1 For example, Lnyskey, James, “The Role of British Backbenchers in the Modification of Public Policy,” Western Political Quarterly 23 (1970), 333–47Google Scholar.

2 Wahlke, John C., Eulau, Heinz, Buchanan, William and Ferguson, Leroy C., The Legislative System: Explorations in Legislative Behavior (New York: John Wiley, 1962), 16Google Scholar.

3 Grumm, John, “Structural Determinants of Legislative Output,” in Kornberg, A. and Musolf, L. (eds.), Legislatures in Developmental Perspective (Durham: Duke University Press, 1970), 441–43Google Scholar.

4 Campbell, Colin, The Canadian Senate: A Lobby from Within (Toronto: Macmillan, 1978), 93–99Google Scholar.

5 Lowenberg, Gerhard and Patterson, Samuel C., Comparing Legislatures (Boston: Little, Brown, 1979), 204–12Google Scholar.

6 Przeworski, Adam and Teune, Henry, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (New York: John Wiley, 1970), 53–56Google Scholar.

7 It is possible, however, that the impact of individual-level variables, like education, may not be independent of system-level variables and that the interaction of the two will create a separate effect. This possibility is examined in some detail below.

8 Przeworski and Teune, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, 34–46.

9 Meckstroth, Theodore W., “‘Most Different Systems’ and ‘Most Similar Systems’: A Study in the Logic of Comparative Inquiry,” Comparative Political Studies 8 (1975), 134CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 A good discussion of the issues surrounding the use of open and closed questions can be found in Cannell, Charles F. and Kahn, Robert, “Interviewing,” in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology: Volume Two (Don Mills: Addison-Wesley, 1967), 526–95Google Scholar.

11 A similar style of response is reported in Headey, Bruce, British Cabinet Ministers: The Roles of Politicians in Executive Office (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1974), 59–60Google Scholar.

12 Among those who agree with a ranking or combination of role orientations are Wahlke et al., The Legislative System, 247; Headey, British Cabinet Ministers, 65–66; and Francis, Wayne, “The Role Concept in Legislatures: A Probability Model and a Note on Cognitive Structure,” Journal of Politics 27 (1965), 569–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 The tau-beta reliability coefficients for each orientation are as follows: initiator, .52; critic, .76; facilitator, .57. In the case of the initiator orientation, 9 per cent of respondents were coded at opposite ends of the three-point scale; for critics, 3 percent; for facilitators, 6 per cent. For a discussion of reliability and the importance of auxiliary coders see Aberbach, Joel D., Chesney, James and Rockman, Bert, “Exploring Elite Political Attitudes: Some Methodological Lessons,” Political Methodology 2 (1975), 1–27Google Scholar.

14 Lynskey, James, “Backbench Tactics and Parliamentary Party Structure,” Parliamentary Affairs 27 (1973–1974), 28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an analysis of the deployment of tactics see Jackson, Robert J., Rebels and Whips: An Analysis of Dissension, Discipline and Cohesion in British Political Parties (London: Macmillan, 1968)Google Scholar, chap. 11.

15 The criticism that role studies show inadequate concern for behaviour is made forcefully in Jewell, Malcolm, “Attitudinal Determinants of Legislative Behavior: The Utility of Role Analysis,” in Kornberg, Allan and Musolf, Lloyd (eds.), Legislatures in Comparative Perspective (Durham: Duke University Press, 1970), 484–94Google Scholar; and Lowenberg, Gerhard, “Comparative Legislative Research,” in Patterson, Samuel C. and Wahlke, John C. (eds.), Comparative Legislative Behavior: Frontiers of Research (New York: John Wiley, 1972), 8–10Google Scholar.

16 In Wahlke et al., The Legislative System, 246.

17 Although members are ranked on each orientation, individual types are abstracted for purposes of discussion. This accounts for the use of the masculine gender.

18 Crick, Bernard, The Reform of Parliament (New York: Anchor Books, 1965), 201Google Scholar.

19 Wahlke et al., The Legislative System, 248.

20 Fletcher, Frederick J. and Goddard, Arthur M., “Government and Opposition: Structural Influences on Provincial Legislators,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 3 (1978), 647–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 It is, of course, possible to combine both, just as it is possible to combine orientations. Lawyers in North America, for example, represent a large pool of brokerage politicians. It is less likely, however, that lawyers would be content with only policy facilitation.

22 Polsby, Nelson, “Legislatures,” in Greenstein, F. and Polsby, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Political Science: volume Five (Don Mills: Addison-Wesley, 1975), 297Google Scholar.

23 Ontario, , Commission on the Legislature, First Report (May 1973), 28Google Scholar.

24 Scotia, Nova, Commission of Inquiry into Legislative Salaries and Allowances, Report (November 1974), passimGoogle Scholar.

25 Campbell, Colin, “The Interplay of Institutionalization and the Assignment of Tasks in Parliamentary and Congressional Systems: The House of Commons and the House of Representatives,” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 18 (1977), 133CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Canada, Statistics Canada, Financial Statistics of Provincial Governments, Revenue and Expenditure, 1969–70.

27 Ontario, Public Accounts, 1970–75; Nova Scotia, Public Accounts, 1970–75.

28 Ontario, , Commission on the Legislature, Second Report (December 1973), 53Google Scholar.

29 Bryden, Kenneth, “Executive and Legislature in Ontario: A Case Study on Governmental Reform,” Canadian Public Administration 18 (1975), 250CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beck, J. Murray, The Government of Nova Scotia (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1957), 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Ontario, , Commission on the Legislature, Fourth Report (September 1975), 65Google Scholar.

31 Bryden, “Executive and Legislature,” 248.

32 Ryle, Michael, “The Procedures and Practices of the House of Assembly” (March 26, 1976), 8Google Scholar. (Mimeographed.)

33 This is made possible by the use of the “hierarchical” approach to the ordering of independent variables in an analysis of variance. Nie, Norman, et al., SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (2nd ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975), 406–08Google Scholar.

34 Cited in Mackintosh, John P., “Reform of the House of Commons:The Case for Specialization,” in Lowenberg, Gerhard (ed.), Modern Parliaments: Change or Decline? (New York: Aldine-Atherton, 1971), 61Google Scholar.

35 This is not reflected in the signs of the coefficients in Table 3 because the value of beta ranges from 0.0 to 1.0.

36 For a discussion of interaction, see Blalock, Hubert, Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972), 337–47Google Scholar.

37 King, Anthony, “Modes of Executive-Legislative Relations: Great Britain, France and West Germany,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 1 (1976), 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Jewell, “Attitudinal Determinants,” 483.

39 Putnam, Robert, The Beliefs of Politicians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), 239Google Scholar.

40 Atkinson, Michael M., “Backbench Participation in Legislative Policy-making: A Test of the Ambition Hypothesis,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Carleton University, 1978Google Scholar, chap. 5.