IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v8y2020i2p229-242.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gatekeeping the Plenary Floor: Discourse Network Analysis as a Novel Approach to Party Control

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Bhattacharya

    (Department of Political and Economic Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland)

Abstract

In the German parliament, the Bundestag, floor time is a scarce resource and is allocated to MPs by leaders of their respective parliamentary party groups. Previous research indicates that highly salient plenary debates tend to be dominated by party leaders and other loyal frontbenchers. Plenary speeches can therefore offer only limited insights into party unity. Any MP can give a so-called ‘explanation of vote’ (EoVs) to justify their voting decision and/or express their point of view. These written statements provide a more accurate depiction of the range of viewpoints present within legislative parties. In order to assess the effect of party control on observed party unity and parliamentary contestation, discourse network analysis has been employed in this study to compare legislative speech with EoVs in debates on the Greek crisis between 2010 and 2015. Discourse network analysis combines content analysis with an actor-centred approach, and this is the first time this method has been used to study party control and (dis)unity. Bundestag debates on the Greek crisis present an interesting case study, as the issue became increasingly controversial over time, both in the public and the legislature. While this became evident in declining voting unity and individual-level mobilisation through EoVs, the extent to which gatekeeping impedes contestation on the plenary floor needs to be assessed. In terms of representation, it is important that European Union issues not only make it to the plenary agenda but that these debates also reflect the different viewpoints of MPs.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Bhattacharya, 2020. "Gatekeeping the Plenary Floor: Discourse Network Analysis as a Novel Approach to Party Control," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 229-242.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v8:y:2020:i:2:p:229-242
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v8i2.2611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/2611
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2611?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marks, Gary & Wilson, Carole J., 2000. "The Past in the Present: A Cleavage Theory of Party Response to European Integration," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 433-459, July.
    2. Dana Fisher & Philip Leifeld & Yoko Iwaki, 2013. "Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 523-545, February.
    3. John M. Carey, 2007. "Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 92-107, January.
    4. Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Herzog, Alexander, 2016. "Measuring Political Positions from Legislative Speech," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 374-394, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Philip Leifeld, 2020. "Policy Debates and Discourse Network Analysis: A Research Agenda," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 180-183.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Caroline Bhattacharya, 2020. "Gatekeeping the Plenary Floor: Discourse Network Analysis as a Novel Approach to Party Control," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 229-242.
    2. Paul Pennings, 2006. "An Empirical Analysis of the Europeanization of National Party Manifestos, 1960–2003," European Union Politics, , vol. 7(2), pages 257-270, June.
    3. Thibaud Deguilhem & Juliette Schlegel & Jean-Philippe Berrou & Ousmane Djibo & Alain Piveteau, 2024. "Too many options: How to identify coalitions in a policy network?," Post-Print hal-04689665, HAL.
    4. Per G. Fredriksson & Jim R. Wollscheid, 2014. "Political Institutions, Political Careers and Environmental Policy," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 54-73, February.
    5. Sami Diaf & Jörg Döpke & Ulrich Fritsche & Ida Rockenbach, 2020. "Sharks and minnows in a shoal of words: Measuring latent ideological positions of German economic research institutes based on text mining techniques," Macroeconomics and Finance Series 202001, University of Hamburg, Department of Socioeconomics.
    6. Kenneth Benoit & Michael Laver & Christine Arnold & Paul Pennings & Madeleine O. Hosli, 2005. "Measuring National Delegate Positions at the Convention on the Future of Europe Using Computerized Word Scoring," European Union Politics, , vol. 6(3), pages 291-313, September.
    7. Esteve, Patrícia & Theilen, Bernd, 1965-, 2014. "European Integration: Partisan Motives or Economic Benefits?," Working Papers 2072/225297, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    8. Stadelmann, David & Portmann, Marco & Eichenberger, Reiner, 2013. "Quantifying parliamentary representation of constituents’ preferences with quasi-experimental data," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 170-180.
    9. Hanna Bäck & Marc Debus & Wolfgang C. Müller, 2016. "Intra-party diversity and ministerial selection in coalition governments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 355-378, March.
    10. Carol Mershon, 2020. "Challenging the wisdom on preferential proportional representation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(1), pages 168-182, January.
    11. Nuria Font & Ixchel Pérez‐Durán, 2023. "Legislative Transparency in the European Parliament: Disclosing Legislators' Meetings with Interest Groups," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 379-396, March.
    12. Christine Benesch & Monika Bütler & Katharina Hofer, 2019. "Who Benefits from More Transparency in Parliamentary Voting?," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 17(01), pages 36-41, May.
    13. Catherine E. de Vries, 2010. "EU Issue Voting: Asset or Liability?," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(1), pages 89-117, March.
    14. David Stadelmann & Marco Portmann & Reiner Eichenberger, 2012. "Do Female Representatives Adhere More Closely to Citizens’ Preferences Than Male Representatives?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2012-02, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    15. Eitan Sapiro-Gheiler, 2018. ""Read My Lips": Using Automatic Text Analysis to Classify Politicians by Party and Ideology," Papers 1809.00741, arXiv.org.
    16. Ghinoi, Stefano & Wesz Junior, Valdemar João & Piras, Simone, 2018. "Political debates and agricultural policies: Discourse coalitions behind the creation of Brazil’s Pronaf," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 68-80.
    17. Madeleine O. Hosli, 2012. "Negotiating the European Constitution: Government Preferences for Council Decision Rules," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 6(3), pages 177-198, October.
    18. Kristel Jacquier, 2015. "Political conflicts over European integration: rejection or ambivalence?," Post-Print halshs-01243675, HAL.
    19. Xinsheng Liu & Arnold Vedlitz & James Stoutenborough & Scott Robinson, 2015. "Scientists’ views and positions on global warming and climate change: A content analysis of congressional testimonies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 131(4), pages 487-503, August.
    20. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v8:y:2020:i:2:p:229-242. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.