Content area
Full text
The papers were presented at the workshop as a part of the international conference on "Dynamics of transformation in East Asia" held at the University of Edinburgh, 24-26 October 2007 (http://www.ksgsc.org). We thank the reviewers, Takashi Inoguchi, Junko Kato, Jose Cheibub, Robert Elgie, Carol Mershon, and participants at the workshop for their helpful comments and suggestions. The responsibility for all errors remains with the authors. Youngmi Kim would like to thank numerous supporters for the conference including Korea Foundation, Research Councils UK, The British Academy, Economic and Social Research Council, Japan Foundation and University of Edinburgh.
A vast body of literature emphasizes that successful political development relies on stable and united political parties that underpin clear and responsive policymaking. By this perspective, divided government and party volatility represent pathologies that imperil political accountability and development. Indeed, studies contend that divided government - where different parties control the executive and legislative branches of government - lead to policy deadlock while party volatility - characterized by frequent party splits, solo switches, mergers, dissolutions or the establishment of new parties - confounds representation and accountability. Clearly, each on its own is seen as a considerable threat to political performance and democratic development; the confluence of the two points virtually to an inevitable political doom.
These conceptions of divided government and party volatility sound the alarm over two current political phenomena: First, the institutional arrangements of presidential and semi-presidential regimes that give rise to divided governments is the predominant constitutional choice of emergent democracies (see Cheibub and Chernykh of this issue). Second, party-system volatility can be observed not only in emergent democracies but also established ones (see Kato and Kannon; Mershon of this issue). Do the divided government and party volatility spell a spate of regime instability and collapses on the horizon or, with apologies to Mark Twain, is their depiction as pathologies to political and democratic development greatly exaggerated?
The collection of six papers here follow from a workshop on 'Governability Across Regime Types', convened by the School of Social and Political Studies, University of Edinburgh, on 24 October 2007 to evaluate the effects of divided government and party volatility. Our research is methodologically broad as we seek to arrive at conclusions with generalizable and comparative implications. Thus,...