Advertisement

French Politics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 302–317 | Cite as

Understudied and underestimated? What determines scientific attention on second chambers?

  • Tinette Schnatterer
Review Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

In the context of an upsurge in the popularity of bicameralism , the aim of this contribution is to map recent trends in the study of second chambers and to propose some guidelines of thought which should help to overcome existing shortcomings in this field of research. Building on the review of a new database of journal articles on second chambers, I identify three factors that positively influence the attention political scientist accord to second chambers: the classification of a second chamber as strong according to Lijphart, the direct election of its members as well as debates on the reform of the second chamber. This database further enables me to show that the main challenges identified in the literature regarding the research on second chambers are still valid: the quasi-absence of comparative studies and the observation that second chambers are mainly studied in relation with the first chambers and that little research has been conducted on their own (internal) dynamics. Hope can be derived however from new trends in the literature adopting a more actor-entered approach.

Keywords

second chambers bicameralism Lijphart’s typology of second chambers comparative studies scientific attention 

References

  1. Baldwin, N.D.J. (2013) Concluding observations. In: N. Baldwin and D. Shell (eds.) Second Chambers. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, pp. 171–180.Google Scholar
  2. Borthwick, R.L. (2001) Methods of composition of second chambers. The Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (1): 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coakley, J. (2014) The strange revival of bicameralism. The Journal of Legislative Studies 20 (4): 542–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Druckman, J.N. and Thies, M.F. (2002) The importance of concurrence: The impact of bicameralism on government formation and duration. American Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 760–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Heller, W.B. (1997) Bicameralism and budget deficits: The effect of parliamentary structure on government spending. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (4): 485–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heller, W.B. (2007) Divided politics: Bicameralism, parties, and policies in democratic legislatures. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heller, W.B. and Branduse, D.M. (2014) The politics of bicameralism. In: S. Martin, M. Shane, T. Saalfeld and K.W. Strøm (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 332–351.Google Scholar
  8. Hug, S. (2010) Strategic voting in a bicameral setting. In: T. König, G. Tsebelis and M. Debus (eds.) Reform Processes and Policy Change: Veto Players and Decision-Making in Modern Democracies. New York: Springer, pp. 231–246.Google Scholar
  9. König, T. (2001) Bicameralism and party politics in Germany: An empirical social choice analysis. Political Studies 49 (3): 411–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Martin, A.D. (2001) Congressional decision making and the seperation of powers. American Political Science Review 95 (2): 362–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCarty, N. and Cutrone, M. (2006) Does bicameralism matter? In: B.R. Weingast (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mitchell, A. (2008) Lords and leg cos: Two second chamber sagas. The Journal of Legislative Studies 14 (3): 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mughan, A. and Patterson, S.C. (1999) Senates: A comparative perspective. In: S.C. Patterson and A. Mughan (eds.) Senates: Bicameralism in the Contemporary World. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio University Press, pp. 333–349.Google Scholar
  15. Nolte, D. and Llanos, M. (2004) Starker Bikameralismus? Zur Verfassungslage lateinamerikanischer Zweikammersysteme. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 35 (1): 113–131.Google Scholar
  16. Patterson, S.C. and Mughan, A. (2001) Fundamentals of institutional design. The functions and powers of parliamentary second chambers. The Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (2): 77–107.Google Scholar
  17. Riescher, G., Ruß, S. and Haas, C.M. (2010) Zweite Kammern. München: Oldenbourg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rogers, J.R. (2003) The impact of bicameralism on legislative production. Legislative Studies Quarterly 28 (4): 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rush, M. (2001) Socio-economic composition and pay and resources in second chambers. The Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (1): 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Russell, M. (2000) Reforming the House of Lords: Lessons from Overseas Revived. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Russell, M. (2001) The territorial role of second chambers. The Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (1): 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Russell, M. (2012) Elected second chambers and their powers: An international survey. The Political Quarterly 83 (1): 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Russell, M. (2013) The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sartori, G. (1994) Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives, and Outcomes. Basikstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scully, R. (2001) Dealing with big brother: Relations with the first chamber. The Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (1): 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schüttemeyer, S.S. and Sturm, R. (1992) Wozu Zweite Kammern? Zur Repräsentation und Funktionalität Zweiter Kammern in westlichen Demokratien. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 23 (3): 517–530.Google Scholar
  27. Shell, D. (2001) Introduction. The Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (1): 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith, D.E. (2003) The Canadian Senate in Bicameral Perspective. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thränhardt, D. (2010) Mehr Demokratie oder mehr Gewaltenteilung?: Neun Varianten des Bikameralismus. In: C. Frantz and K. Schubert (eds.) Einführung in die Politikwissenschaft. Münster: Lit Verl, pp. 91–111.Google Scholar
  30. Tsebelis, G. (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. New York: Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Uhr, J. (2008) Bicameralism. In: R.A.W. Rhodes, S.A. Binder and B.A. Rockman (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 474–494.Google Scholar
  32. Van der Heijden, J. (2014) Selecting cases and inferential types in comparative public policy research. In: I. Engeli and C. Rothmayr (eds.) Comparative Policy Studies: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. VanDusky-Allen, J. and Heller, W.B. (2014) Bicameralism and the logic of party organization. Comparative Political Studies 47 (8): 715–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vatter, A. (2005) Bicameralism and policy performance. The Journal of Legislative Studies 11 (2): 194–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wheeler-Booth, Sir M. (2001) Procedure: A Case Study of the House of Lords. The Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (1): 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tinette Schnatterer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Konstanz, Fachbereich Politik- und VerwaltungswissenschaftKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations