IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/mpifgd/0411.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Legislative Autolimitation under Divided Government: Evidence from the German Case, 1976-2002

Author

Listed:
  • Manow, Philip
  • Burkhart, Simone

Abstract

Most efforts to detect the consequences of divided government in German federalism by analyzing legislative statistics have been unsuccessful. Therefore, there is still much debate in Germany about the gridlock potential of divided government, as there is in the United States. Using a game-theoretic model, this paper investigates the impact of divided government on the strategic choices of government and opposition. The main conclusion of our model is that a strong opposition dominance in the Bundesrat usually does not lead to open party-political conflict, but rather to legislative autolimitation of the government which anticipates the opposition?s veto potential. However, if majorities in the Bundesrat are narrow, both government and opposition opt for less moderate policy positions, and as a result legislation is characterized by intense partypolitical conflict. The hypotheses following from the model are tested on a detailed data set comprising all legislative activity in Germany between 1976 and 2002. The results confirm the thesis that the main effect of divided government is that it induces 'legislative autolimitation' on the part of the government. We conclude that when majorities in the Bundestag and Bundesrat diverge, the impact on legislation is substantial.

Suggested Citation

  • Manow, Philip & Burkhart, Simone, 2004. "Legislative Autolimitation under Divided Government: Evidence from the German Case, 1976-2002," MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/11, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:mpifgd:0411
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/19913/1/dp04-11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Burkhart, Simone, 2004. "Parteipolitikverflechtung: Der Einfluss der Bundespolitik auf Landtagswahlentscheidungen von 1976 bis 2002," MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    2. Heller, William B, 2001. "Political Denials: The Policy Effect of Intercameral Partisan Differences in Bicameral Parliamentary Systems," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 34-61, April.
    3. Huber, John D., 1996. "The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(2), pages 269-282, June.
    4. Tsebelis, George, 1995. "Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 289-325, July.
    5. Coleman, John J., 1999. "Unified Government, Divided Government, and Party Responsiveness," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 821-835, December.
    6. Enderlein, Henrik, 2004. "Nationale Wirtschaftspolitik in der europäischen Währungsunion," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 49, number 49.
    7. Ganghof, Steffen, 2004. "Wer regiert in der Steuerpolitik? Einkommensteuerreform zwischen internationalem Wettbewerb und nationalen Verteilungskonflikten," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 50, number 50.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tracy H. Slagter, 2009. "National Parliaments and the ECJ: A View from the Bundestag," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47, pages 175-197, January.
    2. Scharpf, Fritz W., 2005. "No exit from the joint decision trap? Can German federalism reform itself?," MPIfG Working Paper 05/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Woll, Cornelia, 2005. "Learning to Act on World Trade: Preference Formation of Large Firms in the United States and the European Union," MPIfG Discussion Paper 05/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    2. Jason Webb Yackee & Susan Webb Yackee, 2009. "Divided government and US federal rulemaking," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 128-144, June.
    3. Cornelia Woll, 2005. "Learning to Act on World Trade. Preference Formation of Large Firms in the United States and the European Union," Sciences Po publications 05/01, Sciences Po.
    4. Giovanni Facchini & Cecilia Testa, 2016. "Corruption and bicameral reforms," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 387-411, August.
    5. Manow, Philip & Zorn, Hendrik, 2004. "Office versus Policy Motives in Portfolio Allocation: The Case of Junior Ministers," MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/9, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    6. Thomas König & Bernd Luig, 2014. "Ministerial gatekeeping and parliamentary involvement in the implementation process of EU directives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 501-519, September.
    7. Cornelia Woll, 2005. "Learning to Act on World Trade. Preference Formation of Large Firms in the United States and the European Union," Working Papers hal-01065571, HAL.
    8. B. Heller, William & P. Kyriacou, Andreas & Roca-Sagalés, Oriol, 2014. "Legislative Vetoes and Corruption: The Effect of Formal Checks on Governance," MPRA Paper 61651, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Mícheál O’Keeffe & Alessio Terzi, 2015. "The political economy of financial crisis policy," Working Papers 888, Bruegel.
    10. Hall, Peter A. & Gingerich, Daniel W., 2004. "Varieties of Capitalism and Institutional Complementarities in the Macroeconomy," MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/5, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    11. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8529 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Torsten Persson & Guido Tabellini, 2004. "Constitutions and Economic Policy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(1), pages 75-98, Winter.
    13. Witold Jerzy Henisz, 2004. "Political Institutions and Policy Volatility," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 1-27, March.
    14. Zorn, Hendrik & Schäfer, Armin & Manow, Philip, 2004. "European Social Policy and Europe's Party-Political Center of Gravity, 1957-2003," MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    15. Scharpf, Fritz W., 2004. "Legitimationskonzepte jenseits des Nationalstaats," MPIfG Working Paper 04/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    16. Burkhart, Simone, 2008. "Blockierte Politik: Ursachen und Folgen von "Divided Government" in Deutschland," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 60, number 60.
    17. Geoffrey Garrett & George Tsebelis & Richard Corbett, 2001. "The EU Legislative Process," European Union Politics, , vol. 2(3), pages 353-366, October.
    18. Avdagic, Sabina, 2004. "Loyalty and Power in Union-Party Alliances: Labor Politics in Postcommunism," MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/7, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    19. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    20. Sobel, Andrew C., 2002. "State institutions, risk, and lending in global capital markets," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 725-752, December.
    21. Kari Irwin Otteburn, 2023. "All in favour? Indian business interests and the India-EU FTA," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 311-329, September.

    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:zbw:mpifgd:0411. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mpigfde.html .

    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.