Much has been studied on political representation either in democratic countries or in competitive authoritarian regimes. However, few have attempted to compare across the two. This article fills this gap by comparing democratic and authoritarian representations within the same collective decision-making body: the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. The original data derives from 2465 parliamentary questions made by 243 legislators serving in the last four legislative sessions from 1998 through 2012. The empirical analysis shows that the type of election variable does not have an impact on the volume of parliamentary questions but that it has a strong effect on the composition of parliamentary policy issues.
AcemogluDRobinsonJ (2012) Why Nations Fail. New York: Random House Digital, Inc.
2.
AchenCH (1978) Measuring representation. American Journal of Political Science21(4): 475–510.
3.
ArnoldRD (1992) The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.
4.
BartelsLM (1991) Constituency opinion and congressional policy making: The Reagan defense buildup. American Political Science Review85(2): 457–474.
5.
BaumR (2000) Democracy deformed: Hong Kong’s 1998 legislative elections – and beyond. The China Quarterly162: 439–464.
6.
BenoitKLaverM (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.
7.
BoixCSvolikMW (2013) The foundations of limited authoritarian government: Institutions, commitment, and power-sharing in dictatorships. The Journal of Politics75(2): 300–316.
8.
BrunnerM (2012) Parliaments and Legislative Activity: Motivations for Bill Introduction. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
9.
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.
10.
CareyJM (2007) Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 92–107.
11.
CareyJM (2012) Legislative Voting and Accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
ChengJYS (2010) Maintaining the political status quo? Hong Kong’s legislative council elections. Issues and Studies46(4): 181–216.
13.
CheungABL (2007) Executive-led governance or executive power hollowed-out: The political quagmire of Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Political Science15(1): 17–38.
14.
ChoYN (2006) The politics of lawmaking in Chinese local people’s congresses. The China Quarterly187: 592–609.
15.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (1993) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
16.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
DahlRA (2000) On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
18.
De TocquevilleA (1945) Democracy in America. New York: Vintage.
19.
EulauHKarpsPD (1977) The puzzle of representation: Specifying components of responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly2(3): 233–254.
20.
FennoRF (1973) Congressmen in Committees. Little, Brown: Boston.
21.
FerrariSCribari-NetoF (2004) Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics31(7): 799–815.
22.
FiorinaMP (1989) Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.
23.
FranklinMNNortonP (1993) Parliamentary Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
FriedrichCJBrzezinskiZK (1965) Totalitarian Dictatorship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
GandhiJ (2008) Political Institutions Under Dictatorship. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
GandhiJLust-OkarE (2009) Elections under authoritarianism. Annual Review of Political Science12: 403–422.
27.
GandhiJPrzeworskiA (2007) Authoritarian institutions and the survival of autocrats. Comparative Political Studies40(11): 1279–1301.
28.
HallRL (1996) Participation in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
HerfindahlOC (1950) Concentration in the Steel Industry. New York: Columbia University.
30.
HirschmanAO (1945) National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade. Berkeley: University of California Press.
31.
HixS (2004) Electoral institutions and legislative behavior. World Politics56(2): 194–223.
32.
JangJ (2015) Competing political visions in the legislative council of Hong Kong. Journal of Chinese Political Science21(1): 89–102.
33.
JonesMP (2002) Legislator behavior and executive-legislative relations in Latin America. Latin American Research Review37(3): 176–188.
34.
KamoTTakeuchiH (2013) Representation and local people’s congresses in China: A case study of the Yangzhou Municipal People’s Congress. Journal of Chinese Political Science18(1): 41–60.
35.
KingGTomzMWittenbergJ (2000) Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44(2): 347–361.
36.
KwongBK-K (2007) Patron–client politics in Hong Kong: A case study of the 2002 and 2005 chief executive elections. Journal of Contemporary China16(52): 389–415.
37.
LamJ (2010) Party institutionalization In Hong Kong. Asian Perspective34(2): 54–82.
38.
LamJT (2000) The Political Dynamics of Hong Kong under the Chinese Sovereignty. New York: Nova Science Publishers Incorporated.
39.
LamW-MLuiPL-TWongW (2012) Contemporary Hong Kong Government and Politics. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
40.
