Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T03:46:32.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies: An Empirical Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

George Tsebelis
George Tsebelis*
Affiliation:
University of Californiaat Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates hypotheses generated by the veto players' theory. The fundamental insight of this theory is that an increase in the number of veto players (for all practical purposes, in parliamentary systems the number of parties in government) and their ideological distance from one another will reduce the ability of both government and parliament to produce significant laws. In addition, the number of significant laws increases with the duration of a government and with an increase in the ideological difference between current and previous government. These propositions are tested with legislative data (both laws and government decrees) on working time and working conditions identified in two legislative sources: the NATLEX computerized database in Geneva (produced by the International Labour organization) and Blanpain's International Encyclopedia for Labour Law and Industrial Relations. The data cover fifteen West European countries for the period 1981–91. The evidence corroborates the proposed hypotheses.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 93 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 591 - 608
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1999

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

REFERENCES

Books and Periodicals

Alivizatos, Nicos. 1995. “Judges as Veto Players.” In Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, ed. Doering, Herbert. New York: St. Martin's. Pp. 566–89.Google Scholar
Alt, James E., and Lowry, Robert C. 1994. “Divided Government, Fiscal Institutions, and Budget Deficits: Evidence from the States.” American Political Science Review 88 (December): 811–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen. N.d. “Money and Majorities in the Federal Republic of Germany: Evidence for a Veto Players Model of Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Bednar, Jenna, Ferejohn, John, and Garrett, Geoffrey. 1996. “The Politics of European Federalism.” International Review of Law and Economics 16 (September): 279–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanpain, Roger. 1977 and after; continuously updated. International Encyclopedia for Labour Law and Industrial Relations. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Browne, Eric, Gleiber, Dennis, and Mashoba, Carolyn. 1984. “Evaluating Conflict of Interest Theory: Western European Cabinet Coalitions, 1945–80.” British Journal of Political Science 14 (January): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, Francis G., and Mair, Peter. 1984. “Left-Right Political Scales: Some ‘Expert’ Judgments.” European Journal of Political Research 12 (March): 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Palma, Guiseppe. 1977. Surviving without Governing: The Italian Parties in Parliament. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, Lawrence C. 1976. Coalitions in Parliamentary Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Doering, Herbert. 1995a. “Is Government Control of the Agenda Likely to Keep Legislative Inflation at Bay?” In Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, ed. Doering, Herbert. New York: St. Martin's. Pp. 654–87.Google Scholar
Doering, Herbert. 1995b. Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Doering, Herbert. 1995c. “Time as a Scarce Resource: Government Control of the Agenda.” In Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, ed. Doering, Herbert. New York: St. Martin's. Pp. 223–46.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. [1954] 1969. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modem State. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Franzese, Robert John. 1996. The Political Economy of Over-Commitment: A Comparative Study of Democratic Management of the Keynesian Welfare State. Chapter 3, Ph.D. diss. Harvard University.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1992. Divided Government. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Golden, Miriam, Wallerstein, Michael, and Lange, Peter. N.d. “Post-war Trade Union Organization and Industrial Relations in Twelve Countries.” In Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism, ed. Kitschelt, Herbert, Lange, Peter, Marks, Gary, and Stephens, John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. 1997. Econometric Analysis. 3d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hallerberg, Mark, and Basinger, Scott. 1998. “Internationalization and Changes in Tax Policy in OECD Countries: The Importance of Domestic Veto Players.” Comparative Political Studies 31 (June): 321–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John. 1996. “The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies.” American Political Science Review 90 (June): 269–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, David. 1998. Parties and Gridlock. Ph.D. diss. University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kelly, Sean Q. 1993. “Divided We Govern? A Reassessment.” Polity 25 (Spring): 475–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreppel, Amie. 1997. “The Impact of Parties in Government on Legislative Output in Italy.” European Journal of Political Research 31 (April): 327–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, Peter, and Meadwell, Hudson. 1985. “Typologies of Democratic Systems: From Political Inputs to Political Economy.” In New Directions in Comparative Politics, ed. Wiarda, Howard. Boulder, CO: Westview. Pp. 80–112.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Hunt, W. Ben. 1992. Policy and Party Competition. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Schofield, Norman. 1990. Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, Susanne. 1998. “Federalism and Central Bank Independence: The Politics of German Monetary Policy, 1957–1992.” World Politics 50 (April): 401–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1991. Divided We Govern. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1993. “Reply: Let's Stick with the Longer List.” Polity 25 (Spring): 485–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D. 1991. Government on Lay-Away: Federal Spending and Deficits under Divided Party Control.” In The Politics of Divided Government, ed. Cox, Gary W. and Kernell, Samuel. Boulder, CO: Westview. Pp. 113–53.Google Scholar
Moore, Barrington Jr. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Pindyck, Robert S., and Daniel L, Rubinfeld. 1998. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Roubini, Nuriel, and Sachs, Jeffrey. 1989. “Government Spending and Budget Deficits in the Industrialized Countries.” Economic Policy 8 (April): 100–32.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scholtz, Evi, and Trantas, Georgios. 1995. “Legislation on Benefits and on Regulatory Matters: Social Security and Labor Matters.” In Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, ed. Doering, Herbert. New York: St. Martin's. Pp. 628–53.Google Scholar
Strom, Kaare. 1990. Minority Government and Majority Rule. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sundquist, James L. 1988. “Needed: A Political Theory for the New Era of Coalition Government in the United States.” Political Science Quarterly 103 (Winter): 614–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treisman, Daniel. 1998. “Decentralization and Inflation in Developed and Developing Countries.” University of California at Los Angeles. Mimeograph.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1995a. “Decision-Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism, and Multipartyism.” British Journal of Political Science 25 (June): 289–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1995b. “Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies” In Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, ed. Doering, Herbert. New York: St. Martin's. Pp. 83–111.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. N.d. “Veto Players and Institutional Analysis.” Governance. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George, and Lin, Jih-wen. 1998. “Veto Players and the American Constitution.” Paper presented in the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George, and Money, Jeannette. 1997. Bicameralism. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, Paul. 1994. Government Survival in Western European Parliamentary Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. Kent, and Rockman, Bert A. 1993. Do Institutions Matter? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
White, Halbert. 1980. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica 48 (May): 817–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Labour Organization. 1999. NATLEX: The ILO's National Labour Law Database, http://natlex.ilo.org/ (accessed March 15, 1999).Google Scholar