This research note re-examines the recent debate on mandate divide hypothesis in Taiwan (Batto, 2012; Rich, 2014). Specifically, I focus on bill sponsorship, which is relatively free from party influence and therefore more suitable for testing whether being elected either in a district or through a party list yields different parliamentary behaviors. For an empirical test, I use an original bill introduction data made by the individual legislators served in the six legislative terms from 1992 through 2012. The result supports for the mandate hypothesis: the nominal tier legislators introduce more bills than the list tier members.
AmesB (1995) Electoral rules, constituency pressures, and pork barrel: Bases of voting in the Brazilian Congress. The Journal of Politics57(2): 324–343.
2.
AmesB (2001) The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3.
ArnoldRD (1992) The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.
4.
BattoNF (2005) Electoral strategy, committee membership, and rent seeking in the Taiwanese legislature, 1992–2001. Legislative Studies Quarterly30(1): 43–62.
5.
BattoNF (2012) Differing mandates and party loyalty in mixed-member systems: Taiwan as a baseline case. Electoral Studies31(2): 384–392.
6.
CainBEFerejohnJAFiorinaMP (1984) The constituency service basis of the personal vote for U.S. Representatives and British Members of Parliament. American Political Science Review78(1): 110–125.
7.
CainBEFerejohnJAFiorinaMP (1987) The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
CareyJM (2012) Legislative Voting and Accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CareyJMShugartMS (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies14(4): 417–439.
10.
ClarkTDMartinaitisZDilbaR (2008) Electoral mandate and party cohesion: Does it matter in Lithuania?Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics24(3): 317–337.
11.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (1993) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CoxGWThiesMF (1998) The cost of intraparty competition the single, nontransferable vote and money politics in Japan. Comparative Political Studies31(3): 267–291.
14.
CrispBF (2007) Incentives in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: General Election Laws, Candidate Selection Procedures, and Cameral Rules. Comparative Political Studies40(12): 1460–1485.
15.
CrispBFEscobar-LemmonMCJonesBS. (2004) Vote-seeking incentives and legislative representation in six presidential democracies. The Journal of Politics66(3): 823–846.
16.
FennoRF (1973) Congressmen in Committees. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.
17.
FennoRF (1978) Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.
18.
FerraraF (2004) Frogs, mice and mixed electoral institutions: Party discipline in Italy’s XIV Chamber of Deputies. The Journal of Legislative Studies10(4): 10–31.
19.
HaspelMRemingtonTFSmithSS (1998) Electoral institutions and party cohesion in the Russian Duma. The Journal of Politics60(2): 417–439.
20.
HightonBRoccaMS (2005) Beyond the roll-call arena: The determinants of position taking in Congress. Political Research Quarterly58(2): 303–316.
21.
HixS (2004) Electoral institutions and legislative behavior. World Politics56(2): 194–223.
22.
IshiyamaJ (2000) Candidate recruitment, party organisation and the Communist successor parties: The cases of the the MSzP, the KPRF and the LDDP. Europe-Asia Studies52(5): 875–896.
23.
JouW (2009) Electoral reform and party system development in Japan and Taiwan. Asian Survey49(5): 759–785.
24.
JunH-WHixS (2010) Electoral systems, political career paths and legislative behavior: Evidence from South Korea’s mixed-member system. Japanese Journal of Political Science11(2): 153–171.
25.
KerevelY (2010) The legislative consequences of Mexico’s mixed-member electoral system, 2000–2009. Electoral Studies29(4): 691–703.
26.
KogerG (2003) Position taking and cosponsorship in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly28(2): 225–246.
27.
KunicovaJRemingtonTF (2008) Mandates, parties and dissent. Party Politics14(5): 555–574.
28.
LancasterTDPattersonDW (1990) Comparative pork barrel politics: Perceptions from the West German Bundestag. Comparative Political Studies22(4): 458–477.
29.
LinJ-W (2006) The politics of reform in Japan and Taiwan. Journal of Democracy17(2): 1–15.
30.
LinJ-W (2011) The endogenous change in electoral systems: The case of SNTV. Party Politics17(3): 365–384.
31.
McCubbinsMDRosenbluthFM (1995) Party provision for personal politics: Dividing the vote in Japan. In: CowheyPFMcCubbinsMD (eds) Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35–52.
32.
MayhewDR (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
33.
MorgensternS (2004) Patterns of legislative politics: Roll-call voting in Latin America and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
MoserRGScheinerE (2012) Electoral Systems and Political Context: How the Effects of Rules Vary across New and Established Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
NathanAJ (1993) The Legislative Yuan elections in Taiwan: Consequences of the electoral system. Asian Survey33(4): 424–438.
36.
PekkanenRNybladeBKraussES (2006) Electoral incentives in mixed-member systems: Party, posts, and zombie politicians in Japan. American Political Science Review100(2): 183–193.
37.
RichTS (2014) Party voting cohesion in mixed member legislative systems: Evidence from Korea and Taiwan. Legislative Studies Quarterly39(1): 113–135.
38.
RoccaMSGordonSB (2010) The position-taking value of bill sponsorship in Congress. Political Research Quarterly63(2): 387–397.
39.
SamuelsDJ (1999) Incentives to cultivate a party vote in candidate-centric electoral systems: Evidence from Brazil. Comparative Political Studies32(4): 487–518.
40.
SchillerWJ (1995) Senators as political entrepreneurs: Using bill sponsorship to shape legislative agendas. American Journal of Political Science39(1): 186–203.
41.
ShugartMWattenbergMP (2001) Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
ShengSY (2014) Change and continuity in legislators’ bill-introduction before and after the reform of the electoral system: An exploratory analysis. Taiwan Journal of Political Science18(1): 73–127. [In Chinese].
43.
SiebererU (2010) Behavioral consequences of mixed electoral systems: Deviating voting behavior of district and list MPs in the German Bundestag. Electoral Studies29(3): 484–496.
44.
SmithSS (2007) Party Influence in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
SmithSSRemingtonTF (2001) The Politics of Institutional Choice: The Formation of the Russian State Duma. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
StocktonH (2010) How rules matter: Electoral reform in Taiwan. Social Science Quarterly91(1): 1–21.
47.
StratmannTBaurM (2002) Plurality rule, proportional representation, and the German Bundestag: How incentives to pork-barrel differ across electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science46(3): 506–514.
48.
TalbertJCPotoskiM (2002) Setting the legislative agenda: The dimensional structure of bill cosponsoring and floor voting. The Journal of Politics64(3): 864–891.
49.
ThamesFCJr (2001) Legislative voting behaviour in the Russian Duma: Understanding the effect of mandate. Europe-Asia Studies53(6): 869–884.
50.
ThamesFC (2005) Searching for party effects in post-communist Ukraine. Communist and Post-Communist Studies38(1): 89–108.
51.
UslanerEM (1985) Casework and institutional design: Redeeming promises in the promised land. Legislative Studies Quarterly10(1): 35–52.
