Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-03T01:01:11.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: Dynamics In Legislative–Executive Relations: Global Outline for 2019–2024

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2025

Irina Khmelko  and
John Ishiyama
Irina Khmelko
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, USA
John Ishiyama
Affiliation:
University of North Texas, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Dynamics in Legislative–Executive Relations: Global Outline for 2019–2024
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , January 2025 , pp. 101 - 103
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Political Science Association

What explains variations in the balance of power between legislative and executive branches? Has executive power increased relative to legislative power? Have legislatures become more assertive when facing the challenge of executive power? What factors can explain these observed dynamics? These are critically important theoretical questions, especially because much of the existing literature suggests that this balance of power between legislative and executive branches will determine the future of democracy in the world. Moreover, the research points to democratic backsliding in the world (Brewer-Carías Reference Brewer‐Carías2010; Haggard and Kaufman Reference Haggard and Kaufman2021; Pappas Reference Pappas2019; Political Science & Politics 2024; Scheppele Reference Scheppele2018; Weyland Reference Weyland and de la Torre2018).

This Spotlight presents a collection of case studies that discuss the most recent developments in legislative–executive relations in countries worldwide. Published research discusses populist executive branches coming to power and fundamentally reshaping legislative–executive relations in some countries (Khmelko Reference Khmelko2019; Khmelko, Stapenhurst, and Mezey Reference Khmelko, Stapenhurst and Mezey2020). However, this has not been a monotonic process (Ishiyama Reference Ishiyama2022). In some countries, legislatures retained their power and influence. This Spotlight highlights research that documents the most recent trends in legislative–executive relations worldwide and identifies the main factors that help us to understand and explain the observed dynamics. This article discusses research on legislative–executive relations and the research design and methodology for this Spotlight, and it presents an overall introduction to the individual contributions.

This Spotlight presents a collection of case studies that discuss the most recent developments in legislative–executive relations in countries worldwide.

This Spotlight presents a collection of case studies that discuss the most recent developments in legislative–executive relations in countries worldwide.

Research on Legislative–Executive Relations

Recent research describes multiple factors that influence the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches (Dearborn Reference Dearborn2021; Moser Reference Moser1997). One of the dominant theoretical perspectives in the field argues that institutions matter. Scholars of the institutional perspective generally agree that the structural features of legislative institutions affect institutional performance and the overall distribution of power between the legislative and executive branches (Lijphart Reference Lijphart, Longley and Olson1991). Institutions define the framework within which politics takes place and are central factors in shaping political behavior (March and Olson Reference March and Olsen1995). Scholarly publications within this theoretical perspective discuss multiple factors, including constitutional and administrative reforms and changes to electoral rules.

In addition to institutional factors, scholars examine the effects of political polarization and argue that it is an increasing trend in multiple countries (Abramowitz Reference Abramowitz2022; Abramowitz and Webster Reference Abramowitz and Webster2016; Haglund Reference Haglund, Schulze and Vangelov2022; Hunt and Rouse Reference Hunt and Rouse2023; Jacobson Reference Jacobson2016a, Reference Jacobson2016b; Pearson Reference Pearson, Courser, Helland and Miller2018; Pool and Rosenthal Reference Poole and Rosenthal2007; Rehmert and Fujimura Reference Rehmert and Fujimura2023). The emergence of ultra-right groups in some countries and the increasing range of political ideologies present additional challenges to a system of legislative–executive relations. Democracies rely on the ability of different groups to reach a political consensus. The larger the range of ideologies, the more time it takes to reach a consensus. When coupled with world crises (e.g., a pandemic or a war), the functioning of legislative–executive relations becomes even more challenging.

