We present a theory of comparative political institutions based on the concept of consensus democracy and social choice theory. Unlike Lijphart, we argue that “consensus democracy” is not a special form of democracy characterized by mutual vetoes, but rather the simplest form of democracy, which we refer to as PR-majority rule. We construct a typology of political institutions based on differences with this simple model. Contra Tsebelis’s veto players approach, our theory predicts that PR-majority rule should be the most flexible form of democracy. We test this with data on overall patterns of government spending and on welfare state reform.
AllanJamesScruggsLyle. (2004). Political partisanship and welfare state reform in advanced industrial societies. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 496-512.
2.
AndersonKarenImmergutEllen. (2007). Sweden: After social democratic hegemony. In ImmergutEllenAndersonKarenSchulzeIsabelle (Eds.), The handbook of West European pension politics (pp. 349-395). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
BartleJohnDellepiane-AvellanedaSebastianStimsonJames. (2011). The moving centre: Preferences for government activity in Britain, 1950–2005. British Journal of Political Science, 41, 259-285.
4.
BiancoWilliam T.HollowayJamesLynchMichael S.MillerGary J.SenedItai. (2008). Constrained instability: Experiments on the robustness of the uncovered set. Political Analysis, 16, 115-137.
5.
BiancoWilliamJeliazkovIvanSenedItai. (2004). The uncovered set and the limits of legislative action. Political Analysis, 12, 256-277.
6.
BiancoWilliamLynchMichaelMillerGarySenedItai. (2006). “A theory waiting to be discovered and used”: A reanalysis of canonical experiments on majority rule decision making. Journal of Politics, 68, 838-851.
7.
BirchfieldVickiCrepazMarkus. (1998). The impact of constitutional structures and competitive veto points on income inequality in industrialized democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 34, 175-200.
8.
BlackDuncan. (1948). On the rationale of group decision making. Journal of Political Economy, 56, 23-34.
9.
BonoliGiuliano. (2001). Switzerland: The impact of direct democracy. In PiersonPaul (Ed.), The new politics of the welfare state (pp. 238-264). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BrunoMichael. (1993). Crisis, stabilization, and economic reform: Therapy by consensus. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
11.
CastlesFrancisMitchellDeborah. (1993). Worlds of welfare and families of nations. In CastlesFrancis (Ed.), Patterns of public policy in Western democracies (pp. 93-128). Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth.
12.
ColomerJosep. (2001). Political institutions: Democracy and social choice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
CondorcetM. J. A. N. de CaritatMarquis de. (1986). Lettres D’un Bourgeois de New Heaven à un Citoyen de Virginie, sur L’Inutilité de Partager le Pouvoir Législatif en Pleusieurs Corps [Letter from a Burgher of New Haven to a citizen of Virginia on why it is pointless to share legislative power between several bodies]. In de BernonO. (Ed.), Sur Les Élections et Austres Textes (pp. 205-272). Paris, France: Fayard. (Original work published 1787)
14.
CrepazMarkus. (2001). Veto players, globalization and the redistributive capacity of the state: A panel study of 15 OECD countries. Journal of Public Policy, 21, 1-22.
15.
CusackThomasIversenTorbenSoskiceDavid. (2007). Economic interests and the origins of electoral systems. American Political Science Review, 101, 373-391.
16.
DöringHerbert. (1996). Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag.
17.
Esping-AndersenGøsta. (1990). Three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
FerreraMaurizioJessoulaMatteo. (2007). Italy: A narrow gate for path shift. In ImmergutEllenAndersonKarenSchulzeIsabelle (Eds.), The handbook of West European pension politics (pp. 396-453). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
GerringJohnThackerStromMorenoCarola. (2005). Centripetal democratic governance: A theory and global inquiry. American Political Science Review, 99, 567-581.
20.
Green-PedersonChristoffer. (2002). The politics of justification: Party competition and welfare-state retrenchment in Denmark and the Netherlands from 1982 to 1998. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
21.
HeniszWitold. (2000). The institutional environment for economic growth. Economics and Politics, 12, 1-31.
22.
