Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-07T07:07:49.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conclusions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2009

George Tsebelis
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Jeannette Money
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access

Summary

In this chapter we present a short recapitulation of our arguments and findings. We began with a review of the historical and geographic dimensions of bicameralism. We pointed out that bicameral institutions are protean and, like the ancient Greek god Proteus, change form. These different forms are accompanied by different analyses and justifications for such institutions. We know that our unscripted excursion in time and space impressed the reader with the variety of forms and functions.

In Part I we demonstrated that bicameral institutions can serve either functional (classes) or geographic diversity (federalism), but diversity does not require bicameral representation. Both stratified and federal societies may be represented by unicameral legislatures. From this account, we want to stress one historical point. Although currently federalism appears to be the only justification for an upper chamber's veto power, federalism was originally organized through unicameral legislatures with qualified majority or unanimity as the decision-making rule.

The institutions of bicameralism are diverse in their specifics, but they involve some form of the navette system, usually followed by some stopping rule: either conference committees, or joint sessions, or the possibility of one chamber to overrule the other. Financial legislation often elicited a different set of institutional rules. The wealth of institutional “details” in Part I may have seemed overwhelming in the beginning.

Part II aimed to organize this diversity and to demonstrate the bottom line consequences of bicameralism. We drew a series of conclusions, some of them singled out as “propositions” in Chapters 3 to 5, others simply discussed in the text. Here we recapitulate briefly.

Type
Chapter
Information
Bicameralism , pp. 229 - 232
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1997

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.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Conclusions
  • George Tsebelis, University of California, Los Angeles, Jeannette Money, University of California, Davis
  • Book: Bicameralism
  • Online publication: 02 December 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609350.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Conclusions
  • George Tsebelis, University of California, Los Angeles, Jeannette Money, University of California, Davis
  • Book: Bicameralism
  • Online publication: 02 December 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609350.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Conclusions
  • George Tsebelis, University of California, Los Angeles, Jeannette Money, University of California, Davis
  • Book: Bicameralism
  • Online publication: 02 December 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609350.015
Available formats
×