DOCSLIB.ORG

Macro Report Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 3: Macro Report June 05, 2006

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Macro Report Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 3: Macro Report June 05, 2006 Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 1 Module 3: Macro Report Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 3: Macro Report June 05, 2006 Country: Slovak Republic Date of Election: June 12, 2010 Prepared by: OLGA GYARFASOVA Date of Preparation: March 2011 NOTES TO COLLABORATORS: The information provided in this report contributes to an important part of the CSES project. The information may be filled out by yourself, or by an expert or experts of your choice. Your efforts in providing these data are greatly appreciated! Any supplementary documents that you can provide (e.g., electoral legislation, party manifestos, electoral commission reports, media reports) are also appreciated, and may be made available on the CSES website. Answers should be as of the date of the election being studied. Where brackets [ ] appear, collaborators should answer by placing an “X” within the appropriate bracket or brackets. For example: [X] If more space is needed to answer any question, please lengthen the document as necessary. Data Pertinent to the Election at which the Module was Administered 1a. Type of Election [X ] Parliamentary/Legislative [ ] Parliamentary/Legislative and Presidential [ ] Presidential [ ] Other; please specify: __________ 1b. If the type of election in Question 1a included Parliamentary/Legislative, was the election for the Upper House, Lower House, or both? [ ] Upper House [X] Lower House [ ] Both [ ] Other; please note: Slovakia has unicameral parliament Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 2 Module 3: Macro Report 2a. What was the party of the president prior to the most recent election? 0 2b. What was the party of the Prime Minister prior to the most recent election? Smer- Social Democracy 2c. Report the number of cabinet ministers of each party or parties in cabinet, prior to the most recent election. (If one party holds all cabinet posts, simply write "all".) Ministers are considered those members of government who are members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. Name of Political Party Number of Cabinet Ministers Smer – Social Democracy (Smer-SD) 11 Slovak National Party (SNS) 3 People´s Party – Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (ĽS-HZDS) 2 2d. What was the size of the cabinet prior to the election (total number of cabinet ministers detailed in 2c)? Please include only full ministers and the prime minister in the count. Ministers are considered those members of government who are members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. Full number of members of government: 18 Number of ministers + prime minister: 15 (16 together with the Vice-Prime minister) 3a. What was the party of the president after the most recent election? 0 3b. What was the party of the Prime Minister after the most recent election? Slovak Democratic and Christian union – Democratic party (SDKÚ-DS) 3c. Report the number of cabinet ministers of each party or parties in cabinet, after the most recent election. (If one party holds all cabinet posts, simply write "all"). Ministers are considered those members of government who are members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. Name of Political Party Number of Cabinet Ministers Slovak Democratic and Christian union – Democratic party (SDKÚ-DS) 5 Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) 4 Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) 3 Most- Híd (Bridge) 2 3d. What was the size of the cabinet after the election (total number of cabinet ministers detailed in 3c)? Please include only full ministers and the prime minister in the count. Ministers are considered those members of government who are members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. Full number of members of government: 15 13 cabinet ministers + prime minister = 14 members of cabinet Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 3 Module 3: Macro Report 4a. How many political parties received votes in the election? In this answer, we want political parties, not merely alliances or coalitions of political parties. Please include all parties that received votes, but do not include independents. Where coalitions are present, please count all member parties separately – for instance, a coalition of three parties would count as three parties in your answer, not as one party. 18 political parties 4b. Please provide a source of data and link to a website with official, detailed election results (votes and seats) for all parties participating in the election. If the data is not available electronically, please provide the information in paper format if possible. http://portal.statistics.sk/ 4c. Please list all parties who received at least 1% of the vote nationally, and the applicable electoral results for each, in the following table. Please indicate the source (even if the same as in Question 4b), and add additional rows to the table as necessary. Please provide party names both in English and in the original language, if applicable. Source: http://portal.statistics.sk/ Number of Number of % of Party Name % of Vote Votes Seats Seats European Democratic Party (EDS) 10 332 0,40 - - Union - Party for Slovakia 17 741 0,70 - - Party of Roma Coalition (SRK) 6 947 0,27 - - Paliho Kapurková, Cheerful Political Party 14 576 0,57 - - Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) 307 287 12,14 22 14,6 Party of Democratic Left (SDĽ) 61 137 2,41 - - Party of Hungarian Coalition (SMK) 109 638 4,33 - - People´s Party – Movement for a Democratic 109 480 4,32 - - Slovakia (ĽS-HZDS) Communist Party of Slovakia (KSS) 21 104 0,83 - - Slovak National Party (SNS) 128 490 5,07 9 6 New Democracy (NOVA DEMOKRACIA) 7 962 0,31 - - Association of the Workers of Slovakia (ZRS) 6 196 0,24 - - Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) 215 755 8,52 15 10 People´s Party – Our Slovakia (LS-Nase - - 33 724 1,33 Slovensko) Slovak Democratic and Christian Union- 390 042 15,42 28 18,6 Democratic Party (SDKÚ-DS) AZEN – Alliance for Europe of the Nations 3 325 0,13 - - Direction– Social Democracy (Smer-SD) 880 111 34,79 62 41,3 Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 4 Module 3: Macro Report Most – Híd 205 538 8,12 14 9,3 Total 2 529 385100 150 99,8 4d. What was the voter turnout in the election? 