L12: representatoin Flashcards
(15 cards)
conclusion
Representation
- politicians don’t just reflect the most popular policies
- descriptive representation matters: women represent women’s interests
Female leaders
-women govern differently: more social investment
- less corruption and clientelism
- but electoral discrimination, so quotas may be needed
Party systems
- two-party, institutionalized and nationalized party systems provide more long-term credible policies and more public goods
link this class to previous
How do we approve accountability if the principal (leaders) is corrupt?
How do we generate collective action if we are in a ‘bad’ equilibrium?
- one person can’t fix a bad equilibrium, you can’t do collective action by yourself
Elites benefit from and have the power to maintain the status quo
- path dependency
- vested interest in maintaining current institutions
- where does the political will for change come from?
->can we change the leaders, our representatives?
representative democracy
Politicians as trustees, not delegates
“your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”
= we elect politicians to basically do what they want
can be justified: voters have little knowledge, little information
- lot of specialist knowledge/expertise necessary to make decisions
- we trust them to make decisions in our interest even if we might have decided differently
always a tension between representatives and direct democratic ideas
Median voter theorem - theory vs practice
In some models of democracy, representation is irrelevant
Median voter theorem: politicians compete for the policy position of the median (middle) voter
- Chameleons whose own characteristics or policy preferences are irrelevant
= idea that representation does not matter: they all try to win the median voter, they moderate their stances
In practice: parties don’t converge to the median voter:
- Polarization: no normal distribution (left wing and right wing big, but not really a center)
- Low turnout (e.g. US don’t want to win the median voter, they want to get extreme voters to turn up)
- Ethnicity
- Clientelism
- Politicians’ personal policy preferences
- Multi-party systems (doesn’t really work for PR systems)
-> representation does matter
Definition: substantive representation
= politicians advocating and implementing their voters’ policy preference
Regardless of their personal characteristics
- e.g. religious voters can have their interests represented by an atheist
- a woman can have her interests protected by a male representative
but in practice difficult:
But it is diff for men to credibly commit to represent the interests of women
Or the rich to redistribute to the poor
- e.g. former President Ben Ali (Tunisia): tried to go against the Arab spring, was rich and said would protect poor’s interest, but not credible: no one believed he wouldn’t reverse policies when pressure went down
-> does it matter to you if your politician shares - ‘represents’ - your characteristics and identity, not just your policy preferences?
Definition: descriptive representation
= the politician shares my characteristics and identities
If the politician shares my identity, i’m confident they understand and share my interests
(e.g. Wapichana: Brazil’s first indigenous female congresswoman)
(Bolivia, Cuba and Rwanda have worldwide highest % members of legislative bodies that are women in the world, bc they have quotas)
Female leaders - are they better at promoting development (for all)?
Beyond normative case for equality in representation + Sen’s argument for maximizing political freedom (for Sen per definition including more women in office is development: more political freedom)
Female voters have diff preferences over how gov should work:
- more social investment, especially health and education (maybe more experience child care, maybe biological, maybe bc they are denied it)
- when women gained the vote in the USA, investment rapidly increased
In Africa, female leaders empower women to use social accountability
evidence from close elections in Brazil:
- women elected as Brazilian mayors are less likely to engage in corruption (29-35%)
- Women elected as Brazilian mayors reduce premature births
- Women elected as Brazilian mayors use clientelism less
BUT women elected as Brazilian mayors are only half as likely to be re-elected (18% vs 38%)
Why are women getting re-elected less if they’re performing so well:
- Corruption and clientelism work for men…
- Women elected as Brazilian mayors receive less financial support from their party for re-election (+less attractive candidate numbers)
- Voters discriminate against equally-qualified female candidates
they are more honest: they don’t use corruption and clientelism -> have a disadvantage, bc it works to get re-elected
How can we promote female leaders?
Changing social norms against women politicians
Quotas: affirmative action
Gender quotas in India:
- Since 1993 mandatory ‘reservations’ for female village leaders in 1/3 villages, randomly rotating
- Female leaders implement projects that reflect the preferences of women in their villages
- Female leaders better protect property rights, especially for women
- In villages run by women, girls (and their parents) are more ambitious
Challenges of gender quotas in India
Female candidates less likely to run in unreserved (non-quota) seats
Powerful husbands continue to control elected women (‘Mukhiya partis’/Sarpanch patis’)
- women often undeducated, not confident, run bc they are convinced to
Backlash from men resisting empowered women and gendered policies
- male identity feels threatened
- caste quotas in India lead to more murders of lower castes
Reinforcing a gender identity cleavage
Party systems - parties, representation and collective action
Representation not just about individuals, but also about organizations
-political parties connect citizens to politicians
(reading)
Political parties solve collective action problems:
-for candidates: stable way to form coalitions, win elections and govern
-for voters: reliable way to hold politicians accountable (punish party even if politician retires, reducing short-term bias)
Party systems characteristics
- Nr of parties
- Dominant party system more decisive
- Two-party system best combi?
- Multi-party more credible - Institutionalization ()
Nationalization
Party systems - institutionalization
Stable, organized, disciplined, rooted in society?
- Disciplined, ideological parties (e.g. Workers’ party Brazil)
- Personalist, elite parties (vehicles) e.g. Nuevas Ideas El Salvador
- Programmatic parties
- Clientelist parties
Institutionalized parties oversee faster eco growth
Countries with programmatic political parties implement WB loans more effectively
Which party system is best for development?
Two-party systems balance credibility and decisiveness (more parties -> more veto players)
Institutionalization -> more credible long-term policies
- More programmatic, less clientelist politics
- Clearer accountability, less short-term bias
Nationalization -> more public goods
- Better health outcomes and more investment
- Broader target of voters, so more efficient to provide public goods
How do party systems change?
- Changing the electoral rules
- Majoritarian elections -> Two Parties (Duverger 1964)2. - Shocks, eg. democratization, corruption scandals
- Emerging parties without clientelist ties can come to power, eg. the Workers’ Party in Brazil - modernization/Development
- Richer, more educated voters reject clientelism and personalist parties (Weitz-Shapiro 2012) - Leadership and new coalitions
- The transformation of Bangladesh from a two-party to a dominant-party system
