The phenomenon of legislative party switching has attracted considerable attention among scholars. Studies show that parties are likely to experience defections if they are unable to offer their legislators electoral, office and policy benefits. While often deemed a symptom of a weakly institutionalized party system, switching may also be frequent in established democracies. Yet, surprisingly, we have no empirical evidence to help us understand whether party benefits that drive switchers are different in established democracies and new democracies. I argue that parties that fail to provide their members with re-election prospects or government access are likely to witness switching only in new democracies. In advanced democracies, switching is likely to be associated with ideological identity and policy motives. The statistical analysis of party switching across 25 European advanced and post-communist democracies confirms my expectations.
AlbrightJJ (2010) The multidimensional nature of party competition. Party Politics16(6): 699–719.
2.
AldrichJH (1995) Why Parties?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
AldrichJHBiancoWT (1992) A game-theoretic model of party affiliation of candidates and office holders. Mathematical and Computer Modelling16(8–9): 103–116.
4.
AndréADepauwSDeschouwerK (2012) Legislators’ local roots: disentangling the effect of district magnitude. Party Politics20: 904–917.
5.
AndréADepauwSMartinS (2015) Electoral systems and legislators’ constituency effort: the mediating effect of electoral vulnerability. Comparative Political Studies48(4): 464–496.
6.
BenoitKLaverMMikhaylovS (2009) Treating words as data with error: uncertainty in text statements of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science53(2): 495–513.
7.
ButlerDStokesD (1974) Political Change in Britain. London: Macmillan.
8.
CareyJMShugartMS (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies14(4): 417–439.
9.
CoxGW (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (2007) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
DahlRA (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
13.
DesposatoSScheinerE (2008) Governmental centralization and party affiliation: legislator strategies in Brazil and Japan. American Political Science Review102(04): 509–524.
14.
DesposatoSW (2006) Parties for rent? Ambition, ideology, and party switching in Brazil’s chamber of deputies. American Journal of Political Science50(1): 62–80.
15.
DinasEGemenisK (2010) Measuring parties’ ideological positions with manifesto data: a critical evaluation of the competing methods. Party Politics16(4): 427–450.
16.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
17.
FarrellDM (2011) Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. London: Macmillan International Higher Education.
18.
FranzmannSKaiserA (2006) Locating political parties in policy space: a reanalysis of party manifesto data. Party Politics12(2): 163–188.
19.
GemenisK (2012) Proxy documents as a source of measurement error in the Comparative Manifestos Project. Electoral Studies31(3): 594–604.
20.
GemenisK (2013) What to do (and not to do) with the Comparative Manifestos Project data. Political Studies61(suppl 1): 3–23.
21.
HellerWBMershonC (2005) Party switching in the Italian chamber of deputies, 1996–2001. Journal of Politics67(2): 536–559.
22.
HellerWBMershonC (2008) Dealing in discipline: party switching and legislative voting in the Italian chamber of deputies, 1988–2000. American Journal of Political Science52(4): 910–925.
23.
HerronES (2002) Causes and consequences of fluid faction membership in Ukraine. Europe-Asia Studies54(4): 625–639.
24.
KatoJ (1998) When the party breaks up: exit and voice among Japanese legislators. The American Political Science Review92(4): 857–870.
25.
KatoJYamamotoK (2009) Competition for power: party switching and party system change in Japan. In: HellerWBMershonC (eds) Political Parties and Legislative Party Switching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 233–263.
26.
KitscheltH (2000) Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies33(6–7): 845–879.
27.
KitscheltHHawkinsKALunaJP, et al. (2010). Latin American Party Systems, Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
KitscheltHMansfeldovaZMarkowskiR, et al. (1999) Post-Communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
KleinE (2016) Electoral rules and party switching: how legislators prioritize their goals. Legislative Studies Quarterly41(3): 715–738.
30.
KleinE (2018) The personal vote and legislative party switching. Party Politics24(5): 501–510.
31.
KreuzerMPettaiV (2003) Patterns of political instability: affiliation patterns of politicians and voters in post-communist Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Studies in Comparative International Development38(2): 76–98.
32.
LaverMBenoitK (2003) The evolution of party systems between elections. American Journal of Political Science47(2): 215–233.
33.
McElroyG (2003) Party switching in the European Parliament: why bother?Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
34.
McLaughlinE (2011) Electoral regimes and party-switching: floor-crossing in South Africa’s local legislatures. Party Politics18(4): 563–579.
35.