2 572 640 voters, 58, 83% 4e. Please provide the following six statistics for the country at the time of the election studied, so that we may calculate voter turnout in various ways. Some definitions, where provided, are based on those developed by International IDEA. Total Population: 5 429 763 Definition: The total population includes all inhabitants, of all ages, both citizens and non-citizens (including illegal aliens). Total Number of Voting Age Citizens: 4 362 369 Definition: This number is meant to approximate the eligible voting population. Total Vote: 2 572 640 Definition: The total number of votes cast in the relevant election. Total vote includes valid and invalid votes, as well as blank votes in cases where these are separated from invalid votes. Total Number of Invalid and Blank Votes: 43 255 Voting Age Population: 18 years old Definition: Includes all persons above the legal voting age. Number of Registered Voters: 4 362 369 Definition: The figure represents the number of names on the voters’ register at the time that the registration process closes, as reported by the electoral management body. Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 5 Module 3: Macro Report 5. Ideological family of political parties. For this question, please use the same parties that were used in the CSES Module 3 respondent questionnaire, and label them the same way (A-I). Party Name Ideological Family A. Slovak Democratic and Christian Union- Christian Democratic party Democratic Party (SDKÚ-DS) Center-right B. Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) Liberal party C. Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) Christian Democratic party Conservative party D. Most- Híd Hungarian minority interest – ethnic party, more center-right E. Direction – Social Democracy (Smer – SD) Social democratic party F. Slovak National Party (SNS) Radical national party G. Party of Hungarian Coalition (SMK Ethnic based party, rather conservative H. People´s Party- Movement for Democratic National Conservative party Slovakia (ĽS-HZDS) Ideological Party Families: (These are suggestions only. If a party does not fit well into this classification scheme, please provide an alternative and some explanation.) (A) Ecology Parties (F) Left Liberal Parties (K) Independents (B) Communist Parties (G) Liberal Parties (L) Agrarian Parties (C) Socialist Parties (H) Right Liberal Parties (M) Ethnic Parties (D) Social Democratic Parties (I) Christian Democratic Parties (N) Regional Parties (E) Conservative Parties (J) National Parties (O) Other Parties Notices: The party order: A-D the current coalition parties E-F the current opposition parties G-H the former ruling parties prior to the most recent election Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 6 Module 3: Macro Report 6a. Ideological Positions of Parties: Please indicate party positions on a left-right dimension (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator). Please use the same parties that were used in the CSES Module 3 respondent questionnaire, and label them the same way (A-I). Left Right Party Name 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A. Slovak Democratic and Christian Union- X Democratic Party (SDKÚ-DS) B. Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) X C. Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) X D. Most- Híd X E. Direction – Social Democracy (Smer – SD) X F. Slovak National Party (SNS) X G. Party of Hungarian Coalition (SMK X H. People´s Party- Movement for X Democratic Slovakia (ĽS-HZDS) Notices : The party order: A-D the current coalition parties E-F the current opposition parties G-H the former ruling parties prior to the most recent election Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 7 Module 3: Macro Report 6b. If you have asked respondents to rank political parties on an alternative dimension, other than the left-right dimension, please also provide your own rankings of the parties on this dimension.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Political Parties and the Transition to Democracy
    POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY A Primer in Democratic Party-Building for Leaders, Organizers and Activists The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) is a nonprofit organization working to strengthen and expand democracy worldwide. Calling on a global network of volunteer experts, NDI provides practical assistance to civic and political leaders advancing democratic values, practices and institutions. NDI works with democrats in every region of the world to build political and civic organizations, safeguard elections, and promote citizen participation, openness and accountability in government. POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY A Primer in Democratic Party-Building for Leaders, Organizers and Activists TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Introduction 2 Section 1: What Makes a Political Party Democratic? 4 Section 2: The Party Constitution 6 Section 3: Party Organization 8 Section 4: Developing a Policy Agenda and Message 13 Section 5: Communication and Outreach 18 Section 6: Membership Recruitment 23 Section 7: Fundraising 27 Section 8: Training 35 Conclusion 39 Appendices 40 A. Constitution of the Progressive Conservative Association of Canada B. Organization and Structure of the Australian Labor Party and the Democratic Party of the Republic of Korea C. Sample newsletter and tips for creating newsletters from the Liberal Democrats of Britain D. Party platforms from the Alliance of Free Democrats of Hungary and the African National Congress of South Africa E. Communication techniques from the Social Democratic and Labour Party of Northern Ireland and a letter to supporters from the Labour Party of Britain F. Information on membership recruitment and activation from the Labour Party of Britain G.
