How do Citizens in East Asian Democracies Understand Left and Right?

Abstract

Both general publics and elites have long used labels of left and right as cues for political communication and vote choice in Western democracies. This study examines the utility of these spatial semantics as means of encapsulating major political cleavages in East Asian democracies. Through analysis of public opinion surveys, we investigate the influence of organizational affiliation; views on socio-economic, religious, and ‘new politics’ issues, as well as attitudes toward the political system, as anchors of public understanding of the left–right dimension in Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan. Patterns found in these countries are compared with two ‘Western’ nations in the region, Australia and New Zealand. Results show that citizens’ left–right positions in Japan and the Australasian countries are more clearly structured by well-defined cleavages, such as socio-economic issues and post-materialism, and that parties in these countries compete on the basis of clearer ideological profiles. In contrast, despite high rates of cognition of the left–right scale in South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan, left–right orientations are less firmly anchored in attitudes and policy preferences. These differences in publics’ level of ideological conceptualization are likely related to party system development and democratic experience.

Income, Electoral Turnout, and Partisan Voting in Taiwan

“…Based on the studies at the individual level of Western established democracies, the existing literature suggests that citizens with a higher level of socioeconomic status are more likely to turn out to vote and have a lower probability of voting for the left-wing party than those with a lower socioeconomic status in elections (Anderson andBeramendi 2008, 2012; De Koster, Achterberg, and van der Waal 2013; Leigh 2005; Lewis-Beck and Nadeau 2011; Lewis-Beck, Nadeau, and Foucault 2013; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995). In contrast, the empirical evidence from comparative studies on established and new democracies at the individual level (Gijsberts and Nieuwbeerta 2000;Gomez and Wilson 2006;Jou 2011;van der Brug, Franklin, and Taka 2008) indicates that differences in culture, as well as in historical and institutional contexts, can have strong influences on citizens' voting behaviors. However, among the vari-ables of socioeconomic status, there are mixed results on the relationship between income and partisan choice.…”

“…For example, examining cases from Canada, Hungary, Mexico, and Taiwan with significant differences in social and cultural contexts, Brad Gomez and J. Matthew Wilson (2006) show that cognitive heterogeneity is important, while income is insignificant for explaining vote choice in both established and new democracies. Moreover, comparing four East Asian democracies (Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan) with two Western democracies (Australia and New Zealand), Willy Jou (2011) shows that income is important for explaining partisan orientation only for New Zealand, not for the Asian democracies. Given the findings from previous empirical studies using individuallevel data, the relationship between relative income and voting behavior remains largely unclear.…”

The Influence of Incumbency and Partisanship on Fenno’s Paradox: Evidence from Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan

“…Taiwanese electoral politics is often characterized by colors: the pan blue coalition, comprising the former authoritarian party, the Kuomintang (KMT), along with break-away parties, the People First Party (PFP) and the New Party (NP), versus the pan green coalition of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), the latter also a break-away from the KMT. Whereas the left–right spectrum remains influential in voting decisions in Western democracies (Inglehart, 1990; Lipset and Rokkan, 1967; Norris, 2004), evidence from Taiwan, as well as its East Asian democratic neighbors, suggests that the continuum has less salience or roots (Chen, 2003; Dalton and Tanaka, 2007; Jou, 2011; Kang, 2005; Norris, 2004).…”

Split‐Ticket Voting inSouthKorea's 2012 National Assembly Election

“…With five mixed systems in the region (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Philippines), a related debate regarding a distinct divergence among Asian mixed systems also emerged (e.g., Reilly, ; Shin, ). While a growing literature suggests social cleavages and the left‐right heuristic have comparatively limited saliency in the region (Dalton & Tanaka, ; Jou, ; Kang, ; McAllister, ; Norris, ; Yu, ), this literature largely fails to identify whether electoral institutions in the region produce similar incentives for voters as seen elsewhere.…”