weibull duration model that support our theoretical predictions.
Political Institutions, Policy Choice and the Survival of Leaders
British Journal of Political Science, 2002
Institutional arrangements influence the type of policies that leaders pursue. We examine two institutional variables: the size of the selectorate (S)--the set of people who have an institutional say in choosing leaders--and the size of the winning coalition (W)--the minimal set of people whose support the incumbent needs in order to remain in power. The larger the winning coalition, the greater the emphasis leaders place on effective public policy. When W is small, leaders focus on providing private goods to their small group of supporters at the expense of the provision of public goods. The size of the selectorate influences how hard leaders work on behalf of their supporters. The greater the size of the selectorate, the more current supporters fear exclusion from future coalitions. This induces a norm of loyalty that enables leaders to reduce their effort and still survive. As a first step towards a theory of endogenous selection of institutions, we characterize the institutional preferences of the different segments of society based on the consequences of these institutions for individual welfare. We conclude by examining the implication of the model for the tenure of leaders, public policy, economic growth, corruption, taxation and ethnic politics. *
Regime Stability and Presidential Government: The Legacy of Authoritarian Rule, 1951-90
Several scholars of comparative politics, including Juan Linz and Arend Lijphart, have argued that presidential democracies are inherently less stable and representative than parliamentary regimes. This viewpoint, which had dominated the discipline, was challenged by Matthew Soberg Shugart and John Carey in Presidents and Assemblies, in which they argued that presidential government per se was not problematic; rather, Shugart and Carey demonstrated that particular institutional designs, such as the concentration of legislative powers in the hands of the president and incoherent party systems, tend to lead to regime instability.