Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:53:38.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legislative Behaviour: Some Steps towards a Cross-National Measurement1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

J. Blondel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

WHILE THE LITERATURE ON LEGISLATORS’ ATTITUDES HAS BECOME impressive in the course of the last decade, the study of legislative behaviour lags markedly behind. Even S. C. Patterson's Legislative Behaviour remains primarily concerned with the examination of legislator's attitudes. One of the clearest examples of this trend is exemplified by roll-call analysis: studies of roll-calls have principally attempted to elucidate the ideology or specific attitudinal characteristics of members of legislatures; they have not been concerned with the outcomes of these roll-calls as such, inasmuch as they might have constituted an indication of the extent to which legislatures could and did affect the ‘rule-making’ process in a national community.

Type
Original Article
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , 01 January 1970 , pp. 67 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1970

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

2 Van Nostrand, 1968.

3 See in particular, Dowse, R. E., ‘The M.P. and his Surgery’, Political Studies, 10 1963. pp. 332–41Google Scholar.

4 This section of the article draws heavily on P. Gillespie’s research paper.

5 The Congressional Quurterly, for instance, makes its calculations of presidential ‘success’ in getting legislation through after having taken into account the importance of legislation.

6 Lowi, T. J., ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies and Political Theory’, World Politics, 07 1964, pp. 677–715 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Salisbury, R. H., ‘The Analysis of Public Policy: a Search for Theories and Roles’ in Ranney, A., Political Science and Public Policy, Chicago, 1968, p. 158.Google Scholar

7 Polsby, N. W., Community Power and Political Theory, New Haven, Conn., 1963, pp. 95–6Google Scholar.

8 N. W. Polsby, loc. cit.

9 A proportion of the bills of each country was chosen, half in the UK, a third in France and India, one-tenth in Sweden; all Irish bills were analysed, except those carried over from the previous session and those which did not go through all their stages during the session under consideration.

10 This section of the article draws particularly on V. Herman’s research paper.

11 The problem is very similar to that of ‘non-dccisions’ which have begun to be studied in the field of community politics, in particular by Bachrach and Baratz. See for example, Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S., ‘The Two Faces of Power’, APSR, 12 1962, pp. 947–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also P. Bachrach, ‘Non-Decision Making and the Urban Racial Crisis’, paper read at the 65th meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, 1969.

12 The number of private members’ bills passed was 14 in the UK, 11 in Sweden and 14 in France.

13 In the sense of ‘power of resisting a change in the arrangement of the molecules’, O.E.D.

14 The role of Royal Commissions in preparing the ground for legislation in Sweden is well known. These commissions seem to come closer to creating a common ground for legislation than their equivalents in the UK.