IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v56y2012i3p520-537.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutional Foundations of Legislative Speech

Author

Listed:
  • Sven‐Oliver Proksch
  • Jonathan B. Slapin

Abstract

Participation in legislative debates is among the most visible activities of members of parliament (MPs), yet debates remain an understudied form of legislative behavior. This study introduces a comparative theory of legislative speech with two major implications. First, party rules for debates are endogenous to strategic considerations and will favor either party leadership control or backbencher MP exposure. Second, in some systems, backbenchers will receive less time on the floor as their ideological distance to the party leadership increases. This leads to speeches that do not reflect true party cohesion. Where party reputation matters less for reelection, leaders allow dissidents to express their views on the floor. We demonstrate the implications of our model for different political systems and present evidence using speech data from Germany and the United Kingdom.

Suggested Citation

  • Sven‐Oliver Proksch & Jonathan B. Slapin, 2012. "Institutional Foundations of Legislative Speech," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(3), pages 520-537, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:56:y:2012:i:3:p:520-537
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00565.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00565.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00565.x?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Andrea Ceron & Luigi Curini & Fedra Negri, 2019. "Intra-party politics and interest groups: missing links in explaining government effectiveness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(3), pages 407-427, September.
    2. Adriana Bunea & Raimondas Ibenskas, 2015. "Quantitative text analysis and the study of EU lobbying and interest groups," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 429-455, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Hiroyuki Kawakatsu, 2022. "Parliamentary debate as electoral signaling," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1235-1255, November.
    5. Born, Andreas & Janssen, Aljoscha, 2022. "Does a district mandate matter for the behavior of politicians? An analysis of roll-call votes and parliamentary speeches," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    6. Simon Hug, 2013. "Mareike Kleine. 2013. Informal governance in the European Union. How governments make international organizations work. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press)," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 525-528, December.
    7. Miriam Sorace, 2018. "Legislative Participation in the EU: An analysis of questions, speeches, motions and declarations in the 7th European Parliament," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 299-320, June.
    8. Manuela Moschella & Nicola M Diodati, 2020. "Does politics drive conflict in central banks’ committees? Lifting the veil on the European Central Bank consensus," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(2), pages 183-203, June.
    9. Miriam Barnum & James Lo, 2020. "Is the NPT unraveling? Evidence from text analysis of review conference statements," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 740-751, November.
    10. Snorre Sylvester Frid-Nielsen, 2018. "Human rights or security? Positions on asylum in European Parliament speeches," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 344-362, June.
    11. Becher, Michael & Menendez, Irene, 2019. "Electoral Reform and Trade-Offs in Representation," IAST Working Papers 19-95, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    12. Thomas Winzen & Rik de Ruiter & Jofre Rocabert, 2018. "Is parliamentary attention to the EU strongest when it is needed the most? National parliaments and the selective debate of EU policies," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 481-501, September.
    13. James Lo, 2013. "Voting Present," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:amposc:v:56:y:2012:i:3:p:520-537. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.