This paper offers a new electoral geography perspective on two stylized facts that do not fit easily with our current understanding of the implications of electoral rules for electoral politics and social policy: (1) proportional representation (PR) electoral rules are not always associated with more generous social spending. In some cases, we observe comparatively high levels of social spending in majoritarian single-member district (SMD) systems. (2) Contrary to our theoretical expectations, national two-party competition occurs rarely, even under SMD rules. Here, I demonstrate the importance of electoral geography through a series of analytic examples that are based on a simple model of electoral politics, and in which all possible combinations of electoral boundaries, rules, and voter locations are manipulated.
AcemogluDRobinsonJ (2006) Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AlesinaAGlaeserEL (2004) Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
BoixC (2003) Democracy and Redistribution. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
4.
CorneoGGruneHP (2002) Individual preferences for political redistribution. Journal of Public Economics83(1): 83–107.
5.
CoxGNetoOA (1997) Electoral institutions, cleavage structures and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science41(1): 149–174.
6.
CusackTIversenTSoskiceD (2007) Economic interests and the origins of electoral institutions. American Political Science Review101(3): 373–391.
7.
DorlingDRigbyJWheelerB. (2007) Poverty, Wealth, and Place in Britain, 1968 to 2005. Bristol, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
8.
DuvergerM (1954) Political Parties. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
9.
European Union (2010) Eurostat Regional Yearbook2010. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
10.
GudginGTaylorP (1979) Seats, Votes, and the Spatial Organisation of Elections. Norwich, UK: Page Brothers.
11.
IversenTSoskiceD (2006) Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: why some democracies redistribute more than others. American Political Science Review100(2): 165–181.
12.
IversenTSoskiceD (2009) Distribution and redistribution: the shadow of the nineteenth century. World Politics61(3): 199–218.
13.
JohnstonRJPattieCJ (2006) Putting Voters in Their Place: Geography and Elections in Great Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
JuskoKL (2008) The political representation of the poor. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy (Political Science) at The University of Michigan.
15.
LizzeriAPersicoN (2003) The provision of public goods under alternative electoral incentives. American Economic Review91(1): 225–239.
16.
LupuNPontussonJ (2011) The structure of inequality and the politics of redistribution. American Political Science Review105(2): 316–336.
17.
MeltzerAHRichardSF (1981) A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy89(5): 914–927.
18.
MilanovicB (2000) The median-voter hypothesis, income inequality, and income redistribution: an empirical test with the required data. European Journal of Political Economy16(3): 367–410.
19.
MonroeBRoseAG (2002) Electoral systems and unimagined consequences: partisan effects of districted proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science46(1): 67–89.
20.
NevitteNBlaisAGidengilE. (2009) Socio-economic status and non-voting: a cross-national comparative analysis. In: KlingemannHans-Dieter (ed), A Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 1995–2000. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD) (2013) Social expenditure database (socx). Available at www.oecd.org/els/social/expenditure (accessed January 24, 2014).
22.
PerssonTTabelliniG (2000) Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
PerssonTTabelliniG (2003) The Economic Effects of Constitutions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
PerssonTRolandGTabelliniG (2007) Electoral rules and government spending in parliamentary democracies. Quarterly Journal of Political Science2: 155–188.
25.
RomerT (1975) Individual welfare, majority voting and the properties of a linear income tax. Journal of Public Economics14: 164–185.
US Census (2000) Census 2000 summary file 3 (SF 3) – sample data: family income in 1999. Available at http://factfinder2.census.gov (accessed January 24, 2014).
28.
WilsonSGPlaneDAMackunPJ. (2012) Patterns of metropolitan and micropolitan population change: 2000 to 2010. Report, 2010 Census Special Reports, US Census Bureau.
29.
WolfingerRERosenstoneSJ (1980) Who Votes?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
