@article{Ganghof2016,
  author    = {Ganghof, Steffen},
  title     = {The Regime-Trilemma: On the Relationship between the Executive and Legislature in advanced Democracies},
  series = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Vereinigung f{\~A}¼r Politische Wissenschaft},
  volume    = {57},
  journal   = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Vereinigung f{\~A}¼r Politische Wissenschaft},
  publisher = {Nomos},
  address   = {Hannover},
  issn      = {0032-3470},
  doi       = {10.5771/0032-3470-2016-1-27},
  pages     = {27 -- +},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {A comprehensive typology of basic executive formats is presented and linked to a discussion of tradeoffs in the design of executive-legislative relations. The focus is on the tradeoffs between three goals: (1) programmatic parties, (2) identifiable cabinets and (3) issue -specific legislative coalitions. To include semi-presidentialism into the typology in a logically consistent manner, a heretofore neglected executive format has to be defined, which is labelled semi-parliamentarism. Based on a discussion of Australian states, it is argued that semi-parliamentarism has the potential to mitigate the trilemma.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{Ganghof2016,
  author    = {Ganghof, Steffen},
  title     = {Research Design in Political Science - Causal perspectives versus contrastive theory testing},
  series = {Austrian journal of political science},
  volume    = {45},
  journal   = {Austrian journal of political science},
  publisher = {{\~A}-sterreichische Gesellschaft f{\~A}¼r Politikwissenschaft},
  address   = {Wien},
  issn      = {2313-5433},
  doi       = {10.15203/ozp.1037.vol45iss1},
  pages     = {1 -- 12},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Die politikwissenschaftliche Literatur unterscheidet zwei Grundtypen von Forschungsdesigns: x- und y-zentriert. Dieser Beitrag argumentiert, dass ein „kontrastives" Forschungsdesign als dritter Grundtyp abgegrenzt werden sollte. Die drei Designs unterscheiden sich durch die Anzahl der betrachteten Theorien und dadurch, ob mehrere Theorien konkurrierend oder komplement{\"a}r sind. Die typologische Abgrenzung des kontrastiven Designs verdeutlicht auch die Vor- und Nachteile x- und y-zentrierter Designs. Anhand verschiedener Beispielstudien (experimentell und nicht-experimentell, quantitativ und qualitativ) werden die Charakteristika der drei Designs sowie ihre Kombinationsm{\"o}glichkeiten herausgearbeitet. Dar{\"u}ber hinaus wird das kontrastive Design als verbindendes Element zwischen den quantitativen und qualitativen Forschungs-„Kulturen" hervorgehoben. The political science literature distinguishes two basic types of research designs: x- and y-centered. The article argues for the distinction of a third basic type: the "contrastive" design. The three designs differ in the number of relevant theories and in whether they see theories as competing or complementary. The typological differentiation of the contrastive research design helps to clarify the pros and cons of x- and y-centered designs. The article uses exemplary studies (experimental and observational, quantitative and qualitative) to illustrate the characteristics of the three designs as well as the possibilities of combining them. The contrastive design also constitutes a common element of the quantitative and qualitative research, "cultures".},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{Ganghof2016,
  author    = {Ganghof, Steffen},
  title     = {Reconciling Representation and Accountability: Three Visions of Democracy Compared},
  series = {Government \& opposition : an international journal of comparative politics},
  volume    = {51},
  journal   = {Government \& opposition : an international journal of comparative politics},
  publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  issn      = {0017-257X},
  doi       = {10.1017/gov.2015.15},
  pages     = {209 -- 233},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {An egalitarian approach to the fair representation of voters specifies three main institutional requirements: proportional representation, legislative majority rule and a parliamentary system of government. This approach faces two challenges: the under-determination of the resulting democratic process and the idea of a trade-off between equal voter representation and government accountability. Linking conceptual with comparative analysis, the article argues that we can distinguish three ideal-typical varieties of the egalitarian vision of democracy, based on the stages at which majorities are formed. These varieties do not put different relative normative weight onto equality and accountability, but have different conceptions of both values and their reconciliation. The view that accountability is necessarily linked to 'clarity of responsibility', widespread in the comparative literature, is questioned - as is the idea of a general trade-off between representation and accountability. Depending on the vision of democracy, the two values need not be in conflict.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Ganghof2016,
  author    = {Ganghof, Steffen},
  title     = {Reconciling representation and accountability},
  series = {Government and Opposition},
  journal   = {Government and Opposition},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-413456},
  pages     = {25},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {An egalitarian approach to the fair representation of voters specifies three main institutional requirements: proportional representation, legislative majority rule and a parliamentary system of government. This approach faces two challenges: the under-determination of the resulting democratic process and the idea of a trade-off between equal voter representation and government accountability. Linking conceptual with comparative analysis, the article argues that we can distinguish three ideal-typical varieties of the egalitarian vision of democracy, based on the stages at which majorities are formed. These varieties do not put different relative normative weight onto equality and accountability, but have different conceptions of both values and their reconciliation. The view that accountability is necessarily linked to clarity of responsibility', widespread in the comparative literature, is questioned - as is the idea of a general trade-off between representation and accountability. Depending on the vision of democracy, the two values need not be in conflict.},
  language  = {en}
}