IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v11y2022i3p94-d756222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Party Competition Structure and Legislative Productivity of Local Councils: From the 4th to 6th Local Councils in Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Sung Eun Jung

    (Department of Political Science, College of Social Science Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea)

  • Yongmin Kim

    (KU China Institute, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea)

Abstract

The Korean local autonomy system has a unique feature in that it grants councils, mayors, and governors the right to submit bills. Because of Korea’s extensive experience with authoritarianism, the relative legislative productivity of the assembly with respect to the head of the group—that is, the person who has the legislative initiative—has become an evaluation criterion for the activities of local councils in Korea. In this study, we address the question of why the relative legislative productivity of individual councils appears to be the cause of problematic awareness in situations where the legal and institutional conditions—for example, the organization and function of local councils, operating methods, and support systems—are very similar. Accordingly, regarding the 4th to 6th parliamentary period (2006–2018) of 15 parliaments, panel data analysis was performed to understand how the structure of party competition between the heads of the group and parliament and the structure of party competition within the assembly affects the relative legislative productivity of the assembly from a macro perspective. It was found that the relative legislative productivity of the parliament for mayors increases when there is a divided government rather than unified one and when the seat share of the first party in parliament increases. However, it was also found that the greater the difference in seat share between the first party in parliament and the second party in parliament, the higher the index of party concentration in parliament and the lower the relative legislative productivity of parliament. In Korea’s political reality, it was confirmed that the political structure of a divided government at the local level does not necessarily lead to a decrease in legislative productivity. The significance of this study is that these ideas were verified.

Suggested Citation

  • Sung Eun Jung & Yongmin Kim, 2022. "Party Competition Structure and Legislative Productivity of Local Councils: From the 4th to 6th Local Councils in Korea," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:11:y:2022:i:3:p:94-:d:756222
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/11/3/94/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/11/3/94/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kirkland, Patricia A. & Phillips, Justin H., 2018. "Is Divided Government a Cause of Legislative Delay?," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 13(2), pages 173-206, May.
    2. James Rogers, 2005. "The Impact of Divided Government on Legislative Production," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 217-233, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hayashida, Sherilyn & La Croix, Sumner & Coffman, Makena, 2021. "Understanding changes in electric vehicle policies in the U.S. states, 2010–2018," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 211-223.
    2. Alvaro Forteza & Juan S. Pereyra, 2021. "Separation of powers with ideological parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(3), pages 333-382, July.
    3. Joshua Y. Lerner, 2018. "Getting the message across: evaluating think tank influence in Congress," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 347-366, June.
    4. Luca Repetto & Maximiliano Sosa Andrés, 2022. "Divided Government and Polarization: Regression-Discontinuity Evidence from US States," CESifo Working Paper Series 9823, CESifo.
    5. Repetto, Luca & Andrés, Maximiliano Sosa, 2023. "Divided government, polarization, and policy: Regression-discontinuity evidence from US states," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. William Bianco & Regina Smyth, 2020. "The Bicameral Roots of Congressional Deadlock: Analyzing Divided Government Through the Lens of Majority Rule," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1712-1727, September.
    7. Below, Amy, 2013. "Obstacles in energy security: An analysis of congressional and presidential framing in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 860-868.
    8. Bernecker, Andreas, 2016. "Divided we reform? Evidence from US welfare policies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 24-38.
    9. Lang (Kate) Yang, 2020. "Intergovernmental Costs of Political Gridlock: Local Government Cash Flow Smoothing during State Budgetary Delays," Public Finance Review, , vol. 48(1), pages 102-134, January.
    10. Steven Callander & Keith Krehbiel, 2014. "Gridlock and Delegation in a Changing World," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 819-834, October.
    11. Schelker, Mark, 2018. "Lame ducks and divided government: How voters control the unaccountable," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 131-144.
    12. Im, Hyun Joong & Kim, Jiyeon & Ryu, Dean, 2023. "Unified government and the value of cash holdings," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(PC).
    13. Peter Calcagno & Joshua C. Hall, 2020. "Formal and informal constraints on state government and economic freedom," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(1), pages 801-806.
    14. Peter Calcagno & Edward Lopez, 2012. "Divided we vote," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 517-536, June.
    15. Anabel Zárate-Marco & Jaime Vallés-Giménez, 2015. "Environmental tax and productivity in a decentralized context: new findings on the Porter hypothesis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 313-339, October.
    16. Dawood Ashraf & Mohsin Khawaja & M. Ishaq Bhatti, 2022. "Raising capital amid economic policy uncertainty: an empirical investigation," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, December.
    17. Gregory M. Randolph, 2014. "Institutions and entrepreneurial productivity in the American states," Chapters, in: Robert F. Salvino Jr. & Michael T. Tasto & Gregory M. Randolph (ed.), Entrepreneurial Action, Public Policy, and Economic Outcomes, chapter 6, pages 100-116, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Matteo Cervellati & Giorgio Gulino & Paolo Roberti, 2024. "Random Votes to Parties and Policies in Coalition Governments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 92(5), pages 1553-1588, September.
    19. Byung‐Jae Lee & Tae Wan Kim & Jaekwon Suh & O. Fiona Yap, 2021. "Local government performance and democratic consolidation: Explaining ordinance proposal in Busan Metropolitan Council," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(1), pages 15-41, January.
    20. Gregory Randolph, 2011. "The voter initiative and the power of the governor: evidence from campaign expenditures," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 265-286, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:11:y:2022:i:3:p:94-:d:756222. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.