LaverMHuntWB (1992) Policy and Party Competition. New York: Routledge.
41.
LoSH (2004) Party penetration of society in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Political Science12(1): 1–35.
42.
LoSS-H (2010) Competing Chinese Political Visions: Hong Kong vs. Beijing on Democracy. Santa Barbara: Praeger Security International.
43.
LohCExchangeC (eds) (2006) Functional Constituencies. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
44.
LongJS (1997) Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
45.
MaNChoyC-K (2003) The impact of electoral rule change on party campaign strategy: Hong Kong as a case study. Party Politics9(3): 347–367.
46.
MagaloniB (2008) Credible power-sharing and the longevity of authoritarian rule. Comparative Political Studies41(4-5): 715–741.
47.
MagaloniBKricheliR (2010) Political Order and One-Party Rule. Annual Review of Political Science13(1): 123–143.
48.
MaleskyESchulerP (2010) Nodding or needling: Analyzing delegate responsiveness in an authoritarian parliament. American Political Science Review104(3): 482–502.
49.
ManionM (2014) Authoritarian parochialism: Local congressional representation in China. The China Quarterly218(311-338): 1–28.
50.
MartinSRozenbergO (2014) The Roles and Function of Parliamentary Questions. London: Routledge.
51.
MayhewDR (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
52.
MillerWEStokesDE (1963) Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review57(1): 45–56.
53.
MorgensternS (2004) Patterns of Legislative Politics: Roll-Call Voting in Latin America and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
MoserRGScheinerE (2012) Electoral Systems and Political Context: How the Effects of Rules Vary Across New and Established Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
NorthDC (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
OlsonM (1993) Dictatorship, democracy, and development. American Political Science Review87(3): 567–576.
57.
PaolinoP (2001) Maximum likelihood estimation of models with beta-distributed dependent variables. Political Analysis9(4): 325–346.
58.
PooleKT (2005) Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
PooleKTRosenthalH (2011) Ideology and Congress. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.
60.
PowellGB (2013) Representation in Context: Election Laws and Ideological Congruence Between Citizens and Governments. Perspectives on Politics11(1): 9–21.
61.
ProkschS-OSlapinJB (2014) The Politics of Parliamentary Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62.
PrzeworskiA (2000) Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63.
RussoFWibergM (2010) Parliamentary questioning in 17 European parliaments: Some steps towards comparison. The Journal of Legislative Studies16(2): 215–232.
64.
SchillerWJ (1995) Senators as political entrepreneurs: Using bill sponsorship to shape legislative agendas. American Journal of Political Science39(1): 186–203.
65.
SchlesingerJA (1966) Ambition and Politics. Chicago: Rand McNally.
66.
SchumpeterJA (1950) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge.
67.
ScottILeungJYH (2004) Dysfunctional elections and the political system in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Political Science12(2): 1–31.
68.
ScottLJFreeseJ (2001) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
69.
ShugartMWattenbergMP (2001) Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
70.
SiebererU (2006) Party unity in parliamentary democracies: A comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies12(2): 150–178.
71.
SingM (2004) Hong Kong’s Tortuous Democratization: A Comparative Analysis. London: Routledge.
72.
SingM (2009) Politics and Government in Hong Kong: Crisis Under Chinese Sovereignty. London: Routledge.
73.
SmithsonMVerkuilenJ (2006) A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychological Methods11(1): 54–71.
74.
SvolikMW (2012) The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
75.
TruexR (2014) The returns to office in a rubber stamp parliament. American Political Science Review108(2): 235–251.
76.
VliegenthartRWalgraveS (2011) Content matters: The dynamics of parliamentary questioning in Belgium and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies44(8): 1031–1059.
77.
WrightJ (2008) Do authoritarian institutions constrain? How legislatures affect economic growth and investment. American Journal of Political Science52(2): 322–343.
78.
ZhangB (2009) Political paralysis of the basic law regime and the politics of institutional reform in Hong Kong. Asian Survey49(2): 312–332.
79.
ZhangB (2011) Democratizing Hong Kong: Functional representation and politics of institutional change. Pacific Affairs84(4): 643–664.
