Transcript Structural determinants in the success of radical right

Daniel Stockemer
Inclusion and Exclusion Conference, Ottawa, Canada
April 26, 2012
Research Question
 Research Topic: An evaluation of the inclusiveness and exclusiveness in
terms of representation of various European national parliamentary
assemblies that operate under various electoral system types
 H 1): I hypothesize that a more proportional electoral system type
triggers more diversification in national assemblies
 4 representational dimensions: Gender, Age, Education and Minority
presence in Parliament
 5 countries: the UK, France, Ireland, Germany, Denmark with five
electoral system types (i.e. single member plurality, the two round
majority system, the single transferable vote, mixed member
proportional representation and proportional representation)
The Literature on the Inclusiveness and
Exclusiveness of various Electoral System Types
Proportional Representation:
- Non-zero sum game (various candidates on each electoral list are
nominated)
- Parties are likely to nominate various types of candidates to appeal to
the largest constituency possible
- Costs of slating female candidates, unexperienced candidates, and
minorities decreases
Majoritarian Electoral System Type
- zero sum game (only one candidate is nominated per district)
- parties are likely to prefer a specific type of candidate (i.e. a middleage to senior men of the dominant ethnic group with relatively high
educational attainment) – who is likely to be the most attractive to
voters
The 5 Countries` Electoral
System Types
Country
District Magnitude
Gallagher Disproportionality Index
The UK
1
15.1
France
1
12.27
Ireland
4.2
8.49
Germany
10
3.47
Denmark
19.57
.73
Data and Methodolgy
 Data: I have collected data on gender, education, age
and the representation of foreign born nationals for all
parliamentarians that held elected office in any of the
five national assemblies as of December 2011. (Data
source: Personal bibliographies on parliamentary
website)
 Methodology: I use descriptive statistics (mean
comparisons) and inferential statistics (Anova Multicomparision Tests and Logistic Regression Analysis) to
test whether there are empirically relevant and
statistically significant differences between the
countries
Women`s Representation
Women’s Representation in the Five
Western European Countries
Male
Female
Total
74.78 %
25.22 %
United
Kingdom
78.00 %
22.00 %
France
80.86 %
Logistic Regression Analysis Measuring Statistical
Differences in Women’s Representation between the 5
Countries
United
Kingdom
France
Ireland
19.14 %
Germany
Ireland
Germany
Denmark
84.94 %
67.20 %
61.11 %
15.06 %
32.80 %
38.89 %
Denmark
United
France Ireland Germany Denmark
Kingdom
1.19
1.59*
-.58***
-.44***
(.17)
(.38)
(.07)
(.08)
-.84
1.33
-.49***
-.37***
(.12)
(.32)
(.67)
(.07)
-.63*
-.75
-.36***
-.28***
(.15)
(.18)
(.08)
(.07)
1.73*** 2.1*** 2.8***
-.77
(.22)
(.28)
(.64)
(.13)
2.26*** 2.7*** 3.59*** 1.30***
(.41)
(.50)
(.95)
(.23)
.024
.024
.024
.024
.024
Pseudo
Rsquared
2177
2177
2177
N
* p < 0.1 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01
2177
2177
Women`s Representation
 Hypothesis is mainly confirmed:
- PR systems (Denmark and Germany) have
significantly more female deputies
- the only (slight) anomaly is Ireland, which in the
strictest sense should have more female
representatives than France or the UK
- Germany provides further support for the hypothesis;
more women are elected in the PR tier than the first
past the post tier
Representation of various age cohorts
Average Age of the Parliamentarians in the 5
Countries
Country
Total
United
Kingdom
France
Ireland
Germany
Denmark
Mean Age Standard
Deviation
52.81
10.88
51.88
10.52
Range
59.15
49.40
51.36
44.29
33 – 82
25 – 69
25 – 76
20 – 69
8.39
11.15
10.07
11.54
20 – 86
28 – 86
One-Way ANOVA Examining between Country Differences in MPs’
Age (Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test)
United
Kingdom
France
Ireland
Germany Denmark
United
Kingdom
France
Ireland
Germany
Denmark
7.27***
-.2.48*
-9.74***
-.52
-7.79***
1.95
-7.59*** -14.86*** -5.11***
* p < 0.1 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01
-7.07***
Representation of various age cohorts
 The Hypothesis is mainly confirmed
Percentage of MPs per Age Cohort
Country
Total
United
Kingdom
France
Ireland
Germany
Denmark
 Denmark as a PR country has the
20 - 39
13.23 %
12.00 %
40 - 59
55.21 %
63.23 %
60 - 86
31.56 %
24.77 %
1.79 %
23.49 %
14.79 %
38.33 %
44.19 %
46.39 %
60.29 %
51.11 %
54.03 %
30.12 %
24.92 %
10.56 %
most representative representation
(there only a 3 point difference in the
medium age of the population and
that of the parliamentarians). France
as a majoritarian countries has the
most skewed representation (a 18
year gap between the medium age of
deputies and that of the population.