The literature also addresses populism as another factor that further complicates the system’s legislative–executive relations (Graber, Levinson, and Tushnet Reference Graber, Levinson and Tushnet2018; Levitsky and Ziblatt Reference Levitsky and Ziblatt2018; Mounk Reference Mounk2018; Sunstein Reference Sunstein and Sunstein2018; Weyland Reference Weyland2022). Populism may challenge political and administrative professionalism. Reaching a political consensus may become increasingly difficult and time-consuming in the presence of these competing alternatives. Moreover, this gives the executive branch an opportunity to claim more power to accelerate the decision-making process. However, this comes at the expense of the power of the legislative branch and sacrificing the deliberations among multiple groups. Furthermore, recent research also discusses the role of political culture (EU Observer 2020; Holmberg, Rothstein, and Nasiritousi Reference Holmberg, Rothstein and Nasiritousi2009; Iyengar et al. Reference Iyengar, Lelkes, Levendusky, Malhotra and Westwood2019; Iyengar and Westwood Reference Iyengar and Westwood2015; Knack Reference Knack2022; Li and He Reference Li and He2022; Meckling and Nahm Reference Meckling and Nahm2018; Robinson and Jackson Reference Robinson and Jackson2001). Political culture provides a foundation for a functioning democracy. When political culture changes, legislative–executive relations respond to these shifts.

Studies also highlight party and election systems development as important explanatory factors in any research that discusses the functioning of a governmental system in general and legislative–executive relations in particular (Colton Reference Colton and Remington1994; Moser Reference Moser1997; Olson and Mezey Reference Olson and Mezey1991). Finally, there also is a body of research that examines economic factors that influence the quality of democracy in general and the dynamics in legislative–executive relations in particular (Houle and Kenny Reference Houle and Kenny2018; Kyle and Mounk Reference Kyle and Mounk2018; Ruth‐Lovell, Lührmann, and Grahn Reference Ruth‐Lovell, Lührmann and Grahn2019; Urbinati Reference Urbinati2019; Weyland Reference Weyland and de la Torre2018) . Governments in countries experiencing economic turmoil face calls from their citizens to relieve the pain that is causes. Both legislative and executive branches of power address economic issues in any country. Economic turmoil usually provides grounds for the executive branch to claim more power at the expense of the legislative branch.

Research Design and Methodology

The Spotlight section in PS is an appropriate venue for providing research on issues that require timely attention due to the rapid pace of changes in legislative–executive relations worldwide. The significance of these changes may affect not only the future of democracy but also security in the world.

The articles in this Spotlight share the most recent and important developments in different countries. Highlighting these factors that influence the dynamics of legislative–executive relations globally will facilitate academic research. In addition, discussing important practical implications of this research may be useful for policy makers.

Each article addresses the central research questions posed above. We selected 11 country cases to be broadly representative of trends in legislative–executive relations in the world, but the sample was small enough to “fit” the limits of a Spotlight. The selected cases were based not only on geographical but also institutional variations (e.g., basic constitutional orders and different election systems). For example, the selected countries represent both presidential and parliamentary governmental systems as well as systems with different electoral rules, including proportional and majoritarian rules. By using these criteria, we maximized variation and generalizability of the findings. We believe this to be most effective in sparking ideas that can develop this Spotlight into an edited volume and stimulate further research in the area of comparative legislative–executive relations.

In sum, existing research highlights several factors that explain the dynamics of legislative–executive relations, including institutional, economic, and cultural or ideological factors in a country. Institutional changes may include constitutional and election-law reforms, among others. Economic factors may include indicators of a country’s economic development. Cultural factors may lead to discussions of major changes in political cultures and ideologies and their influence on legislative–executive relations.

This Spotlight is a collection of articles that discuss the most recent and significant trends in legislative–executive relations globally. The contributors are country experts, and their expertise identifies the most recent and significant developments in legislative–executive relations in a specific country. The Spotlight concludes with a discussion of the findings and ideas for future research, which would provide the opportunity to empirically test these ideas. Future theory development on legislative–executive relations could be the result.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there are no ethical issues or conflicts of interest in this research.

References

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2022. “The Polarized American Electorate: The Rise of Partisan–Ideological Consistency and Its Consequences.” Political Science Quarterly 137 (4): 639–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Webster, Steven W.. 2016. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of US Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies 41:12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer‐Carías, Allan R. 2010. Dismantling Democracy in Venezuela: The Chávez Authoritarian Experiment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colton, Timothy J. 1994. “Professional Engagement and Role Definition among Post-Soviet Legislators.” In Parliaments in Transition: The New Legislative Politics in the Former USSR and Eastern Europe, ed. Remington, Thomas F., 55–73. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Dearborn, John A. 2021. Power Shifts: Congress and Presidential Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EU Observer. 2020. “Spain’s Lockdown Could Be Extended until 10 May.” https://euobserver.com/tickers/148045.Google Scholar
Graber, Mark, Levinson, Sanford, and Tushnet, Mark (eds.). 2018. Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haggard, Stephan, and Kaufman, Robert. 2021. Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haglund, David G., Schulze, Jennie L., and Vangelov, Ognen. 2022. “Hungary’s Slide Toward Autocracy: Domestic and External Impediments to Locking in Democratic Reforms.” Political Science Quarterly 137 (4): 675–713.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Sören, Rothstein, Bo, and Nasiritousi, Naghmeh. 2009. “Quality of Government: What You Get.” Annual Review of Political Science 12:135–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houle, Christian, and Kenny, Paul. 2018. “The Political and Economic Consequences of Populist Rule in Latin America.” Government and Opposition 53:256–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, Charles, and Rouse, Stella M.. 2023. “Polarization and Place-Based Representation in US State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishiyama, John. 2022. “Has Legislative Power Declined Globally?” Journal of Legislative Studies 30 (3): 288–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2022.2103288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Lelkes, Yphtach, Levendusky, Matthew, Malhotra, Neil, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22:129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59:690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2016a. “Partisan Polarization in American Politics: A Background Paper.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 43:688–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C., 2016b. “Polarization, Gridlock, and Presidential Campaign Politics.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667:226–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khmelko, Irina (ed.). 2019. “Decline in Legislative Powers and Rise of Authoritarianism.” PS: Political Science & Politics 52 (2): 267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096518002226.Google Scholar
Khmelko, Irina, Stapenhurst, Frederick, and Mezey, Michael L.. 2020. Legislative Decline in the 21st Century: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knack, Stephen. 2022. “Social Capital and the Quality of Government: Evidence from the States.” American Journal of Political Science 46:772–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, Jordan, and Mounk, Yascha. 2018. The Populist Harm to Democracy: An Empirical Assessment. London: Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Ziblatt, Daniel. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Li, Wilson X. B., and He, Tina T.. 2022. “Culture, Political Order, and COVID-19 Mortality.” Political Science Quarterly 137 (3): 461–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lijphart, Arendt. 1991. “Foreword: ‘Cameral Change’ and Institutional Conservatism.” In Two into One: The Politics of National Legislative Cameral Change, ed. Longley, Lawrence D. and Olson, David M., 203–32. Boulder, CO, and Oxford, UK: Westview Press.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 1995. Democratic Governance. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Meckling, Jonas, and Nahm, Jonas. 2018. “The Power of Process: State Capacity and Climate Policy.” Governance 31:741–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, Robert G. 1997. “The Impact of Electoral Systems in Russia.” Post Soviet Affairs 13 (3): 284–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mounk, Yascha. 2018. The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, David M., and Mezey, Michael L. (eds.). 1991. Legislatures in the Policy Process: The Dilemmas of Economic Policy. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappas, Takis S. 2019. Populism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, Kathryn. 2018. “Rising Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Congress.” In Parchment Barriers: Political Polarization and the Limits of Constitutional Order, ed. Courser, Zachary, Helland, Eric, and Miller, Kenneth P., 35–57. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Political Science & Politics. 2024. Special Issue on Democratic Backsliding 57 (2).Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology and Congress. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Rehmert, Jochen, and Fujimura, Naofumi. 2023. “Ideological Positions and Committee Chair Appointments.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 49 (1): 75–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Robert V., and Jackson, Elton F.. 2001. “Is Trust in Others Declining in America? An Age–Period–Cohort Analysis.” Social Science Research 30 (1): 117–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruth‐Lovell, Saskia P., Lührmann, Anna, and Grahn, Sandra. 2019. “Democracy and Populism.” Varieties of Democracy Institute. Sweden: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Scheppele, Kim Lane. 2018. “Autocratic Legalism.” University of Chicago Law Review 85 (2): 545–83.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., and Sunstein, Cass R.. 2018. # Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2019. Me the People: How Populism Transforms Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weyland, Kurt. 2018. “Populism and Authoritarianism.” In Routledge Handbook of Global Populism, ed. de la Torre, Carlos, 319–33. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyland, Kurt. 2022. “How Populism Dies: Political Weaknesses of Personalistic Plebiscitarian Leadership.” Political Science Quarterly 137 (1): 9–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar