Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T20:12:27.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Party Goals and Government Performance in Parliamentary Democracies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Kaare Strom
Kaare Strom*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

From assumptions of parties as rational actors, this study develops four measures of government performance: duration, mode of resignation, subsequent alternation, and electoral success. These measures are used in a test of competing hypotheses concerning minority government performance in parliamentary democracies. Minority governments are conventionally portrayed as poor performers, but tests of this proposition have been seriously limited. An alternative hypothesis depicts minority governments as rational cabinet solutions without significant performance liabilities. These hypotheses are tested against an extensive cross-national data set including 323 postwar governments in 15 parliamentary democracies. The conventional wisdom about minority governments is not supported by the evidence. In some respects, minority governments are clearly superior to majority coalitions. Moreover, minority government formation may enhance systemic responsiveness and accountability. The findings support the explanation of minority governments as rational cabinet solutions.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , September 1985 , pp. 738 - 754
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almond, G. A., & Powell, G. B. Jr. Comparative politics: System, process and policy (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown, 1978.Google Scholar
Blondel, J. Party systems and patterns of government in western democracies. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1968, 1, 180–203.10.1017/S0008423900036507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blondel, J. World leaders: Heads of governments in the postwar period. London: Sage, 1980.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, B. Strategy, risk, and personality in coalition politics: The case of India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Cook, C., & Paxton, J. European political facts 1918-73. New York: St. Martin's, 1975.10.1007/978-1-349-01535-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daalder, H. Cabinets and party systems in ten smaller European democracies. Acta Politica, 1971, 6, 282–303.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. (Ed.). Political oppositions in western democracies. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
De Swaan, A. Coalition theories and cabinet formation. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1973.Google Scholar
Di Palma, G. Surviving without governing: The Italian parties in parliament. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.10.1525/9780520321410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, L. C. Coalitions in parliamentary government. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Downs, A. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.Google Scholar
Eckstein, H. The evaluation of political performance: Problems and dimensions. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1971.Google Scholar
Finer, S. E. (Ed.). Adversary politics and electoral reform. London: Wigram, 1975.Google Scholar
Gurr, T. R., & McClelland, M. Political performance: A twelve nation study. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1971.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. Adversary politics and electoral reform: Need we be afraid? In Finer, S. E. (Ed.). Adversary politics and electoral reform. London: Wigram, 1975, pp. 71–95.Google Scholar
Lepsius, M. From fragmented party democracy to government by emergency decree and national socialist takeover: Germany. In Linz, J. L. & Stepan, A. (Eds.). The breakdown of democratic regimes: Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978, pp. 34–79.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. Coalition theory and cabinet durability: A critique. Presented at the 1982 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver, September 2-5, 1982.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. Democracies: Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984.10.2307/j.ctt1ww3w2tCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linz, J. J. The breakdown of democratic regimes: Crisis, breakdown, and reequilibration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Mackie, T. T., & Rose, R. The international almanac of electoral history (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan, 1982.10.1007/978-1-349-06321-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, M. N. The dynamics of European party systems: Changing patterns of electoral volatility. European Journal of Political Research, 1979, 7, 1–26.10.1111/j.1475-6765.1979.tb01267.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. B. Jr. Party systems and political system performance: Participation, stability, and violence in contemporary democracies. American Political Science Review, 1981, 75, 860–870.10.2307/1962289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. B. Jr. Contemporary democracies: Participation, stability and violence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982.10.4159/9780674042353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, D. W. The political consequences of electoral laws (Rev. ed.). New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Rose, R., & Mackie, T. T. Incumbency in governments: Asset or liability?” In Daalder, H. and Mair, P. (Eds.). Western European party systems: Continuity and change. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1983, pp. 115–137.Google Scholar
Sani, G., & Sartori, G. Polarization, competition, and fragmentation in western democracies. In Daalder, H. & Mair, P. (Eds.). Western European party systems: Continuity and change. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1983, pp. 307–340.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. London: Cambridge University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. A. Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science, 1979, 23, 27–59.10.2307/2110770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice, 1981, 37, 503–519.10.1007/BF00133748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiro, H. J. Government by constitution: The political systems of democracy. New York: Random House, 1959.Google Scholar
Strom, K. Minority government and majority rule. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University, 1984. (a)Google Scholar
Strom, K. Minority governments in parliamentary democracies: The rationality of non-winning cabinet solutions. Comparative Political Studies, 1984, 17, 199–227. (b)10.1177/0010414084017002004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Beyme, K. Die Parlamentarischen Regierungssysteme in Europa. Munich: R. Piper, 1970.Google Scholar
Warwick, P. The durability of coalition governments in parliamentary democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 1979, 11, 465–498.10.1177/001041407901100402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittman, D. Candidate motivation: A synthesis of alternative theories. American Political Science Review, 1983, 77, 142–157.10.2307/1956016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.