Institutional Friction and Policy Responsiveness: The Puzzle of Coalitional Fragmentation and Executive-Legislative Balance

IF 1.5 2区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Research Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-07-24 DOI:10.1177/10659129241263481
Jack Maedgen, Christopher Wlezien
{"title":"Institutional Friction and Policy Responsiveness: The Puzzle of Coalitional Fragmentation and Executive-Legislative Balance","authors":"Jack Maedgen, Christopher Wlezien","doi":"10.1177/10659129241263481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research on policy responsiveness to public opinion highlights differences owing to political institutions—both electoral and governmental. Electoral institutions that produce coalition governments tend to reduce responsiveness in between elections. Government institutions that divide powers horizontally, by contrast, appear to increase that responsiveness. These findings point to the role of institutional “friction” in shaping what governments do, though the two sources appear to produce different effects—one harmful and the other helpful. This paper explores this apparent contradiction. We revisit and clarify theoretical assumptions and outline alternative models of the effects of friction. Extending previous tests, now in 18 countries, we find clearer evidence supporting that earlier research and more firmly establish friction as the mechanism, particularly as regards the influence of electoral systems. The two institutional sources of friction appear to influence responsiveness in different ways, which has implications for politics and policy that we consider in the concluding section.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Research Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241263481","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research on policy responsiveness to public opinion highlights differences owing to political institutions—both electoral and governmental. Electoral institutions that produce coalition governments tend to reduce responsiveness in between elections. Government institutions that divide powers horizontally, by contrast, appear to increase that responsiveness. These findings point to the role of institutional “friction” in shaping what governments do, though the two sources appear to produce different effects—one harmful and the other helpful. This paper explores this apparent contradiction. We revisit and clarify theoretical assumptions and outline alternative models of the effects of friction. Extending previous tests, now in 18 countries, we find clearer evidence supporting that earlier research and more firmly establish friction as the mechanism, particularly as regards the influence of electoral systems. The two institutional sources of friction appear to influence responsiveness in different ways, which has implications for politics and policy that we consider in the concluding section.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
体制摩擦与政策响应:联盟分裂与行政立法平衡之谜
关于政策对公众舆论的反应能力的研究强调了政治体制--包括选举体制和政府体制--造成的差异。产生联合政府的选举制度往往会降低两次选举之间的响应度。与此相反,横向分权的政府机构似乎会提高这种反应能力。这些研究结果表明了制度 "摩擦 "在影响政府行为方面所起的作用,尽管这两种来源似乎产生了不同的效果--一种是有害的,另一种是有益的。本文探讨了这一明显的矛盾。我们重新审视并澄清了理论假设,概述了摩擦效应的替代模型。在对 18 个国家进行的测试中,我们发现有更明确的证据支持之前的研究,并更牢固地确立了摩擦的作用机制,尤其是在选举制度的影响方面。摩擦的两个制度来源似乎以不同的方式影响着反应能力,这对政治和政策产生了影响,我们将在结论部分对此进行探讨。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Research Quarterly
Political Research Quarterly POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: Political Research Quarterly (PRQ) is the official journal of the Western Political Science Association. PRQ seeks to publish scholarly research of exceptionally high merit that makes notable contributions in any subfield of political science. The editors especially encourage submissions that employ a mixture of theoretical approaches or multiple methodologies to address major political problems or puzzles at a local, national, or global level. Collections of articles on a common theme or debate, to be published as short symposia, are welcome as well as individual submissions.
期刊最新文献
Disinformation and Regime Survival. When Congress Prevails: Veto Overrides and Legislative Fragmentation in Multiparty Legislatures Who Decides? Media, MAGA, Money, and Mentions in the 2022 Republican Primaries Fed Up: The Determinants of Public Opposition to the U.S. Federal Reserve The Role of State and National Institutional Evaluations in Fostering Collective Accountability Across the U.S. States
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1