Decentralisation is frequently justified in terms of representation and participation, with its advocates emphasising the capacity of regional institutions to remedy the democratic deficiencies of the centre. Yet empirical examinations of the democratic performance of regional governing systems are scarce, and there is no analysis that systematically compares the operation of different tiers within the same state. This article responds to this significant lacuna. Drawing upon the tools of cross-national comparison, it develops an analytical framework that evaluates the effects of regional and national institutions on the dispersal of electoral payoffs. This framework is applied to the United Kingdom, to compare the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales with Westminster. Through this analysis, the article provides important empirical insights regarding the difference wrought by decentralisation and, in turn, contributes to a burgeoning body of literature that offers a more critical assessment of the relationship between decentralisation and such democratic goods.
AartsKThomassenJ (2008) Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter?Electoral Studies27(1): 5–18.
2.
AchenCHDaltonRJHuberJet al. (2011) Context, behavior, outcomes, and tradeoffs: The intellectual contributions of G. Bingham Powell, Jr. to the study of comparative democratic processes. PS: Political Science & Politics44(4): 857–864.
3.
AndewegRB (2013) Parties in parliament: The blurring of opposition. In: MüllerWCNarudHM (eds) Party Governance and Party Democracy. New York: Springer, pp.99–114.
4.
ArterD (2004) The Scottish committees and the goal of a ‘new politics’: A verdict on the first four years of the devolved Scottish parliament. Journal of Contemporary European Studies12(1): 71–91.
5.
BacheI (2007) Europeanization and Multilevel Governance: Cohesion Policy in the European Union and Britain. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
6.
BäckHDebusMMüllerJet al. (2013) Regional government formation in varying multilevel contexts: A comparison of eight European countries. Regional Studies47: 368–387.
7.
BarberBR (2013) If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
BentonMRussellM (2013) Assessing the impact of parliamentary oversight committees: The select committees in the British house of commons. Parliamentary Affairs66(4): 772–797.
9.
BlauA (2008) The effective number of parties at four scales–Votes, seats, legislative power and cabinet power. Party Politics14(2): 167–187.
10.
BohrerREKrutzGS (2005) The devolved party systems of the United Kingdom–Sub-national variations from the national model. Party Politics11(6): 654–673.
11.
BrancatiD (2008) The origins and strengths of regional parties. British Journal of Political Science38(1): 135–159.
12.
CairneyPWidfeldtA (2015) Is Scotland a Westminster-style majoritarian democracy or a Scandinavian-style consensus democracy? A comparison of Scotland, the UK and Sweden. Regional & Federal Studies28(1): 1–18.
13.
CairneyPRussellSSt DennyE (2016) The ‘Scottish approach’ to policy and policymaking: What issues are territorial and what are universal?Policy & Politics44(3): 333–340.
14.
CareyJMHixS (2011) The electoral sweet spot: Low-magnitude proportional electoral system. American Journal of Political Science55(2): 383–397.
15.
Cm 3658 (1997) Scotland’s Parliament. London: HMSO.
16.
Cm 3718 (1997) A Voice for Wales: The Government’s Proposals for a Welsh Assembly. London: HMSO.
17.
CostelloRThomassenJRosemaM (2012) European parliament elections and political representation: Policy congruence between voters and parties. West European Politics35(6): 1226–1248.
18.
CowleyP (2005) The Rebels: How Blair Mislaid His Majority. London: Politico’s.
19.
DahlRTufteE (1973) Size and Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
De VriesM (2000) The rise and fall of decentralization: A comparative analysis of arguments and practices in European countries. European Journal of Political Research38(1): 193–224.
ElazarDJ (1991) Federal Systems of the World: A Handbook of Federal, Confederal and Autonomy Arrangements. London: Longman.
24.
Electoral Reform Society Cymru (2013) Size Matters: Making the National Assembly More Effective. London: Electoral Reform Society.
25.
FatkeM (2016) Participatory effects of regional authority: Decentralisation and political participation in comparative perspective. West European Politics39(4): 667–687.
26.
FlindersM (2005) Majoritarian democracy in Britain: New labour and the constitution. West European Politics28(1): 68–93.
27.
GallagherM (1991) Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral systems. Electoral Studies10(1): 33–51.
28.
HC1117 (2009) Rebuilding the House (House of commons reform committee). London: HMSO.
29.
HC 300 (2000) Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive (Liaison committee). London: HMSO.
30.
HC 224 (2002) Select Committees (Modernisation of the House of Commons committee). London: HMSO.
31.
HC 697 (2012) Select Committee Effectiveness, Resources and Powers (Liaison committee). London: HMSO.
32.
HoogheLMarksGSchakelAH (2010) The Rise of Regional Authority: A Comparative Study of 42 Democracies. London: Routledge.
33.
Institute for Government (2015) Select Committees Under Scrutiny. London: Institute for Government.
34.
JefferyC (2008) The challenge of territorial politics. Policy & Politics36(4): 545–557.
35.
JefferyCWincottD (2010) The challenge of territorial politics: Beyond methodological nationalism. In: HayC (ed.) New Directions in Political Science: Responding to the Challenges of an Interdependent World. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.167–188.
36.