HuberEvelynRaginCharlesStephensJohn. (1993). Social democracy, Christian democracy, constitutional structure and the welfare state. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 711-749.
23.
HuberEvelynStephensJohn. (2000). Partisan governance, women’s employment, and the social democratic service state. American Sociological Review, 65, 323-342.
24.
HuberEvelynStephensJohn. (2001). Development and crisis of the welfare state. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
ImmergutEllen. (1992). Health politics: Interests and institutions in Western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
ImmergutEllenAndersonKarenSchulzeIsabelle (Eds.). (2007). The handbook of West European pension politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27.
IversenTorben. (2005). Capitalism, democracy and welfare. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
IversenTorbenSoskiceDavid. (2006). Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: Why some democracies redistribute more than others. American Political Science Review, 100, 165-181.
29.
KitscheltHerbert. (2001). Partisan competition and welfare state retrenchment: When do politicians choose unpopular policies? In PiersonPaul (Ed.), The new politics of the welfare state (pp. 265-304). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
LijphartArend. (1968). The politics of accommodation: Pluralism and democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley: University of California Press.
31.
LijphartArend. (1977). Democracy in plural societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
LijphartArend. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
33.
LijphartArend. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34.
LynchJulia. (2006). Age in the welfare state: The origins of social spending on pensioners, workers and children. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
MacDonaldMichaelBudgeIan. (2005). Elections, parties, democracy: Conferring the median mandate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
McGannAnthony. (2006). The logic of democracy: Reconciling equality, deliberation and minority protection. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
37.
McKelveyRichard. (1976). Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. Journal of Economic Theory, 16, 472-482.
38.
McKelveyRichard. (1979). General conditions for global intransitivities in formal voting models. Econometrica, 47, 1085-1112.
39.
McKelveyRichard. (1986). Covering, dominance, and the institution-free properties of social choice. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 283-314.
40.
MillerNicholas. (1980). A new solution set for tournaments and majority voting: Further graph-theoretical approaches to the theory of voting. American Journal of Political Science, 24, 68-96.
41.
MylesJohnPiersonPaul. (2001). The comparative political economy of pension reform. In PiersonPaul (Ed.), The new politics of the welfare state (pp. 305-333). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
PerssonTorstenTabelliniGuido. (1999). The size and scope of government: Comparative politics with rational politicians. European Economic Review, 43, 699-735.
43.
PiersonPaul. (1994). Dismantling the welfare state: Reagan, Thatcher and the politics of retrenchment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
PiersonPaul. (2001). Coping with permanent austerity: Welfare state restructuring in affluent democracies. In PiersonPaul (Ed.), The new politics of the welfare state (pp. 410-456). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45.
PlottCharles. (1967). A notion of equilibrium under majority rule. American Economic Review, 57, 787-806.
46.
PowellG. BinghamJr.(2000). Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
47.
RaeDouglas. (1967). The political consequences of electoral laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48.
RikerWilliam. (1982). Liberalism versus populism: A confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
49.
ScharpfFritz. (1988). The joint-decision trap: Lessons from German federalism and European integration. Public Administration, 66, 239-278.
50.
SchofieldNorman. (1978). Instability of simple dynamic games. Review of Economic Studies, 45, 557-594.
51.
SchofieldNorman. (1996). The heart of a polity. In SchofieldNormanMilfordAnnette(Eds.), Collective decision-making: Social choice and political economy (pp. 183-220). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
52.
SchofieldNormanSenedItai. (2006). Multiparty democracy: Elections and legislative politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
StimsonJames. (1999). Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles and swings (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.
54.
StromKaare. (1990). Minority government and majority rule. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
StromKaare. (2000). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 37, 261-289.
56.
TaageperaReinShugartMatthew. (1989). Seats and votes: The effects and determinants of electoral systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
57.
TsebelisGeorge. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, paliamentarianism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25, 289-326.
58.
TsebelisGeorge. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59.
TsebelisGeorgeChangEric. (2004). Veto players and the structure of budgets in advanced industrialized countries. European Journal of Political Research, 43, 449-476.
