When are minority cabinets effective? We study the extent to which minority cabinets demonstrate legislative reliability, that is, introduce to parliament the bills they have announced in their legislative agendas. We test hypotheses drawn from two theories of minority government effectiveness: the positional agenda power theory which emphasizes the central location of the minority cabinet in the policy space and the ideological proximity theory which stresses the importance of the ideological closeness of opposition parties to the government. In an analysis of over 1600 bills announced by Danish and Swedish minority cabinets in 19 legislative agendas published between 1998 and 2012, we find more support, overall, for the ideological proximity than for the positional agenda power model.
ArtésJBustosA (2008) Electoral promises and minority governments: an empirical study. European Journal of Political Research47(3): 307–333.
2.
ArtésJ (2013) Do Spanish politicians keep their promises?Party Politics19(1): 143–158.
3.
BäckHDebusMDumontP (2011) Who gets what in coalition governments? Predictors of portfolio allocation in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research50(4): 441–478.
4.
BakerSRBloomNDavisSJ (2015) Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)Working Paper No. 21633.
5.
BaleTBergmanT (2006a) Captives no longer, but servants still? Contract parliamentarism and the new minority governance in Sweden and New Zealand. Government and Opposition41(3): 422–449.
6.
BaleTBergmanT (2006b) A taste of honey is worse than none at all? Coping with the generic challenges of support party status in Sweden and New Zealand. Party Politics12(2): 189–209.
7.
BaleTDannC (2002) Is the grass really greener? The rationale and reality of support party status: a New Zealand case study. Party Politics8(3): 349–365.
8.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
BernankeBS (1983) Irreversibility, uncertainty and cyclical investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics97(1): 85–106.
10.
BilleL (2003) Denmark. European Journal of Political Research42: 931–934.
11.
BrunettiAGregoryKBeatriceW (1998) Credibility of rules and economic growth: evidence from a worldwide survey of the private sector. World Bank Economic Review12(3): 353–384.
12.
BudgeI (1999) Estimating Party Policy Preferences: From Ad Hoc Measures to Theoretically Validated Standards. Essex Papers in Politics and Government. 139. University of Essex and Department of Government, Colchester.
13.
BudgeIKlingemannHDVolkensA. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties. Electors. and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
BudgeIMeyerTM (2013) Understanding and validating the left-right scale. In: VolkensABaraJBudgeIMcDonaldMKlingemannHD (eds), Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 85–106.
15.
ChristiansenFJ (2008) Politiske forlig i Folketinget. Partikonkurrence og samarbejde. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
16.
ChristiansenFJDamgaardE (2008) Parliamentary opposition under minority parliamentarism: scandinavia. Journal of Legislative Studies14(1): 46–76.
17.
ChristiansenFJPedersenRB (2012) The impact of the European Union on coalition formation in a minority system: the case of Denmark. Scandinavian Political Studies35(3): 179–197.
18.
ChristiansenFJPedersenHH (2014) Minority coalition governance in Denmark. Party Politics20(6): 940–949.
19.
ChristiansenFJSeebergHB (2016) Cooperation between counterparts in parliament from an agenda-setting perspective: legislative coalitions as a trade of criticism and policy. West European Politics39(6): 1160–1180.
20.
ConleyRS (2011) Legislative activity in the Canadian house of commons: does majority or minority government mater?American Review of Canadian Studies41(4): 422–437.
21.
DixitAKPindyckRS (1994) Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
22.
DöringH (2013) The collective action of data collection: a data infrastructure on parties. Elections and cabinets. European Union Politics14(1): 161–178.
23.
DöringHManowP (2016) Parliaments and governments database (ParlGov) Information on parties, elections and cabinets in modern democracies. Development version.
24.
Falcó-GimenoAJuradoI (2011) Minority governments and budget deficits: the role of the opposition. European Journal of Political Economy27: 554–565.
25.
FieldBN (2009) Minority government and legislative politics in a multilevel state: Spain under Zapatero. South European Society and Politics14(4): 417–434.
GanghofSBräuningerT (2006) Government status and legislative behaviour: Partisan veto players in Australia, Denmark, Finland and Germany. Party Politics12(4): 521–539.
28.
Green-PedersenC (2001) Minority governments and party politics: the political and institutional background to the “Danish Miracle”. Journal of Public Policy21(1): 53–70.
