Veto Players, Agenda Control and Cabinet Stability in 17 European Parliaments, 1945–1999

Part of the Studies in Public Choice book series (SIPC, volume 16)


European democracies have experienced significant cross-national and diachronic variations in cabinet duration. Empirically, this chapter seeks to offer some new insights into the institutional sources of such variations, especially with regard to partisan veto players and the role of government agenda powers. The main theoretical interest of this chapter is the extent to which, and in what way, veto player theory helps us to understand the dynamics of coalition politics. George Tsebelis’ veto player theory has not been employed comprehensively to explain variations in cabinet duration. Nevertheless, he himself suggests that core elements of veto player theory, combined with important features of governmental agenda powers vis-à-vis parliaments, might produce a parsimonious, innovative, theoretically consistent and empirically testable model of cabinet durability (including an innovative theoretical conceptualization of exogenous shocks). This chapter is predominantly empirical in character. The main body of the chapter derives five hypotheses from veto player theory, tests them using data from the Constitutional Change in Parliamentary Democracy (CCPD) dataset and finds strong evidence for the importance of the number of veto players as a crucial explanatory variable of cabinet survival (rather than the ideological distance between veto players). It also finds substantial evidence for the importance of agenda powers for the survival of minority cabinets.


Exogenous Shock Veto Player Minority Government Seat Share Positional Advantage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I owe thanks to Simona Bevern, Simon Fink and the participants of the George Tsebelis Conference: Reform processes and policy change: How do veto players determine decisionmaking in modern democracies? (Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, May 14–16, 2009) for their helpful comments, which have improved this chapter. All remaining opacities and errors are mine.


  1. .
    Bergman T, Müller WC, Strøm K (2005) Comparative parliamentary democracy: a project report. Eur Polit Sci 4(1):42–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. .
    Box-Steffensmeier JM, Jones BS (2004) Event history modeling: a guide for social scientists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. .
    Box-Steffensmeier JM, Reiter D, Zorn C (2003) Nonproportional hazards and event history analysis in international relations. J Conflict Resolut 47(1):33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. .
    Budge I et al (2001). Mapping policy preferences: estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945–1998. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. .
    Cheibub JA, Przeworski A, Saiegh SM (2004) Government coalitions and legislative success under presidentialism and parliamentarism. Br J Polit Sci 34:565–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. .
    Diermeier D (2006) Coalition government. In: Weingast BR, Wittman D (eds) The Oxford handbook of political economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 162–179Google Scholar
  7. .
    Diermeier D, Merlo A (2000) Government turnover in parliamentary democracies. J Econ Theory 94:46–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. .
    Diermeier D, Stevenson RT (1999) Cabinet survival and competing risks. Am J Polit Sci 43: 1051–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. .
    Diermeier D, Stevenson RT (2000) Cabinet terminations and critical events. Am Polit Sci Rev 94:627–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. .
    Dodd LC (1976) Coalitions in parliamentary government. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. .
    Döring H (1995) Time as a scarce resource: government control of the agenda. In: Döring H (ed) Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe. St. Martin’s Press, Frankfurt am Main: Campus/New York, pp 223–246Google Scholar
  12. .
    Epstein D, O’Halloran S (1994). Divided government and the design of administrative procedures, information and agency discretion. Am J Polit Sci 38(3):697–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. .
    Ferris JS, Voia M-C (2009) What determines the length of a typical Canadian parliamentary government? Can J Polit Sci 42(2):881–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. .
    Frendreis JP, Gleiber DW, Browne EC (1986) The study of cabinet dissolutions in parliamentary democracies. Legis Stud Q 11:619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. .
    Grofman B (1989) The comparative analysis of coalition formation and duration: distinguishing between-country and within-county effects. Br J Polit Sci 19(2):291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. .
    Grofman B, van Roozendaal P (1997) Review article: modelling cabinet durability and termination. Br J Polit Sci 27(3):419–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. .
    Heller WB (2001) Making policy stick: why the government gets what it wants in multi-party parliaments. Am J Polit Sci 45(4):780–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. .
    Huber JD (1998) How does cabinet instability affect political performance? Portfolio volatility and health care cost containment in parliamentary democracies. Am Polit Sci Rev 92:577–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. .
    King G, Alt JE, Burns NE et al (1990) A unified model of cabinet dissolution in parliamentary democracies. Am J Polit Sci 34(3):846–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. .
    Laakso M, Taagepera R (1979) Effective number of parties: a measure with applications to Western Europe. Comp Polit Stud 12:3–27Google Scholar
  21. .
    Laver M (2003) Government termination. Annu Rev Polit Sci 6:23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. .
    Laver M, Hunt WB (1992) Policy and party competition. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. .
    Laver M, Schofield N (1990) Multiparty government: the politics of coalition in Europe. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. .
    Laver M, Shepsle KA (1996) Making and breaking governments: cabinets and legislatures in parliamentary democracies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. .
    Lijphart A (1999) Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  26. .
    Lupia A, Strøm K (1995). Coalition termination and the strategic timing of parliamentary elections. Am Polit Sci Rev 89(3):648–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. .
    Müller WC (2008) Governments and bureaucracies. In: Caramani D (ed) Comparative politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 189–216Google Scholar
  28. .
    Müller WC, Strøm K (2000) Coalition governance in Western Europe: an introduction. In: Müller WC, Strøm K (eds) Coalition government in Western Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–31Google Scholar
  29. .
    Saalfeld T (2008) Institutions, chance and choices: the dynamics of cabinet survival in the parliamentary democracies of Western Europe (1945–1999). In: Strøm K, Müller WC, Bergman T (eds) Cabinets and coalition bargaining: the democratic life cycle in Western Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 327–368Google Scholar
  30. .
    Saalfeld T (2009) Vetospieler, Agendakontrolle und Kabinettsstabilität in 17 europäischen Parlamenten. In: Ganghof S, Hönnige C, Stecker C (eds) Parlamente, Agendasetzung und Vetospieler: Festschrift für Herbert Döring. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. .
    Schleiter P, Morgan-Jones E (2009) Constitutional power and competing risks: monarchs, presidents, prime ministers, and the termination of east and west European cabinets. Am Polit Sci Rev 103(3):496–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. .
    Strøm K (1988) Contribution to “contending models of cabinet stability.” Am Polit Sci Rev 82:923–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. .
    Strøm K, Swindle SM (2002) Strategic parliamentary dissolution. Am Polit Sci Rev 96:575–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. .
    Tsebelis G (2002) Veto players: how political institutions work. Russell Sage Foundation, New York and Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  35. .
    Tsebelis G (2006) Coalition theory: a veto player approach. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  36. .
    van Roozendaal P (1992) Cabinets in multi-party democracies: the effect of dominant and central parties on cabinet composition and durability. Thesis Publishers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  37. .
    Volden C (2002) A formal model of the politics of delegation in a separation of powers system. Am J Polit Sci 46(1):111–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. .
    Warwick PV (1994) Government survival in parliamentary democracies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. .
    Warwick PV (1999) Ministerial autonomy or ministerial accommodation? Contested bases of government survival in parliamentary democracies. Br J Polit Sci 29:369–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BambergBambergGermany

Personalised recommendations