补品还是替代品?作为联合政府监督机制的联合协议与议会质询之间的相互依存关系

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Daniel Höhmann, S. Krauss
{"title":"补品还是替代品?作为联合政府监督机制的联合协议与议会质询之间的相互依存关系","authors":"Daniel Höhmann, S. Krauss","doi":"10.1093/PA/GSAB002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Since coalition governments are formed of at least two different parties with diverging preferences, there is major potential for shirking. Coalition parties can use various institutional mechanisms to keep tabs on their partners and detect ministerial drifts. In this article, we focus on potential interdependencies between monitoring mechanisms and analyse whether the existence of a coalition agreement affects the number of parliamentary questions (PQs) asked by the coalition partner. We argue that parties can hold the coalition partner accountable to the coalition agreement by asking questions. The more detailed the coalition agreement, the more potential targets exist for focused PQs. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the more detailed the coalition agreement, the more frequently governing parties use PQs as a monitoring tool. Empirically, we rely on a newly compiled dataset on PQs and a content analysis of coalition agreements in Germany between 1980 and 2017. The results confirm our hypothesis.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complements or Substitutes? The Interdependence between Coalition Agreements and Parliamentary Questions as Monitoring Mechanisms in Coalition Governments\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Höhmann, S. Krauss\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/PA/GSAB002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Since coalition governments are formed of at least two different parties with diverging preferences, there is major potential for shirking. Coalition parties can use various institutional mechanisms to keep tabs on their partners and detect ministerial drifts. In this article, we focus on potential interdependencies between monitoring mechanisms and analyse whether the existence of a coalition agreement affects the number of parliamentary questions (PQs) asked by the coalition partner. We argue that parties can hold the coalition partner accountable to the coalition agreement by asking questions. The more detailed the coalition agreement, the more potential targets exist for focused PQs. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the more detailed the coalition agreement, the more frequently governing parties use PQs as a monitoring tool. Empirically, we rely on a newly compiled dataset on PQs and a content analysis of coalition agreements in Germany between 1980 and 2017. The results confirm our hypothesis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19790,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Parliamentary Affairs\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Parliamentary Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/PA/GSAB002\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parliamentary Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PA/GSAB002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

由于联合政府是由至少两个不同的政党组成的,他们的偏好各不相同,因此很有可能出现逃避。联合政党可以利用各种制度机制来密切关注他们的合作伙伴,并发现部长们的动向。在本文中,我们重点关注监测机制之间潜在的相互依赖性,并分析联盟协议的存在是否会影响联盟伙伴提出的议会问题(pq)的数量。我们认为,政党可以通过提问来让联盟伙伴对联盟协议负责。联合政府的协议越详细,议员们关注的潜在目标就越多。因此,我们假设联合政府协议越详细,执政党就越频繁地使用pq作为监测工具。在经验上,我们依赖于新编制的pq数据集和1980年至2017年德国联盟协议的内容分析。结果证实了我们的假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Complements or Substitutes? The Interdependence between Coalition Agreements and Parliamentary Questions as Monitoring Mechanisms in Coalition Governments
Since coalition governments are formed of at least two different parties with diverging preferences, there is major potential for shirking. Coalition parties can use various institutional mechanisms to keep tabs on their partners and detect ministerial drifts. In this article, we focus on potential interdependencies between monitoring mechanisms and analyse whether the existence of a coalition agreement affects the number of parliamentary questions (PQs) asked by the coalition partner. We argue that parties can hold the coalition partner accountable to the coalition agreement by asking questions. The more detailed the coalition agreement, the more potential targets exist for focused PQs. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the more detailed the coalition agreement, the more frequently governing parties use PQs as a monitoring tool. Empirically, we rely on a newly compiled dataset on PQs and a content analysis of coalition agreements in Germany between 1980 and 2017. The results confirm our hypothesis.
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
Parliamentary Affairs
Parliamentary Affairs POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Parliamentary Affairs is an established, peer-reviewed academic quarterly covering all the aspects of government and politics directly or indirectly connected with Parliament and parliamentary systems in Britain and throughout the world. The journal is published in partnership with the Hansard Society. The Society was created to promote parliamentary democracy throughout the world, a theme which is reflected in the pages of Parliamentary Affairs.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信