ALERT: This system is being upgraded on Tuesday December 12. It will not be available
for use for several hours that day while the upgrade is in progress. Deposits to DukeSpace
will be disabled on Monday December 11, so no new items are to be added to the repository
while the upgrade is in progress. Everything should be back to normal by the end of
day, December 12.
Nodding or Needling: Analyzing Delegate Responsiveness in an Authoritarian Parliament
Abstract
Recent scholarship argues that one solution to ensure longevity and economic growth
in an authoritarian regime is to co-opt potential opposition by offering them limited
policy influence in a national legislature. Although cooptation theory generates a
number of predictions for delegate behavior within an authoritarian parliament, the
opacity of such regimes has made empirical confirmation difficult. We resolve this
problem by exploiting the transcripts of query sessions in the Vietnamese National
Assembly, where delegates question the prime minister and Cabinet members on important
issues of the day. Using a content analysis of queries, we offer the first empirical
test of delegate behavior in nondemocratic parliaments. We find that some delegates
exhibit behavior consistent with cooptation theory by actively participating in sessions,
demonstrating criticism of authorities, and responding to the needs of local constituents.
Such responsiveness, however, is parameterized by regime rules for nominating, electing,
and assigning parliamentary responsibilities to individual delegates. © 2010 American
Political Science Association.
Type
Journal articlePermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/17754Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1017/S0003055410000250Publication Info
Malesky, EJ; & Schuler, P (2010). Nodding or Needling: Analyzing Delegate Responsiveness in an Authoritarian Parliament.
American Political Science Review, 104(03). pp. 482-502. 10.1017/S0003055410000250. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/17754.This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this
article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
Edmund Malesky
Professor of Political Science
Malesky is a specialist on Southeast Asia, particularly Vietnam. Currently, Malesky's
research agenda is very much at the intersection of Comparative and International
Political Economy, falling into three major categories: 1) Authoritarian political
institutions and their consequences; 2) The political influence of foreign direct
investment and multinational corporations; and 3) Political institutions, private
business development, and formalization.

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info