Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:47:34.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Legislatures and Policy Uncertainty: Evidence from East Central Europe*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2010

RADOSLAW ZUBEK
Affiliation:
University of Oxford, Hertford College, Oxford OX1 3BW, email: radoslaw.zubek@politics.ox.ac.uk
CHRISTIAN STECKER
Affiliation:
University of Potsdam, August-Bebel-Straße 89, 14482 Potsdam, Germany, email: stecker@uni-potsdam.de

Abstract

Relying on social choice theory, this paper argues that uncertainty regarding future public policies is likely to be related to party institutionalization and legislative organization. The argument is evaluated using survey data from businesses in eight EU member states in East Central Europe. It finds that firms report lower concern over policy uncertainty in systems with higher party institutionalization. There is also some evidence, although less robust, that restrictive parliamentary agenda control leads to lower perceptions of policy uncertainty and this effect mediates the influence of party institutionalization. These results tend to hold if one controls for the effect of other national and firm-level factors.

Type
Research Article
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

Aldrich, John. H. (1989): “Power and Order in Congress” in Home Style and Washington Work: Studies of Congressional Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, Fiorina, M. P. and Rohde, D. W. (ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. (1995): Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John. H. (1994): “A Model of a Legislature with Two Parties and a Committee System” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19 (3): 313339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J. (1951): Social Choice and Individual Values New York, London: Wiley Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Bale, Tim and Bergman, Torbjörn (2006): “Captives no longer, but servants still? Contract Parliamentarism and the new minority governance in Sweden and New Zealand” Government and Opposition.Google Scholar
BEEPS (1999): EBRD-World-Bank Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey.Google Scholar
BEEPS (2002): EBRD-World-Bank Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey.Google Scholar
BEEPS (2004): EBRD-World-Bank Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey.Google Scholar
BEEPS (2005): EBRD-World-Bank Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan (1985): The Theory of Committees and Elections Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blondel, Jean and Manning, Nick (2002): “Do Ministers Do What They Say? Ministerial Unreliability, Collegial and Hierarchical Governments” Political Studies 50: 455476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William R., Matt, Golder (2006) “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses”. Political Analysis, 14: 6382.Google Scholar
Brunetti, Aymo, Kisunko, Gregory and Weder, Beatrice (1998): “Credibility of Rules and Economic Growth: Evidence from a Worldwide Survey of the Private Sector” World Bank Economic Review 12 (3): 353384.Google Scholar
Carey, John M. (2007): “Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 92107.Google Scholar
Christiano, Thomas (1996): The Rule of the Many. Fundamental issues in democratic theory Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. (2000): “On the Effects of Legislative Rules”, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25:2, 169192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. and McCubbins, Mathew D. (1993): Legislative Leviathan. Party Government in the House Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. and McCubbins, Mathew D. (2005): Setting the Agenda. Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixit, Avinash K. and Pindyck, Robert S. (1994): Investment under Uncertainty Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Döring, Herbert (1995): “Time as a Scarce Resource: Government Control of the Agenda” In Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, Döring, H. (ed.). Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
Döring, Herbert (2001): “Parliamentary Agenda Control and Legislative Outcomes in Western Europe” Legislative Studies Quarterly XXVI: 145165.Google Scholar
Döring, Herbert (2003): “Party Discipline and Government Imposition of Restrictive Rules” Journal of Legislative Studies: 147163.Google Scholar
Döring, Holger and Manow, Philip (2008): Parliament and government composition database (ParlGov). Unpublished Data Set.Google Scholar
Evans, Gord and Manning, Nick (2003): “Helping Governments Keep Their Promises” South Asia Region Internal Discussion Paper. World Bank.Google Scholar
Hazan, Reuven Y., ed. (2006): Cohesion and discipline in legislatures. Political parties, party leadership, parliamentary committees and governance New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huber, John D. (1996): Rationalizing Parliament: Legislative Institutions and Party Politics in France Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kenyon, Thomas and Naoi, Megumi (2010): “Policy Uncertainty in Hybrid Regimes – Evidence from Firm Level Surveys” Comparative Political Studies 43 (6): forthcoming.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert and Smyth, Regina (2002): “Programmatic Party Cohesion in Emerging Postcommunist Democracies. Russia in Comparative Context” Comparative Political Studies 35 (10): 12281256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael and Benoit, Kenneth (2006): Party Policy in Modern Democracies London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lewis, Paul G. (2006): “Party systems in post-communist Central Europe: Patterns of stability and consolidation” Democratization 13 (4): 562583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linek, Lukás and Rakusanová, Petra (2005): “Why Czech Parliamentary Party Groups Vote Less Unitedly. The Role of Frequent Voting and Big Majorities in Passing Bills” Czech Sociological Review 41 (3): 423442.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott and Freese, Jeremy (2006): Regression Models for Categorical dependent variables using Stata College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Manning, Nick, Ranjana, Mukherjee and Gokcekus, Omer (2000): “Public Officials and Their Institutional Environment” Policy Research Working Paper 2427 World Bank.Google Scholar
Mattson, Ingvar (1995): “Private Members’ Initiatives and Amendments” in Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, Döring, H. (ed.). Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
May, K. (1952): “A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision” Econometrica 20: 680684.Google Scholar
McGann, Anthony J. (2006): “Social Choice and Comparing Legislatures: Constitutional versus Institutional Constraints” Journal of Legislative Studies 12 (3–4): 443461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, Richard (1976): “Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control” Journal of Economic Theory 12: 472482.Google Scholar
PindyckRobert, S. Robert, S. (1991): “Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Investment” Journal of Economic Literature 29 (3): 11101148.Google Scholar
Plott, Charles R. (1967): “A Notion of Equilibrium and its Possibility Under Majority Rule” The American Economic Review 57 (4): 787806.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam (1991): Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia and Skrondal, Anders (2008): Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. (1982): Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. (1980): “Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions” American Political Science Review 74: 432446.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. (1979): “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models.” American Journal of Political Science 23: 2760.Google Scholar
Sieberer, Ulrich (2006): “Party unity in parliamentary democracies: A comparative analysis” Journal of Legislative Studies 12 (2): 150178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stecker, Christian (2008): “Agenda Control in Western and Central Eastern Europe” Paper prepared for the ECPR Joint Sessions in Rennes, April 2008.Google Scholar
Strøm, Kaare, Wolfgang, C. Müller and Bergman, Torbjörn (2008): Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Andrew J. (2006): “Size, Power, and Electoral Systems: Exogenous Determinants of Legislative Procedural Choice.” Legislative Studies Quarterly XXXI (3): 323345.Google Scholar
Trantas, Georgious (1995): “Comparing Legislative Instruments Across Nations” in Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, Döring, H. (ed.). Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
World Bank (2004): World Development Report: A Better Investment Climate for Everyone.Google Scholar
Zubek, Radoslaw (2008a): “Parties, rules and government legislative control in Central Europe: The Case of Poland” Communist and Post-Communist Studies.Google Scholar
Zubek, Radoslaw (2008b): Core Executive and Europeanization in Central Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Zubek, Radoslaw (2010): “Agenda Control and Executive-Legislative Relations in East Central Europe”. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar