Why do MPs devote attention to some issues while ignoring others? The question of the issue content of parliamentary activities has been neglected in previous research. The authors use longitudinal data on parliamentary questioning in Belgium and Denmark, two similar European democracies. The analyses show that the questioning behavior of MPs is structured according to clear patterns. Opposition parties ask more questions in general. MPs tend to focus on the issues the government parties have put forward as being important. Furthermore, MPs ask more questions about issues the media have paid attention to and about issues their party cares about and identifies with. In their questioning, opposition MPs are more strongly influenced by issue ownership and media coverage. The Belgian and Danish MPs follow largely the same pattern.
BorthwickR. L. (1993). On the floor of the house. In FranklinM. N.NortonP. (Eds.), Parliamentary questions (pp. 73-103). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
2.
BudgeI.FarlieD. (1983). Explaining and predicting elections. London, UK: Allen & Unwin.
3.
DamgaardE. (1994). Parliamentary questions and control in Denmark. In WibergM. (Ed.), Parliamentary control in the Nordic countries (pp. 44-76). Tampere: Finnish Political Science Association.
4.
DamgaardE. (2003). Denmark: Delegation and accountability in minority situations. In StrømK.MüllerW.BergmanT. (Eds.), Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies (pp. 281-300). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
De WinterL.TimmermansA.DumontP. (2000). Belgium: On government agreements, evangelists, followers and heretics. In MüllerW.StrömK. (Eds.), Coalition governments in Western Europe (pp. 300-355). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
DöringH. (1995). Time as a scarce resource: Government control over the agenda. In DöringH. (Ed.), Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe (pp. 223-246). Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag.
7.
FrearsJ. (1990). The French parliament: Loyal workhorse, poor watchdog. West European Politics, 13(3), 32-51.
8.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Green-PedersenC. (2010). Bringing parties into parliament: The development of parliamentary activities in Western Europe. Party Politics, 16, 347-369.
10.
Green-PedersenC.MortensenP. (2009). Who sets the agenda and who responds to it in the Danish parliament? A new model of issue competition and agenda setting. European Journal of Political Research, 49, 257-281.
11.
Green-PedersenC.StubagerR. (2010). The political conditionality of mass media influence: When do parties follow mass media attention?British Journal of Political Science, 40, 663-677.
12.
HansenM. E. (2008). Back to the archives? A critique of the Danish part of the manifesto dataset. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31, 201-216.
13.
HellerW. B. (2001). Making policy stick: Why the government gets what it wants in multiparty parliaments. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 780-798.
14.
JensenT. K. (2000). Party cohesion. In EsaiasonP.HeidarK. (Eds.), Beyond Westminster and congress: The Nordic experience (pp. 210-236). Columbus: Ohio State University.
15.
JonesB.BaumgartnerF. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes attention. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16.
MattsonI. (1994). Parliamentary questioning in the Swedish Rikstag. In WibergM. (Ed.), Parliamentary control in the Nordic countries (pp. 276-356). Tampere: Finnish Political Science Association.
17.
MüllerW.SaalfeldT. (1997). Members of parliament in Western Europe. London, UK: Routledge.
18.
NortonP. (1990). Parliament in the United Kingdom: Balancing effectiveness and consent. West European Politics, 13(3), 10-31.
19.
PetrocikJ. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825-850.
20.
RaschB. E. (1994). Question time in the Norwegian Storting. In WibergM. (Ed.), Parliamentary control in the Nordic countries (pp. 247-275). Tampere: Finnish Political Science Association.
21.
SorokaS. (2002a). Agenda-setting dynamics in Canada. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
22.
SorokaS. (2002b). Issue attributes and agenda-setting by media, the public, and policymakers in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14, 264-285.
23.
SorokaS.PennerE.BidookK. (2009). Constituency influence in parliament. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 42, 563-591.
24.
StrömK.MüllerW.BergmanT. (Eds.). (2003). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
TrumboC. (1995). Longitudinal modelling of public issues: An application of the agenda-setting process to the issue of global warming. Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs, 152, 1-57.
26.
van NoijeL.KleinnijenhuisJ.OegemaD. (2008). Loss of parliamentary control due to mediatization and Europeanization: A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of agenda building in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 455-478.
27.
VliegenthartR.RoggebandC. M. (2007). Framing immigration and integration: Relationships between press and parliament in the Netherlands. International Communication Gazette, 69, 295-319.
28.
VliegenthartR.WalgraveS. (IN PRESS). When media matter for politics: Partisan moderators of mass media’s agenda-setting influence on parliament in Belgium. Party Politics.
29.
WalgraveS.De SwertK. (2004). The making of the (issues of the) Vlaams Blok: The media and the success of the Belgian extreme-right party. Political Communication, 21, 479-500.
30.
WalgraveS.De SwertK. (2007). Where does issue ownership come from? From the party or from the media? Issue-party identifications in Belgium (1991-2005). Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(1), 37-67.
31.
WalgraveS.SorokaS.NuytemansM. (2008). The mass media’s political agenda-setting power. A longitudinal analysis of media, parliament and government in Belgium (1993–2000). Comparative Political Studies, 41, 814-836.
32.
WalgraveS.Van AelstP. (2006). The contingency of the mass media’s political agenda setting power: Towards a preliminary theory. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 88-109.
33.
WibergM. (1994). To keep the government on its toes: Behavioral trends in parliamentary questioning in Finland 1945-1990. In WibergM. (Ed.), Parliamentary control in the Nordic countries (pp. 103-200). Tampere: Finnish Political Science Association.
34.
WibergM. (1995). Parliamentary questioning: Control by communication. In DöringH. (Ed.), Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe (pp. 179-222). Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag.
35.
WibergM.KouraA. (1994). The logic of parliamentary questioning. In WibergM. (Ed.), Parliamentary control in the Nordic countries (pp. 19-44). Tampere: Finnish Political Science Association.