 Except for Denmark and to a less
degree Ireland, the 20 to 39 age
group is unterrepresented
everywhere and particularly in
France
An Additional Factor Impacting the Skewed Age
Representation is Incumbency
Mean Years of Parliamentary Service by MPs
Country
Total
United Kingdom
France
Ireland
Germany
Denmark
Mean
9.36
9.53
11.90
6.80
8.54
6.08
Standard Deviation
8.19
9.12
7.69
9.00
6.95
6.87
Range
0 – 51
1 – 51
1 – 44
0 – 36
0 – 39
0 – 30
The table above shows a strong relationship between mean tenure of deputies
and mean stay in power. In Denmark the country with the most representative
representation, the mean candidate has held parliamentary office for 6 years.
In contrast in France, the average MP has been in office for 12 years and the
average MP is 60 years. Ireland, as the `second youngest` parliament has the
second youngest tenure of its MPs
Education
Percentage of MPs per Education Level
Average Educational Attainment
Country
Mean
Education
3.48
3.23
Total
United
Kingdom
France
3.63
Ireland
3.25
Germany
3.71
Denmark
3.26
Education Coding:
1 less than High School
2 High School
3 Bachelors
4 Masters
5 Ph.D.
Standard
Deviation
.97
.70
Range
1.03
.85
1.10
.85
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
Country Less
than
High
School
Total
3.92 %
United .95 %
Kingdom
France 3.41 %
Ireland 2.24 %
Germany 8.39 %
Denmark 1.69 %
High Bachelor Masters Ph.D.
School s
9.04 % 35.82 % 37.92 % 13.3 %
7.61 % 64.50 % 21.87 % 5.07 %
9.47 %
16.42 %
5.81 %
18.54 %
29.36 %
39.55 %
11.77 %
34.27 %
35.80 %
38.06 %
54.68 %
42.70 %
21.97 %
3.73 %
19.35 %
2.81 %
Education
 Hypothesis is not confirmed
- Educational attainment is high everywhere (the average
MP in all countries is more highly educated than a
bachelors degree)
- In all parliaments, individuals having less than High
School only make a tiny portion of the parliamentarians,
despite the fact that they could make up more than 60
percent of the adult population, as is the case in
Germany.
- In some countries PhDs are highly overrepresented (e.g
Germany and France)
Foreign Born Individuals
Percentage of Foreign Born Nationals per country
Country
Total
United
Kingdom
France
Ireland
Germany
Denmark
Foreign Born
3.82
4.15
5.91
.60
2.90
2.22
Domestically Born
96.18
95.85
94.09
99.40
97.1
97.78
Logistic Regression Analysis Measuring Statistical Differences
in the Number of Foreign Nationals in the 5 National
Parliaments
United
Kingdom
France
Ireland
Germany
Denmark
United
France Ireland Germany Denmark
Kingdom
-.69
7.15*
1.45
1.91
(.18)
(7.31)
(.45)
(1.03)
1.45
10.37** 2.11**
2.77*
(.39)
(10.57)
(.63)
(1.48)
-.14*
-.09**
-.20
-.27
(.14)
(.10)
(.21)
(.30)
-.69
-.47**
4.93
1.31
(.21)
(.14)
(5.08)
(.73)
-.52
-.36*
3.75
-.76
(.28)
(.19)
(4.21)
(.43)
.023
.023
.023
.023
.023
Pseudo
Rsquared
2175
2175
2175
N
* p < 0.1 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01
2175
2175
Foreign Born Individuals
 Hypothesis is disconfirmed
- the two countries operating under majoritarian rule –
Great Britain and, even more so, France – have the
highest representation of foreign born individuals with
respectively 4.15 and nearly 6 percent of all
representatives.
- It seems to be important to look at other factors such
as the specific historical trajectories of the five
countries under consideration, when interpreting the
parliamentary representation of foreign born
individuals.
Summary of Results
The influence of PR on the four representational dimensions
Indicator
Positive Impact of PR
Women’s representation
yes
Representation of various age cohorts
yes
Representation of various educational levels
no
Foreign born representation
Reversed
Conclusions
 Across these four dimensions, the results are mixed, it
appears that the electoral system type has an influence
on some representational dimension but not on others
 This research cautions us not to overstate the electoral
system type’s influence on the presence of any cohort
of the population in parliament, but rather to also
consider other institutional (e.g. the candidate
nomination process or quotas) and non-institutional
variables (the specific political culture and history of a
country) and their influence on parliamentary
representational patterns.
Future Research
 Expand the scope of this study by incorporating more
countries representing any of these electoral system
types
 Add more electoral system types into the equation
(e.g. mixed member plurality systems such as Italy)
 Determine why the electoral system type has a positive
(causal)impact on some representational dimensions
but not on others.