TY - THES A1 - Pörschke, Alexander T1 - Koalitionsbildung und Gesetzgebung im Semi-Parlamentarismus T1 - Coalition formation and legislation in semi-parliamentarism N2 - Der Semi-Parlamentarismus beschreibt das Regierungssystem, in dem die Regierung von einem Teil des Parlaments gewählt wird und abberufen werden kann, von einem anderen Teil des Parlaments aber unabhängig ist. Beide Kammern müssen dabei der Gesetzgebung zustimmen. Dieses von Steffen Ganghof klassifizierte System ergänzt gängige Regierungssystemtypologien, wie sie beispielsweise von David Samuels und Matthew Shugart genutzt werden. Der Semi-Parlamentarismus ist der logische Gegenpart zum Semi-Präsidentialismus, bei dem nur ein Teil der Exekutive von der Legislative abhängt, während im Semi-Parlamentarismus die Exekutive von nur einem Teil der Legislative abhängt. Der Semi-Parlamentarismus verkörpert so ein System der Gewaltenteilung ohne einen exekutiven Personalismus, wie er durch die Direktwahl und Unabhängigkeit der Regierungchef:in im Präsidentialismus hervorgerufen wird. Dadurch ist der Semi-Parlamentarismus geeignet, Unterschiede zwischen Parlamentarismus und Präsidentialismus auf den separaten Einfluss der Gewaltenteilung und des exekutiven Personalismus zurückzuführen. Die Untersuchung des Semi-Parlamentarismus ist daher für die Regierungssystemliteratur insgesamt von Bedeutung. Der Semi-Parlamentarismus ist dabei kein rein theoretisches Konstrukt, sondern existiert im australischen Bundesstaat, den australischen Substaaten und Japan. Die vorliegende Dissertation untersucht erstmals umfassend die Gesetzgebung der semi-parlamentarischen Staaten als solchen. Der Fokus liegt dabei auf den zweiten Kammern, da diese durch die Unabhängigkeit von der Regierung der eigentliche Ort der Gesetzgebung sind. Die Gesetzgebung in Parlamentarismus und Präsidentialismus unterscheidet sich insbesondere in der Geschlossenheit der Parteien, der Koalitionsbildung und dem legislativen Erfolg der Regierungen. Diese Punkte sind daher auch von besonderem Interesse bei der Analyse des Semi-Parlamentarismus. Die semi-parlamentarischen Staaten unterscheiden sich auch untereinander teilweise erheblich in der institutionellen Ausgestaltung wie den Wahlsystemen oder den verfügbaren Mitteln zur Überwindung von Blockadesituationen. Die Darstellung und die Analyse der Auswirkungen dieser Unterschiede auf die Gesetzgebung ist neben dem Vergleich des Semi-Parlamentarismus mit anderen Systemen das zweite wesentliche Ziel dieser Arbeit. Als Fundament der Analyse habe ich einen umfangreichen Datensatz erhoben, der alle Legislaturperioden der australischen Staaten zwischen 1997 und 2019 umfasst. Wesentliche Bestandteile des Datensatzes sind alle namentlichen Abstimmungen beider Kammern, alle eingebrachten und verabschiedeten Gesetzen der Regierung sowie die mit Hilfe eines Expert-Surveys erhobenen Parteipositionen in den relevanten Politikfeldern auf substaatlicher Ebene. Hauptsächlich mit der Hilfe von Mixed-Effects- und Fractional-Response-Analysen kann ich so zeigen, dass der Semi-Parlamentarismus in vielen Aspekten eher parlamentarischen als präsidentiellen Systemen gleicht. Nur die Koalitionsbildung erfolgt deutlich flexibler und unterscheidet sich daher von der typischen parlamentarischen Koalitionsbildung. Die Analysen legen nahe, dass wesentliche Unterschiede zwischen Parlamentarismus und Präsidentialismus eher auf den exekutiven Personalismus als auf die Gewaltenteilung zurückzuführen sind. Zwischen den semi-parlamentarischen Staaten scheinen vor allem die Kontrolle des Medians beider Parlamentskammern durch die Regierung und die Möglichkeit der Regierung, die zweite Kammer mitaufzulösen, zu entscheidenden Unterschieden in der Gesetzgebung zu führen. Die Kontrolle des Medians ermöglicht eine flexible Koalitionsbildung und führt zu höheren legislativen Erfolgsraten. Ebenso führt eine möglichst leichte Auflösungsmöglichkeit der zweiten Kammern zu höheren legislativen Erfolgsraten. Die Parteigeschlossenheit ist unabhängig von diesen Aspekten in beiden Kammern der semi-parlamentarischen Parlamente sehr hoch. N2 - Semi-parliamentarism describes a system of government in which the government is elected and can be dismissed by one part of the parliament, but is independent of another part of the parliament. Both chambers must approve legislation. This system, as classified by Steffen Ganghof, complements common typologies of government systems such as those used by David Samuels and Matthew Shugart. Semi-parliamentarism is the logical counterpart to semi-presidentialism, in which only part of the executive depends on the legislature, while in semi-parliamentarism the executive depends on only part of the legislature. Semi-parliamentarism thus embodies a system of separation of powers without executive personalism, which is caused by the direct election and independence of the head of government in presidentialism. This makes semi-parliamentarism suitable for attributing differences between parliamentarism and presidentialism to the separate influence of separation of powers and executive personalism. The study of semi-parliamentarism is therefore important to the literature on governmental systems as a whole. Semi-parliamentarism is not a purely theoretical construct, but exists in the Australian federal state, the Australian sub-states, and Japan. This dissertation is the first to comprehensively examine the legislation of semi-parliamentary states as such. The focus is on the second chambers, which, because of their independence from the government, are the real locus of legislation. Legislation in parliamentary and presidential systems differs in terms of party unity, the formation of coalitions, and the legislative success of governments. These points are therefore of particular interest in the analysis of semi-parliamentarism. Some of the semi-parliamentary states also differ considerably from one another in terms of their institutional design, such as their electoral systems or the means available to overcome deadlock situations. In addition to comparing semi-parliamentarism with other systems, the second main objective of this thesis is to present and analyze the effects of these differences on legislation. As a basis for the analysis, I collected a comprehensive dataset covering all Australian state parliaments between 1997 and 2019. Essential components of the dataset are all roll call votes of both chambers, all introduced and passed government bills as well as the party positions in relevant policy areas at the sub-state level, which were collected with the help of an expert survey. Using mainly mixed-effects and fractional-response analyses, I show that semi-parliamentarism is more similar to parliamentary than to presidential systems in many respects. Only coalition formation is much more flexible and thus differs from typical parliamentary coalition formation. The analyses suggest that major differences between parliamentarism and presidentialism are due more to executive personalism than to the separation of powers. In semi-parliamentary states, government control over the median of the two parliamentary chambers and the government's ability to dissolve the second chamber seem to lead to significant differences in legislation. Control of the median allows for flexible coalition building and leads to higher legislative success rates. Similarly, making it as easy as possible to dissolve the second chamber leads to higher legislative success rates. Regardless of these aspects, party unity is very high in both chambers of semi-parliamentary parliaments. KW - Semi-Parlamentarismus KW - Gewaltenteilung KW - exekutiver Personalismus KW - Koalitionsbildung KW - legislative Erfolgsraten KW - Parteigeschlossenheit KW - Australien KW - semi-parliamentarism KW - separation of powers KW - executive personalism KW - coalition formation KW - legislative success rates KW - party unity KW - Australia Y1 - 2024 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-634498 ER - TY - THES A1 - Feil, Hauke T1 - God, bad, or ugly: Does it really matter? BT - Unterstanding the linkage between the performance of development projects and the recipient country's policy and institutional environment N2 - Each year, donor countries spend billions of Euros on development cooperation. Not surprisingly, a large strand of research has emerged which examines the impact of development cooperation. A sub-discipline within this strand of the literature deals with the question of whether the impact or effectiveness of development cooperation depends on the quality of the recipient country's policy and institutional environment. Over hundreds of studies have assessed this question at the macro level. In so doing, most of these studies test whether a potential effect of aid on the growth of a recipient country’s gross domestic product (GDP) is conditional on the country's policy and institutional environment. However, even after decades of research and hundreds of studies, no conclusive result has been found. One of the main reasons for the inconclusive state of the literature is that most macro-level studies have to deal with a high risk of endogeneity, treat aid as nothing but a pure income transfer, and rely on low-quality GDP data. To solve these three methodical issues, some authors have started to change the analytical focus from the macro to the micro level. Thus, these authors assess the determinants for the performance of individual development projects instead of the determinants for an effect of aid on GDP. Yet, even though the number of studies focusing on the micro level has increased steadily over the last few years, the state of the literature on the determinants for the performance of development projects still contains multiple highly relevant research gaps. The present thesis seeks to address three of these research gaps. The first research gap addressed by this thesis is related to the specific type of development cooperation. So far, nearly all existing studies focus on projects by Multilateral Development Banks. Research on the determinants for the performance of bilateral development projects is still rare. Thus, even though donors pledge to implement effective development projects, there are hardly any micro-level studies on bilateral projects. So far, only three studies use a sample which includes bilateral projects. Yet, none of the three studies assess the determinants for the performance of bilateral technical development projects. The first paper in the present thesis (GIZ paper) seeks to address this research gap by assessing the determinants for the performance of projects by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), a bilateral state-owned aid agency active in the area of technical cooperation. The results of the paper indicate that some but not all of the existing theoretical arguments can be extended to bilateral technical projects as well.. For example, the level of market interventions