The method of candidate selection used by parties can influence a number of outcomes related to party organization and representation. In the past decade, Japan’s political parties have increasingly experimented with an ‘open recruitment’ system for selecting new candidates for national elections, but the degree of centralization in the process varies by party. We use candidate and voter survey data to assess whether the new system of recruitment has resulted in intraparty differences in the policy positions of candidates, and their distance from party supporters and the median voter. We find evidence that the new candidate selection method has resulted in the nomination of more centrist and urban-inclined candidates, an indication of greater responsiveness to voters, and that they exhibit higher levels of policy cohesion than their counterparts selected through traditional methods. However, these differences depend on the degree of party centralization in the process.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowLGlasgowG (2004) Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: Do parties respond to public opinion or to past election results?British Journal of Political Science34(4): 589–610.
2.
AsanoM (2006) Shimin Shakai ni okeru Seido Kaikaku: Senkyo Seido to Kōhosha Rikurūto [System Reform at the Level of Civil Society: Electoral System and Candidate Recruitment]. Tokyo, Japan: Keio University Press.
3.
BarneaSRahatG (2007) Reforming candidate selection methods: A three-level approach. Party Politics13(3): 375–394.
4.
BilleL (2001) Democratizing a democratic procedure: myth or reality? Candidate selection in Western European parties, 1960–1990. Party Politics7(3): 363–380.
5.
CrossWPKatzRS (2013) The Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
DaltonRJ (1985) Political parties and political representation. Comparative Political Studies18(3): 267–299.
7.
EzrowLDe VriesCSteenbergenMEdwardsE (2011) Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: Do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?Party Politics17(3): 275–301.
8.
FaasT (2003) To defect or not to defect? National, institutional and party group pressures on MEPs and their consequences for party group cohesion in the European parliament. European Journal of Political Research42(6): 841–66.
9.
FukuiH (1997) Japan. In: NorrisP (ed.) Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 98–113.
10.
GallagherM (1988) Introduction. In: GallagherMMarshM (eds) Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics. London, UK: Sage, pp. 1–19.
11.
GallagherMMarshM (eds) (1988) Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics. London, UK: Sage.
12.
GaunderA (2013) The DPJ and women: The limited impact of the 2009 alternation of power on policy and governance. In: KushidaKELipscyPY (eds) Japan under the DPJ: The Politics of Transition and Governance. Stanford, CA: The Walter H. Shorenstein Asia–Pacific Research Center.
13.
GolderMStramskiJ (2010) Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science54(1): 90–106.
14.
HarmelR (2002) Party organizational change: Competing explanations? In: KurtRLMüller-RommelF (eds) Political Parties in the New Europe: Political and Analytical Challenges. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 119–142.
15.
HazanRYRahatG (2010) Democracy within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16.
HigashiY (2008) Minshutō no Hata Age [Raising the flag of the DPJ]. In: TachibanaT (ed.) Minshutō Jūnen-shi [DPJ Ten-Year History]. Tokyo, Japan: Daiichi Shorin, pp. 43–80.
17.
HixS (2004) Electoral institutions and legislative behavior: Explaining voting defection in the European parliament. World Politics56(2): 194–223.
18.
HuberJPowellGB (1994) Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics46(3): 291–326.
19.
IshibashiMReedSR (1992) Second-generation Diet members and democracy in Japan: Hereditary seats. Asian Survey32(1): 366–379.
20.
KabashimaITakenakaY (2012) Ideorogi [Ideology]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
21.
KatzRS (2001) The problem of candidate selection and models of party democracy. Party Politics7(3): 277–296.
22.
KitscheltH (1989) The internal politics of parties: The law of curvilinear disparity revisited. Political Studies37(1): 400–421.
23.
KoellnerP (2011) The Democratic Party of Japan: Development, organization, and programmatic profile. In: GaunderA (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Japanese Politics. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 24–35.
24.
KraussEPekkanenRJ (2011) The Rise and Fall of Japan’s LDP: Political Party Organizations as Historical Institutions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
25.