29.
Green-PedersenCMortensenPB (2010) 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 Research49: 257–281.
30.
Green-PedersenCThomsenLH (2005) Bloc politics vs. broad cooperation? The functioning of Danish minority parliamentarism. The Journal of Legislative Studies11(2): 153–169.
31.
HansenME (2008) Back to the archives? A critique of the Danish part of the manifesto dataset. Scandinavian Political Studies31(2): 201–216.
32.
HassettKAMetcalfGE (1999) Investment with uncertain tax policy: does random tax policy discourage investment?Economic Journal109(457): 372–393.
33.
Henrik Bech Seeberg (2013) The opposition’s policy influence through issue politicisation. Journal of Public Policy, 33: 89–107.
34.
HoboltSBKlemmensenR (2008) Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies41(3): 309–337.
35.
JenningsWBevanSTimmermansA. (2011) Effects of the Core Functions of Government on the Diversity of Executive Agendas. Comparative Political Studies44(8): 1001–1030.
36.
KingGTomzMWittenbergJ (2000) Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44(2): 341–355.
37.
KlingemannHDHofferbertRIBudgeI (1994) Parties, Policies and Democracy. Boulder: Westview Press. In: KlingemannHDVolkensABaraJ. (eds) (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties. Electors and Governments in Eastern Europe. European Union and OECD. 1990-2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
LaverMSchofieldN (1990) Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
LoweWBenoitKMikhaylovS. (2011) Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly36(1): 123–155.
40.
ManningNMukherjeeROmerG (2000) Public Officials and Their Institutional Environment. Policy Research Working Paper No 2427. The World Bank, Washington D.C.
41.
MortensenPBGreen-PedersenCBreemanG. (2011) Comparing Government Agendas: Executive Speeches in the Netherlands. United Kingdom and Denmark’. Comparative Political Studies44(8).
42.
MouryC (2011) Coalition agreement and party mandate: how coalition agreements constrain the ministers. Party Politics17(3): 385–404.
43.
MouryC (2013) Coalition Government and Party Mandate: How Coalition Agreements Constrain Ministerial Action. London: Routledge.
44.
OsnabrüggeM (2015) The European commission and the implementation of its legislative programme. European Union Politics16(2): 241–261.
45.
OtjesSLouwerseT (2014) A special majority cabinet? Supported minority governance and parliamentary behavior in the Netherlands. World Political Science Review10(2): 343–363.
46.
PastorLVeronesiP (2013) Political uncertainty and risk premia. Journal of Financial Economics110(3): 520–545.
47.
PindyckRS (1991) Irreversibility, uncertainty, and investment. Journal of Economic Literature29(3): 1110–1148.
48.
RaschBETsebelisG (2011) The Role of Governments in Legislative Agendas Setting. London: Routledge.
49.
RodrikD (1991) Policy uncertainty and private investment. Journal of Development Economics36(2): 229–242.
50.
SaieghSM (2011) Ruling by Statute: How Uncertainty and Vote Buying Shape Lawmaking. Cambridge: CUP.
51.
SpoonJJKlüverH (2015) Voter polarization and party responsiveness: why parties emphasize divided issues, but remain silent on unified issues. European Journal of Political Research54(2): 343–362.
52.
GanghofSteffen (2003) Promises and Pitfalls of Veto Player Analysis. Swiss Political Science Review9(2): 1–25.
53.
StrømK (1984) Minority governments in parliamentary democracies: the rationality of non-winning cabinet solutions. Comparative Political Studies17(2): 199–227.
54.
StrømK (1990) Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
TimmermansA (2003) High Politics in the Low Countries: An Empirical Study of Coalition Agreements in Belgium and The Netherlands. Aldershot: Ashgate.
56.
TimmermansA (2006) Standing apart and sitting together: enforcing coalition agreements in multiparty systems. European Journal of Political Research45(2): 263–283.
57.
TsebelisG (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
58.
VolkensALehmannPMatthießT. (2015) The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2015a. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)
59.
WidfeldtA (2003) Sweden. European Journal of Political Research42: 1091–1101.
60.
WidfeldtA (2011) Sweden. European Journal of Political Research50: 1145–1154. 2011.
61.
ZubekRKlüverH (2015) Legislative pledges and coalition government. Party Politics21(4): 603–614.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
