加姆森走向世界?从比较角度看内阁的比例关系

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE European Political Science Review Pub Date : 2024-03-15 DOI:10.1017/s1755773924000067
Paul Chaisty, Timothy J. Power
{"title":"加姆森走向世界?从比较角度看内阁的比例关系","authors":"Paul Chaisty, Timothy J. Power","doi":"10.1017/s1755773924000067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n We conduct a global, large-N analysis of proportionality in the partisan distribution of cabinet portfolios. Formulated in the context of postwar Western European parliamentary democracy, Gamson’s Law predicts that parties joining a coalition government will receive cabinet ministries in direct proportion to the seats they are contributing to the coalition on the floor of the legislature. Using a sample of 1551 country-years of coalitional government in 97 countries from 1966 to 2019, and comparing all main constitutional formats (parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential), we find that Gamson’s Law does not travel well outside its context of origin. Among the constitutional predictors of cabinet proportionality, we find that pure presidentialism is a major outlier, with an exaggerated form of formateur advantage. Introducing party-system and assembly-level predictors to the debate, we find that party institutionalization tends to increase fairness in portfolio allocation within parliamentary systems only.","PeriodicalId":47291,"journal":{"name":"European Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gamson going global? Cabinet proportionality in comparative perspective\",\"authors\":\"Paul Chaisty, Timothy J. Power\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1755773924000067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n We conduct a global, large-N analysis of proportionality in the partisan distribution of cabinet portfolios. Formulated in the context of postwar Western European parliamentary democracy, Gamson’s Law predicts that parties joining a coalition government will receive cabinet ministries in direct proportion to the seats they are contributing to the coalition on the floor of the legislature. Using a sample of 1551 country-years of coalitional government in 97 countries from 1966 to 2019, and comparing all main constitutional formats (parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential), we find that Gamson’s Law does not travel well outside its context of origin. Among the constitutional predictors of cabinet proportionality, we find that pure presidentialism is a major outlier, with an exaggerated form of formateur advantage. Introducing party-system and assembly-level predictors to the debate, we find that party institutionalization tends to increase fairness in portfolio allocation within parliamentary systems only.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Political Science Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Political Science Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755773924000067\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Political Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755773924000067","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: 0

摘要

我们对内阁部长职位的党派分配比例进行了全球性的大 N 分析。加姆森定律是在战后西欧议会民主的背景下提出的,它预测加入联合政府的党派将根据其在议会中为联合政府贡献的席位成正比地获得内阁部长职位。我们使用 1966 年至 2019 年 97 个国家 1551 个联合政府国家年的样本,并比较了所有主要的宪法形式(议会制、总统制和半总统制),发现伽姆森定律在其起源背景之外并不适用。在内阁比例的宪法预测因素中,我们发现纯粹的总统制是一个主要的离群值,其形式是一种夸大的组建者优势。在辩论中引入政党制度和议会层面的预测因素后,我们发现政党制度化倾向于仅在议会制度下提高投资组合分配的公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Gamson going global? Cabinet proportionality in comparative perspective
We conduct a global, large-N analysis of proportionality in the partisan distribution of cabinet portfolios. Formulated in the context of postwar Western European parliamentary democracy, Gamson’s Law predicts that parties joining a coalition government will receive cabinet ministries in direct proportion to the seats they are contributing to the coalition on the floor of the legislature. Using a sample of 1551 country-years of coalitional government in 97 countries from 1966 to 2019, and comparing all main constitutional formats (parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential), we find that Gamson’s Law does not travel well outside its context of origin. Among the constitutional predictors of cabinet proportionality, we find that pure presidentialism is a major outlier, with an exaggerated form of formateur advantage. Introducing party-system and assembly-level predictors to the debate, we find that party institutionalization tends to increase fairness in portfolio allocation within parliamentary systems only.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
50
期刊最新文献
Widening the gap of political inequality? The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on political engagement Lip service to liberal democracy in Western Europe? What drives trust in regulatory agencies? Probing the relevance of governmental level and performance through a cross-national elite experiment on EU regulation Gamson going global? Cabinet proportionality in comparative perspective Election integrity across Europe: who thinks elections are held fairly and why?
×
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