Simon Hug

In View of Ratification: Governmental Preferences and Domestic Constraints at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference

The bargaining product of the Amsterdam Intergovernmental ConferenceÑthe Amsterdam TreatyÑdwindled down the draft proposal to a consensus set of all fifteen member states of the European Union (EU). Using the two-level concept of international bargains, we provide a thorough analysis of how this consensus set was reached by issue subtraction with respect to domestic ratification constraints. Drawing on data sets covering the positions of all negotiating actors and ratifying national political parties, we first highlight the differences in the Amsterdam ratification procedures in the fifteen member states of the EU. This analysis allows us to compare the varying ratification difficulties in each country. Second, our empirical analysis of the treaty negotiations shows that member states excluded half of the Amsterdam bargaining issues to secure a smooth ratification. Because member states with higher domestic ratification constraints performed better in eliminating uncomfortable issues at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference, issue subtraction can be explained by the extent to which the negotiators were constrained by domestic interests.

Selection Effects in Roll Call Votes

An increasing number of studies comparing legislatures relies on analyses of roll call votes. These analyses are used to infer characteristics of the way in which the legislature works and how their members vote. These inferences are problematic, however, if not all votes in parliament are recorded or the recorded votes are systematically distinct from the rest of the votes. Neglecting the way in which roll call votes are triggered or decided may result in selection bias. In this paper I discuss these problems of selection bias regarding various rules employed in legislatures which may lead to roll call votes. I then present evidence for these selection biases from a unique source of electronically recorded votes, namely all votes decided on between 1995 and 2003 in the Swiss lower house. A careful analysis illustrates to what extent commonly used figures on party discipline are biased because of the selective nature of roll call votes. I also propose a simple way how to correct for these biases, which performs adequately well.

Legislative voting behavior, seen and unseen: a theory of roll-call vote selection

The empirical study of legislative behavior largely relies on roll-call-vote analysis, but roll-call votes in many legislatures represent only a sample of legislative votes. We have good reasons to believe this sample is particularly poor for inferring party effects on legislative behavior. The selection of votes for roll call may be endogenous to exactly the characteristics of voting behavior (for instance, party cohesion) that we want to study. We must understand the roll-call-vote institution and account for its selection effects before we can draw inferences about legislative behavior from roll-call results. This paper develops a game-theoretic model of roll- call-vote requests predicated on party leaders requesting votes to enforce party discipline. The model offers general and testable predictions about the selection process and how it affects observed and unobserved legislative voting behavior, particularly party cohesion.

Referendums on European Integration Do Institutions Matter in the Voter's Decision?

Referendums have received increasing attention after the recent round of votes on the Maastricht treaty and the widening process of the European Union. Despite this increased interest in these instruments of decision making, scholarship has not provided us with insights into the relationship between the institutional characteristics and voters decision. The authors provide a theoretical argument on how the voters choice is affected by the nature of the referendum. Relevant factors are whether the referendum is required, whether the peoples decision has a binding character, or which government coalition is presently in power. These institutional features mediate the impact of political factors, above all partisanship, on voting behavior. The authors test their theoretical arguments on the basis of empirical material from 14 referendums on European integration and find consistent support for their theoretical contentions.

Veto Players and Referendums Around the World

The literature on referendums comes to conflicting assessments: for some authors referendums are equivalent to direct democracy, for others, a poor and unfounded substitute. In addition, existing classifications use very diverse criteria, and theoretical models lead to different results depending on whether the underlying assumptions reflect a single- or multi-dimensional policy space: single-dimensional models lead to specific policy predictions, while multidimensional models typically identify paradoxes connected with referendums. We present a multi-dimensional model of referendums that leads to generalizations of the single-dimensional models. This multi-dimensional model makes predictions about how various provisions for referendums affect policy stability and the relationship between voter preferences and policy outcomes. To assess the relevance of these predictions we present information about referendum procedures all around the world on the basis of our model. Linking this information with existing empirical work on the effects of referendums suggests that our theoretical predictions are largely borne out.

Democratization and civil war: Empirical evidence

The hypothesis that democratization triggers political violence has been proposed repeatedly in the quantitative literature, but it remains controversial with respect to both interstate and civil wars. Current empirical research continues to be afflicted by methodological and data problems related to the measurement of democracy and the task of detecting changes in such scores. In order to gain further clarity into the link between democratization and civil war, the current study introduces a new period-finding algorithm that is able to detect periods of democratization and autocratization. This allows for a more flexible way of finding directional changes in governance indicators than is possible with the rigid lag structures commonly employed in previous studies. When regressed on various measures of civil-war onset, the indicator for the initiation of a period of democratization has a strong and robust effect on conflict even in the presence of static measures of regime type. The same applies to autocratization, but its impact is much more sudden than that of democratization. Moreover, we find that the democratization effect is limited to governmental rather than territorial conflicts. Further research will be needed to confirm these results in terms of the relevant causal mechanisms, especially in ethno-nationalist civil wars.

Left-Right Positions of Political Parties in Switzerland

As theoretical models of policy processes have become more ambitious, scholars have been relying more and more frequently on the policy positions of the relevant actors. Different methods are feasible in deriving these policy positions, but few have been applied to the Swiss parties. In this article, we offer estimates of policy positions for the Swiss political parties using various methods. Our main goal is to assess changes over time of these positions. On comparing the estimates obtained by the various methods, we offer insights on which estimates are preferable and in what contexts. Given the particular characteristics of the Swiss political system, namely a federal country with a non-parliamentary system of government, we also assess the degree to which the Swiss federal parties are unified.

Occurrence and Policy Consequences of Referendums A Theoretical Model and Empirical Evidence

Referendums provide citizen control over policy outcomes under various institutional provisions. This article offers a theoretical model covering four types of referendums, which differ with respect to their likelihood of occurring and their policy consequences. Implications derived from this model suggest that provisions that allow an opposition group to propose policies to be adopted by referendum should lead to more popular votes. Under these provisions, policies adopted should also more closely reflect the policy preferences of the median voter. Support for these implications appears in data on American states and countries around the world.

Elections and Ethnic Civil War

Existing research on how democratization may influence the risk of civil war tends to consider only changes in the overall level of democracy and rarely examines explicitly the postulated mechanisms relating democratization to incentives for violence. The authors argue that typically highlighted key mechanisms imply that elections should be especially likely to affect ethnic groups’ inclination to resort to violence. Distinguishing between types of conflict and the order of competitive elections, the authors find that ethnic civil wars are more likely to erupt after competitive elections, especially after first and second elections following periods of no polling. When disaggregating to the level of individual ethnic groups and conflicts over territory or government, the authors find some support for the notion that ethno-nationalist mobilization and sore-loser effects provoke postelectoral violence. More specifically, although large groups in general are more likely to engage in governmental conflicts, they are especially likely to do so after noncompetitive elections. Competitive elections, however, strongly reduce the risk of conflict.

Policy making and commission appointment in the European Union

This chapter presents spatial models of Commission appointment and EU policy making. The theory characterizes sets of effective Commissions, i.e., Commissions that can be appointed and can successfully propose their own ideal policies, and sets of successful proposals, i.e., proposals that can become EU policy. It also determines equilibrium EU Commissions and policies. The chapter focuses on the Commission’s role in EU policy making and discusses how recent institutional developments have affected its powers. It concludes that the Parliament’s increased role in Commission appointment and policy making has limited the sets of effective Commissions and the sets of successful proposals.