Suchergebnisse

'Cabinets, Ministers, and Gender' explains how cabinets are constructed in democracies, providing detailed information about the formal and informal rules that shape the decisions of presidents and prime ministers in selecting cabinet ministers, and the eligibility and qualification standards for those who aspire to cabinet positions. The text shows how the decisions of selectors and the process of cabinet formation create different opportunities for men and women to be selected, explaining why some democracies have appointed more women to cabinet than others by developing the concept of the concrete floor-the minimum number of women included in cabinet to ensure its legitimacy.

AbstractScholars and commentators increasingly wonder whether governments' failure to address socio‐economic inequalities is the result of unequal representation. Recent literature on policy responsiveness in the United States and Europe finds evidence that party and parliamentary policy proposals and actual policy outcomes are closer to the preferences of the rich than of the poor. However, the extent and character of such unequal representation remains thinly understood. Among the most thinly understoodmechanismsare the political conditions that link socio‐economic inequalities to unequal representation. This paper thickens our understanding of (unequal) representation by investigating the class composition of parliamentary cabinets and its effect on social welfare policy. With the aid of a new dataset on cabinet ministers' social class, the paper shows that responsiveness to the social welfare preferences of poorer voters varies by cabinet ministers' professional backgrounds, above and beyond the partisan orientation of the government.

Ministers are very busy and harassed people. Some of them encourage their staff when presenting their work to make what is complex appear to be simple, to draft papers composed of short sentences and cut up into short paragraphs, so that they can be taken in almost at a glance. This process (which has its dangers) is as far removed as it is possible to be from the deliberate and exhaustive methods of formal scholarship. That is why the proceedings of bureaucrats appear to the academic mind to be so superficial.

AbstractCabinet ministers in parliamentary democracies have significant agenda‐setting power. However, not all ministers use it equally. This paper examines what affects the ministers' use of their agenda‐setting power. It explores this question based on the case of Israel, using three measures of agenda change and in‐depth interviews with former ministers. The paper finds that limited agenda capacity constrains the ministers' agenda‐setting power. However, the ministers themselves do not see this as a significant constraint and point at motivation instead. Ministers holding a portfolio that is salient to their party are not likely to change the agenda more. Ministers from small parties change the agenda less, and so do ministers in ministries where a significant proportion of services are provided by street level bureaucrats. Ministers in ministries that are seen as more salient change the agenda more. These findings are consequential for understanding policy responsiveness and proportionality in policy response.

This article surveys the growing research programme on the duration of cabinet ministers. It examines some of the conceptual and methodological issues confronting research, including the nature and measurement of durability, ministerial terms and techniques. It considers some of the theories and hypotheses that have been generated by researchers. Using evidence from studies from around the world, it argues that institutional factors, including regime type, constitutional and parliamentary rules, and party systems, affect ministerial durability. Personal ministerial characteristics, such as gender, education and age, also affect durability. It examines future avenues of research in this field.

This article surveys the growing research programme on the duration of cabinet ministers. It examines some of the conceptual and methodological issues confronting research, including the nature and measurement of durability, ministerial terms and techniques. It considers some of the theories and hypotheses that have been generated by researchers. Using evidence from studies from around the world, it argues that institutional factors, including regime type, constitutional and parliamentary rules, and party systems, affect ministerial durability. Personal ministerial characteristics, such as gender, education and age, also affect durability. It examines future avenues of research in this field.