Kinder, gentler – and crisis-proof? Consensus democracy, inclusive institutions and COVID-19 pandemic performance

IF 4.5 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE West European Politics Pub Date : 2023-01-16 DOI:10.1080/01402382.2022.2156164
Rahel Freiburghaus, A. Vatter, Isabelle Stadelmann‐Steffen
{"title":"Kinder, gentler – and crisis-proof? Consensus democracy, inclusive institutions and COVID-19 pandemic performance","authors":"Rahel Freiburghaus, A. Vatter, Isabelle Stadelmann‐Steffen","doi":"10.1080/01402382.2022.2156164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Which patterns of democracy perform best? Although a decades-long research tradition has fairly robustly suggested that consensual democracies outperform their Westminster-style majoritarian counterparts, the scope of previous studies has been limited to ‘normal times’. In this article, the endogenous context of the COVID-19 pandemic is leveraged to study whether the alleged superiority of consensualism also holds during crises. It is hypothesised that, in addition to consensus democracy, inclusive institutions – i.e. cabinet size and interest-group corporatism – enhance crisis-related performance. Drawing on new and original data, cross-sectional and hierarchical time-series regression analyses show that horizontal power-sharing and the number of ministers substantively reduced excess mortality, while the structure of the interest-group system had no effect. Although established consensus democracies can draw on their built-in institutional assets even during crises, our findings indicate that majoritarian systems may, as a compensatory performance-enhancing tool, flexibly gear up for crisis-induced necessities by adding more ministers to the cabinet.","PeriodicalId":48213,"journal":{"name":"West European Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"West European Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2022.2156164","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Which patterns of democracy perform best? Although a decades-long research tradition has fairly robustly suggested that consensual democracies outperform their Westminster-style majoritarian counterparts, the scope of previous studies has been limited to ‘normal times’. In this article, the endogenous context of the COVID-19 pandemic is leveraged to study whether the alleged superiority of consensualism also holds during crises. It is hypothesised that, in addition to consensus democracy, inclusive institutions – i.e. cabinet size and interest-group corporatism – enhance crisis-related performance. Drawing on new and original data, cross-sectional and hierarchical time-series regression analyses show that horizontal power-sharing and the number of ministers substantively reduced excess mortality, while the structure of the interest-group system had no effect. Although established consensus democracies can draw on their built-in institutional assets even during crises, our findings indicate that majoritarian systems may, as a compensatory performance-enhancing tool, flexibly gear up for crisis-induced necessities by adding more ministers to the cabinet.
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
更友善、更温和、更能抵御危机?共识民主、包容性机构与新冠肺炎疫情表现
摘要哪种民主模式表现最好?尽管几十年来的研究传统相当有力地表明,协商一致的民主国家优于威斯敏斯特式的多数派民主国家,但之前的研究范围仅限于“正常时期”。在这篇文章中,新冠肺炎大流行的内生背景被用来研究所谓的共识优越性是否也适用于危机期间。据推测,除了共识民主之外,包容性机构——即内阁规模和利益集团社团主义——还能提高危机相关绩效。根据新的和原始的数据,横截面和分层时间序列回归分析表明,横向权力分享和部长人数大大降低了超额死亡率,而利益集团体系的结构没有影响。尽管既定的共识民主国家即使在危机期间也可以利用其固有的制度资产,但我们的研究结果表明,多数派制度作为一种补偿性的绩效提升工具,可以通过在内阁中增加更多部长来灵活应对危机引发的必要性。
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
West European Politics
West European Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
7.10%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: West European Politics (WEP)has established itself as one of the most authoritative journals covering political and social issues in Western Europe. It has a substantial reviews section and coverage of all national elections in Western Europe. Its comprehensive scope, embracing all the major political and social developments in all West European countries, including the European Union, makes it essential reading for both political practitioners and academics.
期刊最新文献
Re-evaluating the welfare preferences of radical-right voters: evidence from a vignette experiment Regional coalition heuristics: government participation and party perceptions in multi-level systems Police patrols, fire alarms, or ambulance chasers? Parliamentary oversight of European monetary policy and banking supervision Intergovernmentalism in a supranational field: France, Germany, and EU competition policy reform Promising links: how parties combine policy issues with group appeals
×
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