McMenaminIGwiazdaA (2011) Three roads to institutionalisation: vote-, office- and policy-seeking explanations of party switching in Poland. European Journal of Political Research50(6): 838–866.
36.
MainwaringSScullyT (1995) Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
37.
MainwaringSTorcalM (2006) Party system institutionalization and party system theory after the third wave of democratization. In: KatzSRCrottyW (eds) Handbook of Political Parties. London: Sage, pp. 204–227.
38.
MairP (1997) Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
MershonCShvetsovaO (2013a) The microfoundations of party system stability in legislatures. The Journal of Politics75(04): 865–878.
40.
MershonCShvetsovaO (2013b) Party System Change in Legislatures Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
MüllerWCStrømK (1999) Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
NielsenMKAndersenAMPedersenHH (2018) Balancing costs of legislative party switching in the Danish Parliament 1953–2015. Parliamentary Affairs72(1): 42–58.
43.
NokkenTP (2009) Party switching and the procedural party agenda in the U.S. House of Representatives. In: HellerWBMershonC (eds) Political Parties and Legislative Party Switching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan pp. 81–108.
44.
NokkenTPPooleKT (2004) Congressional party defection in American history. Legislative Studies Quarterly29(4): 545–568.
45.
NorrisP (1997) Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
O’BrienDZShomerY (2013) A cross-national analysis of party switching. Legislative Studies Quarterly38(1): 111–141.
47.
PedersenMN (1983) Changing patterns of electoral volatility in European party systems, 1948–1977: explorations in explanation. In: DaalderH.MairP. (eds) Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change. London: SAGE, pp. 29–66.
48.
PowellENTuckerJA (2014) Revisiting electoral volatility in post-communist countries: new data, new results and new approaches. British Journal of Political Science44(01): 123–147.
49.
PrzeworskiA (1975) Institutionalization of voting patterns, or is mobilization the source of decay?American Political Science Review69(01): 49–67.
50.
ReedSRScheinerE (2003) Electoral incentives and policy preferences: mixed motives behind party defections in Japan. British Journal of Political Science33(03): 469–490.
51.
RoseR (1995) Mobilizing demobilized voters in post-communist societies. Party Politics1(4): 549–563.
52.
RoseRMunroNWhiteS (2001) Voting in a floating party system: the 1999 Duma election. Europe-Asia Studies53(3): 419–443.
53.
SchumpeterJ ([1942] 2013) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Routledge.
54.
SeviSYoshinakaABlaisA (2018) Legislative party switching and the changing nature of the Canadian party system, 1867–2015. Canadian Journal of Political Science51(3): 665–695.
55.
ShabadGSlomczynskiKM (2004) Inter-party mobility among parliamentary candidates in post-communist East Central Europe. Party Politics10(2): 151–176.
56.
TaageperaRGrofmanB (2003) Mapping the indices of seats–votes disproportionality and inter-election volatility. Party Politics9(6): 659–677.
57.
TavitsM (2005) The development of stable party support: electoral dynamics in post-communist Europe. American Journal of Political Science49(2): 283–298.
58.
TavitsM (2008) On the linkage between electoral volatility and party system instability in Central and Eastern Europe. European Journal of Political Research47(5): 537–555.
59.
TavitsMLetkiN (2009) When left is right: party ideology and policy in post-communist Europe. American Political Science Review103(04): 555–569.
60.
ThamesF (2016) Electoral rules and legislative parties in the Ukrainian Rada. Legislative Studies Quarterly41(1): 35–59.
61.
ThamesFC (2007) Searching for the electoral connection: parliamentary party switching in the Ukrainian Rada, 1998–2002. Legislative Studies Quarterly32(2): 223–256.
62.
Van der BrugW (2003) Analysing party dynamics by taking partially overlapping snapshots. In: LaverM (ed) Estimating the Policy Position of Political Actors. New York: Routledge, pp. 135–152.
63.
Van der BrugWVan SpanjeJ (2009) Immigration, Europe and the ‘new’ cultural dimension. European Journal of Political Research48(3): 309–334.
64.
Van der MeerTWVan ElsasELubbeR, et al. (2015) Are volatile voters erratic, whimsical or seriously picky? A panel study of 58 waves into the nature of electoral volatility (The Netherlands 2006–2010). Party Politics21(1): 100–114.
65.
VolkensALehmannPMerzN, et al. (2014) The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2014b. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
66.
YoungDJ (2014) An initial look into party switching in Africa: evidence from Malawi. Party Politics20(1): 105–115.
67.
ZallerJ (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
