ANALYSIS OF PARTY SYSTEMS BY MEASURES OF CONCENTRATION OF INEQUALITY AND ASYMMETRY OF THE PARETO CURVE

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17072/2218-1067-2023-1-20-29

Keywords:

party system; effective number of parties; Pareto curve; asymmetry; concentration of party systems; Pareto principle; concentration typology

Abstract

The article proposes to assess party systems using the Hoover Index (HI) and the Pareto curve skewness coefficient, PAC. Conceptually, HI is one of the simplest and most intuitive measures of inequality concentration, designed to determine the proportion of votes that must be redistributed from parties that received at least the average number of votes in elections to other parties in order to achieve an even distribution of votes. The PAC determines which parties contribute the most to overall party inequality as measured by HI. For the typology of inequality concentration in party systems, the generalized Pareto principle is used. When applying the new concept to the analysis of party systems in 18 European countries (158 electoral cases), it was found that most of them had a left-wing skewness of the Pareto curve and a concentration of inequality close to the proportion of the Pareto principle. The proposed method for assessing party systems can be considered as an independent tool, or as an addition to the currently widely used Laakso-Taagepera effective numbers of parties.

Author Biography

G. A. Grachev

Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Independent Scholar, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

References

Грачев, Г. А. (2011) ‘К оценке политической стабильности по результатам голосования на выборах’, Полис. Политические исследования, (5), cc. 123‒127 [Grachev, G. A. (2011) ‘On the Assessment of Political Stability on the Basis of Results of Voting at the Elections’ [K ocenke politicheskoj stabil'nosti po rezul'tatam golosovaniya na vyborah], POLIS-Politicheskiye Issledovaniya, (5), pp. 123‒127. (In Russ.)].

Грачев, Г. А. (2012) ‘Оценка политической стабильности на прошедших выборах парламента и Президента России’, Полис. Политические исследования, (3), cc. 30‒35 [Grachev, G. A. (2012) ‘Assessment of the political stability at the latest Russian parliamentary and presi-dential elections’ [Ocenka politicheskoj stabil'nosti na proshedshih vyborah par-lamenta i prezidenta Rossii], POLIS-Politicheskiye Issledovaniya, (3), pp. 30‒35 (In Russ.)].

Суманеев, И. А. (2017) ‘Эффективное число партий: случай Австрии’, Вестник Пермского университета. Политология, (1), сс. 199–205. [Sumaneev, I. A. (2017) ‘Effective Number of Parties: Aus-trian Case’ [Effektivnoe chislo partij: slu-chaj Avstrii], Perm University Herald. Political Science, (1), pp. 199‒205 (In Russ.)].

Bogaards, M. (2004) ‘Counting parties and identifying dominant party systems in Africa’, European Journal of Political Research, 43(2), pp. 173–197.

Clementi, F. et al. (2019) ‘Mismeasurement of inequality: a critical reflection and new insights’, Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, 14, pp. 891–921.

Curie, P. (1894) ‘Sur la symétrie dans les phénomènes physiques, symétrie d’un champ électrique et d’un champ magnétique’, J. Phys. Theor, Appl, (1), pp. 393–415.

Downs, A. (1957) ‘An Economic Theory of Polit-ical Action in a Democracy’, Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), pp. 135–150.

Dunleavy, P. and Boucek, F. (2016) ‘Constructing the Number of Parties’, Party Poli-tics, 9(3), pp. 291–315.

Epstein, J. M. and Axtell, R. L. (1996) ‘Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up’, Growing Artificial Societies, by Joshua M. Epstein and Robert L. Axtell, The MIT Press.

Gaines, B. J. and Taagepera, R. (2014) ‘More on Measuring Two-Party Competition: A Response to Dunleavy’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 24(3), pp. 386–392.

Golosov, G. V. (2010) ‘The effective number of parties: A new approach’, Party Politics, 16(2), pp. 171–192.

Grachev, G. A. (2022) ‘Size distribution of states, counties, and cities in the USA: New in-equality form information’, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 592, p. 126831.

Hoover, E. (1936) ‘The Measurement of Industrial Localization’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 18, pp. 162–171.

Juran, J. M. (1954) ‘Universals in management planning and controlling’, Management Review, 43(11), pp. 748–761.

Juran, J. M. (1975) ‘The Non-Pareto Principle; mea culpa’, Quality Progress, 8(5), pp. 8–9.

Kakwani, N. (1980) Income inequality and poverty: methods of estimation and policy applications. Published for the World Bank [by] Oxford University Press.

Laakso, M. and Taagepera, R. (1979) ‘“Effective” number of parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe’, Comparative Political Studies, 12(1), pp. 3–27.

Magyar, Z. B. (2022) ‘What Makes Party Systems Different? A Principal Component Analysis of 17 Advanced Democracies 1970–2013’, 30(2), pр. 250‒268.

McCarthy, D. M. and Winer, R. S. (2019) ‘The Pareto rule in marketing revisited: is it 80/20 or 70/20?’, Marketing Letters, 30(2), pp. 139–150.

Molinar, J. (1991) ‘Counting the Number of Parties: An Alternative Index No Title’, American Political Science Review, 8(4), pp. 1383–1391.

Pareto, V. and Page, A. N. (1971) Translation of Manuale di economia politica (‘Manual of political economy’). A.M. Kelley.

Pietra, G. (1915) Delle relazioni tra gli indici di variabilita. Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze.

Rae, D. (1967) The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven: CT: Yale University Press.

Schutz, R. R. (1951) ‘On the Measurement of Income Inequality’, American Economic Review, 41, pp. 107–122.

Sharp, B., Romaniuk, J. and Graham, C. (2019) ‘Marketing’s 60/20 Pareto Law’, SSRN Electronic Journal.

Spoon, J.-J. and Klüver, H. (2019) ‘Party conver-gence and vote switching: Explaining mainstream party decline across Europe’,

European Journal of Political Research, 58 (4) pp. 1021‒1042.

Taagepera, R. (1999) ‘The Number of Parties as a Function of Heterogeneity and Electoral System’, Comparative Political Studies, 32(5), pp. 531–548.

Vayrynen, R. (1972) ‘Analysis of Party Systems by Concentration, Fractionalization, and Entropy Measures’, Scandinavian Politi-cal Studies, 7, pp. 138–155.

Zipf, G. K. (1949) Human behavior and the prin-ciple of least effort. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Published

2023-04-28

How to Cite

Grachev, G. A. . (2023). ANALYSIS OF PARTY SYSTEMS BY MEASURES OF CONCENTRATION OF INEQUALITY AND ASYMMETRY OF THE PARETO CURVE. Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science, 17(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.17072/2218-1067-2023-1-20-29

Issue

Section

Political institutions, processes, technologies