This article analyses the causal effect of the 1993 electoral reform in New Zealand on party system fragmentation using the ‘synthetic’ control method. Previous studies using cross-national evidence suggest that electoral reforms change the number of parties. However, they do not take into account possible endogeneity problems and usually focus on their short-term effects. Since the electoral system in use in this country before the change was first past the post (FPTP), I can create a ‘synthetic’ control democracy that had the same institutional framework but did not modify the rules of the game. The results indicate that the electoral reform produced the expected effects on party system size at the electoral level, but that these effects tended to disappear in the long run. In contrast, electoral system effects at the legislative level were larger and stickier over time.
AbadieAlbertoDiamondAlexHainmuellerJens (2015) Comparative Politics and the Synthetic Control Method. American Journal of Political Science59(2): 495–510.
2.
AbadieAlbertoGardeazabalJavier (2003) The Economic Costs of Conflict: A case study of the Basque Country. American Economic Review41: 113–132.
3.
AbramsonPaul RAldrichJohn H.AndréBlais, et al. (2010) Comparing Strategic Voting Under FPTP and PR. Comparative Political Studies43(1): 61–90.
4.
Amorim NetoOctavioCoxGary W. (1997) Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties. American Journal of Political Science41: 149–174.
5.
BenoitKenneth (2000) Which Electoral Formula is the Most Proportional? A new look with new evidence. Political Analysis8(4): 381–388.
6.
BestRobin E. (2012) The Long and the Short of It: Electoral institutions and the dynamics of party system size, 1950–2005. European Journal of Political Research51: 141–165.
7.
BlaisAndréLachatRomainHinoAiro, et al. (2011) The Mechanical and Psychological Effects of Electoral Systems: A quasi-experimental study. Comparative Political Studies44(12): 1599–1621.
8.
BoixCarles (1999) Setting the Rules of the Game: The choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. American Political Science Review93(3): 609–624.
9.
BullMartinNewellJames L. (1993). Italian Politics and the 1992 Elections: From ‘Stable Instability’ to Instability and Change. Parliamentary Affairs46: 203–227.
10.
ClarkWilliam R.GolderMatt (2006) Rehabilitating Duverger’s Theory. Comparative Political Studies39(6): 679–708.
11.
ColomerJosep M. (2005) It’s Parties that Choose Electoral Systems (or, Duverger’s Laws Upside Down). Political Studies53(1): 1–21.
12.
ColomerJosep M. (2017) Party System Effects on Electoral Rules. In HerronErik S.PekkanenRobertShugartMatthew S. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 69–84.
13.
CoxGary W. (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CrispBrian F.PotterJoshua D.LeeJohn W. (2012b) Entry and Coordination in Mixed-member Systems: A controlled comparison testing the contamination hypothesis. Journal of Politics74(2): 571–583.
16.
CusackThomasIversenTorbenSoskiceDavid (2007) Economic Interests and The Origins of Electoral Systems. American Political Science Review101(3): 373–391.
17.
DaltonRussell (2012) The Apartisan American: Dealignment and Changing Electoral Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
18.
DuvergerMaurice (1964) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. 1954. Rpt. London: Methuen and Co.
19.
FearonJames D. (2003) Ethnic Structure and Cultural Diversity by Country. Journal of Economic Growth8: 195–222.
20.
FivaJon H.FolkeOlle (2016) Mechanical and Psychological Effects of Electoral Reform. British Journal of Political Science46(2): 265–279.
21.
FranklinMarkMackieTomValenHenry (1992) Electoral Change: Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22.
FujiwaraThomas (2011) A Regression Discontinuity Test of Strategic Voting and Duverger’s Law. Quarterly Journal of Political Science6: 197–233.
23.
GiannettiDanielaGrofmanBernard (2011) A Natural Experiment on Electoral Law Reform: Evaluating the Long Run Consequences of 1990’s Electoral Reform in Italy and Japan. London: Springer.
24.
GrummJohn G. (1958) Theories of Electoral Systems. Midwest Journal of Political Science2(4): 357–376.
25.
HickenAllenStollHeather (2011) Presidents and Parties: How presidential elections shape coordination in legislative elections. Comparative Political Studies44(7): 854–883.
26.
LaaksoMarkkuTaageperaRein (1979) Effective Number of Parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
27.
LijphartArend (1984) Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
LijphartArend (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-seven Democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
LipsetSeymour M.RokkanStein (1967) Cleavage Structures, Party Systems and Voter Alignments: An Introduction. In LipsetS. M.RokkanS. (Eds.), Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press.
30.
LinJih-Wen (2006) The Politics of Reform in Japan and Taiwan. Journal of Democracy17(2): 118–131.
31.
MoserRobert G.ScheinerEthan (2004) Mixed Electoral Systems and Electoral System Effects: Controlled comparison and cross-national analysis. Electoral Studies23(4): 575–599.
32.
PalmerGeoffrey W.R. (1979) Compensation for Incapacity: A Study of Law and Social Change in New Zealand and Australia. Wellington: Oxford University Press.
33.
PotterJoshua D. (2014) Demographic Diversity and District-level Party Systems. Comparative Political Studies47(13): 1801–1829.
34.
PrzeworskiAdam, et al. (2000) Democracy and Development: Political Regimes and Economic Well-being in the World, 1950–1990. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
35.
ReedSteven R. (2005) Japan: Haltingly Towards a Two-party System. In GallagherMichaelMitchellPaul (eds) The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 277–293.
36.
RenwickAlan (2010) The Politics of Electoral Reform: Changing the rules of democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
RieraPedro (2015) Electoral Systems and the Sheriff of Nottingham: Determinants of disproportionality in new and established democracies. Party Politics21(2): 222–233.
38.
SelbPeter (2012) Strategic Adaptation to New Electoral Systems. European Journal of Political Research51(5): 583–606.
39.
TaageperaRein (2007) Predicting Party Sizes: The Logic of Simple Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
TavitsMargitAnnusTaavi (2006) Learning to Make Votes Count: The role of democratic experience. Electoral Studies25(1): 72–90.
41.
TiemannGuido (2015) Local Districts, National Contexts, and the Number of Parties. West European Politics38(1): 123–144.
42.
VowlesJack (2005) New Zealand: The Consolidation of Reform? In GallagherMichaelMitchellPaul (eds) The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 295–312.
43.
WardDalston G. (2015) Causal Effects of Electoral Laws. Paper prepared for presentation at the MPSA Conference: Chicago, IL.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
