Advertisement

When are technocratic cabinets formed?

  • Miloš BrunclíkEmail author
  • Michal Parízek
Original Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

This article provides first systematic quantitative insights into the patterns of the occurrence of technocratic cabinets (TCs) in all European countries. Using an original dataset, we identify the broad structural factors and the immediate political conditions that increase the probability that TCs, as opposed to partisan cabinets, are formed. The dataset covers all the 53 TCs in 36 European countries in years 1989–2015 and a random sample of 104 political cabinets in the same period. We find that TCs are more likely to occur in political systems not trusted by the citizens and in systems with poor economic performance. TCs are also systematically more likely to occur when the previous cabinet was dismissed by the president or when it fell due to a political scandal. Contrary to our initial expectations, TCs appear to be more likely in countries with institutionally weaker presidents, other things equal.

Keywords

Technocratic cabinets Cabinet formation Corruption Economic performance Party system fractionalization Presidents 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Miloš Brunclík would like to acknowledge the support from the Charles University Research Development Scheme “Progres”, programme Q17—Social Sciences: from multi-disciplinarity to interdisciplinarity. Michal Parízek would like to acknowledge the support from the Czech Science Foundation Grant 17-10543S “Global bureaucracy: The politics of international organizations staffing”.

Supplementary material

41295_2018_124_MOESM1_ESM.docx (52 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 52 kb)
41295_2018_124_MOESM2_ESM.r (21 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (R 21 kb)
41295_2018_124_MOESM3_ESM.txt (42 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (TXT 43 kb)

