![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Scholars argue that members of parliament (MPs) in first-past-the-post (FPTP) systems have stronger incentives to cater to their electoral district than those in proportional representation (PR) types. Yet, few studies have explored whether MPs in PR systems or MPs from small parties engage local issues in general. I build new theory and explore its support through a case study that compares Green party behaviour in an FPTP system (the UK) to a PR system (New Zealand). Results show that MPs focus on local issues in both systems, but the distribution of attention varies in ways consistent with differing electoral incentives.
Acknowledgements
This research was advanced through the advice and support of Matthew Shugart, Jim Adams, Royce Carroll, Mark Lubell, Jack Vowles, Robert Hijmans and two anonymous reviewers. I am indebted to these scholars for their time and input. I would also like to thank several undergraduate students at UC Davis who provided research assistance: Xinyu Shao, Jessica Canchola, Briana Megid and Alex Lee.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 Although Caroline Lucas is the only Green Party MP in the UK, her past experience in the European Parliament and her popularity should counter her incentives to focus on district issues. How her attributes help to strengthen inferences is described later.
2 For evidence against this tendency, see Morgenstern and Swindle (Citation2005), Ingall and Crisp (Citation2001), Martin (Citation2011b) and McLeay and Vowles (Citation2007).
3 The ‘personal vote’ is support for a candidate based on their qualities and performance rather than their partisan affiliation (e.g. Cain et al., Citation1984; Carey, Citation2009; Carey & Shugart, Citation1995). Focusing on local issues may be part of a candidate’s strategy to cultivate a personal vote, but is not the only means to do so. See Morgenstern and Swindle (Citation2005) for discussion on difference between ‘personal’ and ‘local’ vote.
4 Although it is plausible that an observed relationship between policy responsibilities and local questions might not be due to electoral rules but to legislative rules and party norms that govern party organisation on the floor, scholars have suggested that these rules are endogenous to the electoral system (Proksch & Slapin, Citation2012). Rules that govern when a backbencher gets to speak on the floor, for example, reflect the incentives embedded in the electoral system. Along this line of thinking, rules that increase the importance of policy specialisation in parliamentary questions should be more likely in electoral systems that decrease the importance of catering to particular localities.
5 The UK has several Green parties that are regionally distinct and do not compete with one another in elections. The Green Party of England and Wales is the only Green Party with a seat in the UK House of Commons, and runs candidates in England and Wales only. Therefore, Scotland and Northern Ireland are excluded from analysis. For ease, I continue to refer to the UK.
6 The New Zealand Greens also divide the electorates among their members after an election, essentially ‘shadowing’ multiple MPs who win in the nominal tier. This effort reflects the incentives created by winning seats through a nationwide list: parties need not limit their geographic focus to a single electorate.
7 This information was obtained through correspondence with the Green Party in May–June 2017.
8 This information was obtained through correspondence with the Green Party in May–June 2017.
9 It is worth noting that some parliamentary questions that do not make an explicit reference to a location are local appeals nonetheless. For example, an MP might ask the Minister of Transportation about the progress of train track repairs. The repair project might be specific to a particular region even through no location is mentioned in the question. Future work should explore this area. In addition, Caroline Lucas asks about the financial and environmental costs of Hinkley Point Station – a nuclear power plant constructed in Somerset. Although it is not clear whether the question is actually an appeal to the national constituency, I count it as local.
10 One Green MP, Catherine Delahunty, did not ask any written questions in this timeframe.
11 Colour breaks on the maps are based on quantiles. The quantiles are adjusted slightly in and (a–d) to maximise differences. As mentioned in endnote 5, Hinkley Point may not actually be a localised reference; if not, the mid-grey districts (3–4 questions) on the Southwest of the UK would be white. Scotland and Northern Ireland are not included in analysis (and Lucas does not reference these areas).
12 There are several instances where a New Zealand MP (e.g. Eugenie Sage) raises a subnational issue that covers a large region with many districts. Although I code these as local, they are not included in the figures.
13 This is an assumption based on the fact that her local questions concern services that affect people who live in her district, and on anecdotal evidence gathered during a short fieldtrip to Brighton.
14 I do not include several questions that involve local issues but whose origins are difficult to locate online. Sue Bradford references a mentally ill patient who dies in the care of a health crisis team, for example. In addition, this figure does not include the questions of Keith Locke, who did not contest an electorate seat.