加纳

E. Sanches, A. Dias
{"title":"加纳","authors":"E. Sanches, A. Dias","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198849063.003.0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter investigates the politics of parliamentary debates in Ghana, a country that combines a hybrid presidential regime with a candidate-centered electoral system. Although these features place Ghana as a typical case in which parliamentary rules grant more leeway to individual MPs, our analysis reveals a more complex scenario that defies conventional wisdom. The partial linkage between the legislative and parliamentary branches gives the executive strong agenda-setting powers; moreover, party leadership’s marked influence in the way business in the House unfolds means that there is a skewed playing field, which curtails individual MPs’ access to the floor. The empirical section draws on an original dataset of legislative debates from 2005 through 2019 to examine the determinants of floor access in the Ghanaian parliament. Three findings merit highlighting. First, female MPs are less likely to be selected to speak, and their speeches are significantly shorter when compared to those of male MPs. Second, seniority and exposure to parliament increase the chances of participating in a debate. Third, party leaders have most access to the floor, followed by committee chairs and ministers. However, female MPs who are members of the party leadership speak significantly less than their male counterparts.","PeriodicalId":217414,"journal":{"name":"The Politics of Legislative Debates","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ghana\",\"authors\":\"E. Sanches, A. Dias\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198849063.003.0020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter investigates the politics of parliamentary debates in Ghana, a country that combines a hybrid presidential regime with a candidate-centered electoral system. Although these features place Ghana as a typical case in which parliamentary rules grant more leeway to individual MPs, our analysis reveals a more complex scenario that defies conventional wisdom. The partial linkage between the legislative and parliamentary branches gives the executive strong agenda-setting powers; moreover, party leadership’s marked influence in the way business in the House unfolds means that there is a skewed playing field, which curtails individual MPs’ access to the floor. The empirical section draws on an original dataset of legislative debates from 2005 through 2019 to examine the determinants of floor access in the Ghanaian parliament. Three findings merit highlighting. First, female MPs are less likely to be selected to speak, and their speeches are significantly shorter when compared to those of male MPs. Second, seniority and exposure to parliament increase the chances of participating in a debate. Third, party leaders have most access to the floor, followed by committee chairs and ministers. However, female MPs who are members of the party leadership speak significantly less than their male counterparts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":217414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Politics of Legislative Debates\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Politics of Legislative Debates\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198849063.003.0020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Politics of Legislative Debates","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198849063.003.0020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章研究加纳议会辩论的政治,这是一个将混合型总统制与以候选人为中心的选举制度相结合的国家。虽然这些特点使加纳成为议会规则给予个别议员更多回旋余地的典型案例,但我们的分析揭示了一个与传统智慧相悖的更复杂的情况。立法部门和议会部门之间的部分联系赋予了行政部门强大的议程设定权力;此外,政党领导层对众议院事务展开方式的显著影响意味着存在一个扭曲的竞争环境,这限制了个别议员进入议会的机会。实证部分利用了2005年至2019年立法辩论的原始数据集,研究了加纳议会席位准入的决定因素。有三个发现值得强调。首先,女性议员被选中发言的可能性较小,与男性议员相比,她们的演讲明显更短。其次,资历和对议会的接触增加了参与辩论的机会。第三,政党领导人有最多的发言权,其次是委员会主席和部长。然而,作为党内领导层成员的女性议员讲话明显少于男性议员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ghana
This chapter investigates the politics of parliamentary debates in Ghana, a country that combines a hybrid presidential regime with a candidate-centered electoral system. Although these features place Ghana as a typical case in which parliamentary rules grant more leeway to individual MPs, our analysis reveals a more complex scenario that defies conventional wisdom. The partial linkage between the legislative and parliamentary branches gives the executive strong agenda-setting powers; moreover, party leadership’s marked influence in the way business in the House unfolds means that there is a skewed playing field, which curtails individual MPs’ access to the floor. The empirical section draws on an original dataset of legislative debates from 2005 through 2019 to examine the determinants of floor access in the Ghanaian parliament. Three findings merit highlighting. First, female MPs are less likely to be selected to speak, and their speeches are significantly shorter when compared to those of male MPs. Second, seniority and exposure to parliament increase the chances of participating in a debate. Third, party leaders have most access to the floor, followed by committee chairs and ministers. However, female MPs who are members of the party leadership speak significantly less than their male counterparts.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信