Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-65dc7cd545-srjzm Total loading time: 0.372 Render date: 2021-07-24T07:31:19.965Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Governments, Parliaments and Legislative Activity*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2015

Abstract

Various strands of literature in comparative politics suggest that there is a differential impact of the type of government and their supporting legislative coalitions in parliamentary democracies, for example, in terms of their size and ideological heterogeneity, and on their potential to induce policy change. Most studies in this area focus on governments as agenda-setters, possibly neglecting the role of parliaments as a further key actor in policy making. In this article, we address the broader question as to how patterns of conflict within parliament effect legislative activity of governments and parliamentary actors. Through a simultaneous analysis of the success and event history of over 12,000 legislative bills in three parliamentary systems and one semi-presidential system from 1986 until 2003, we show how the interplay of actor motivations and institutional settings has a discriminating impact on the potential of both the government and parliament to induce policy change.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

Thomas Bräuninger is professor of political economy at the School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, A5, 6, 68131 Mannheim, Germany (thomas.braeuninger@uni-mannheim.de). Marc Debus is professor of comparative government at the School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, A5, 6, 68131 Mannheim, Germany (marc.debus@uni-mannheim.de). Fabian Wüst is a senior market researcher at Credit Suisse, Uetlibergstrasse 231, 8045 Zurich, Switzerland (fabian.wuest@credit-suisse.com). Funding from DFG grant BR 1851/3 is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Andeweg, Rudy B., and Nijzink, Lisa. 1995. ‘Beyond the Two-Body Image: Relations Between Ministers and MPs’. In Herbert. Döring (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, 152178. Frankfurt am Main/Westview: Campus/St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Baumann, Markus, Debus, Marc, and Müller, Jochen. 2015. ‘Personal Characteristics of MPs and Legislative Behavior in Moral Policymaking’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 40(2):179210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Ralf, and Saalfeld, Thomas. 2004. ‘The Life and Times of Bills’. In Herbert Doring and Mark Hallerberg (eds), Patterns of Parliamentary Behaviour. Passage of Legislation Across Western Europe, 5790. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. 1999. ‘The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947–96’. The American Political Science Review 93(3):519533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishin, Benjamin G. 2000. ‘Constituency Influence in Congress: Does Subconstituency Matter?Legislative Studies Quarterly 25(3):389415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, Robert, Ryle, Michael, Griffith, John, Kennon, Andrew, and Wheeler-Booth, Michael A.. 2003. Griffith & Ryle on Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
Blossfeld, Hans-Peter, and Rohwer, Gôtz. 2002. Techniques of Event History Modeling: New Approaches to Causal Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun. 2010. ‘Private Members’ Bills in the UK Parliament: Is There an “Electoral Connection”?The Journal of Legislative Studies 16(4):476494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Jones, Bradford S.. 2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bräuninger, Thomas, Brunner, Martin, and Däubler, Thomas. 2012. ‘Personal Vote-Seeking in Flexible List Systems: How Electoral Incentives Shape Belgian MPs’ Bill Initiation Behaviour’. European Journal of Political Research 51(5):607645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bräuninger, Thomas, and Konig, Thomas. 1999. ‘The Checks and Balances of Party Federalism: German Federal Government in a Divided Legislature’. European Journal of Political Research 36(2):207234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, Martin. 2013. Parliaments and Legislative Activity: Motivations for Bill Introduction. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrubba, Clifford J., Gabel, Matthew, Murrah, Lacey, Clough, Ryan, Montgomery, Elizabeth, and Schambach, Rebecca. 2006. ‘Off the Record: Unrecorded Legislative Votes, Selection Bias and Roll-Call Vote Analysis’. British Journal of Political Science 36(4):691704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, Francis G., and Mair, Peter. 1984. ‘Left–Right Political Scales: Some “Expert” Judgments’. European Journal of Political Research 12(1):7388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. ‘The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data’. The American Political Science Review 98(2):355370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cusack, Thomas R., and Engelhardt, Lutz. 2003. ‘The PGL File Collection: File Structures and Procedures’.Google Scholar
De Swaan, Abram. 1973. Coalition Theories and Cabinet Formations: A Study of Formal Theories of Coalition Formation Applied to Nine European Parliaments after 1918. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Depauw, Sam. 2003. ‘Government Party Discipline in Parliamentary Democracies: The Cases of Belgium, France and the United Kingdom in the 1990s’. The Journal of Legislative Studies 9(4):130146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, Eraslan, Hülya, and Merlo, Antonio. 2002. ‘Coalition Government and Comparative Constitutional Design’. European Economic Review 46(4–5):893907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döring, Herbert (ed.) 1995. Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Frankfurt am Main/Westview: Campus/St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Döring, Herbert, and Hallerberg, Mark (eds) 2004. Patterns of Parliamentary Behaviour. Passage of Legislation Across Western Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Franzese, Robert J. J. 2002. Macroeconomic Policies of Developed Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, John A., Ryle, Michael, and Wheeler-Booth, Michael. 1989. Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, Messing, Solomon, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2012. ‘How Words and Money Cultivate a Personal Vote: The Effect of Legislator Credit Claiming on Constituent Credit Allocation’. American Political Science Review 106(4):703719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, Donald A., and Sigelman, Lee. 1984. ‘Comparing Party Systems: A Multidimensional Approach’. Comparative Politics 16(4):463479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D., and Inglehart, Ronald. 1995. ‘Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies’. Party Politics 1(1):73111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D. 1996a. Rationalizing Parliament: Legislative Institutions and Party Politics in France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D. 1996b. ‘The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies’. American Political Science Review 90(2):269282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D., and Shipan, Charles R.. 2002. Deliberate Discretion: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2010. ‘Selection Effects in Roll Call Votes’. British Journal of Political Science 40(1):225235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalbfleisch, John D., and Prentice, Ross L.. 2002. The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreppel, Amie 1997. ‘The Impact of Parties in Government on Legislative Output in Italy’. European Journal of Political Research 31(3):327349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Hunt, W. Ben. 1992. Policy and Party Competition. London, New York: Routledge.Google ScholarPubMed
Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, Peter J., Koop, Royce, Settle, Jaime, and Fowler, James H.. 2014. ‘A Natural Experiment in Proposal Power and Electoral Success’. American Journal of Political Science 58(1):189196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Strøm, Kaare. 1995. ‘Coalition Termination and the Strategic Timing of Parliamentary Elections’. American Political Science Review 89(3):648665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manow, Philipp, and Burkhart, Simone. 2007. ‘Legislative Self-Restraint Under Divided Government in Germany, 1976–2002’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 32(2):167191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W. 2004. ‘The Government Agenda in Parliamentary Democracies’. American Journal of Political Science 48(3):445461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2004. ‘Policing the Bargain: Coalition Government and Paliamentary Scrutiny’. American Journal of Political Science 48(1):1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2005. ‘Coalition Policymaking and Legislative Review’. American Political Science Review 99(1):93106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2011. Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2014. ‘Parties and Policymaking in Multiparty Governments: The Legislative Median, Ministerial Autonomy, and the Coalition Compromise’. American Journal of Political Science 58:979996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, Ingvar. 1995. ‘Private Members’ Initiatives and Amendments’. In Herbert Döring (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, 448487. Frankfurt am Main/Westview: Campus/St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1991. Divided We Govern. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang C., and Strøm, Kaare (eds) 1999. Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, Jeremy J., and Jordan, Andrew G.. 1979. Governing Under Pressure: The Policy Process in a Post-Parliamentary Democracy. Oxford: Robertson.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Manfred G. 1996. ‘When Parties Matter: A Review of the Possibilities and Limits of Partisan Influence on Public Policy’. European Journal of Political Research 30:155183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Peter, and Witte, Ann D.. 1989. ‘Predicting Criminal Recidivism Using “Split Population” Survival Time Models’. Journal of Econometrics 40(1):141159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieberer, Ulrich. 2010. ‘Behavioral Consequences of Mixed Electoral Systems: Deviating Voting Behavior of District and List MPs in the German Bundestag’. Electoral Studies 29(3):484496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, Kaare, and Swindle, Stephen M.. 2002. ‘Strategic Parliamentary Dissolution’. American Political Science Review 96(3):575592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, Kaare, and Müller, Wolfgang C.. 1999. ‘The Keys to Togetherness: Coalition Agreements in Parliamentary Democracies’. The Journal of Legislative Studies 5(3–4):255282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Michael, and Herman, V. M.. 1971. ‘Party Systems and Government Stability’. American Political Science Review 65(1):2837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thies, Michael F. 2001. ‘Keeping Tabs on Partners: The Logic of Delegation in Coalition Governments’. American Journal of Political Science 45(3):580598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1999. ‘Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies: An Empirical Analysis’. American Political Science Review 93(3):591608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players. How Political Institutions Work. New York, NY: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George, and Money, Jeannette. 1995. ‘Bicameral Negotiations: The Navette System in France’. British Journal of Political Science 25(1):101129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woon, Jonathan. 2008. ‘Bill Sponsorship in Congress: The Moderating Effect of Agenda Positions on Legislative Proposals’. Journal of Politics 70(1):201216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubek, Radoslaw. 2011. ‘Negative Agenda Control and Executive–Legislative Relations in East Central Europe, 1997–2008’. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17(2):172192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Bräuninger et al Datasets

Link
7
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Governments, Parliaments and Legislative Activity*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Governments, Parliaments and Legislative Activity*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Governments, Parliaments and Legislative Activity*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *