Do Ideological Preferences Explain Parliamentary Behaviour? Evidence from Great Britain and Canada
Do Ideological Preferences Explain Parliamentary Behaviour? Evidence from Great Britain and Canada
复制标题
意识形态偏好可以解释议会行为吗？
DOI：
10.1080/714003894
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Kam
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Kam
议会政党的凝聚力是因为领导人成功地对他们的议员施加纪律，还是因为议员们喜欢--因此支持--与他们的领导人一样的政策？如果后者是正确的，政党凝聚力主要是由成员的一致偏好产生的，那么将凝聚力解释为一旦议员进入议会，政党可用的纪律机制（例如，赞助分配或取消选择的威胁）的函数的模型就没有用了。本文使用英国和加拿大国会议员对候选人调查的回应来估计国会议员在各种意识形态维度上的立场，然后表明国会议员对这些意识形态维度的偏好只能部分解释他们投票反对政党的频率。事实上，即使在控制了议员的意识形态偏好之后，党派关系仍然是议员忠诚或异议的有力预测因素--这表明，党的纪律确实有助于凝聚力。其他测试表明，这些结果不是虚假的。
Are parliamentary parties cohesive because leaders successfully impose discipline on their MPs or because MPs prefer - hence support - the same policies as their leaders do? If the latter is correct, and party cohesion is produced largely by members' concordant preferences, then models that explain cohesion as a function of the disciplinary mechanisms available to parties once the MP is in Parliament (for example, the distribution of patronage or the threat of de-selection) are not useful. This article uses British and Canadian MPs' responses to candidate surveys to estimate MPs' positions on a variety of ideological dimensions and then shows that MPs' preferences on these ideological dimensions only partially explain how often they vote against their parties. Indeed, even after one controls for an MP's ideological preferences, party affiliation remains a powerful predictor of the MP's loyalty or dissent - suggesting that party discipline does, in fact, contribute to cohesion. Additional tests indicate that these results are not spurious.