Australian Election and Voting Behaviour - Essay Example

Order No. 182692 Topic: It is often argued that the level of party identification in Australia is extremely high by international standards. Critically assess the evidence in support of this and explain its potential significance for the development of major and minor parties Prepared by Dr. Zulfiquar Ahmed ID: 10131 Date: 22-10-2007 It is often argued that the level of party identification in Australia is extremely high by international standards. Critically assess the evidence in support of this and explain its potential significance for the development of major and minor parties Introduction The growth and sophistication of political communications coupled with the long-term high strength of party identification in the Australia electorate. This paper uses data from the 2001 Australian Election Study (AES), to investigate the level of party identification, political attitudes and voting behaviour in the election in Australia.This paper finds that whereas a weakening in the strength of party identification is associated with the potential significance of the development of the major1 and minor parties2. Partisan de-alignment is also changing the dynamics of the determinants of turnout. Since non-identifiers are more strongly influenced by the political context than strong identifiers, and there are now more non-identifiers than previously, the political context is becoming a more important factor in determining whether people vote or not. A question of potential importance is whether to study vote in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, or even possibly party identification. In part, this is because the voting system in the Senate is more 'minor party-friendly' because of its more proportional outcomes, but a further reason for examining Senate vote is the greater consistency in choice offered to voters (Charnock, 2004). In the House, voters in each of the electoral divisions (of which there are usually just fewer than 150) face differing choices, with (apart from the possible importance of electorate-specific issues and personalities) not all parties offering candidates in every contest. In particular, it becomes impossible to separately analyse voters for the National and Liberal parties: in view of the way in which One Nation apparently obtained much of its support in National areas, this is an important deficiency for 1998 in particular.3 In the last two decades, Australian major political parties, like those in other western democracies, have faced serious problems. These include challenges to the relevance of their traditional ideologies and institutional support bases, slipping memberships and rank and file participation, declining party identification, an erosion of confidence in majoritarian party government and the rise of new parties and social movements (Marsh 1995; Smith 1998). Party Identification Party identification is a political term to describe a voter's underlying allegiance to a political party. The term was first used in the world politics in the 1950s, but use of the term has decreased in usage as the process of party dealignment has accelerated. Party identification is a pychological attachment toward a political party that tends to influence a person's decisions on social, economic and political issues. Some researchers view party identification as " a form of social identity" (Hershey, 101), in the same way that a person identifies with a religious or ethnic group. This identity develops early in a person's life mainly through family and social influences. This description would make party identification a stable perspective, which develops as a consequence of personal, family, social and environmental factors. Other researchers consider party identification to be more flexible and more of a conscious choice. They see it as a position and a choice based on the continued assessment of the political, economic and social environment. A person who identifies with a particular political party is called a partisan. The partisan accepts the standard beliefs and policies of the party as a summary of his/her political views and preferences. In Australia, the main party identifications are:4 Australian Democrats, Australian Greens, Australian Labor Party, Liberal and National. Citizens in the general population who identify with a particular party make up the Party in the Electorate. Party identifiers (partisans) could be described by their support in the following ways: (i) They register as a member of the particular party when registered to vote. (ii) They tend to vote for candidates in their particular party in most elections. (iii) When surveyed, they identify themselves as a member of that particular party. (iv) They are inclined to support policies endorsed by the particular party. (v) They tend to volunteerfor campaigns to support party candidates motre than the general population. And (vi) They have a higher voter turnout in primary elections than the general population. Characterization of Party Identification Party Identification is characterized in different following ways: 1. Some view party attatchment as a form of national identity, which is similar to a nations region identity. 