IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v58y2014i4p873-887.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ministerial Responsiveness in Westminster Systems: Institutional Choices and House of Commons Debate, 1832–1915

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew C. Eggers
  • Arthur Spirling

Abstract

In Westminster systems, governments enjoy strong agenda‐setting powers but are accountable to an inquisitorial opposition. This article provides insights into the origins of this arrangement from the British House of Commons, drawing primarily on a new data set of a half million parliamentary speeches. We show that, according to a novel measure we develop, government ministers became more responsive to opposition members of parliament in the same period that the government's agenda power was most conclusively strengthened—roughly, the two decades culminating in Balfour's “railway timetable” of 1902. We argue that this increase in responsiveness helps to explain why opposition members of parliament acceded to reductions in their procedural power. We thus highlight a link between government strength and opposition scrutiny in the historical development of the Westminster system.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew C. Eggers & Arthur Spirling, 2014. "Ministerial Responsiveness in Westminster Systems: Institutional Choices and House of Commons Debate, 1832–1915," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 873-887, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:58:y:2014:i:4:p:873-887
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12090
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12090
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12090?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. Anselm Hager & Hanno Hilbig, 2020. "Does Public Opinion Affect Political Speech?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 921-937, October.
    2. Ludovic Rheault & Kaspar Beelen & Christopher Cochrane & Graeme Hirst, 2016. "Measuring Emotion in Parliamentary Debates with Automated Textual Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Hager, Anselm & Hilbig, Hanno, 2020. "Does Public Opinion Affect Political Speech?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 64(4), pages 921-937.

    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:58:y:2014:i:4:p:873-887. 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.