The Dutch Parliamentary Behaviour Dataset

Abstract

This research note introduces the Dutch Parliamentary Behaviour Dataset, a record of parliamentary (voting) behaviour in the Dutch Tweede Kamer (Second Chamber, House of Representatives) since 1945. The Dutch Parliament was often excluded from past comparative work on legislative (voting) behaviour because behavioural data were not available in an accessible format. By digitizing the parliamentary archives and compiling the data in a structured format, we have created a comparatively rich dataset, that is made publically accessible for other researchers. In this research note, we describe the dataset and data collection process and provide some examples as how the data might be used in the growing quantitative literature on legislative behaviour.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Figure 1
Figure 2

Note: Filled dots denote government parties. PVV square dot in 2010–2012 represents its support party status

Figure 3

References

  1. Alemán, E., Calvo, E., Jones, M.P. and Kaplan, N. (2009) Comparing cosponsorship and roll-call ideal points. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(1): 87–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andeweg, R.B. and Thomassen, J.J.T. (2011) Pathways to party unity: Sanctions, loyalty, homogeneity and division of labour in the Dutch parliament. Party Politics 17(5): 655–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bergmann, H., Bailer, S., Ohmura, T., Saalfeld, T. and Sieberer, U. (2016) Namentliche Abstimmungen im Bundestag 1949 bis 2013: Befunde aus einem neuen Datensatz. Zeitschrift Für Parlamentsfragen Parlamentsfragen 47(1): 26–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bovend’Eert, P. and Kummeling, H. (2010) Het Nederlandse Parlement. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carey, J.M. (2007) Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 92–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carey, J.M. (2008) Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Coman, E. (2016) Dimensions of political conflict in West and East: An application of vote scaling to 22 European parliaments. Party Politics. doi:10.1177/1354068815593454.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Daalder, H. and Wolters, M. (1987) ‘Politicologen en psychologen op zoek naar partijen in de ruimte. In: H.F.M. Crombag, L.J.T. Van der Kamp and C.A.J. Vlek (eds.) De Psychologie voorbij: ontwikkelingen rond model, metriek en methode in de gedragswetenschappen. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, pp. 253–270.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Depauw, S. and Martin, S. (2009) Legislative party discipline and cohesion in comparative perspective. In: D. Giannetti and K. Benoit (eds.) Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments. New York: Routledge, pp. 103–120.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fivaz, J., Louwerse, T. and Schwarz, D. (2014) Keeping promises: VAAs and political representation. In: D. Garzia and S. Marschall (eds.) Matching Voters with Parties and Candidates. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp. 197–216.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Goeree, M. and Popping, R. (2014) Types of motions as proposed in the Dutch House of representatives. Quality & Quantity 48(6): 3253–3269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hansen, M.E. (2008) Reconsidering the party distances and dimensionality of the Danish Folketing. The Journal of Legislative Studies 14(3): 264–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hansen, M.E. (2009) The positions of Irish Parliamentary Parties 1937–2006. Irish Political Studies 24(1): 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hix, S. (2001) Legislative behaviour and party competition in the European Parliament: An application of nominate to the EU. JCMS. Journal of Common Market Studies 39(4): 663–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hix, S. and Noury, A. (2016) Government-opposition or left-right? The institutional determinants of voting in legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods 4(2): 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hug, S. and Schulz, T. (2007) Left-right positions of political parties in Switzerland. Party Politics 13(3): 305–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kam, C.J. (2009) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Koninklijke Bilbiotheek (2016) Staten-Generaal Digitaal. http://statengeneraaldigitaal.nl/, accessed 26 January 2016.

  19. Laver, M.J. (2006) Legislatures and parliaments in comparative context. In: B. Weingast and D. Wittman (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 121–140.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lijphart, A. (1975) De paradox van Condorcet en de Nederlandse parlementaire praktijk. Acta Politica 10(2): 188–198.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Louwerse, T. and Otjes, S. (2015) The impact of parliamentary specialisation on cosponsorship. The Journal of Legislative Studies 21(4): 476–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Louwerse, T., Otjes, S., Willumsen, D.M. and Öhberg, P. (2016) Reaching across the aisle: Explaining government-opposition voting in parliament. Party Politics. doi:10.1177/1354068815626000 (early online publication).

  23. Mokken, R.J. and Stokman, F. (1985) Legislative analysis: Methodology for the analysis of groups and coalitions. In: H.A M. Wilke (ed.) Coalition Formation. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 173–227.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Officiële Bekendmakingen (2016) Overheid.nl – Officiële Bekendmakingen, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/zoeken/parlementaire_documenten, accessed 26 January 2016.

  25. Oost, E. (2016) Partijgedrag, partijgedrag.nl, accessed 16 September 2016.

  26. Otjes, S. (2011) The Fortuyn effect revisited. How did the LPF affect the Dutch Parliamentary Party System? Acta Politica 46(4): 400–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Otjes, S. (2012) Imitating the newcomer. How, when and why established political parties imitate the policy positions and issue attention of new political parties in the electoral and parliamentary arena: the case of The Netherlands. Ph.D. Thesis, Leiden University.

  28. Otjes, S. (2014) Animal party politics in parliament. In: M. Wissenburg and D. Schlossberg (eds.) Political Animals and Animal Politics. Palgrave: Basingstoke, pp. 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Otjes, S. and Louwerse, T. (2013) Een bijzonder meerderheidskabinet? Parlementair gedrag tijdens het kabinet Rutte-I. Res Publica 55(4): 459–480.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Otjes, S. and Louwerse, T. (2014a) Een middenkabinet of een minderheidskabinet? In: G. Voerman (ed.) Halverwege? Tussenbalans kabinet-Rutte II. Montesquieu Instituut: Den Haag, pp. 35–48.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Otjes, S. and Louwerse, T. (2014b) A special majority cabinet? Supported minority governance and parliamentary behavior in The Netherlands. World Political Science Review 10(2): 343–363.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Otjes, S. and Louwerse, T. (2015) Populists in parliament: Comparing left wing and right-wing populism in The Netherlands. Political Studies 63(1): 60–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Peress, M. (2013) Estimating proposal and status quo locations using voting and cosponsorship data. The Journal of Politics 75(3): 613–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Political Mashup (2016) Parliament Debate Search, http://search.politicalmashup.nl/, accessed 26 January 2016.

  35. Poole, K.T. (2005) Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Poole, K.T. (2008) Nominate: A short intellectual history. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1154153.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Poole, K.T. and Rosenthal, H. (1984) The polarization of American politics. The Journal of Politics 46(4): 1061–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Popping, R. (2013) Coding issues in cognitive mapping of games. Open Journal of Political Science 3(1): 16–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Popping, R. and Wittek, R. (2015) Success and failure of parliamentary motions: A social dilemma approach. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133510.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rice, S.A. (1925) The behavior of legislative groups: A method of measurement. Political Science Quarterly 40(1): 60–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rosenthal, H. (1984) Why statistical foundations are needed in roll call analysis. Historical Social Research 32(4): 85–88.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rosenthal, H. and Voeten, E. (2004) Analyzing roll calls with perfect spatial voting: France 1946–1958. American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 620–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sieberer, U. (2006) Party unity in parliamentary democracies: A comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies 12(2): 150–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Spirling, A. and McLean, I. (2007) UK OC OK? Interpreting optimal classification scores for the U.K. House of Commons. Political Analysis 15(1): 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. The Public Whip (2016) Raw data – The public whip, http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/project/data.php, accessed 15 September 2016.

  46. Tweede Kamer (2016) Stemmingsuitslagen, http://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/stemmingsuitslagen, accessed 26 January 2016.

  47. Van Aelst, P. and Louwerse, T. (2014) Parliament without government: The Belgian parliament and the government formation processes of 2007–2011. West European Politics 37(3): 475–496. doi:10.1080/01402382.2013.832953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Van den Doel, J. (1975) De macro-politieke paradox van Arrow ‘s nachts in het parlement. Acta Politica 10(2): 199–205.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Van der Brug, W. (1997) Where’s the Party? Voters’ Perceptions of Party Positions. Ph.D. Dissertation, Amsterdam University.

  50. Van der Pas, D. and Jansen, E. (2011) The Dimensionality of Voting Behaviour in Two European Parliaments. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, 25–27 August 2011 Reykjavik, Iceland.

  51. Van Tijn-Koekebakker, M., Brinkman, W. and Koomen, W. (1970) Onderzoeksproblemen. Verschillen in stemgedrag tijdens het kabinet Cals. Acta Politica 5(2): 173–177.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Van Vonno, C.M.C. (2016) Achieving Party Unity: A Sequential Approach to Why MPs Act in Concert. Ph.D. Dissertation, Leiden University.

  53. Visscher, G. (1994) Parlementaire invloed op wetgeving. Inventarisatie van de invloed van de beide kamers der Staten-Generaal op de wetgevende activiteit van de kabinetten-Marijnen tot en met -Lubbers I. Den Haag: SDU.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Votewatch (2016) Votewatch Europe: European Parliament, Council of the EU, http://www.votewatch.eu/, accessed 15 September 2016.

  55. Wels, C. B. and Wolters, M. (1982) Analyse van het stemgedrag van Tweede Kamerleden in 1849. Tussenstand van een onderzoek. Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 95: 31–57.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wolters, M. (1978a) Is de Eerste Kamer overbodig? Bestuurswetenschappen 32: 99–107.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wolters, M. (1978b) Models of roll-call behaviour. Political Methodology 5(1): 7–54.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Wolters, M. (1980) Strategic voting: An empirical analysis with Dutch roll call data. In: P. Whiteley (ed.) Models of Political Economy. London: Sage, pp. 319–342.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wolters, M. (1984) Interspace Politics. Ph.D. Dissertation, Leiden University.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Louwerse.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 214 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (ZIP 44258 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Louwerse, T., Otjes, S. & van Vonno, C. The Dutch Parliamentary Behaviour Dataset. Acta Polit 53, 149–166 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-017-0042-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • legislative studies
  • parliament
  • legislative behaviour
  • legislative voting
  • The Netherlands