2. Some view party attatchment as a form of social identity, which is similar to a religious or ethnic identity. 3. Some View party attatchment as a perceptual screen, a view of the political world that can sort through any conflicting information that one may encounter in life 4. The last way of party identification is characterized is that it is percieved as changeable. One's experiences (whether positive or negative) with the party's performance in office helps the individual make voting decisions without knowing much about the party's candidate. The Level of Party Identification in Australia and International Standards How is party identification, or partisanship, best defined and measured This is a question that has exercised political scientists since this concept was first introduced into the academic study of voting behavior and elections more than 50 years ago5 (Campbell et al. 1954; 1960; 1966). Indeed, its staying power is testament to the key role party identification has played in most models of the voting decision. The evidence so far is of a low key election campaign in 2001, which aroused relatively little public interest. In addition to the overt public response they generate, election campaigns also provide opportunities to garner information about key indicators of the broader mood of the electorate and its political trajectory. Such key indicators include data on the potential for electoral stability or volatility. One such indicator of the volatility of the electoral mood is the proportion of voters who leave their final voting decision until during the election campaign. In 2001, 41% of AES respondents said they decided during the campaign period, compared to 59% who had decided before then. This figure is down on that for 1998, which was unusually high (Bean and McAllister 2000, 176) but similar to the level in 1996 (Figure 1). As in 1998, however, over a quarter (29%) said that they seriously thought of giving their first preference vote in the House of Representatives to a different party from the one they actually voted for in 2001 (Clive Bean). Figure 1: Indicators of Volatility and stability 1996-2001 Source: Australian Election Studies, 1996, 1998, 2001. Traditionally, well over half of the Australian electorate has always voted for the same party throughout their voting lifetime. The proportion of loyal voters by this measure has been declining since the late 1980s, however (McAllister and Bean 1997, 177), and now it appears to have dipped under 50%. In 1996, 52% said they had always voted for the same party, in 1998 the equivalent figure was down to 49% and in 2001 it was 47%. As has so often been the case in the past, there are some hints in these data that greater electoral volatility might be looming, but no dramatic break with past patterns and some indications of a less volatile mood in 2001 compared to 1998 (Clive Bean). Probably the key ongoing indicator of electoral stability in Australia is party identification, the sense of longstanding loyalty to one or other of the major parties possessed by most voters (Aitkin 1982; McAllister 1992). In recent years a number of authors have suggested that partisan attachments are showing signs of weakening in Australia (Charnock 1997; Smith 1998), although there has generally been more resistance to such developments in this country than elsewhere (Dalton, 1996). Perhaps the most crucial indicator, the proportion of voters identifying with one or other of the major parties (the Labor, Liberal or National parties) shows the number continuing to hover below 80% and dipping to what is probably a new low of 77% in 2001. The proportion holding no party identification at all, however, has not reached a corresponding peak because minor parties attracted a larger number of identifiers in 2001 than in some past years. In terms of strength of partisan attachment, the proportion holding a very strong identification has continued at about the same level throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century (Clive Bean). Party Identification and the Development of Major and Minor Parties Family is the most common source for our first party identification because of their involvement in early life. Although influence can begin to take place as early as elementary school, college and universtiy years, party identity is typically formed between the ages of 18 and 30. During adulthood, people can begin to adjust their party loyalties according to their personal experiences. Older adults are more likely to hold strong party attatchments, and less likely to change them than young adults. The period after 1955 has also corresponded with the rise of minor parties contesting large numbers of lower house seats in Australia. This pattern has continued so that the number of minor party and independent candidates now running for election means that there is little chance that seats will be uncontested, including those seats which are not contested by one of the larger parties. In addition, the decline in the strength of party identification and the rise of single issue politics mean that voters are