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences
    Codebook InDivEU – party preferences European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies December 2020 Introduction The “InDivEU – party preferences” dataset provides data on the positions of more than 400 parties from 28 countries1 on questions of (differentiated) European integration. The dataset comprises a selection of party positions taken from two existing datasets: (1) The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File contains party positions for three rounds of European Parliament elections (2009, 2014, and 2019). Party positions were determined in an iterative process of party self-placement and expert judgement. For more information: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/65944 (2) The Chapel Hill Expert Survey The Chapel Hill Expert Survey contains party positions for the national elections most closely corresponding the European Parliament elections of 2009, 2014, 2019. Party positions were determined by expert judgement. For more information: https://www.chesdata.eu/ Three additional party positions, related to DI-specific questions, are included in the dataset. These positions were determined by experts involved in the 2019 edition of euandi after the elections took place. The inclusion of party positions in the “InDivEU – party preferences” is limited to the following issues: - General questions about the EU - Questions about EU policy - Questions about differentiated integration - Questions about party ideology 1 This includes all 27 member states of the European Union in 2020, plus the United Kingdom. How to Cite When using the ‘InDivEU – Party Preferences’ dataset, please cite all of the following three articles: 1. Reiljan, Andres, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Lorenzo Cicchi, Diego Garzia, Alexander H.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary File
    Online-Appendix for the paper: Electoral behavior in a European Union under stress Table A1: Eurosceptic Parties in the 2014 European Parliament election Country Parties Austria EU Stop, Europe Different, Austrian Freedom Party Belgium Workers Party of Belgium, Flemish Interest Bulgaria Bulgaria Without Censorship, National Front, Attack Croatia Croatian Party of Rights Cyprus Progressive Party of the Working People, National Popular Front Czech Dawn of Direct Democracy, Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, Party of Republic Free Citizens Denmark Danish People’s Party, People’s Movement against the EU Estonia Conservative People’s Party of Estonia Finland True Finns France Left Front, Arise the Republic, National Front Germany National Democratic Party of Germany, The Left, Alternative for Germany Greece Communist Party of Greece, Coalition of the Radical Left, Independent Greeks, Popular Orthodox Rally, Golden Dawn Hungary FIDESZ-KDNP Alliance, Jobbik Ireland Ourselves Alone Italy Left Ecology Movement, Northern League, Five Star Movement Latvia Green and Farmers’ Union, National Independence Movement of Latvia Lithuania Order and Justice, Election Action of Lithuania’s Poles Luxembourg Alternative Democratic Reform Party Malta none applicable Netherlands Socialist Party, Coalition CU—SGP, Party of Freedom Poland Congress of the New Right, United Poland, Law and Justice Portugal Left Bloc, Unified Democratic Coalition Romania Greater Romania Party, People’s Party—Dan Dianconescu Freedom and Solidarity, Ordinary People and Independent
    [Show full text]
  • Information Guide Euroscepticism
    Information Guide Euroscepticism A guide to information sources on Euroscepticism, with hyperlinks to further sources of information within European Sources Online and on external websites Contents Introduction .................................................................................................. 2 Brief Historical Overview................................................................................. 2 Euro Crisis 2008 ............................................................................................ 3 European Elections 2014 ................................................................................ 5 Euroscepticism in Europe ................................................................................ 8 Eurosceptic organisations ......................................................................... 10 Eurosceptic thinktanks ............................................................................. 10 Transnational Eurosceptic parties and political groups .................................. 11 Eurocritical media ................................................................................... 12 EU Reaction ................................................................................................. 13 Information sources in the ESO database ........................................................ 14 Further information sources on the internet ..................................................... 14 Copyright © 2016 Cardiff EDC. All rights reserved. 1 Cardiff EDC is part of the University Library
    [Show full text]
  • Slovak Republic
    Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights SLOVAK REPUBLIC PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 16 March 2019 ODIHR NEEDS ASSESSMENT MISSION REPORT 3-5 December 2018 Warsaw 22 January 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1 III. FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................. 3 A. BACKGROUND AND POLITICAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 3 B. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM ........................................................................................ 4 C. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION ..................................................................................................................... 4 D. VOTER REGISTRATION............................................................................................................................... 5 E. CANDIDATE REGISTRATION ....................................................................................................................... 5 F. ELECTION CAMPAIGN ................................................................................................................................ 6 G. CAMPAIGN FINANCE .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • International Organizations and Democratic Backsliding
    The Unintended Consequences of Democracy Promotion: International Organizations and Democratic Backsliding Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Anna M. Meyerrose, M.A. Graduate Program in Political Science The Ohio State University 2019 Dissertation Committee: Alexander Thompson, Co-Advisor Irfan Nooruddin, Co-Advisor Marcus Kurtz William Minozzi Sara Watson c Copyright by Anna M. Meyerrose 2019 Abstract Since the end of the Cold War, international organizations (IOs) have engaged in unprecedented levels of democracy promotion and are widely viewed as positive forces for democracy. However, this increased emphasis on democracy has more re- cently been accompanied by rampant illiberalism and a sharp rise in cases of demo- cratic backsliding in new democracies. What explains democratic backsliding in an age of unparalleled international support for democracy? Democratic backsliding oc- curs when elected officials weaken or erode democratic institutions and results in an illiberal or diminished form of democracy, rather than autocracy. This dissertation argues that IOs commonly associated with democracy promotion can support tran- sitions to democracy but unintentionally make democratic backsliding more likely in new democracies. Specifically, I identify three interrelated mechanisms linking IOs to democratic backsliding. These organizations neglect to support democratic insti- tutions other than executives and elections; they increase relative executive power; and they limit states’ domestic policy options via requirements for membership. Lim- ited policy options stunt the development of representative institutions and make it more difficult for leaders to govern. Unable to appeal to voters based on records of effective governance or policy alternatives, executives manipulate weak institutions to maintain power, thus increasing the likelihood of backsliding.
    [Show full text]
  • Directions of Electoral Processes in Present-Day Slovakia
    JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS ◎ vol. 14 ◎ no. 2 ◎ 2021 4 AUTHORITARIZATION OR DEMOCRATIZATION: DIRECTIONS OF ELECTORAL PROCESSES IN PRESENT-DAY SLOVAKIA Yevheniy HAYDANKA1 ……………………………………………………………………….…………………………………… V-Dem experts have proposed an empirical methodology to determine the dynamics of authoritarianism/democratization of the electoral process (Electoral Democracy Index). In the Slovak Republic, the successful institutional reforms of the late 1990s and early 2000s, followed by the deepening and implementation of Euro- integration processes, were among the main factors affecting the electoral process democracy level. Factors influencing the authoritarianization of electoral processes include the relationship between the voter turnout and the electoral process transparency, radicalization of the political party space, and the dominance of one political actor in the party system and government structures (SMER-SD). Slovakia managed to go through all possible stages in the electoral process dynamics, this accounting for the complex democratic transformation of the country, e.g.: the decline of authoritarianism (1993–2000), stagnation (2001–2016), and increasing authoritarianism (2017–2019). In early 2020, parliamentary elections, following a deep political and governmental crisis, became an electoral snapshot of Slovak society. Key words: V-Dem; Electoral Democracy Index; electoral process authoritarianization; electoral process democratization; Slovak parliamentary elections. 1 INTRODUCTION A number of exogenous and endogenous factors determine the success or failure of transition countries on their path to a consolidated democracy. An effective and transparent electoral process is a necessary political mechanism that ensures political pluralism in the making. Eventually, the quality of the political elite and the level of political (electoral) activity of citizens can dramatically increase the new democratic regime legitimacy.
