Divergent Trajectories: Healthcare Insurance Reforms in East Asia ...

Divergent Trajectories: Healthcare Insurance Reforms in East Asia ... Divergent Trajectories: Healthcare Insurance Reforms in East Asia ...

government.arts.cornell.edu
from government.arts.cornell.edu More from this publisher
12.07.2015 Views

Table 2 – Electoral Volatility Across Legislative ElectionsCountry Time Span Average VolatilityArgentina 1983-2001 25.1Venezuela 1958-2001 31.4Brazil 1986-2002 21.8Chile 1989-2001 16.7Mexico 1988-2000 22.7Average 23.5Taiwan 1992-2004 16.2S. Korea 1988-2004 29.1Thailand 1992-2005 35.0Philippines 1992-1998 37.3Indonesia 1999-2004 26.7Average 28.9Source: Kuhonta and Hicken (2009)Illan Nam, Colgate University, Feb 2011Draft in progress, please do not quote or citeSimilarly, if average age is considered as an indicator of party rootedness insociety, East Asian party systems scored poorly. The average age of parties is on averagelower in most East Asian countries than in Latin America (with the exception of Taiwan,where the average age is skewed by the longevity of the KMT). If the average age ofparties holding 10% or more of legislative seats post-democratic transition is calculated,the oldest party in South Korea was only 2 years old. (Conversely, the average party ageof Taiwan, on the other hand, was 43.5 years; this reflects the longevity of the 81-yearoldKMT as well as a low level of fragmentation in the Taiwanese party system in whichonly one main opposition party, the DPP, is present.)Third, analysts concluded that East Asian parties had high levels of non-partisanor unattached voters. According to survey results issued by East Asia Barometer, nearly60% of voters in Thailand responded that they did not feel close to any party while 46%of Philippine voters responded likewise. Even in countries that had more30

Illan Nam, Colgate University, Feb 2011Draft in progress, please do not quote or citeinstitutionalized systems such as Taiwan, more than 40% of voters declared themselvesto be unattached to any party (Cheng). In part, this may reflect voters’ disenchantmentwith the KMT’s strong-arm tactics during the authoritarian era of manipulating electoraldistricting and other electoral rules that discredited the activities of political parties.Somewhat surprisingly, only 27% of Korean voters responded that they did not feel closeto any political party. However, their relatively higher level of attachment may reflectstrong provincial identities that bind them to a party whose leader was born in theirregion. Perhaps underscoring the tenuousness of partisan ties even among those whoprofessed an attachment, in all the East Asian countries, the overwhelming majority ofthose voters who identified themselves as “feeling close” to a political party also revealedthemselves to feel “just a little close” as opposed to “somewhat close” or “very close.”At the same time that Mainwaring and Scully’s index captures several importantmeasures of party system stability, it does not indicate other important characteristics ofparty systems that would affect the dynamics of party competition. One such indicator isthe extent to which party systems are nationalized. Jones and Mainwaring noted that thelevel of nationalization – or the extent to which a party’s vote share is consistent fromone region or province to another – is an important factor that shapes parties’ electoralstrategies. They claimed that “if the level of nationalization diverges sharply between[these] two systems, the competitive dynamics are quite different.” We would expectparties whose electoral strength is based on their dominance in certain regions to pursuedifferent strategies than those who have nationally consistent vote shares.I argue that variations in dimensions of party systems – institutionalization andregionalization – afforded parties different strategic opportunities to carve out electoral31

Illan Nam, Colgate University, Feb 2011Draft <strong>in</strong> progress, please do not quote or cite<strong>in</strong>stitutionalized systems such as Taiwan, more than 40% of voters declared themselvesto be unattached to any party (Cheng). In part, this may reflect voters’ disenchantmentwith the KMT’s strong-arm tactics dur<strong>in</strong>g the authoritarian era of manipulat<strong>in</strong>g electoraldistrict<strong>in</strong>g and other electoral rules that discredited the activities of political parties.Somewhat surpris<strong>in</strong>gly, only 27% of Korean voters responded that they did not feel closeto any political party. However, their relatively higher level of attachment may reflectstrong prov<strong>in</strong>cial identities that b<strong>in</strong>d them to a party whose leader was born <strong>in</strong> theirregion. Perhaps underscor<strong>in</strong>g the tenuousness of partisan ties even among those whoprofessed an attachment, <strong>in</strong> all the <strong>East</strong> <strong>Asia</strong>n countries, the overwhelm<strong>in</strong>g majority ofthose voters who identified themselves as “feel<strong>in</strong>g close” to a political party also revealedthemselves to feel “just a little close” as opposed to “somewhat close” or “very close.”At the same time that Ma<strong>in</strong>war<strong>in</strong>g and Scully’s <strong>in</strong>dex captures several importantmeasures of party system stability, it does not <strong>in</strong>dicate other important characteristics ofparty systems that would affect the dynamics of party competition. One such <strong>in</strong>dicator isthe extent to which party systems are nationalized. Jones and Ma<strong>in</strong>war<strong>in</strong>g noted that thelevel of nationalization – or the extent to which a party’s vote share is consistent fromone region or prov<strong>in</strong>ce to another – is an important factor that shapes parties’ electoralstrategies. They claimed that “if the level of nationalization diverges sharply between[these] two systems, the competitive dynamics are quite different.” We would expectparties whose electoral strength is based on their dom<strong>in</strong>ance <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> regions to pursuedifferent strategies than those who have nationally consistent vote shares.I argue that variations <strong>in</strong> dimensions of party systems – <strong>in</strong>stitutionalization andregionalization – afforded parties different strategic opportunities to carve out electoral31

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!