more likely to be swamped by rather than starved of electoral choice. The party system now guarantees that all seats will be contested (Campbell).In 1988, on the basis of clear evidence on shifts in party identification, Graetz and McAllister reported that the Liberal-National Party Coalition had been in a state of long-term decline since the 1960s. They concluded that since the heyday of the Menzies era in the 1950s and early 1960s the Liberals had failed either 'to project a distinctive enough profile to the voters or to attract sufficiently able leaders to arrest the decline' (Graetz and I. McAllister, 1988: 280, 281). The general trend from 1967 to 1984 had been a shift of support away from the Liberals and towards the Labor party (Graetz and McAllister, 1988: 290). The current evidence suggests that the trend is now swinging the other way. Labor's loss of support among the working class may have been accentuated by factors specific to the 1996 election but it seems to be part of a long-term shift. However, the boundaries between Liberal and Labor supporters have become increasingly blurred, and many voters, especially in Australia's large middle class, have no firm political allegiance. As the major parties have become increasingly driven by public opinion, focusing on issues of concern to these swing voters, policy differences between them have narrowed (The Economist; 2007). The National Party is based in the sparsely populated countryside, enjoying little support in provincial towns and almost none in major cities. Despite this narrow support base, the Nationals have been essential to the formation of coalition governments, as the Liberal Party typically has not held enough lower house seats to govern in its own right. By convention, the leader of the National Party holds the position of deputy prime minister in coalition governments. Tensions between the coalition partners flare from time to time, exacerbated by the once-strong National Party's waning political influence (The Economist; 2007). Change Party Identity and Influence of the Development of Major and Minor Parties The changes of party indentity occurs in times of party coalational change, or realignment. During these times, party coalations themselves are being transformed, and as a result, people are more likely to desert the party of their parents. The voting behaviour and party identification of major and minor partisans (McAllister 1992, 142-5; McAllister and Makkai 1991), may interact with Australia's system of political representation. Ideological depolarization is commonplace and it has occurred precisely because political parties of the left and right have themselves chosen to become more alike in the economic and social problems they deem worthy of political action and in the public policies they advocate to address these problems (Bastow and Martin 2003; Giddens 1998; 2001). In Australia, party identification varies with jurisdiction background, that voters from Southern European, Eastern Mediterranean and Middle Eastern origin are markedly pro-Labor, holding class constant, while voters from Northern Europe and English speaking countries are more conservative. "Pull" media has limited value in reaching undecided and disinterested voters who are conventionally seen by parties as being core to electoral success, due to their lower levels of party identification and therefore higher tendency to "swing". Party websites, therefore, tend to be mainly provided for the party faithful, or as sources of press releases and contact information for mainstream journalists (Peter Chen, 2006). Since federation in 1901, variously named conservative parties and the Labor Party have vied for government. Conservative and Liberal alliances have predominated, and have also governed Australia for most of the past half-century. The Labor Party was in government briefly in the early 1970s and again from 1983 to 1996 (The Economist , 2007). Although the Democrats6 consistently won seats in the Senate-at times holding the balance of power-they have never won a seat in the lower house. The Greens also briefly held a lower house seat, won in a by-election in October 2002 (The Economist; 2007). A new political group, Family First, which is closely aligned with a Christian group, the Assemblies of God, emerged during the federal election in October 2004. The importance of minor parties exceeds their numerical strength, since together with independents they typically hold the balance of power in the Senate. Typically, minor parties gain support from those voters who have become disillusioned with the major parties' focus on "middle Australia". Social tensions within Australia (whether political, ethnic, cultural or religious) tend to be low and are not reflected in political allegiances. Labor draws support from the union movement and the National Party from farmers, but there are no other discernible links between particular groups within society and political parties (The Economist; 2007). Critical Assessment of Party Identification in Australia Some research works were asked which party they voted for in 1972, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1990,1993, 1996, 1998, and 2001 Federal elections when they had decided how to vote and whether they might have changed their vote; party identification; interest in politics; the importance of a number of issues and the media in deciding their vote; left-right positions for their own views and those of the major parties in the 1987 and 1984 elections; feelings about the party leaders indicated by ratings from 0 to 10, their qualities and effectiveness as prime minister. A section on election issues covered perceptions of Australia's current economic situation and the extent of the effect of government policies on the economy; government spending; privatisation; the role of trade unions and big business; uranium mining; law and order; Asian migration; marijuana; abortion; aborigines; testing for AIDS; censorship; homosexuality; opportunities for women. Other questions examined trust in government; political goals; and forms of political action. The Australian two-party system was remarkably stable until the early 1970s. Its stability was underpinned, as shown7, by the very large number of Australians who faithfully identified with one of the two major parties and transmitted their political allegiance to succeeding generations. But that stability declined in the period under review, culminating in the defection of a significant number of traditional Labor voters in the federal election of 1996. While Liberal Party campaign strategists rightly claim much of the credit for this development, the increased volatility of the Australian electorate is clearly related to the impact of global forces on the Australian community (Rodney Sullivan, 1997). For the remainder of the 1980s Labor in Government appeared to turn further away from traditional policy objectives.Indeed corporatism, globalisation and the spread of economic rationalism narrowed the policy gap between Labor and Liberal and doubtlessly contributed to the decade's decline in party identification (Rodney Sullivan, 1997). Thus one scholar claimed that Labor pursued Liberal policies in its 1984 federal election campaign (Graham, 1998: 104, 105). Such a complaint merely reflected the extent to which the new intellectual and international current had detached Labor's policy development from its Whitlam-era moorings in the Party and civil society (Rodney; 1997). This survey of federal elections between 1972 and 2001 has shown an increasingly volatile electorate. To some extent this is in keeping with evidence unearthed by David Kemp in the 1970s suggesting the decline of social cleavages, especially class, as the basis of the Australian two-party system, including party identification. Kemp hypothesised that cultural and social homogenisation was producing convergence in electoral behaviour among voters on both sides of the cleavage systems from which the major Australian parties emerged a century ago. Their study of long-term Australian electoral trends including the 1996 federal election revealed the declining salience of party identification and class self-image for voting behaviour. Yet, it must be noted that the party is far from over (Rodney; 1997). The OECD documents the broadscale erosion of the public's partisan identities in virtually all advanced industrial democracies. Partisan dealignment is diminishing involvement in electoral politics, and for those who participate it leads to more volatility in their voting choices, openness to new political appeals, and less predictability in their party preferences. Political parties have adapted to partisan dealignment by strengthening their internal organizational structures and partially isolating themselves from the ebbs and flows of electoral politics. Centralized, professionalized parties with short time horizons have replaced the ideologically-driven mass parties of the past. Parties without Partisans is the most comprehensive cross-national study of parties in advanced industrial democracies in all of their forms - in electoral politics, as organizations, and in government. Even in 1996, 77 per cent of Australian voters identified with either the Labor or Liberal (including the National) Party, though the strength of party attachment is waning (David Kemp, 1978: 348). Party identification has weakened and thus the premise upon which the comfortable assumption that media may reinforce but not significantly shape political behaviour no longer applies(Marsh 2001, 1). Political parties have largely lost their capacity to 'set the strategic political agenda' (Marsh 1995, 128). Their capacity to 'cue public opinion' (Marsh 2001, 7) has been eroded by the proliferation of interest groups and social or issue movements since the 1970s. The established parties have suffered a pronounced decline in their memberships. Fewer voters now habitually support them. Party identification has weakened. The parties themselves have recast their agenda and largely fallen into the management of 'professionals in public opinion polling, and marketing and advertising' (Marsh 2001, 9). Those voters who do still identify with the ALP or coalition parties are less likely to do so strongly. Voting behaviour is now more volatile than ever before. There