Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T11:33:30.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The institutional foundations of committee cohesion in a (changing) parliamentary democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2013

Luigi Curini  and
Francesco Zucchini
Luigi Curini*
Affiliation:
Associate Professors, Department of Social of Political Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
Francesco Zucchini
Affiliation:
Associate Professors, Department of Social of Political Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
*
*E-mail: luigi.curini@unimi.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role played by legislative committees in parliamentary democracies is directly related to some of their properties. In particular cohesion, namely similarity of committee members’ preferences, is the most important non-institutional feature that influences committee working. This non-institutional aspect, on its turn, is directly affected by the institutional environment. In this paper we hypothesize that electoral rules, committee agenda setting power and MP’s level of knowledge of the committee policy domain influence the committee cohesiveness by affecting the utility that a MP derives from a purposeful choice of the legislative committee she belongs to. To test this proposition we focus on the last 30 years of Italian legislative activity using data from co-sponsorship to infer MPs’ preferences in a multidimensional policy space. During this period Italy has experienced drastic changes in its political system. These changeable circumstances give a strong comparative flavor to the present study. Statistical analysis at individual level confirms our hypotheses.

Keywords

legislative committeesdistributive theoriescosponsorshipItalyelectoral rules
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , November 2014 , pp. 527 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2013 

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.)

References

Aleman, E., Calvo, E., Jones, M.P. and Kaplan, N. (2009), ‘Comparing cosponsorship and roll-call ideal points’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(1): 87–116.Google Scholar
Arter, D. (2003), ‘Committee cohesion and the corporate dimension of parliamentary committees: a comparative analysis’, Journal of Legislative Studies 9(4): 73–87.Google Scholar
Bartolini, S., Chiaramonte, A. and D’Alimonte, R. (2004), ‘The Italian party system between parties and coalitions’, West European Politics 27: 1–19.Google Scholar
Benoit, K. and Laver, M. (2006), Party Policy in Modern Democracies, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bowler, S., Farrell, D.M. and Katz, R.S. (1999), Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government, Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, J.M. (2007), ‘Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting’, American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 92–107.Google Scholar
Carey, J.M. and Shugart, M.S. (1995), ‘Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas’, Electoral Studies 14(4): 417–439.Google Scholar
Carrubba, C.J., Gabel, M. and Hug, S. (2008), ‘Legislative voting behavior, seen and unseen: a theory of Roll-Call vote selection’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 33: 543–572.Google Scholar
Castles, F. and Mair, P. (1984), ‘Left-right political scales: some expert judgements’, European Journal of Political Research 12: 73–88.Google Scholar
Cox, G.W. and McCubbins, M.D. (2005), Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, B.F. and Desposato, S.W. (2004), ‘Constituency building in multimember districts: collusion or conflict?’, The Journal of Politics 66: 136–156.Google Scholar
Curini, L. (2011), ‘Government survival the Italian way: the core and the advantages of policy immobilism during the first republic’, European Journal of Political Research 50: 110–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curini, L. and Zucchini, F. (2010), ‘Testing the law-making theories in a parliamentary democracy. A roll call analysis of the Italian Chamber of Deputies (1988–2008)’, in T. König, G. Tsebelis and M. Debus (eds), Reform Processes and Policy Change. Veto Players and Decision-Making in Modern Democracies. Series Studies in Public Choice, New York: Springer, pp. 189–211.Google Scholar
Curini, L. and Zucchini, F. (2012), ‘Government alternation and legislative party unity: the case of Italy, 1988–2008’, West European Politics 35(4): 826–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curini, L., Marangoni, F. and Tronconi, F. (2011), ‘Rebels with a cause – but which one? Defections from legislative party unity in Italy and their individual and institutional determinants’, Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 3: 385–409.Google Scholar
Curini, L. and Pinto, L. (2013), ‘Government formation under the shadow of a core party. The case of the first Italian republic’, Party Politics 19(3): 502–522.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (2008), ‘The quantity and the quality of party systems’, Comparative Political Studies 20(10): 1–22.Google Scholar
Della Sala, V. (1993), ‘The permanent committees of the italian chamber of deputies: parliament at work?’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 18(2): 157–183.Google Scholar
De Micheli, C. and Luca Verzichelli, L. (2004), Il Parlamento, Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Doering, H. (1995), ‘Time as a scarce resource: government control of the agenda’, in H. Doering (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 223–246.Google Scholar
English, R.M. (2003), The United States Congress, Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Fenno, R.F. (1973), Congressmen in Committees, Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Ferrara, F. (2004), ‘Frogs, mice and mixed electoral institutions: party discipline in Italy's XIV Chamber of Deputies’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 10(4): 10–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujimura, N. (2012), ‘Electoral incentives, party discipline, and legislative organization: manipulating legislative committees to win elections and maintain party unity’, European Political Science Review 4(2): 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamm, G. and Huber, J. (2002), ‘Legislatures as political institutions: beyond the contemporary congress’, in I. Katznelson and H.V. Milner (eds), Political Science: The State of the Discipline, New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 313–341.Google Scholar
Gilligan, T.W. and Krehbiel, K. (1987), ‘Collective decision-making and standing committees: an informational rationale for restrictive amendment procedures’, Journal of Law Economics and Organization 3: 287–335.Google Scholar
Hall, P. and Grofman, B. (1990), ‘The committee assignment process and the conditional nature of committee bias’, American Political Science Review 84: 1149–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, W.B. and Mershon, C. (2005), ‘Party switching in the Italian chamber of deputies, 1996–2001’, Journal of Politics 67(2): 536–559.Google Scholar
Hix, S., Noury, A. and Roland, G. (2005), ‘Power to the parties: cohesion and competition in the European parliament, 1979–2001’, British Journal of Political Science 35: 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, S. and Jun, H.-W. (2009), ‘Party behaviour in the parliamentary arena’, Party Politics 15(6): 667–694.Google Scholar
Huber, J.D. and Inglehart, R. (1995), ‘Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies’, Party Politics 1: 73–111.Google Scholar
Hug, S. (2010), ‘Strategic voting in a bicameral setting’, in T. Koenig, G. Tsebelis and M. Debus (eds), Reform Processes and Policy Change. Veto Players and Decision-Making in Modern Democracies, New York: Springer, pp. 231–246.Google Scholar
Kessler, D. and Krehbiel, K. (1996), ‘Dynamics of cosponsorship’, The American Political Science Review 90(3): 555–566.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, K. (1991), Information and Legislative Organization, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, K. (2000), ‘Party discipline and measure and measure of partisanship’, American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 206–221.Google Scholar
Lees, J.D. and Shaw, M. (1979), Committees in Legislatures: A Comparative Analysis, Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lundell, K. (2004), ‘Determinants of candidate selection’, Party Politics 10: 25–47.Google Scholar
Martinelli, A. and Zucchini, F. (2001), ‘Profilo sociale e professionale, livello e tipo di istruzione ed esperienza politica dei deputati italiani: evoluzione e prospettive’, in Annali della Storia d’Italia, Einaudi, Torino: il Parlamento, pp. 817–854.Google Scholar
Maurizio, C. (1994), ‘The rise and fall of the ‘centrality’ of the Italian Parliament: transformations of the executive–legislative subsystem after the Second World War’, in G.W. Copeland and S.C. Patterson (eds), Parliaments in the Modern World: Changing Institutions, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 59–85.Google Scholar
Mayhew, D. (1974), Congress: The Electoral Connection, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mershon, C. (1996), ‘The costs of coalition: coalition theories and Italian governments’, American Political Science Review 90(3): 534–554.Google Scholar
Mitchell, P. (2000), ‘Voters and their representatives: electoral institutions and delegation in parliamentary democracies’, European Journal of Political Research 37(3): 335–351.Google Scholar
Morlino, L. (1996), ‘Crisis of parties and change of party system in Italy’, Party Politics 2: 5–30.Google Scholar
Müller, W.C. and Strøm, K. (2000), Coalition Governments in Western Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newell, J.L. (2000), ‘Turning over a new leaf? Cohesion and discipline in the Italian parliament’, Journal of Legislative Studies 6(4): 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poli, E. (2001), Forza Italia. Strutture, leadership e radicamento territoriale, Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Polsby, N. (1975), ‘Legislatures’, in F.I. Greenstein and N. Polsby (eds), Handbook of Political Science Vol. 5, Reading: Addison-Wesley, pp. 275–319.Google Scholar
Poole, K.T. (2005), Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K.A. (1978), The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle: Democratic Committee Assignments in the Modern House, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K.A. and Weingast, B. (1981), ‘Political preferences for the pork barrel: a generalization’, American Journal of Political Science 25: 96–111.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K.A. and Weingast, B.R. (1995), ‘Positive theories of congressional institutions’, in K.A. Shepsle and B.R. Weingast (eds), Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 5–35.Google Scholar
Sieberer, U. (2006), ‘Party unity in parliamentary democracies: a comparative analysis’, Journal of Legislative Studies 12(2): 150–178.Google Scholar
Steenbergen, M.R. and Jones, B.S. (2002), ‘Modelling multilevel data structures’, American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 218–237.Google Scholar
Strøm, K. (2003), ‘Parliamentary democracy and delegation’, in K. Strøm, W. Muller and T. Bergman (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 55–108.Google Scholar
Tavits, M. (2009), ‘The making of Mavericks: local loyalties and party defection’, Comparative Political Studies 42: 793–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallack, J.S., Gaviria, A., Panizza, U. and Stein, E. (2003), ‘Particularism around the World’, World Bank Economic Review 17(1): 133–143.Google Scholar
Weingast, B. and Marshall, W. (1988), ‘The industrial organization of congress’, The Journal of Political Economy 96(1): 132–163.Google Scholar
Zucchini, F. (2001), ‘Arena elettorale, arena parlamentare e arena legislativa’, in G. Capano and M. Giuliani (eds), Il processo legislativo in Italia: continuità e mutamento, Bologna: il Mulino, pp. 57–84.Google Scholar
Zucchini, F. (2011a), ‘Italy: government alternation and legislative agenda setting’, in B.E. Rasch and G. Tsebelis (eds), The Role of Governments in Legislative Agenda Setting, London: Routledge, pp. 53–77.Google Scholar
Zucchini, F. (2011b), ‘Government alternation and legislative agenda setting’, European Journal of Political Research 50(6): 749–774.Google Scholar