Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:14:38.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Makes a Compromise? Adopting Pledges in Czech Coalition Agreements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2020

Petra Vodová
Petra Vodová*
Affiliation:
University of Hradec Králové, Námestí svobody 331, Hradec Králové500 02, Czech Republic. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Translating party pledges into coalition agreements is a crucial goal of after-election coalition negotiations. Full adoption is the best result for the bargaining party, while limited adoption is a kind of compromise forced by coalition partners, and non-adoption can be seen as a defeat. The question of what undermines the compromise and defeat in coalition agreements is, however, rarely answered. This article formulates hypotheses concerning the effect of consensual pledges among coalition parties, and party and voter-issue salience on parties’ ability to adopt their pledges and adopt them fully or partially. The effect of party level characteristics is considered. The analysis is provided on a new dataset of narrow Czech coalition party pledges in three governments established after elections in 2006, 2010 and 2013. Multinomial logit regression is used for the statistical analysis.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 28 , Issue 5 , October 2020 , pp. 728 - 743
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2020

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

APSA (Committee on Political Parties American Political Science Association) (1950) Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. New York, Toronto: Rinehart & Company.Google Scholar
Bolleyer, N (2007) Small parties: from party pledges to government policy. West European Politics 30(1), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, R and Thomson, R (2008) Election pledges and their enactment in coalition governments: A comparative analysis of Ireland. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 18(3), 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deschouwer, K (2008) Comparing newly governing parties. In Deschouwer, K (ed.), New Parties in Government: In Power for the First Time. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Winter, L and Dumont, P (2008) Uncertainty and complexity in cabinet formation. In Strøm, K, Müller, WC and Bergman, T (eds), Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 123–158.Google Scholar
Dolezal, M, Ennser-Jedenastik, L, Müller, WC and Winkler, AK (2014) How parties compete for votes: a test of saliency theory. European Journal of Political Research 53(1), 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Eichorst, J (2014) Explaining variation in coalition agreements: the electoral and policy motivations for drafting agreements. European Journal of Political Research 53(1), 98–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J and Hobolt, SB (2008) Owning the issue agenda: party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies 27(3), 460–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornsteiner, M (2015) Party manifestos in representative democracy: strengthening the electoral connection? In D’Ottavio, G and Saalfeld, T (eds), Germany After the 2013 Elections: Breaking the Mould of Post-Unification Politics? Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 111–128.Google Scholar
Klingemann, H-D, Hofferbert, R and Budge, I (1994) Parties, Policies, and Democracy. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Kostadinova, P (2013) Democratic performance in post-communist Bulgaria: election pledges and levels of fulfillment, 1997–2005. East European Politics 29(2), 190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, TP (2011) Political Parties and the Democratic Mandate Comparing Collective Mandate Fulfilment in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Dissertation thesis. Institute of Political Science, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Mansergh, L and Thomson, R (2007) Election pledges, party competition, and policymaking. Comparative Politics 39(3), 311–329.Google Scholar
Milita, K, Ryan, JB and Simas, EN (2014) Nothing to hide, nowhere to run, or nothing to lose: candidate position-taking in congressional elections. Political Behavior 36(2), 427–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naurin, E, Royed, TJ and Thomson, R (eds) (2019) Party Mandates and Democracy: Making, Breaking, and Keeping Election Pledges in Twelve Countries. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moury, C (2013) Coalition Government and Party Mandate: How Coalition Agreements Constrain Ministerial Action. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, WC and Strøm, K (2010) Coalition agreements and cabinet governance. In Strøm, K, Müller, WC and Bergman, T (eds), Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 159–200.Google Scholar
Praprotnik, K (2017) Jurisdiction, time, and money: the role of resources in pledge fulfillment. Party Politics 23(6), 848–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, T (2014) Mandates, Manifestos and Coalitions: UK Party Politics after 2010. London: Constitution Society.Google Scholar
Roberts, AL (n.d) Campaign Promises in the Czech Republic. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Royed, TJ (1996) Testing the mandate model in Britain and the United States: evidence from the Reagan and Thatcher eras. British Journal of Political Science 26(1), 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royed, TJ, Naurin, E and Thomson, R (2019) A systematic research design for studying the fulfillment of election pledges. In Naurin, E, Royed, TJ and Thomson, R (eds), Party Mandates and Democracy: Making, Breaking, and Keeping Election Pledges in Twelve Countries. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 23–38.Google Scholar
Schermann, K and Ennser-Jedenastik, L (2014a) Explaining coalition-bargaining outcomes Evidence from Austria, 2002–2008. Party Politics 20(5), 791–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schermann, K and Ennser-Jedenastik, L (2014b) Coalition policy-making under constraints: examining the role of preferences and institutions. West European Politics 37(3), 564–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sociologický ústav Akademie věd ČR (2006) CVVM. Naše společnost 2006 – červen. Ver. 1.0. Praha: Český sociálněvědní datový archiv.Google Scholar
Sociologický ústav Akademie věd ČR (2010) CVVM. Naše společnost 2010 – červen. Ver. 1.0. Praha: Český sociálněvědní datový archiv.Google Scholar
Sociologický ústav Akademie věd ČR (2013) CVVM. Naše společnost 2013 – listopad. Ver. 1.0. Praha: Český sociálněvědní datový archiv.Google Scholar
Svačinová, P (2016) Slibem nezarmoutíš? Naplňování socioekonomických legislativních slibů českých vládních stran (2006–2015). Sociologický časopis [Czech Sociological Review] 5(52), 709–736.Google Scholar
Škvrňák, M (2015) Election pledges in the Czech Republic. Politologický časopis [Czech Journal of Political Science] 22(3), 216–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R (2001) The programme to policy linkage: the fulfilment of election pledges on socioeconomic policy in the Netherlands, 1986–1998. European Journal of Political Research 40(2), 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R, Royed, TJ, Naurin, E, Ferguson, M, Kostadinova, P, Moury, C, Pétry, F and Praprotnik, K (2017) The fulfillment of parties’ election pledges: a comparative study on the impact of power sharing. American Journal of Political Science 61(3), 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermans, AI (2003) High Politics in the Low Countries: An Empirical Study of Coalition Agreements in Belgium and the Netherlands. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar