Abstract

In this chapter we shall review the patterns outlined in the preceding chapters and ask whether evidence from a number of European countries enables us to draw any general conclusions about the use, the consequences, the benefits, the dangers and finally the future of the referendum phenomenon. First, we need to sum up briefly the provisions made for the referendum in European constitutions.

Keywords

Europe Income Straw Tate Tria 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aguilera de Prat, Cesáreo R., 1994. “L’uso del referendum nella Spagna democratica”, pp. 244–57 in Mario Caciagli and Pier Vincenzo Uleri (eds), Democrazie e Referendum. Roma and Bari: Editori Laterza.Google Scholar
  2. Aitken, Don, 1978. “Australia”, pp. 123–37 in Butler and Ranney (1978a).Google Scholar
  3. Barber, Benjamin R., 1984. Strong Democracy: participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barry, Brian, 1989. Democracy, Power and Justice: essays in political theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bealey, Frank, 1988. Democracy in the Contemporary State. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bjørklund, Tor, 1982. “The demand for referendum: when does it arise and when does it succeed?”, Scandinavian Political Studies, new series, 5:3, pp. 237–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blaustein, Albert P. and Gisbert H. Flanz, annual. Constitutions of the Countries of the World. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Bobbio, Norberto, 1987. The Future of Democracy: a defence of the rules of the game. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bogdanor, Vernon, 1981. The People and the Party System: the referendum and electoral reform in British politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bogdanor, Vernon, 1994. “Western Europe”, pp. 24–97 in Butler and Austin Ranney (1994a).Google Scholar
  11. Bohnet, Iris and Bruno S. Frey, 1994. “Direct-democratic rules: the role of discussion”, Kyklos 47:3, pp. 341–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Budge, Ian, 1993. “Direct democracy: setting appropriate terms of debate”, pp. 136–55 in David Held (ed.), Prospects for Democracy: north, south, east, west. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Burnheim, John, 1985. Is Democracy Possible: the alternatives to electoral politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Butler, David and Austin Ranney (eds), 1978a. Referendums: a comparative study of practice and theory. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  15. Butler, David and Austin Ranney, 1978b. “Practice”, pp. 3–21 in Butler and Ranney (1978a).Google Scholar
  16. Butler, David and Austin Ranney, 1978c. “Summing up”, pp. 221–6 in Butler and Ranney (1978a).Google Scholar
  17. Butler, David and Austin Ranney (eds), 1994a. Referendums around the World: the growing use of direct democracy. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Butler, David and Austin Ranney, 1994b. “Theory”, pp. 11–23 in Butler and Ranney (1994a).Google Scholar
  19. Butler, David and Austin Ranney, 1994c. “Conclusion”, pp. 258–63 in Butler and Ranney (1994a).Google Scholar
  20. Cremona, J. J., 1994. The Maltese Constitution and Constitutional History since 1813. San Gwann: Publishers Enterprises Group.Google Scholar
  21. Cronin, Thomas E., 1989. Direct Democracy: the politics of initiative, referendum, and recall. Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Darcy, R. and Michael Laver, 1990. “Referendum dynamics and the Irish divorce amendment”, Public Opinion Quarterly 54:1, pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fitzmaurice, John, 1995. “The 1994 referenda on EU membership in Austria and Scandinavia: a comparative analysis”, Electoral Studies 14:2, pp. 226–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Franklin, Mark, Cees van der Eijk and Michael Marsh, 1995. “Referendum outcomes and trust in government: public support for Europe in the wake of Maastricht”, West European Politics 18:3, pp. 101–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gallagher, Michael, Michael Laver and Peter Mair, 1995. Representative Government in Modern Europe. New York and London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Hansard Society, 1981. Referendums: guidelines for the future. London: Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government.Google Scholar
  27. Hirst, Paul, 1990. Representative Democracy and its Limits. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hughes, Colin A., 1994. “Australia and New Zealand”, pp. 154–73 in Butler and Ranney (1994a).Google Scholar
  29. Kobach, Kris W., 1993. The Referendum: direct democracy in Switzerland. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  30. Kobach, Kris W., 1994. “Switzerland”, pp. 98–153 in Butler and Ranney (1994a).Google Scholar
  31. Lijphart, Arend, 1984. Democracies: patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. McLean, Iain, 1989. Democracy and New Technology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  33. Magleby, David B., 1994. “Direct legislation in the United States”, pp. 218–57 in Butler and Ranney (1994a).Google Scholar
  34. Maine, Sir Henry Sumner, 1885. Popular Government. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  35. Mair, Peter, 1995. “Political parties, popular legitimacy and public privilege”, West European Politics 18:3, pp. 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marradi, Alberto, 1976. “Italy’s referendum on divorce: survey and ecological evidence analyzed”, European Journal of Political Research 4:1, pp. 115–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Michels, Robert, 1959. Political Parties: a sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Perifanaki Rotolo, Virginia, 1994. “Fra autoritarismo e democrazia: la difficile istituzionalizzazione del referendum in Grecia”, pp. 231–43 in Mario Caciagli and Pier Vincenzo Uleri (eds), Democrazie e Referendum. Roma and Bari: Editori LaterzaGoogle Scholar
  39. Ranney, Austin (ed.), 1981. The Referendum Device. Washington DC and London: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  40. Roche, Julian, 1994. No Referenda Please — we’re British. London: The Bow Group.Google Scholar
  41. Sartori, Giovanni, 1987. The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  42. Sartori, Giovanni, 1994. Comparative Constitutional Engineering: an inquiry into structures, incentives and outcomes. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Sears, David O. and Jack Citrin, 1982. Tax Revolt: something for nothing in California. Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sharp, Clifford D., 1911. The Case against the Referendum, Fabian Tract no. 155. London: The Fabian Society.Google Scholar
  45. Stoddart, Jane T., 1910. Against the Referendum. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  46. Suksi, Markku, 1993. Bringing in the People: a comparison of constitutional forms and practices of the referendum. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  47. Svensson, Palle, 1994. “The Danes and direct democracy”, paper presented at the workshop on “The referendum experience in Europe”, European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, Madrid, 17–22 April.Google Scholar
  48. Wass, Douglas, 1994. “Referenda — a critical view”, pp. 64–5 in Jack Lively and Adam Lively (eds), Democracy in Britain: a reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Gallagher

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations