评估非居民公民的特别代表权:资格、选区和相称性

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY
Sebastián Umpierrez de Reguero, Rainer Bauböck, Klaudia Wegschaider
{"title":"评估非居民公民的特别代表权:资格、选区和相称性","authors":"Sebastián Umpierrez de Reguero, Rainer Bauböck, Klaudia Wegschaider","doi":"10.1111/imig.13263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"So far, 21 countries have introduced—and some thereafter withdrawn—reserved legislative seats for their citizens living abroad. Existing literature on this form of special representation has studied this topic either empirically <jats:italic>or</jats:italic> normatively. We bring these two approaches together based on the main dimensions of institutional variation of special representation: (1) eligibility, (2) constituency structure and (3) electoral proportionality. We first discuss each dimension from a normative perspective. In the second step, we map the range of empirical variation and highlight the most common arrangements. We conclude that the normative justification for special representation is generally weak, but some institutional configurations pose fewer problems. Specifically, we see fewer issues with special representation when electoral inclusion is limited to the first generation of emigrants and when it is used to limit the electoral influence of non‐resident populations that make up a large share of the overall electorate. By grounding our normative discussion on an empirical mapping, we bridge two disconnected literatures on special representation of non‐resident citizens.","PeriodicalId":48011,"journal":{"name":"International Migration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating special representation of non‐resident citizens: Eligibility, constituency and proportionality\",\"authors\":\"Sebastián Umpierrez de Reguero, Rainer Bauböck, Klaudia Wegschaider\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/imig.13263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"So far, 21 countries have introduced—and some thereafter withdrawn—reserved legislative seats for their citizens living abroad. Existing literature on this form of special representation has studied this topic either empirically <jats:italic>or</jats:italic> normatively. We bring these two approaches together based on the main dimensions of institutional variation of special representation: (1) eligibility, (2) constituency structure and (3) electoral proportionality. We first discuss each dimension from a normative perspective. In the second step, we map the range of empirical variation and highlight the most common arrangements. We conclude that the normative justification for special representation is generally weak, but some institutional configurations pose fewer problems. Specifically, we see fewer issues with special representation when electoral inclusion is limited to the first generation of emigrants and when it is used to limit the electoral influence of non‐resident populations that make up a large share of the overall electorate. By grounding our normative discussion on an empirical mapping, we bridge two disconnected literatures on special representation of non‐resident citizens.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48011,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Migration\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Migration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13263\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Migration","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13263","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

迄今为止,已有 21 个国家为其旅居海外的公民保留了立法席位,有些国家随后又撤销了保留席位。关于这种特殊代表权形式的现有文献要么从经验角度研究,要么从规范角度研究。我们根据特别代表制度变异的主要维度:(1) 资格、(2) 选区结构和 (3) 选举比例,将这两种方法结合起来。我们首先从规范的角度讨论每个维度。第二步,我们绘制了经验变化的范围,并强调了最常见的安排。我们的结论是,特别代表制的规范性理由普遍薄弱,但某些制度配置带来的问题较少。具体来说,当选举的包容性仅限于第一代移民,以及当特别代表制被用来限制在总体选民中占很大比例的非居民的选举影响力时,我们认为特别代表制的问题较少。通过将我们的规范性讨论建立在经验图谱的基础上,我们弥合了关于非居民公民特别代表权的两个互不关联的文献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating special representation of non‐resident citizens: Eligibility, constituency and proportionality
So far, 21 countries have introduced—and some thereafter withdrawn—reserved legislative seats for their citizens living abroad. Existing literature on this form of special representation has studied this topic either empirically or normatively. We bring these two approaches together based on the main dimensions of institutional variation of special representation: (1) eligibility, (2) constituency structure and (3) electoral proportionality. We first discuss each dimension from a normative perspective. In the second step, we map the range of empirical variation and highlight the most common arrangements. We conclude that the normative justification for special representation is generally weak, but some institutional configurations pose fewer problems. Specifically, we see fewer issues with special representation when electoral inclusion is limited to the first generation of emigrants and when it is used to limit the electoral influence of non‐resident populations that make up a large share of the overall electorate. By grounding our normative discussion on an empirical mapping, we bridge two disconnected literatures on special representation of non‐resident citizens.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
10.50%
发文量
130
期刊介绍: International Migration is a refereed, policy oriented journal on migration issues as analysed by demographers, economists, sociologists, political scientists and other social scientists from all parts of the world. It covers the entire field of policy relevance in international migration, giving attention not only to a breadth of topics reflective of policy concerns, but also attention to coverage of all regions of the world and to comparative policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信