@article{GanghofEppner2019,
  author    = {Ganghof, Steffen and Eppner, Sebastian},
  title     = {Faire Repr{\"a}sentation 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},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Wiesbaden},
  issn      = {1865-2646},
  doi       = {10.1007/s12286-019-00431-7},
  pages     = {375 -- 397},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {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.},
  language  = {de}
}
@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}
}