are more floating voters. The evidence Marsh (1995, 108-31; also 2000) gathers is convincing on all these points. He argues that the root cause of the established parties' loss of that opinion framing role they previously enjoyed lies in the 'changing character of the electorate [which] can no longer be conceived in lineal, left-right terms' but which resembles a kaleidoscope of groups with different aspirations (Marsh 1995, 129). As a result of the pluralisation of Australian society and of the resultant 'crosscutting sources of sectional or minority identity' (Marsh 2001, 14), 'people now respond to a wider variety of cues' (Marsh 2000, 126). Conclusion In particular, studies have shown that the relationship between party identification and vote is strong. The study showed that the majority of voters voted for the party with which they identified, or they abstained from voting altogether. (Jenson 545) Based on this data it would appear that there does not seem to be a substantial difference between the respondent's party identification and their vote. This leads one to believe that the majority of people are not interested in electing an MP that will stand up against the party to promote their individual rights; they are interested in electing an MP that will embody and follow the party's prevailing beliefs and approach to politics. While the majority of studies have shown that people vote according to party label and party identification, there have been studies that have shown voting habits and party identification as separate spheres of influence. This would suggest that perhaps the issue is not black and white. A study run by Butler and Stokes observed the likelihood of finding a voter who retained the same party identification across three elections but had changed their vote at least once. During the 1972 and the 2001 elections, 15 percent of voters reported a change in vote without a change in party identification. (Jenson 546) Thus, some Australians are willing to vote against their party identification, suggesting that the two are separate entities. If this is the case, then party discipline needs to be relaxed to accommodate those people that are voting for representatives to epitomize their specific needs rather than those of the party platform. Presently, strict party discipline is not an issue to most Australians, as they continue to vote according to party label and party identification. Bibliography B. Graetz and I. McAllister, Dimensions of Australian Society, Macmillan, Melbourne, 1988. Barnes, Samuel, M. Kent Jennings, Ronald Inglehart and Barbara Farah. 1988. "Party Identification and Party Closeness in Comparative Perspective." Political Behavior 10, 215-31. Bean, Clive, 'Stability or Change Party Identification in Australia,1967-93', Paper presented to the Australasian Political Studies Association conference, Wollongong, October 1994. Berglund, Frode, Soren Holmberg, Hermann Schmitt and Jacques Thomassen. 2005. "Party identification and Party Choice" In The European Voter. Ed. Jacques Thomassen. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blais, Andre, Elisabeth Gidgengil, Richard Nadeau and Neil Nevitte. 2001."Measuring Party Identification: Britain, Canada and the United States." Political Behavior 23, 5-22. Campbell Sharman, "Uncontested Seats and the Evolution of Party Competition in Australia", Australian Politics Papers L-V. Campbell, Angus, Gerald Gurin and Warren E. Miller. 1954. The Voter Decides. Evanston: Row, Peterson. Campbell, Angus, Phillip E. Converse, Warren Miller and Donald Stokes 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley. Campbell, C. (1998) The US Presidency in Crisis: A Comparative Perspective, Oxford University Press, New York. Campbell, C. and Halligan, J. (1992) Political Leadership in an Age of Constraint : Bureaucratic politics under Hawke and Keating, Allen & Unwin, North Sydney. Chan, G. (2000) Yes, Prime Minister The Australian 20 May Costello, P. (1996) Meeting Our Commitments, Press Release by Shadow Treasurer, 5 February 1996. Campbell Sharman, "Uncontested Seats and the Evolution of Party Competition in Australia", Australian Politics Papers L-V. Campbell, M. 1996. Queensland's Electoral History. ECQ: Brisbane. Canovan, M. 1999. 'Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy' in Political Studies, XLVII: 2-16. Carroll, B. 1990. 'William Forgan Smith: Dictator of Democrat' in The Premiers of Queensland. 2nd Ed., D. Murphy, R. Joyce and M. Cribb, Eds, UQP: St Lucia. Charleton, P. 1983. State of Mind: Why Queensland is Different. Methuen Haynes: North Ryde, NSW. Charnock, David and Ellis, Peter. (2004). Postmaterialism and Postmodernization in Australian electoral Citrin, Jack and John Sides. 2004. "More than Nationals: How Identity Choice Matters in the New Europe." In Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU. Eds. Richard K. Herrmann, Thomas Risse and Marilynn B. Brewer. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Costar, B. 1990. 'Vincent Clair Gair: Labor's Loser' in The Premiers of Queensland. 