LundellK (2004) Determinants of candidate selection: Degree of centralization in comparative perspective. Party Politics10(1): 25–47.
26.
MairPMüllerWCPlasserF (2004) Introduction: Electoral challenges and party responses. In: MairPMüllerWCPlasserF (eds) Political Parties and Electoral Change. London, UK: Sage, pp. 1–19.
27.
MayJD (1973) Opinion structure of political parties: The special law of curvilinear disparity. Political Studies21(2): 135–151.
28.
MillerWEStokesDE (1963) Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review57(1): 45–56.
29.
NemotoKPekkanenRKraussE (2014) Over-nominating candidates, undermining the party: The collective action problem under SNTV in Japan. Party Politics20(5): 740–750.
30.
NorrisP (1995) May’s law of curvilinear disparity revisited: Leaders, officers, members and voters in British political parties. Party Politics1(29): 29–47.
31.
NorrisP (ed) (1997) Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
RahatGHazanRY (2001) Candidate selection methods: An analytical framework. Party Politics7(3): 297–322.
33.
ReedSR (2009) Party strategy or candidate strategy: How did the LDP run the right number of candidates in Japan’s multi-member districts?Party Politics15(1): 295–314.
34.
ScarrowSEWebbPFarrellDM (2000) From social integration to electoral contestation: The changing distribution of power within political parties. In: DaltonRJWattenbergMP (eds) Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford, UK and New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 129–153.
35.
ScheinerE (2006) Democracy Without Competition in Japan: Opposition Failure in a One-Party Dominant State. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
ShiratoriR (1988) Japan: Localism, factionalism, personalism. In: GallagherMMarshM (eds) Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics. London, UK: Sage, pp. 169–189.
38.
ShojiK (2012) Nihon no Nidai Seitō to Seitō Kōhosha Kōbo Seido: Jimintō Miyagi Kenren no Keiken ga Shimesu Seido no Evolution [Japan’s two-party system and open recruitment: Evidence of system evolution in the experience of the LDP party branch in Miyagi Prefecture]Gakushuin Daigaku Hōgakukai Zasshi48(1): 307–341.
39.
SmithDM (2012) Succeeding in Politics: Dynasties in Democracies. PhD Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, CA.
40.
SmithDM (2013) Candidate recruitment in the 2012 election: New parties, new methods…same old faces? In: PekkanenRReedSRScheinerE (eds) Japan Decides 2012: The Japanese General Election. London, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan, pp. 101–122.
41.
SmithDMPekkanenRJKraussES (2013) Building a party: Candidate recruitment in the Democratic Party of Japan, 1996–2012. In: KushidaKELipscyPY (eds) Japan under the DPJ: The Politics of Transition and Governance. Stanford, CA: The Walter H. Shorenstein Asia–Pacific Research Center, pp. 157–190.
42.
SpiesDCKaiserA (2014) Does the mode of candidate selection affect the representativeness of parties?Party Politics20(4): 576–590.
43.
TaniguchiM (2006) Shūgiin Giin no Seisaku Ichi [Policy positions of members of the House of Representatives]. Nihon Seiji Kenkyū [Japanese Political Studies] 3(1): 90–106.
44.
TsutsumiH (2012) Kōhosha Sentei Katei no Kaihō to Seitō Soshiki [Opening up the candidate selection process and party organization]. Senkyo Kenkyu28(1): 5–20.
45.
UekamiTTsutsumiH (2011) Minshutō no Keisei Katei, Soshiki to Seisaku [DPJ formation process, organization and policies]. In: UekamiTTsutsumiH (eds) Minshutō no Soshiki to Seisaku [DPJ Organization and Policies]. Tokyo, Japan: Tōyōkeizai Shinpōsha, pp. 1–28.
46.
WeinerR (2011) The evolution of the DPJ: Two steps forward, one step back. In: SchoppaLJ (ed.) The Evolution of Japan’s Party System: Politics and Policy in an Era of Institutional Change. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, pp. 63–98.
