TY - GEN A1 - Ganghof, Steffen T1 - Beyond Presidentialism and Parliamentarism BT - Democratic Design and the Separation of Powers T2 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe N2 - In a democracy, a constitutional separation of powers between the executive and the assembly may be desirable, but the constitutional concentration of executive power in a single human being is not. The book defends this thesis and explores ‘semi-parliamentary government’ as an alternative to presidential government. Semi-parliamentarism avoids power concentration in one person by shifting the separation of powers into the democratic assembly. The executive becomes fused with only one part of the assembly, even though the other part has at least equal democratic legitimacy and robust veto power on ordinary legislation. The book identifies the Australian Commonwealth and Japan, as well as the Australian states of New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western Australia, as semi-parliamentary systems. Using data from 23 countries and 6 Australian states, it maps how parliamentary and semi-parliamentary systems balance competing visions of democracy; it analyzes patterns of electoral and party systems, cabinet formation, legislative coalition-building, and constitutional reforms; it systematically compares the semi-parliamentary and presidential separation of powers; and it develops new and innovative semi-parliamentary designs, some of which do not require two separate chambers. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe - 194 KW - presidential government KW - parliamentary government KW - semi-parliamentary government KW - separation of powers KW - executive personalism KW - bicameralism KW - constitutional design KW - democratic theory KW - patterns of democracy KW - Australia Y1 - 2021 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-537839 SN - 978-0-19-289714-5 SN - 1867-5808 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Ganghof, Steffen ED - Tausendpfund, Markus T1 - Typen von Forschungsdesigns T2 - Forschungsstrategien in den Sozialwissenschaften N2 - Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschungsdesigns umfassen alle wesentlichen Entscheidungen, die im Forschungsprozess getroffen werden müssen. Der Beitrag unterscheidet drei rundlegende Typen von Forschungsdesigns: x-zentriert, y-zentriert und kontrastiv. Das x-zentrierte Design versucht einen theoretisch spezifizierten kausalen Effekt zu identifizieren und dessen Größe möglichst genau und ohne Verzerrungen zu schätzen. Das y-zentrierte Design versucht mehrere komplementäre Theorien über kausale Effekte so zu kombinieren, dass bestimmte Phänomene möglichst gut erklärt werden. Das kontrastive Design vergleicht die Erklärungskraft von zwei oder mehr konkurrierenden Theorien. Die Unterscheidung der drei Typen ist für qualitative Fallstudien ebenso relevant wie für Experimente oder statistische Studien mit Beobachtungsdaten. Der Beitrag grenzt die drei Typen voneinander ab, erklärt ihre jeweiligen Annahmen und diskutiert ihre Vor- und Nachteile sowie die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen ihrer Kombination. Daneben diskutiert er den Unterschied zwischen Modellen und Theorien sowie die Bedeutung des Sparsamkeitsprinzips bei der Entwicklung und Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Theorien und Erklärungen. Y1 - 2022 SN - 978-3-658-36971-2 SN - 978-3-658-36972-9 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36972-9_11 SP - 257 EP - 286 PB - Springer VS CY - Wiesbaden ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Ganghof, Steffen T1 - Justifying types of representative democracy BT - a response JF - Critical review of international social and political philosophy N2 - This article responds to critical reflections on my Beyond Presidentialism and Parliamentarism by Sarah Birch, Kevin J. Elliott, Claudia Landwehr and James L. Wilson. It discusses how different types of representative democracy, especially different forms of government (presidential, parliamentary or hybrid), can be justified. It clarifies, among other things, the distinction between procedural and process equality, the strengths of semi-parliamentary government, the potential instability of constitutional designs, and the difference that theories can make in actual processes of constitutional reform. KW - political equality KW - semi-parliamentarism KW - presidentialism KW - institutional design KW - executive personalism Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2022.2159665 SN - 1369-8230 SN - 1743-8772 SP - 1 EP - 12 PB - Routledge CY - London ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Tsebelis, George A1 - Thies, Michael A1 - Cheibub, José Antonio A1 - Dixon, Rosalind A1 - Bogéa, Daniel A1 - Ganghof, Steffen T1 - Review symposium BT - beyond presidentialism and parliamentarism JF - European political science N2 - Steffen Ganghof’s Beyond Presidentialism and Parliamentarism: Democratic Design and the Separation of Powers (Oxford University Press, 2021) posits that “in a democracy, a constitutional separation of powers between the executive and the assembly may be desirable, but the constitutional concentration of executive power in a single human being is not” (Ganghof, 2021). To consider, examine and theorise about this, Ganghof urges engagement with semi-parliamentarism. As explained by Ganghof, legislative power is shared between two democratically legitimate sections of parliament in a semi-parliamentary system, but only one of those sections selects the government and can remove it in a no-confidence vote. Consequently, power is dispersed and not concentrated in the hands of any one person, which, Ganghof argues, can lead to an enhanced form of parliamentary democracy. In this book review symposium, George Tsebelis, Michael Thies, José Antonio Cheibub, Rosalind Dixon and Daniel Bogéa review Steffen Ganghof’s book and engage with the author about aspects of research design, case selection and theoretical argument. This symposium arose from an engaging and constructive discussion of the book at a seminar hosted by Texas A&M University in 2022. We thank Prof José Cheibub (Texas A&M) for organising that seminar and Dr Anna Fruhstorfer (University of Potsdam) for initiating this book review symposium. KW - semi-parliamentary government KW - presidentialism KW - parliamentary government KW - separation of powers KW - legislatures KW - executives KW - parliamentary democracy Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-023-00426-9 SN - 1680-4333 SN - 1682-0983 PB - Palgrave Macmillan CY - Basingstoke ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Ganghof, Steffen A1 - Schulze, Kai ED - Wenzelburger, Georg ED - Zohlnhöfer, Reimut T1 - Vetospieler und Institutionen T2 - Handbuch Policy-Forschung N2 - Der Beitrag widmet sich zwei überaus fruchtbaren theoretischen Ansätzen in der Policy-Forschung und darüber hinaus: der Vetospielertheorie und Vetopunkt-Ansätzen. Neben den Grundzügen beider Ansätze stellen wir grundlegende Entwicklungslinien und Probleme dieser Literaturen anhand beispielhafter Studien dar. Es zeigt sich, dass beide Ansätze teils kontroverse Annahmen treffen, zu denen es plausible Alternativen gibt. Zum Beispiel kann das Verhalten von Koalitionsparteien im Policy-Prozess anders als von der Vetospielertheorie angenommen modelliert werden. Die kausalen Effekte bestimmter Institutionen oder Vetopunkte können zudem je nach Kontext variieren. Diesem Kontext sollte größere Beachtung geschenkt werden. KW - Vetospieler KW - Vetopunkte KW - formale Modelle KW - Präferenzen KW - Kontext Y1 - 2023 SN - 978-3-658-34559-4 SN - 978-3-658-34560-0 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34560-0_4 SP - 101 EP - 125 PB - Springer CY - Wiesbaden ET - 2., aktualisierte und erweiterte ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Ganghof, Steffen T1 - Beyond Presidentialism and Parliamentarism BT - Democratic Design and the Separation of Powers N2 - In a democracy, a constitutional separation of powers between the executive and the assembly may be desirable, but the constitutional concentration of executive power in a single human being is not. The book defends this thesis and explores ‘semi-parliamentary government’ as an alternative to presidential government. Semi-parliamentarism avoids power concentration in one person by shifting the separation of powers into the democratic assembly. The executive becomes fused with only one part of the assembly, even though the other part has at least equal democratic legitimacy and robust veto power on ordinary legislation. The book identifies the Australian Commonwealth and Japan, as well as the Australian states of New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western Australia, as semi-parliamentary systems. Using data from 23 countries and 6 Australian states, it maps how parliamentary and semi-parliamentary systems balance competing visions of democracy; it analyzes patterns of electoral and party systems, cabinet formation, legislative coalition-building, and constitutional reforms; it systematically compares the semi-parliamentary and presidential separation of powers; and it develops new and innovative semi-parliamentary designs, some of which do not require two separate chambers. KW - presidential government KW - parliamentary government KW - semi-parliamentary government KW - separation of powers KW - executive personalism KW - bicameralism KW - constitutional design KW - democratic theory KW - patterns of democracy KW - Australia Y1 - 2021 SN - 978-0-19-289714-5 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192897145.001.0001 SP - 1 EP - 199 PB - Oxford University Press CY - Oxford ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Ganghof, Steffen A1 - Eppner, Sebastian T1 - Patterns of accountability and representation BT - Why the executive-parties dimension cannot explain democratic performance JF - Politics N2 - Arend Lijphart uses an average of five standardized variables – the executive-parties dimension (EPD) – to describe patterns of democracy and explain differences in democracies’ performance. The article suggests ways to improve the descriptive part of the project. It argues that the EPD maps different approaches to achieving accountability and representation, rather than differences in consensus. This re-conceptualization leads to a more coherent and valid measurement. It is also argued that more systematic adjustments are needed for differences in constitutional structures (presidentialism and bicameralism). The article presents data on a revised EPD and its components for 36 democracies in the period from 1981 to 2010. As to the explanatory part of the project, we contend that the EPD often hinders adequate causal analysis rather than facilitating it. We show this by re-analysing democracies’ performance with respect to turnout and capital punishment. KW - bicameralism KW - consensus democracy KW - death penalty KW - democratic performance KW - effective district magnitude KW - executive-parties dimension KW - turnout Y1 - 2017 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395717710566 SN - 0263-3957 SN - 1467-9256 VL - 39 IS - 1 SP - 113 EP - 130 PB - Sage Publ. CY - London ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Ganghof, Steffen A1 - Eppner, Sebastian T1 - Faire Repräsentation versus klare Richtungsentscheide? Zur Reform des Wahl- und Regierungssystems Fair representation versus clear decisions On the reform of the electoral system and form of government T1 - Fair representation versus clear decisions On the reform of the electoral system and form of government JF - Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft N2 - The increased fragmentation of European party systems and the resulting difficulties of government formation have led to renewed debates about electoral systems. Some authors characterize certain electoral systems as optimal compromises between "proportional" and "majoritarian" conceptions of democracy. We argue that these optimality arguments are biased towards the majoritarian conception. Ambitious proportional conceptions embrace the goals of mechanical proportionality, multidimensional representation and flexible, issue-specific legislative coalitions. However, in parliamentary systems of government these goals cannot be reconciled with majoritarian goals. This is because in parliamentarism the same electoral threshold applies to parliamentary representation and to participation in the vote of non-confidence procedure. The first threshold is crucial for the proportional, the latter for the majoritarian conception of democracy. If we are willing to decouple the two thresholds - and hence change the form of government - new avenues for reform open up. We illustrate our arguments using data for 29 democratic systems between 1995 and 2015. N2 - Die Fragmentierung europäischer Parteiensysteme und damit verbundene Schwierigkeiten bei der Koalitionsbildung haben zu einer Neuauflage altbekannter Debatten über unterschiedliche Wahlsysteme geführt. Einige Autoren sehen dabei bestimmte Wahlsysteme als optimalen Kompromiss zwischen den Prinzipien der Mehrheits- und der Verhältniswahl an. Wir argumentieren, dass diese Optimalitätsargumente eine konzeptionelle Schlagseite zugunsten „majoritärer“ Demokratiekonzeptionen haben. Eine anspruchsvolle „proportionale“ Demokratiekonzeption umfasst die Ziele mechanischer Proportionalität, multidimensionaler Repräsentation und wechselnder Gesetzgebungsmehrheiten. Diese Ziele lassen sich allerdings im parlamentarischen Regierungssystem nicht mit den Zielen der Mehrheitswahl vereinbaren. Der Grund ist, dass die relevanten Hürden des Wahlsystems gleichzeitig für die parlamentarische Repräsentation und die Teilnahme am Misstrauensvotum gelten. Erstere ist entscheidend für die proportionale, letztere für die majoritäre Konzeption der Demokratie. Sind wir bereit diese beiden Hürden zu entkoppeln – und somit das Regierungssystem zu verändern – ergibt sich eine Vielfalt neuer Reformoptionen. Wir illustrieren diese Punkte mit Daten für 29 demokratische Systeme im Zeitraum von 1995 bis 2015. KW - Forms of government KW - Types of democracy KW - Electoral systems Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-019-00431-7 SN - 1865-2646 SN - 1865-2654 VL - 13 IS - 3 SP - 375 EP - 397 PB - Springer CY - Wiesbaden ER -