2nd Ed., D. Murphy, R. Joyce and M. Cribb, Eds, UQP: St Lucia. Dalton, Russell J. and Martin P. Wattenberg, eds. 2000. Parties Without Partisans. Oxford Oxford University Press. Dalton, Russell, J. 2000. "The Decline of Party Identification,", in Russell J. Dalton and Martin P. Wattenberg, eds. Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. David Kemp, Society and Electoral Behaviour in Australia: A Study of Three Decades, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, 1978, p. 348. Forrest, J. 1988, 'Social Status, urbanisation and the ethnic dimension of voting behaviour in Australia', Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol.11, no.4, pp. 489-505. Graham Maddox, The Hawke Government and Labor Tradition, Penguin, Ringwood, Vic., 1988, pp. 104-105. Haesly, Richard. 2005. "Identifying Scotland and Wales: Types of Scottish and Welsh Identities." Nations and Nationalism 11, 243-63. Holmberg, Soren. "Party Identification Compared Across the Atlantic." Paper presented at a conference on Warren Miller's Festschrift, Palmer House (Chicago, IL). September 1992. Ian McAllister and Clive Bean, 'Long-term Electoral Trends and the 1996 Election', in The Politics of Retribution: The 1996 Federal Election, eds Clive Bean, Marian Simms, Scott Bennett and John Warhurst, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards, NSW, 1997, pp. 173-189. Jackson, Robert J., Conlin, Paul. "The Imperative of Party Discipline in the Canadian Political System." Crosscurrents: Contemporary Political Issues 4th Ed. Scarborough, Ont.: Nelson Canada, 2002. 229-233. Jaensch, D. 1989. Power Politics: Australia's party system. 2nd Ed., Allen and Unwin: Sydney. Jenson, Jane. "Party Loyalty in Canada: The Question of Party Identification." Canadian Journal of Political Science (1975): 543-553. MACDONALD, Kim, Old Parties and New Societies. Socio-Economic Change and the Decline of Party Identification in the United States, Britain and Australia. McAllister, I. & D. T. Studlar. 1992, 'Gender and Representation among Legislative Candidates in Australia', Comparative Political Studies, vol. 25, no.3, pp.388-411. McDonald, Michael D. and Susan E. Howell. 1982. "Reconsidering the Conceptualization of Party Identification." Political Methodology 8, 73-91. Miller, Warren E. and J. Merrill Shanks. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mughan, Anthony and Pamela Paxton. 2006. "Anti-Immigrant Sentiment, Policy Preferences and Populist Party Voting in Australia. British Journal of Political Science 36, 341-58. Mughan, Anthony. 1981. "The Cross-National Validity of Party Identification: Great Britain and the United States Compared." Political Studies 29, 365-75. Mughan, Anthony. 2000. Media and the Presidentialization of Parliamentary Elections. New York: Palgrave. Peter Chen, "Using ICTs in election campaigns", Australian e-Democracy, 04 October, 2006 Poguntke, Thomas and Paul Webb. 2005. The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. politics, Electoral Studies, 23(1):45-72. Pond, David. "Presiding over the House: an interview with the occupants of the chair of The Legislative Assembly of Ontario." Legislative Research Science. Toronto: Ontario Legislative Library, 1994. 10-13. Richards, Peter. "The Backbenchers". Canadian Journal of Political Science. Canadian Political Science Association. (1973): 552 Rodney Sullivan, "Policy Debates in Federal Election Campaigns, 1972-96", Politics and Public Administration Group, Research Paper 10 1997-98, 24 November 1997. Schmitt, Herman and Soren Holmberg. 1995. "Political Parties in Decline" In Citizens and the State. Eds. Hans-Dieter Klingemann and Dieter Fuchs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, P. 1985. 'Queensland's Political Culture' in The Bjelke-Petersen Premiership 1968 - 1983. Ed. A. Patience. Longman Cheshire: Melbourne. Sniderman, Paul, M., Richard A. Brody and Philip E. Tetlock. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Solomon, David. 2002. Howard's Race: Winning the Unwinnable Election. Sydney: HarperCollins. The Economist (2007). "Political forces", 30 Jan. 2007. Thomassen, Jacques, ed. 2006. The European Voter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thompson, Ellen. 2002. "New South Wales." 2001: The Centenary Election. Eds. John Warhurst and Marian Simms. St. Lucia: Queensland University Press. Van der Eijk, Cess and Bruce Niiemoller. 1983. Electoral Change in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: CT Press. Vuong, Quang. 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses," Econometrica 50, 1-25. Warhurst, John and Marian Simms, eds. 2002. 2001: The Centenary Election. St. Lucia: Queensland University Press. Weisberg, Herbert. 1980. "A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Party identification." Political Behavior 2, 33-60. Weisberg, Herbert. 1999. "Political Partisanship" In Measures of Political Attitudes, Eds. John P. Robinson, Phillip Shaver and Lawrence Wrightsman. San Diego: Academic Press. Wyn Jones, Richard and Roger Scully. 2003. "Public Opinion, National Identity and Devolution." Paper delivered to the ESRC Devolution Programme Seminar on "the Dynamics of Devolution in Wales," Cardiff, 15 March. www.devolution.ac.uk/ Jones_Scully_discussion_paper.pdf. Downloaded 3 January 2007. Read More