Hans Keman

Parties and democracy : coalition formation and government functioning in twenty states

1. Explaining Democratic Government: Background Considerations 2. The General Theory of Party Government 3. Government Formation 4. The Distribution of Ministries 5. Party Influences on Government Policy 6. Government Termination: Causes and Effects 7. Parties Steering the State: Evaluation and Development of the Theory Appendix A: Party Factions and Cabinet Reshuffles Appendix B: Data: Sources and Preparation

Party government in 20 democracies: an update (1990–1995)

The country tables of the data collection ‘Political Data 1945–1990. Party Government in 20 Democracies’ (European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 24, No. 1 (July 1993), pp. 1–119) are updated and corrected to the end of 1995. Errors and omissions on the level of separate Ministers and/or Ministries have been corrected as well. These are listed as ‘changes/corrections’ in the corresponding tables in the original data collection.

Parties and Democracy

Parties are the central institution through which mass representative democracies now work. This book covers four aspects of their activities at governmental level—the actual formation and termination of governments; the distribution of ministries between parties forming the government; and policymaking. In each area, it proposes theories and models of how parties drive these processes, and checks them against comparative evidence for 20 States from 1946–85. Initial hypotheses are broadly upheld by this evidence, supporting a general theory of democratic functioning described in Chs. 3 and 7. This has considerable implications for the general theory of the State. The evidence used in the book has been updated and extended. It is now published as Jqap Woldendorp, hans E. Keman, and Ian Budge Party Government in 48 Democracies (1945–98): Composition, Duration, Personnel.

Towards a New Methodology of Estimating Party Policy Positions

In the last twenty years, an international group of political scientists has coded nearly 2000 party manifestos with the help of one single coding scheme based on 56 categories which covers all main topics of these documents. However, there is a growing awareness of the shortcomings of the underlying coding scheme, such as overlapping and missing categories, which cannot be repaired without coding all manifestos all over again. Some have presented an alternative for manifesto-research by means of expert opinions on party policy positions, but these are unable to provide reliable time series for subsequent election years. The unborn solution to some of the problems with the coding scheme would be the computerised content analysis on digitalised party manifestos. This would open up a new universe of infinite possibilities for recodings and reanalyses. The extended consequences from full computerisation of textual analysis are mind boggling. But at the present, these possibilities are merely potentials as the computerised techniques are still underdeveloped. This article explores the possibilities for computerised content analysis in such a way that all postwar manifestos in established democracies can be compared with each other with the help of flexible coding schemes.

Managing Political and Societal Conflict in Democracies: Do Consensus and Corporatism Matter?

In their Note ‘Corporatism and Consensus Democracy in Eighteen Countries’ (this Journal , 21 (1991), 235–46) Arend Lijphart and Markus Crepaz sought to analyse the conceptual and theoretical linkages between corporatism and consensus democracy. Their aim was not only to investigate whether the concepts were linked to each other, but also to examine to what extent they overlapped . The authors claim that corporatism is part and parcel of consensual types of democracy (p. 235). If corporatism could be included as a dimension of consensual democracy the contrasts between Westminster and consensual types of democracy would be empirically enhanced and would be more comprehensive. Although this is an interesting line of thought, we think that there are a number of conceptual and methodological flaws in the elaboration of this idea that should be discussed in more detail, because they may very well cast some doubt on the degree to which corporatism is indeed ‘part and parcel’ of consensual politics. In this Comment we shall elaborate this argument and also suggest some ways in which the thrust of Lijphart and Crepazs theoretical arguments can be upheld and their empirical analysis improved.

The search for the centre: Pivot parties in West European party systems

The central question is whether or not in multiparty systems the so‐called parties of the ‘centre’ can be defined and observed in isolation. We start from the assumption that party‐life in the centre‐space of a political system has distinctive features. Centre parties must therefore be conceptualised and analysed as phenomena sui generis and do not belong to either the left‐wing or the right‐wing of a party system. The second assumption is that every party in a parliamentary democracy is a vote seeking and policy guided actor. This means that a centre party depends on its capacity to compete with both ‘wings’ of a party system whilst occupying the centre‐space. It is then capable of becoming the ‘pivot’ of the system: its ‘centrality’ and ‘dominance’ represent ideological distinctiveness and electoral/legislative weight. The cross‐national analysis demonstrates that only a few parties are genuine pivot parties. The paper concludes with a discussion about the issue whether or not the existence of a pivot p...

The politics of problem-solving in postwar democracies

List of Tables - List of Figures - Notes on the Editor and the Contributors - Preface - The Politics of Problem-Solving in Postwar Democracies: Institutionalizing Conflict and Consensus in Western Europe H.Keman - Consensus Democracy and Institutional Change P.Pennings - Corporatism and Socioeconomic Conflict-Regulation J.Woldendorp - Socioeconomic Problem-Solving between Conflict and Consensus P.Pennings - Centre Space Politics: Party Behaviour in Multi-Party Systems H.Keman - Between Collectivism and Individualism: the Politics of the Centre K.van Kersbergen - Formation and Termination of Cabinets in West European Multi-Party Systems P.van Roozendaal - The Politics of Problem-Solving: Democratic Responsiveness and Political Accountability H.Keman - Appendices - References - Index

Approaches to the Analysis of Institutions

Institutions, however they may be defined and used in the analysis of public life, have been an enduring concern of students in political science and public administration since ancient times. Yet only recently, important questions concerning what institutions are, how they work within and between systems, and the extent to which they shape political and administrative behavior are being tackled with renewed vigor and creativity.

Democratic Performance of Parties and Legitimacy in Europe

This article analyses the development of legitimacy across 20 European democracies (1990–2010). The claim is that the democratic performance of parties affects levels of legitimacy. A conceptual and empirical discussion is presented to establish this relationship. Democratic performance is characterised by trusting parties to be responsive to the electorate and responsible in government. Legitimacy is defined as a composite measure representing satisfaction with parties, compliance with the rule of law as well as voter turnout and willingness to protest. The responsiveness of parties appears less representative on public concerns and governmental responsibility appears closer to party interests than to the general interest. Hence, a ‘democratic deficit’ seems to have emerged across Europe, manifested by more electoral volatility, new parties and alternation in government and lower survival rates of governments. This negatively affects trust in parties, parliament and government efficacy. Hence, party behaviour has not strongly contributed to political legitimacy since the 1990s.

Comparing political systems: Towards positive theory development

In the 1920s Lord Bryce published a study of the constitutional design of democracy. His point of departure was that ample modern democracies were available to undertake a systematic comparative inquiry. The aim of such a study was to „describe the working of actual democratic governments (...) classifying and comparing the phenomena which the examination of these governments reveals.“ (Bryce 1929: 9). Most important was, in his view that the comparative method would help to avoid biased views by assuming one particular country as typical for the direction and working of democracies in general. Hence, taking politics as a ‘science’ by applying the comparative approach Bryce sought to make his investigations a record of effort made and results achieved by and within constitutional democracies. To this end the method of enquire ought to be empirical: „It is facts that are needed: Facts, Facts, Facts. When facts are supplied, each of us can try to reason from them.“ (Bryce 1929: 13).