in the recipient county only affects the performance of financial development projects, while the recipient country’s government capacity affects both technical and financial development projects. The paper also indicates that effects of determinants may vary among project sectors. The paper also highlights a dilemma of technical development cooperation. The countries with low government capacity are usually the ones most in need of technical cooperation projects. But, at the same time, they are also the countries in which these projects have the poorest performance The second research gap addressed by this thesis is related to one specific factor in the policy and institutional environment of recipient countries, namely corruption. This determinant is often cited as essential for project performance but has gained surprisingly little coverage in empirical studies. The few existing studies on the effect of corruption on project performance are inconclusive. Some find a statistically significant correlation, while others do not. Furthermore, so far, all existing studies use corruption perception indices as a measurement for corruption, despite the fact that these indices have well-known deficits when it comes to this research topic. One of these deficits is that such indices do not distinguish between different forms of corruption, even though it is likely that the effect of corruption will vary depending on the type of development project and form of corruption. The second paper in this thesis (Corruption paper) seeks to address this inconclusive state of the research while focusing on one specific form of corruption, namely bribery between private firms and public officials. The paper finds a small but statistically significant correlation between the corruption level and the performance of World Bank projects. The systematic effect of corruption on project performance confirms the need to consider the risk of corruption in the design and during the implementation of projects. Nonetheless, the relatively small effect of corruption and the low pseudo R-squareds advise not to overestimate the relevance of corruption for project performance. At least for the project level, the paper finds no indication that corruption is a primary obstacle to aid effectiveness. The third research gap addressed by this thesis is related to one specific sample, namely recipient countries of the International Development Association (IDA). The question of whether the policy and institutional environment affects project performance is of particular relevance for these countries, given that the World Bank's ratings on a country's policy and institutional environment decide how much IDA resources it receives. One core justification of such an allocation system is that it helps to steer more resources to places where they are most effective. However, so far, there is no conclusive empirical evidence for this statement. The only study specifically focusing on this topic, a study by the Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank from 2010, has essential methodological limitations. The third paper of this thesis (CPR paper) seeks to address this research gap by testing whether a more refined analysis confirms the assumption of previous studies that the policy and institutional environment of IDA-recipient countries, measured by the Country Policy and Institutional Assessment ratings, has an effect on the performance of World Bank projects. Overall, neither the main regression models nor any of the robustness tests indicate a substantial correlation between the policy and institutional environment and project performance. Only for Investments Loans is the coefficient large enough to assume some effect. The overall results not only contradict the results of previous studies, but also raise strong doubts around one of the core justifications for the allocation system of the IDA. All three papers rely on a statistical large-N analysis of the performance ratings of individual development projects. These ratings are usually assigned based on the final evaluation of a project and indicate the merit or worth of an activity. The merit or worth of an activity itself is measured by criteria like relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency. In the case of the two papers on World Bank projects, the needed data stem from different databases of the World Bank. The relevant data for the GIZ paper are gathered from internal evaluation reports of the GIZ. Logistic regressions are applied as the main analytical tool. Overall, the three papers show that the policy and institutional environment of recipient countries matters for project performance, but only to a small degree and under certain circumstances. This result highlights that many researchers and practitioners tend to overestimate the role that the policy and institutional environment of recipient countries plays in project performance. Furthermore, the thesis shows that authors of future studies should consider possible interactions between project- and country-level determinants whenever possible, both in their theoretical arguments and statistical models. Otherwise, the debate on the determinants for project performance is at risk of degenerating into a statistics tournament without any connection to reality. KW - Development cooperation KW - development projects KW - aid effectiveness KW - GIZ KW - World Bank KW - corruption KW - aid allocation Y1 - 2019 CY - Potsdam ER -