Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:55:00.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Institutions and Policy Performance: A Comparative Analysis of Central and Eastern Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2010

DETLEF JAHN  and
FERDINAND MÜLLER-ROMMEL
DETLEF JAHN
Affiliation:
Political Science, Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany, email: djahn@uni-greifswald.de
FERDINAND MÜLLER-ROMMEL
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Democracy, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, D- 21335 Lüneburg, Germany, email: muero@uni.leuphana.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The impact of political institutions on policy performance has been a major research question in studies of advanced democracies. This study analyzes the effects of institutions and political actors on economic, social and environmental policies in ten Central Eastern European countries from 1995 to 2004. Using time-series-cross section (TSCS) regression analysis, this study shows that the impact of institutional veto players on policy output is more significant than international pressure. Moreover, the communist legacy has a much higher effect on policy output than expected.

Keywords

Political institutionsveto playerpolicy performanceinternationalization and globalizationcommunist legacy
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 30 , Special Issue 1: Performing to Type? Institutional Performance in New EU Member States , April 2010 , pp. 23 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Allan, J. and Scruggs, L. (2004): Political Partisanship and Welfare State Reform in Advanced Industrial Societies. American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Åslund, A. (2002): Building Capitalism. The Transformation of the Former Soviet Bloc. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, A. and Bützer, M. (2001): Direct Democracy: The Eastern and Central European Experience. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Beck, N. (2008): Time-Series – Cross Section Methods. In Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Henry, B. and Collier, D. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 476–493.Google Scholar
Benoit, K. and Laver, M. (2006): Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, M. 2002. Umweltpolitische Basisinnovationen im Industrieländervergleich. Ein grafisch-statistischer Überblick, FFU-Report 06-2002. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, Forschungsstelle Umweltpolitik.Google Scholar
Birchfeld, V. and Crepaz, M. (1998): The Impact of Constitutional Structures and Collective Veto Points on Income Inequality in Industrialized Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 34(2): 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blondel, J. and Müller-Rommel, F. (2001): Cabinets in Eastern Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohle, D. and  Greskovits, B. (2007): Neoliberalism, embedded neoliberalism and neocorporatism: Towards transnational capitalism in Central-Eastern Europe. West European Politics 30 (3): 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brusis, M. (2004): Europeanization, Party Government or Legacies? Explaining Executive Governance in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Comparative European Politics 3 (2): 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, P.-O. and Helge, J. 2005. Globale Ausbreitungsmuster umweltpolitischer Innovationen. FFU-report02–2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, D. R. (2007): Post-Communist Democracy: The Impact of the European Union. Post-Soviet Affairs 23(3): 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, F. (ed.) (1982): The Impact of Parties. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Delhey, J. (2001): Osteuropa zwischen Marx und Markt. Soziale Ungleichheit und soziales Bewusstsein nach dem Kommunismus. Hamburg: Krämer.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S., Downes, D., Hunold, C., Schlossberg, D. and Hernes, H.-K. (2003): Green States and Social Movements. Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Norway. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EBRD (1999): Transition Report 1999. London, UK: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.Google Scholar
EBRD (2006): Transition Report 2006. London, UK: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.Google Scholar
Ekiert, G. and Hanson, S. (eds.) (2003): Capitalism and Democracy in Central Eastern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Anderson, G. (1990): The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fish, M. S. (1998): The Determinants of Economic Reform in the Post-Communist World. East European Politics and Societies 12(1): 31–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, J. (2008): Patterns of Democracy? Counter-Evidence from Nineteen Post-Communist Countries. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft (2)2: 198–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, J. S. (1998): Winners Take All: The Politics of Partial Reform in Post-communist Transitions. World Politics 50(2): 203–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbs, D. (1977): Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy. American Political Science Review 71(4): 1467–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzinger, K., Knill, C. and Arts, B. (eds.) (2008): Environmental Policy Convergence in Europe: The Impact of International Institutions and Trade. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, E. and Stephens, J. (2001): Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ismayr, W. (ed.) (2004): Die politischen Systeme Osteuropas. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahn, D. (2006): Globalization as Galton's Problem: The Missing Link in the Analysis of the Diffusion Patterns in Welfare State Development. International Organization 60 (2): 401–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahn, D. and Kuitto, K. (2009): Taking stock of policy performance in Central Eastern Europe: Policy outcomes between policy reforms, transitional pressures and international influences. Unpublished manuscript, University of Greifswald.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, P. J. (1985): Small States in World Markets. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, B. and Waters, M. D. (2004): Direct Democracy in Europe – A Comprehensive Reference Guide to the Initiative and Referendum Process in Europe. Durnham: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keman, H. (ed.) (2002): Comparative Democratic Politics. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H., Mansfeldova, Z., Markowski, R. and Toka, G. (1999): Post-Communist Party Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, H. D., Hofferbert, R. and Budge, I. (eds.) (1994): Parties, Policies, and Democracy. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Kopstein, J. (2003): Post-Communist Democracy: Legacies and Outcomes. Comparative Politics 35(1): 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpi, W. and Palme, J. (2003): New politics and class politics in the context of austerity and globalization: American Political Science Review 97 (3): 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laakso, M. and Taagepera, R. (1979): ‘Effective’ Number of Parties. A Measure with Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12(1): 2–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, J.-E. and Ersson, S. (2002): Democratic Performance: Are There Institutional Effects? in Keman, H. (ed.): Comparative Democratic Politics. London: Sage: 233–256.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999): Patterns of Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, M. and Ian, B. (2005): Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkel, W. (2010): Systemtransformation. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.Google Scholar
Müller-Rommel, F., Harfst, P. and Schultze, H. (2008): Von der typologischen zur dimensionalen Analyse parlamentarischer Demokratien; konzeptionelle Überlegungen am Beispiel Mittelosteuropas. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 49(4): 669–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (2004): Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popov, V. (2007): Shock Therapy versus Gradualism Reconsidered: Lessons from Transition Economies after 15 Years of Reforms. Comparative Economic Studies 49: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakash, A. and Potosk, M. (2009): Investing Up: FDI and the Cross-Country Diffusion of ISO 14001 Management Systems. International Studies Quarterly 51(3): 723–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plümper, T. and Troeger, V. E. (2007): Efficient Estimation of Time-Invariant and Rarely Changing Variables in Finite Sample Panel Analyses with Unit Fixed Effects. Political Analysis 15(2): 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A. (2006): What Kind of Democracy Is Emerging in Eastern Europe? Post-Soviet Affairs 22 (1): 37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roggemann, H. (1999): Die Verfassungen Mittel- und Osteuropas. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Roller, E. (2005): The Performance of Democracies. Political Institutions and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, B. (1996): Political Institutions. An Overview, in Goodin, R. E. and Klingemann, H.-D. (eds.) A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 133–166.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. G. (1982): Wohlfahrtsstaatliche Politik unter bürgerlichen und sozialdemokratischen Regierungen. Ein internationaler Vergleich. Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. G. (2002): Political Performance and Types of Democracy: Findings from Comparative Studies. European Journal of Political Research (41): 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M. G. (2007): Brutto- und Nettosozialleistungsquoten im Vergleich. In Schmidt, M. G., Ostheim, T., Siegel, N. A. and Zohlnhöfer, R. (eds.). Der Wohlfahrtsstaat. Eine Einführung in den historischen und internationalen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: 423–429.Google Scholar
Schimmelfennig, F. (2007): European Regional Organizations, Political Conditionality, and Democratic Transformation in Eastern Europe. East European Politics and Societies (21) 1: 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimmelfennig, F. and Sedelmeier, U. (eds.) (2005): The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, N. A. (2007): When (only) money matters: the pros and cons of expenditure analysis. In Clasen, J. and Siegel, N. A. (eds.). Investigating Welfare State Change. The ‘Dependent Variable Problem’ in Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Simmons, B. and Elkins, Z. (2004): The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the International Ecological Economy. American Political Science Review 98 (1):171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, B. and Elkins, Z. (2005): On Waves, Clusters and Diffusion: A Conceptual Framework. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598(March 2005): 33–51.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002): Veto Players. How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, S. E. and Butler, D. M. (2007): A Lot More to Do. The Sensitivity of Time-Series--Cross-Section Analysis to Simple Alternative Specification. Political Analysis 15(2): 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar