Political families in Southeast Asia

Purdey, Jemma

doi:10.1177/0967828x16659027

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research shows that one of the most important differences between PPFs and non-PPFs is that PPFs work to promote the success of their entire families, not just their personal political fortune. 12 This incentivizes them to create different relationships with their voters, supporters and parties, and creates a strong preference for undemocratic LSPs (Ahmad and Ur-Rehman 2019; Amundsen 2016; Chandra 2016; Chhibber 2011; Purdey 2016). This preference is driven by two political dynamics.…”

Section: Ppfs and Party Leadership Selection Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 Therefore, while PPFs seek out party leadership positions they do not necessarily need or want to build party-wide support for their candidacy among party workers. As a result of these two dynamics, PPFs prefer that party positions are filled by party leaders, whom they cultivate, rather than through party-wide elections (Chandra 2016; Chhibber 2011; Cruz, Labonne, and Querubín 2017; Purdey 2016).…”

Section: Ppfs and Party Leadership Selection Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Face of the Party: Party Leadership Selection, and the Role of Family and Faith

Yadav

Fidalgo

2021

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political parties in developing country democracies are often characterized by undemocratic internal party practices, including for selecting party organizational leaders. Scholars identify institutional, party-level, and demographic factors as driving such practices. In this paper, we contribute to this research by considering the effect of two personal factors—personal religiosity and membership in a political family. Politicians act in accordance with personal values and strategic incentives. We argue religiosity influences both in ways that undermine support for democratic intra-party selection practices. We hypothesize that membership in a political family increases the undemocratic effects of high religiosity because it strengthens the capacity of highly religious dynasts to access and mobilize politically through religious and family networks. This strengthens their strategic independence from their party, leading them to support undemocratic leadership selection practices. We test this prediction for the case of Turkey using original data from a 2017 survey of 200 Turkish politicians. We find that religiosity is only associated with reduced support for democratic leadership selection practices among politicians who are members of political families. This result is robust to the inclusion of party-specific effects, religious party membership, and individual characteristics including support for political Islam.

show abstract

Section: Ppfs and Party Leadership Selection Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ppfs and Party Leadership Selection Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Face of the Party: Party Leadership Selection, and the Role of Family and Faith

Yadav

Fidalgo

2021

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Political dynasties have, however, not been confined to the group of clearcut cases of autocracy, such as North Korea (see Hakjoon, 2015) or most countries in the Arab world (see Billingsley, 2009). Empirically, cases of 'kin selection' at the level of executive politics have been widespread throughout Latin America and, in particular, Asia (see, for example, Purdey, 2016;Querubin, 2016;Ruud and Nielsen, 2018;Thompson, 2012). In many hybrid regimes, the daughters or wives of power holders have featured at least as prominently in the succession game as male family members, which has not been by sheer coincidence.…”

Section: Political Dynastiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership succession in politics: The democracy/autocracy divide revisited

Helms

2020

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leadership succession marks a truly ubiquitous phenomenon with manifold and wide-ranging implications, which explains the major attention that issues of succession have received in the international literature. Most contributions to the field continue, however, to focus on political succession in either democratic or non-democratic regimes. This article develops an integrated perspective on key aspects of leadership succession at the level of political chief executives in democracies and autocracies. A comparative assessment across time and space reveals several features that challenge established notions, and stereotypes, of leadership succession in democratic and autocratic regimes. The empirical ambivalences identified suggest that the way leaders come to and fall from power should be made a more explicit part of conceptualisations of political regimes, and comparative evaluations of their respective democratic quality.

show abstract

“…A few studies have examined the pervasiveness of political dynasties or family legacies in politics, focusing predominantly on the United States, Mexico, or Southeast Asia (Camp 1982; Clubok, Wilensky, and Berghorn 1969; Dal Bó, Dal Bó, and Snyder 2009; Feinstein 2010; Geys and Smith 2017; Purdey 2016; Smith 2018; Smith and Martin 2017; van Coppenolle 2017). Clubok, Wilensky, and Berghorn (1969), Dal Bó, Dal Bó, and Snyder (2009), and Feinstein (2010) study the U.S. Congress and show that dynasties are more common in Congress than in other occupations (Dal Bó, Dal Bó, and Snyder et al 2009; Feinstein 2010) but that the importance of dynasties declined over time in the early twentieth century (Clubok et al 1969).…”

Section: Existing Research On Family Tiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Camp (1982, 1995) finds that family ties have been very important for politicians of all types in Mexico but began to decline beginning in the 1980s. In the Philippines, in contrast, the importance of family dynasties has been and remains high (Purdey 2016; Querubin 2016). One cross-national study considered legacies among Latin American legislators, but the focus on legacies was one small part of a wider analysis on legislator quality in Latin America.…”

Section: Existing Research On Family Tiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and Family Ties in Latin American Legislatures

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are women disproportionately more likely than men to have family ties in politics? We study this question in Latin America, where legacies have been historically common, and we focus specifically on legislatures, where women's representation has increased dramatically in many countries. We hypothesize that, counter to conventional wisdom, women should be no more likely than men to have ties to political families. However, this may vary across legislatures with and without gender quotas. Our empirical analysis uses data from the Parliamentary Elites of Latin America survey. We find more gender similarities than differences in legislators’ patterns of family ties both today and over the past 20 years. We also find that women are more likely to have family ties than men in legislatures without gender quotas, whereas this difference disappears in legislatures with quotas.

show abstract

Political families in Southeast Asia

Cited by 11 publications

References 22 publications

The Face of the Party: Party Leadership Selection, and the Role of Family and Faith

The Face of the Party: Party Leadership Selection, and the Role of Family and Faith

Leadership succession in politics: The democracy/autocracy divide revisited

Gender and Family Ties in Latin American Legislatures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About