    [Show full text]
  • FMA Visit to Bratislava in Context of Slovak Presidency
    2016 FMA Visit to Bratislava in context of Slovak Presidency 7- 8 NOVEMBER 2016 FMA Secretariat Office JAN 2Q73 European Parliament B-1047 Brussels Tel: +322.284.07.03 Fax: +332.284.09.89 E-mail: [email protected] Elisabetta FONCK Mobile phone : +32.473.646.746746 INDEX I. The Slovak EU Presidency 2016 ....................................................................................... 5 1. Priority Dossiers under the Slovak EU Council Presidency ................................... 7 2. Programme of the Presidency ........................................................................... 17 3. Slovak Presidency priorities discussed in parliamentary committees................. 53 4. Contributions of the LV COSAC........................................................................... 57 II. Political system in Slovakia .......................................................................................... 63 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 65 2. National Council and Parliamentary elections’ result ........................................ 67 2.1 NDI 2016. Parliamentary elections result ............................................. 79 2.2 The 2016 elections in Slovakia: a shock ............................................... 85 2.3 OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report ...................... 87 III. Economy in Slovakia ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Political Data Set, 1960-2019 Codebook
    1 Codebook: Comparative Political Data Set, 1960-2019 Codebook: COMPARATIVE POLITICAL DATA SET 1960-2019 Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann The Comparative Political Data Set 1960-2019 (CPDS) is a collection of political and institutional data which have been assembled in the context of the research projects “Die Handlungsspielräume des Nationalstaates” and “Critical junctures. An international comparison” directed by Klaus Armingeon and funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. This data set consists of (mostly) annual data for 36 democratic OECD and/or EU- member countries for the period of 1960 to 2019. In all countries, political data were collected only for the democratic periods.1 The data set is suited for cross-national, longitudinal and pooled time-series analyses. The present data set combines and replaces the earlier versions “Comparative Political Data Set I” (data for 23 OECD countries from 1960 onwards) and the “Comparative Political Data Set III” (data for 36 OECD and/or EU member states from 1990 onwards). A variable has been added to identify former CPDS I countries. For additional detailed information on the composition of government in the 36 countries, please consult the “Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set – Government Composition 1960-2019”, available on the CPDS website. The Comparative Political Data Set contains some additional demographic, socio- and economic variables. However, these variables are not the major concern of the project and are thus limited in scope. For more in-depth sources of these data, see the online databases of the OECD, Eurostat or AMECO. When using data from this data set, please quote both the data set and, where appropriate, the original source.
    [Show full text]
  • Main Right Party Responses to Radical Populist and Extremist Party Positioning in Central Europe
    Main Right Party Responses to Radical Populist and Extremist Party Positioning in Central Europe. Paper prepared for the ECPR Joint Sessions Workshop, Salamanca Spain April 10-15, 2014 Reinhard Heinisch, Kristina Hauser [email protected], [email protected] University of Salzburg Austria Abstract: Drawing on data from the Chapel Hill Expert Survey and case profiles, the paper traces the interaction between main right parties and (radical) right party competitors, to determine, whether the former adopt dismissive, accommodationist-convergent, accommodationist-cooperative, or, adversarial responses. Assuming that main right parties are forced to respond strategically to right party competitors, we examine in this the role of the dominant cleavage structure (socioeconomic or socio-cultural), the initial position of the main right party, the cost/pressure associated with changing a long-established position, the issue dimension involved (economic vs. exclusivist), and decision of cooperating with parties with more complementary or more compatible positions. Drawing on the literature, we argue that regime legacies and the role of the EU accession process on party realignment have structured party competition such that contestation occurs primarily over socioeconomic or socio-cultural issues. In the latter case, we expect main right parties to move to the right either to converge on positions of a far-right competitor or to prevent challenges from the right. If contestation is centered on the economic issue dimension, we assume main right parties be more constrained in their ability to accommodate right party competitors and rather engage in cooperation to form a right or center-right bloc to compete with a center-left bloc.
    [Show full text]
  • A Theory of Redistribution in New Democracies: How Has
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts A THEORY OF REDISTRIBUTION IN NEW DEMOCRACIES: HOW HAS DEMOCRACY INCREASED INCOME DISPARITY IN SOUTHERN AND POSTCOMMUNIST EUROPE? A Dissertation in Political Science by Ekrem Karakoç © 2010 Ekrem Karakoç Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2010 The dissertation of Ekrem Karakoç was reviewed and approved* by the following: Michael H. Bernhard Raymond and Miriam Ehrlich Eminent Scholar Chair Department of Political Science University of Florida Co-Chair of Committee and special member Lee Ann Banaszak Associate Professor of Political Science Director of Graduate Studies Co-Chair of Committee Dissertation Advisor Christopher Zorn Liberal Arts Research Professor Department of Political Science Burt L. Monroe Associate Professor of Political Science Mark S. Anner Assistant professor of Labor Studies and Employment Relations, and Political Science *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT In most new democracies, rising inequality poses a challenge to conventional theories in democratization literature because these theories predict that democracies decreases inequality through its positive effects on social welfare programs toward the poor. To the contrary, I present evidence that inequality does not decrease after democratization and ask why is that democracies cannot generate income equality. Then I explore the determinants of inequality and offer three interrelated arguments that
    [Show full text]