@article{GanghofEppnerPoerschke2018, author = {Ganghof, Steffen and Eppner, Sebastian and P{\"o}rschke, Alexander}, title = {Semi-parliamentary government in perspective}, series = {Australian Journal of Political Science}, volume = {53}, journal = {Australian Journal of Political Science}, number = {2}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1036-1146}, doi = {10.1080/10361146.2018.1451488}, pages = {264 -- 269}, year = {2018}, abstract = {The article responds to four commentaries on the concept of semi-parliamentary government and its application to Australian bicameralism. It highlights four main points: (1) Our preferred typology is not more 'normative' than existing approaches, but applies the criterion of 'direct election' equally to executive and legislature; (2) While the evolution of semi-parliamentary government had contingent elements, it plausibly also reflects the 'equilibrium' nature of certain institutional configurations; (3) The idea that a pure parliamentary system with pure proportional representation has absolute normative priority over 'instrumentalist' concerns about cabinet stability, identifiability and responsibility is questionable; and (4) The reforms we discuss may be unlikely to occur in Australia, but deserve consideration by scholars and institutional reformers in other democratic systems.}, language = {en} } @article{GanghofEppnerPoerschke2018, author = {Ganghof, Steffen and Eppner, Sebastian and P{\"o}rschke, Alexander}, title = {Australian bicameralism as semi-parliamentarism}, series = {Australian Journal of Political Science}, volume = {53}, journal = {Australian Journal of Political Science}, number = {2}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1036-1146}, doi = {10.1080/10361146.2018.1451487}, pages = {211 -- 233}, year = {2018}, abstract = {The article analyses the type of bicameralism we find in Australia as a distinct executive-legislative system - a hybrid between parliamentary and presidential government - which we call 'semi-parliamentary government'. We argue that this hybrid presents an important and underappreciated alternative to pure parliamentary government as well as presidential forms of the power-separation, and that it can achieve a certain balance between competing models or visions of democracy. We specify theoretically how the semi-parliamentary separation of powers contributes to the balancing of democratic visions and propose a conceptual framework for comparing democratic visions. We use this framework to locate the Australian Commonwealth, all Australian states and 22 advanced democratic nation-states on a two-dimensional empirical map of democratic patterns for the period from 1995 to 2015.}, language = {en} } @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} } @misc{GanghofEppnerPoerschke2018, author = {Ganghof, Steffen and Eppner, Sebastian and P{\"o}rschke, Alexander}, title = {Australian bicameralism as semi-parliamentarism}, series = {Australian Journal of Political Science}, journal = {Australian Journal of Political Science}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-412984}, pages = {24}, year = {2018}, abstract = {The article analyses the type of bicameralism we find in Australia as a distinct executive-legislative system - a hybrid between parliamentary and presidential government - which we call 'semi- parliamentary government'. We argue that this hybrid presents an important and underappreciated alternative to pure parliamentary government as well as presidential forms of the power-separation, and that it can achieve a certain balance between competing models or visions of democracy. We specify theoretically how the semi-parliamentary separation of powers contributes to the balancing of democratic visions and propose a conceptual framework for comparing democratic visions. We use this framework to locate the Australian Commonwealth, all Australian states and 22 advanced democratic nation-states on a two- dimensional empirical map of democratic patterns for the period from 1995 to 2015.}, language = {en} } @article{Ganghof2015, author = {Ganghof, Steffen}, title = {Four Visions of Democracy: Powell's Elections as Instruments of Democracy and beyond}, series = {Political studies review}, volume = {13}, journal = {Political studies review}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {1478-9299}, doi = {10.1111/1478-9302.12069}, pages = {69 -- 79}, year = {2015}, abstract = {The article critically reviews the conceptual ideas of G. Bingham Powell's Elections as Instruments of Democracy and explores ways to develop them further. Powell's conceptual alternative to the Westminster model - the 'proportional' vision of democracy - comes in two variants, one focusing on proportional representation ( PR) and the other on proportional legislative influence. If one focuses on the former, it is possible to distinguish four visions of parliamentary democracy based on the main stage at which majorities are formed. The four stages are: party, alliance, cabinet, and law formation. The corresponding normative visions can be placed on a conceptual continuum between 'simple' and 'complex' majoritarianism. This article discusses the goals and trade-offs associated with them as well as their underlying institutional designs. It also re-emphasises Powell's insight that the congruence between policy makers and the median voter in a unidimensional policy space is a more appropriate normative standard for some visions of democracy than for others.}, language = {en} }