References

  1. Bergman, T., et al. 2015. Government formation and breakdown in Western and Central-Eastern Europe. Comparative European Politics 13(3): 345–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bogdanor, V. 1993. Founding elections and regime change. Electoral Studies 9(4): 288–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunclík, M. 2015. The rise of technocratic cabinets—What we know, and what we should like to know. Austrian Journal of Political Science 44(3): 1–11.Google Scholar
  4. Brunclík, M. 2016. Three technocratic cabinets in the Czech Republic: A symptom of party failure? Politics in Central Europe 12(2): 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ceka, B. 2013. The perils of political competition: Explaining participation and trust in political parties in Eastern Europe. Comparative Political Studies 46(12): 1610–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, E.C., and Y. Chu. 2006. Corruption and trust: Exceptionalism in Asian democracies? Journal of Politics 68(2): 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cochrane, J. 1967. Mexico’s new Científicos: The Díaz Ordaz cabinet. Inter-American Economic Affairs 21(1): 61–72.Google Scholar
  8. Cotta, M., and L. Verzichelli. 2003. Ministers in Italy: Notables, party men, technocrats and media men. In Who Governs Southern Europe?: Regime change and ministerial recruitment, 1850–2000, ed. P.T. De Almeida, et al., 109–142. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  9. Dalton, R.J., and S. Weldon. 2007. Partisanship and party system institutionalization. Party Politics 13(2): 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duverger, M. 1978. Echec au roi. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
  11. European Social Survey. 2017. European social survey—Data and documentation. http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/. Accessed 13 July 2017.
  12. Grofman, B., and P. Roozendaal. 1997. Modelling cabinet durability and termination. British Journal of Political Science 27(3): 419–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Havlík, V., and Stanley, B. 2015. New populist parties in Central and Eastern Europe: Non-ideological or centrist? In Paper presented at the conference solving the puzzles of populism, London: Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
  14. Herman, V., and J. Pope. 1973. Minority governments in western democracies. British Journal of Political Science 3(2): 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hloušek, V., and L. Kopeček. 2014. Caretaker governments in Czech Politics: What to do about a government crisis. Europe-Asia Studies 66(8): 1323–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hooghe, M., and E. Quintelier. 2014. Political participation in European countries: The effect of authoritarian rule, corruption, lack of good governance and economic downturn. Comparative European Politics 12(2): 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huntington, S.P. 1991. Democracy’s third wave. Journal of Democracy 2(2): 12–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. King, G., and L. Zeng. 2001a. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 9(2): 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King, G., and L. Zeng. 2001b. Explaining rare events in international relations. International Organization 55(3): 693–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lijphart, A. 1984. Measures of cabinet durability: A conceptual and empirical evaluation. Comparative Political Studies 17(2): 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mainwaring, S., and M. Torcal. 2006. Party system institutionalization and party system theory after the third wave of democratization. In Handbook of party politics, ed. W. Crotty and R. Katz, 204–227. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mair, P. 1997. Party system change: Approaches and interpretations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Marangoni, F. 2012. Technocrats in Government: The composition and legislative initiatives of the Monti government eight months into its term of office. Bulletin of Italian Politics 4(1): 135–149.Google Scholar
  25. Marangoni, F., and L. Verzichelli. 2015. From a technocratic solution to a fragile grand coalition: The Impact of the economic crisis on parliamentary government in Italy. The Journal of Legislative Studies 21(1): 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McDonnell, D., and M. Valbruzzi. 2014. Defining and classifying technocrat-led and technocratic governments. European Journal of Political Research 53(4): 654–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neto, O.A., and K. Strøm. 2006. Breaking the parliamentary chain of delegation: Presidents and non-partisan cabinet members in European democracies. British Journal of Political Science 36(4): 619–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Donnell, G., et al. 1986. Transitions from authoritarian rule: Southern Europe. Baltimore: JHU Press.Google Scholar
  29. Parties & Elections in Europe. 2017. Parties & Elections. http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/. Accessed 30 Nov 2016.
  30. Pasquino, G., and M. Valbruzzi. 2012. Non-partisan governments Italian-style: Decision-making and accountability. Journal of Modern Italian Studies 17(5): 612–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pastorella, G. 2013. Technocratic governments during the Eurocrisis: Nothing new under the sun? In Paper presented at Thesesus Ph.D. Workshop, 21–22 May, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  32. Pastorella, G. 2014. Why have technocrats been appointed to govern European democracies? In Paper presented at the UACES general conference panel: Public opinion, representation and citizenship: Political parties, distrust, and compliance. Cork, September 2014.Google Scholar
  33. Pastorella, G. 2016. Technocratic governments in Europe: Getting the critique right. Political Studies 64(4): 948–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pederzoli, P., and C. Guarnieri. 1997. Italy: A case of judicial democracy? International Social Science Journal 49(152): 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Protsyk, O. 2005. Prime Ministers’ identity in semi-presidential regimes: Constitutional norms and cabinet formation outcomes. European Journal of Political Research 44(5): 721–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rae, D. 1968. A note on the fractionalization of some European party systems. Comparative Political Studies 1 (3): 413–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rothstein, B., and E.M. Uslaner. 2005. All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics 58(1): 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schleiter, P. 2013. Democracy, authoritarianism, and ministerial selection in Russia: How presidential preferences shape technocratic cabinets. Post-Soviet Affairs 29(1): 31–55.Google Scholar
  39. Schudson, M. 2006. The trouble with experts - and why democracies need them. Theory and Society 35(5/6): 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seligson, M.A. 2002. The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: A comparative study of four Latin American countries. The Journal of Politics 64(2): 408–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strøm, K. 2003. Parliamentary democracy and delegation. In Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies, ed. K. Strøm, et al., 55–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Strøm, K., et al. (eds.). 2008. Cabinets and coalition bargaining: The democratic life cycle in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Tavits, M. 2013. Post-communist democracies and party organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tucker, A., et al. 2000. From republican virtue to technology of political power: Three episodes of Czech nonpolitical politics. Political Science Quarterly 115(3): 421–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Verzichelli, L., and Cotta, M. 2012. Technicians, technical government and non-partisan ministers. The Italian experience. In Paper presented at IPSA XXII Congress, Madrid, July 2012 Panel: Experts and non-partisan ministers in European democracies.Google Scholar
  46. World Bank. 2015a. World data bank: Worldwide governance indicators. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=Worldwide-Governance-Indicators. Accessed 7 December 2015.
  47. World Bank. 2015b. World data bank: GDP growth (annual %). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?page=2. Accessed 13 November 2015.
  48. Wratil, C., and G. Pastorella. 2018. Dodging the bullet: How crises trigger technocrat-led governments. European Journal of Political Research 57(2): 450–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zulianello, M. 2013. When political parties decided not to govern. Party strategies and the winners and losers of the Monti Technocratic government. Contemporary Italian Politics 5(3): 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Political Studies, Faculty of Social SciencesCharles UniversityPrague 5Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations