Mandate matters: evaluating the effects of electoral mandates in Western Europe

This chapter explores the implications of mandate theories of democracy through the lens of agenda-setting, looking at the impact of priorities emphasized in party manifestos on the legislative agenda. It examines the respective impact of the priorities in the manifesto of the party of the prime minister, the parties in the government coalition (where applicable), and all parliamentary parties (systemic attention). Using panel negative binomial regressions of legislative and electoral priorities, the conclusion is that mandate priorities do affect government policies to a greater extent than scholarship has so far acknowledged. And this does not seem to have changed over time. The agenda-setting impact of mandates is supported by qualitative observations on promises and policy in France and Germany. The only exception to this effect is the UK, which is surprising in view of arguments on institutional capacity, clarity of responsibility, and enhanced accountability in majoritarian systems—a paradox examined in Chapter 7.

Related Party Transactions – a closer look at the emergence of the new EU regime

The Amended Shareholders’ Rights Directive adopted in 2017 pushed the regulation of related party transactions high up on the Member States’ legislative agenda. The Directive requires binding rules addressing related party transactions in listed companies. This article takes a closer look at the discussions and negotiations in the EU institutions leading up to the Directive adopted and ends with some reflections on the EU legislative process, drawing on my decades long ministerial experience of negotiating and implementing EU legislation in the field of company law, including this one.

Cases and methods

This chapter presents the five cases. They are all wealthy Western European democracies. They feature quite a few similarities, concerning the evolution of turnout, electoral volatility, or the growing success of far-right parties. Yet, they also allow for some variation regarding their electoral systems, ranging from very majoritarian to very proportional and a resulting variety of party systems. Each country’s institutional setup and contemporary politics is briefly presented in turn. For each of the five countries, the chapter briefly discusses data availability and sources. For the five countries, we present the legislative agenda and the party agenda from the early 1980s to the late 2000s at least. Finally, we explain the choice of fixed-effects negative binomial regression, given the specific structure of the data and the goals of the study.

Malawi

This chapter represents one of the very first quantitative analyses of parliamentary speechmaking in an African democracy. Looking at Malawi in the parliamentary term 2009–2014, we find that MPs in ministerial positions and party leadership speak significantly more than other MPs. We also find that those representing the major opposition party speak significantly more than other MPs. Given the candidate-centric nature of Malawian parliamentary politics and high levels of formal parliamentary openness, these findings run counter to the theory presented in this volume. We suggest that in order to understand speechmaking in the Malawi parliament, one has to take into account both the generally weak position of the legislature vis-à-vis the executive and the role-orientation of Malawian MPs. In a system with high MP turnover rates and significant local developmental needs, MPs tend to prioritize constituency development over contributions to the national legislative agenda. With resources highly centered on the executive, backbench MPs are unlikely to see significant benefits in pursuing an active legislative agenda. Consequently, MPs representing the government or those higher in opposition party hierarchies can dominate parliamentary speechmaking.

Conclusion

Legal reforms in early modern France marked a confluence of the crown’s judicial and legislative agenda, aimed at achieving what can be called in modern times judicial economy. They attested to the old-fashioned idea that the law, reinforced by royal authority, afforded better protection for the less-than-mighty subjects. Success in making the kingdom’s laws more systematic and equitable vindicates an important aspect of the meaning that historians and theorists have attached to the idea of a monarchie absolue. Early modern legal history has shown that a robust expression of sovereignty was intrinsically tied with the control of the sources of law. The historical forces behind the French law, long in the making, shed critical light on European legal tradition and jus commune.

Persuade Administrators, Donors, and Legislators

Because they hold the purse strings, administrators, legislators, and donors rank among the most important audiences for research explanations. Reaching out to administrators requires understanding their concerns and activities. Cultivating donors and foundations requires understanding their information needs, which can be more individualistic, even eccentric, than those of government funding agencies. The key to success in working with them is to coordinate with development officers. Lobbying legislators effectively means understanding their needs for concise communications that convey how a piece of research impacts five areas: economy, security, environment, education, and freedom/values. Working with policy staff can be highly productive in advancing a legislative agenda.

Basic income in the Swedish legislative debate: The forbidden topic

When it comes to welfare in general, Sweden’s legislation is certainly one of the most comprehensive in the world. Living up to the ideal of supporting its citizens and residents from the cradle to the grave, this Scandinavian country has expanded its laws exponentially in the last century to cover all aspects of individuals’ and families’ lives. Thus, it comes, then, as a particular surprise to discover that the notion of basic income has been - and still is - almost completely absent from the Swedish political debate (and has consequently remained off the agenda of the Swedish legislative bodies), while being one of the hottest topics around the European continent. The purpose of this article is to investigate the possible reasons why the idea of basic income is missing from Swedish legislative agenda and to draw some brief general conclusions that may be valid for all legislative actors operating in advanced capitalistic societies.

Crossing Over: Majority Party Control Affects Legislator Behavior and the Agenda

Does majority party control cause changes in legislative policy making? We argue that majority party floor control affects legislator behavior and agenda control. Leveraging a natural experiment where nearly one tenth of a legislature’s members died within the same legislative session, we are able to identify the effect of majority party floor control on the legislative agenda and on legislator choices. Previous correlational work has found mixed evidence of party effects, especially in the mid-twentieth century. In contrast, we find that majority party control leads to (1) changes in the agenda and (2) changes in legislators’ revealed preferences. These effects are driven by changes in numerical party majorities on the legislative floor. The effects are strongest with Republican and nonsouthern Democratic legislators. The effects are also more pronounced on the first (economic) than the second (racial) dimension. Additional correlational evidence across 74 years adds external validity to our exogenous evidence.

Obstacles to the Russian Modernization Agenda Through a Two-Level Analysis Approach

Economic modernization in Russia is heavily reliant on increased market competition and diversity within the Russian economy. However, modernization has been largely unsuccessful due to a misalignment between the goals of the Russian modernization agenda, including those in the PCA and P4M, and the state’s behavior both domestically and internationally. This study finds that domestic institutions within Russia continue to execute on a legislative agenda contradictory to their modernization agenda due to both state security priorities and the power imbalances within the government.