JonesC (2016) Labour hung tough, now we have a mandate. The Sunday Times, 8May.
37.
JudgeD (1993) The Parliamentary State. London: SAGE Publishing.
38.
KaiserA (2008) Parliamentary opposition on Westminster democracies: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Legislative Studies14(1): 20–25.
39.
KaiserALehnertMMillerBet al. (2002) The democratic quality of institutional regimes: A conceptual framework. Political Studies50(2): 313–331.
40.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1979) Effective number of parties: A measure with application to west Europe. Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
41.
Labour Party (1997) New Labour: Because Britain Deserves Better. London: Labour Party.
42.
LaverMHuntWB (1992) Policy and Party Competition. London: Routledge.
43.
LijphartA (2012) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries, 2nd edn.New Haven, CT: University of Yale Press.
44.
LipsetSMRokkanS (1967) Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: An introduction. In: LipsetSMRokkanS (eds) Party Systems and Voter Alignments. New York: The Free Press, pp.1–64.
45.
LynchP (2007) Party system change in Britain: Multi-party politics in a multi-level polity. British Politics2(3): 323–346.
46.
McAllisterLStirbuD (2007) Developing devolution’s scrutiny potential: A comparative evaluation of the national assembly for Wales’s subject committees. Policy & Politics35(2): 289–309.
47.
McCubbinsMDSchwartzT (1984) Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science28(1): 165–179.
48.
MairP (2000) Partyless democracy: Solving the paradox of new labour?New Left Review2(2): 21–35.
49.
MairPThomassenJ (2010) Political representation and government in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy17(1): 20–35.
50.
MatthewsFFlindersM (2015) The watchdogs of ‘Washminster’—Parliamentary scrutiny of executive patronage in the UK. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics53(2): 153–176.
51.
MatthewsFFlindersM (2017) Patterns of democracy: Coalition governance and majoritarian modification in the United Kingdom, 2010–2015. British Politics12(2): 157–182.
52.
MattsonIStrømK (1995) Parliamentary committees. In: DöringH (ed.) Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.249–307.
53.
MitchellJ (2000) New parliament, new politics in Scotland. Parliamentary Affairs53(4): 605–621.
54.
NagelJ (2000) Expanding the spectrum of democracies: Reflections on proportional representation in New Zealand. In: CrepazMKoelbleTWilsfordD (eds) Democracy and Institutions: The Life Work of Arend Lijphart. Ann Arbour, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp.113–129.
55.
NAW (1999) Standing Orders of the National Assembly for Wales. Cardiff: NAW.
56.
NAW (2007) Standing Orders of the National Assembly for Wales. Cardiff: NAW.
57.
NAW (2011) Standing Orders of the National Assembly for Wales. Cardiff: NAW.
58.
NAW (2016) Standing Orders of the National Assembly for Wales. Cardiff: NAW.
PalmerR (2011) Coalition and minority government in Wales: Lessons for the United Kingdom. Political Quarterly82(2): 270–278.
61.
PitkinH (1967) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
62.
PogorelisRMaddensBSwendenWet al. (2005) Issue salience in regional and national party manifestos in the UK. West European Politics28(5): 992–1014.
63.
PolsbyN (1975) Legislatures. In: GreensteinFPolsbyN (eds) Handbook of Political Science. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp.257–319.
64.
PowellBG (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
65.
QuinnT (2012) From two-partism to alternating predominance: The UK party system 1950–2010. Political Studies61(3): 378–400.
66.
Rodríguez-PoseAGillN (2003) The global trend towards devolution and its implications. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space21(3): 333–351.
67.
SartoriG (1976) Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis (vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68.
Scottish Parliament (1999) Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament.
69.
SiaroffA (2003) Varieties of parliamentarianism in advanced industrial democracies. International Political Studies Review24(4): 445–464.
70.
SNP and Scottish Greens (2007) Party Cooperation Agreement. Edinburgh: SNP and Scottish Green Party.
71.
SnyderR (2001) Scaling down: The subnational comparative method. Studies in Comparative International Development36(1): 93–110.
72.
SorensJ (2009) The partisan logic of decentralization in Europe. Regional & Federal Studies19(2): 255–272.
73.
SpinaN (2014) Decentralisation and political participation: An empirical analysis in western and eastern Europe. International Political Science Review35(4): 448–462.
74.
StrømK (1990) Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
75.
TaageperaR (2003) Arend Lijphart’s dimensions of democracy: Logical connections and institutional design. Political Studies51(1): 1–19.
76.
ToubeauS (2011) Regional nationalist parties and constitutional change in parliamentary democracies: A framework for analysis. Regional & Federal Studies21(4–5): 427–466.
77.
ToubeauSMassettiE (2013) The party politics of territorial reforms in Europe. West European Politics36(2): 297–316.
78.
VatterA (2007) Lijphart goes regional: Different patterns of consensus in Swiss democracies. West European Politics30(1): 148–171.
79.
VatterAStadelmann-SteffenI (2013) Subnational patterns of democracy in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. West European Politics36(1): 71–96.
80.
VatterAFlindersMBernauerJ (2014) A global trend towards democratic convergence? A Lijphartian analysis of advanced democracies. Comparative Political Studies47(10): 903–929.
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.
