Legislative debates make democracy and representation work. Political actors engage in legislative debates to make their voice heard to voters. Parties use debates to shore up their brand. This book makes the most comprehensive study of legislative debates thus far, looking at the politics of legislative debates in 33 liberal democracies in Europe, North America and Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. The book begins with theoretical chapters focused on the key concepts in the study of legislative debates. Michael Laver, Slapin and Proksch, and Taylor examine the politics of legislative debates in parliamentary and presidential democracies. Subsequently, Goplerud makes a critical review of the methodological challenges in the study of legislative debates. Schwalbach and Rauh further discuss the difficulties in the comparative empirical study of debates. Country-chapters offer a wealth of original material organized around structured sections. Each chapter begins with a details discussion of the institutional design, focusing on the electoral system, legislative organization, and party parties, to which a section on the formal and informal rules of legislative debates ensues. Next, each country chapter focuses on analyzing the determinants of floor access, with a particular emphasis on the role of gender, seniority, legislative party positions, among others. In the concluding chapter, the editors explore comparative patterns and point out to multiple research avenues opened by this edited volume. The Oxford Politics of Institutions series is designed to provide in-depth coverage of research on a specific political institution. Each volume includes a mix of theoretical contributions, state-of-the-art research review chapters, comparative empirical chapters, country case study chapters, and chapters aimed at practitioners. Typically, the majority of chapters in each volume comprises of country studies written by country experts. Volumes in the series are aimed at political scientists, students in political science programmes, social scientists more generally, and policy practitioners. Series editors: Shane Martin, Anthony King Chair in Comparative Government and Head of the Department of Government, University of Essex; and Sona N. Golder, Professor of Politics, Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University.

George Tsebelis' veto players approach has become a prominent theory to analyze various research questions in political science. Studies that apply veto player theory deal with the impact of institutions and partisan preferences of legislative activity and policy outcomes. It is used to measure the degree of policy change and, thus, reform capacity in national and international political systems. This volume contains the analysis of leading scholars in the field on these topics and more recent developments regarding theoretical and empirical progress in the area of political reform-making. The contributions come from research areas of political science where veto player theory plays a significant role, including, positive political theory, legislative behavior and legislative decision-making in national and supra-national political systems, policy making and government formation. The contributors to this book add to the current scholarly and public debate on the role of veto players, making it of interest to scholars in political science and policy studies as well as policymakers worldwide.

Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorien gelten als erfolgversprechende Ansatze zur Erklarung sozialen und politischen Handelns. Handeln wird dabei als das Ergebnis eines Prozesses gesehen, bei dem Akteure aus verschiedenen verfugbaren Handlungsalternativen diejenige auswahlen, die bei gegebenen Rahmenbedingungen und erwarteten Handlungen anderer Akteure ihre Ziele am besten zu verwirklichen verspricht. Band 12 des Jahrbuchs vereint innovative Beitrage zur Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie, die sich mit der gesamten Breite des Feldes befassen.

Unterscheidet sich die nordrhein-westfalische CDU eines Jurgen Ruttgers programmatisch von der hessischen Union unter Fuhrung von Roland Koch? Steht die SPD im Saarland weiter links von der Mitte als die Sozialdemokraten im benachbarten Rheinland-Pfalz? Wenn ja, warum ist das der Fall? Die vorliegende Studie untersucht die bundeslandsspezifischen Eigenheiten des Parteienwettbewerbs anhand einer Analyse aller zwischen 1990 und 2010 verfassten Landtagswahlprogramme. Dies geschieht vor dem Hintergrund der historischen Entwicklung der Parteiensysteme in den Landern einerseits und auf Grundlage theoretischer Modelle andererseits. Die Ergebnisse zeichnen ein differenziertes Bild des Parteienwettbewerbs im deutschen Mehrebenensystem. Sie zeigen die Unterschiede in den programmatischen Positionen der Parteien in den verschiedenen Politikfeldern auf, die ihre Ursachen in der Sozialstruktur der jeweiligen Wahlerschaft, aber auch in taktischen Bestrebungen der Parteien bei Landtagswahlen haben. Die Eigenstandigkeit des regionalen Parteienwettbewerbs im Vergleich zum bundespolitischen zeigt sich schliesslich in der Bedeutung der inhaltlichen Ausrichtungen der Landesparteien fur die Regierungsbildung in den Bundeslandern.