Most of the previous work on political stability uses cabinet duration or leadership duration to measure stability. This study, however, focuses on another area of stability, namely the party control of the executive branch. This approach not only allows us to compare political durability in presidential and parliamentary systems directly, but it also, we believe, better reflects policy changes that stem from government party composition. Our analysis of longitudinal data from 65 democracies reveals that presidential and parliamentary governments create different patterns of government survival. Ruling parties in parliamentary systems encounter a declining hazard rate over time, whereas those in presidentialism face an increasing hazard rate in their survival. We explain this difference by focusing on how parliamentary and presidential systems create different incentive structures for political parties.
Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Petrov & F. Csaki (Eds.), Second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267-281). Budapest, Hungary: Akademiai Kiado.
2.
Bernhard, M., Nordstrom, T., & Reenock, C. (2001). Economic performance, institutional intermediation, and democratic survival. Journal of Politics, 63, 775-803.
3.
Bienen, H., & van de Walle, N. (1991). Of time and power: Leadership duration in the modern world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
4.
Blais, A., Blake, D., & Dion, S. (1996). Do parties make a difference? A reappraisal. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 514-520.
5.
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. S. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Browne, E. C., & Franklin, M. (1973). Aspects of coalition payoffs in European parliamentary governments. American Political Science Review, 67, 453-469.
7.
Bueno de Mesquita, B., Morrow, J. D., Silverson, R. M., & Smith, A. (2000). Political institutions, political survival, and policy success. In B. Bueno de Mesquita & H. L. Root (Eds.), Governing for prosperity (pp. 59-84). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2002). Democratic institutions and regime survival: Parliamentary and presidential democracies reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 151-179.
9.
Doorenspleet, R. (2000). Reassessing the three waves of democratization. World Politics, 52, 384-406.
10.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
11.
Gasiorowski, M. J. (1996). An overview of the political regime dataset. Comparative Political Studies, 29, 469-483.
12.
Gelpi, C., & Grieco, J. M. (2001). Attracting trouble: Democracy, leadership tenure, and the targeting of militarized challengers, 1918-1992. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45, 794-817.
13.
Golder, M. (2004). Codebook: Democratic electoral systems around the world, 1946-2000. Retrieved September 29, 2004, from homepages.nyu.edu/%7Emrg217/codebook_es1.pdf
14.
Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). Varying-coefficient models (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 55, 757-796.
15.
Hess, K. (1994). Assessing time-by-covariate interactions in proportional hazards regression models using cubic spline models. Statistics in Medicine, 13, 1045-1062.
16.
Heston, A., Summers, R., & Aten, B. (2002). Penn world table version 6.1, Center for International Comparisons at the University of Pennsylvania (CICUP), October 2002. Available from http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/
17.
Jones, M. P. (1994). Presidential election laws and multipartism in Latin America. Political Science Quarterly, 47(1), 41-57.
18.
Jones, M. P. (2004). Electoral institutions, social cleavages, and candidate competition in presidential elections. Electoral Studies, 23, 73-106.
19.
Kalbfleisch, J. D., & Prentice, R. L. (1980). The statistical analysis of failure time data. New York: John Wiley.
20.
Kuenzi, M., & Lambright, G. (2001). Party system institutionalization in 30 African countries. Party Politics, 7, 437-468.
21.
Laver, M. (2003). Government termination. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 23-40.
22.
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
Linz, J. J. (1994). Presidential or parliamentary democracy. In J. J. Linz & A. Valenzuela (Eds.), The failure of presidential democracy: Comparative perspectives (Vol. 1). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
24.
Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1978). The breakdown of democratic regimes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
25.
Mainwaring, S., & Scully, T. R. (1995). Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
26.
Manin, B., Przeworski, A., & Stokes, S. C. (1999). Elections and representation. In A. Przeworski, S. C. Stokes, & B. Manin (Eds.), Democracy, accountability, and representation (pp. 29-54). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Muller, W. C., & Strom, K. (Eds.). (1999). Policy, office, or votes? How political parties in Western Europe make hard decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
POLITY IV Project. (2000). POLITY IV data set [Data file p4v2000]. College Park: University of Maryland, Center for International Development and Conflict Management. Retrieved December 17, 2000, from www.cidum.umd.edu/inscr/polity/
29.
Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2000). Democracy and development: Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950-1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Royston, P. (2001). Flexible parametric alternatives to the Cox model, and more. The Stata Journal, 1, 1-28.
31.
Royston, P., & Parmar, M. K. B. (2002). Flexible parametric proportional-hazard and proportional-odds models for censored survival data, with applications to prognostic modeling and estimation of treatment effects. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 2175-2197.
32.
Samuels, D. (2002). Presidentialized parties: Separation of powers and party organization and behavior. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 461-483.
33.
Shugart, M. S., & Carey, J. M. (1992). Presidents and assemblies: Constitutional design and electoral dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Siaroff, A. (2003). Comparative presidencies: The inadequacy of the presidential, semi-presidential and parliamentary distinction. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 287-312.
35.
Stokes, S. (1999). Political parties and democracy. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 243-267.
36.
Strom, K. (1990a). A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 565-598.
37.
Strom, K. (1990b). Minority government and majority rule. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Woldendorp, J., Keman, H., & Budge, I. (2000). Party government in 48 democracies (1945- 1998). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
39.
Yamaguchi, K. (1991). Event history analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
