Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:04:00.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coalition oversight and blame avoidance in Greece

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2015

Eitan Tzelgov
Eitan Tzelgov*
Affiliation:
Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Department of Political Science, Varieties of Democracy Institute, University Of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the behavior of Greek political parties before, as well as during, the recent austerity period. Drawing on coalition oversight and blame avoidance literature, it argues that the unpopularity of austerity governments leads to extreme levels of dissent within the coalition. I operationalize this ‘intra-coalition opposition’ behavior using parliamentary questions, a legislative institution that has not been studied in the context of coalition politics. The analysis demonstrates that junior members in unpopular austerity governments increase their use of parliamentary questions to a degree that matches or even exceeds the formal opposition. However, intra-coalition dissent is conditional on the type of unpopular government policies, and on the ideology of coalition members. Specifically, using a new method of text analysis, I show that while the socialist Panhellenic Socialist Movement uses its parliamentary questions to avoid or minimize the blame associated with austerity policies, the conservative New Democracy does not, because left-leaning parties are electorally vulnerable to austerity measures. The results have implications for studying dissent in coalition politics in general, and the politics of austerity in particular.

Keywords

partiesblame avoidanceparliamentary questionscoalitionsopposition
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 95 - 114
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akirav, O. (2011), ‘The use of parliamentary questions in the Israeli parliament, 1992–1996’, Israeli Affairs 17(2): 259–277.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. (2000), ‘Economic voting and political context: a comparative perspective’, Electoral Studies 19(2–3): 151–170.Google Scholar
Baker, R., de Vries, C., Edwards, E., Hooghe, L., Jolly, S., Marks, G., Polk, J., Rovny, J., Steenbergen, M. and Vachudova, M.A. (2015), ‘Measuring party positions in Europe: the Chapel Hill Expert Survey trend file, 1999–2010’, Party Politics 21(1): 143–152.Google Scholar
Blei, M.D., Ng, A.Y. and Jordan, M.I. (2003), ‘Latent Dirichlet allocation’, Journal of Machine Learning Research 3: 993–1022.Google Scholar
Carrol, R. and Cox, G.W. (2012), ‘Shadowing ministers: monitoring partners in coalition governments’, Comparative Political Studies 45(2): 220–236.Google Scholar
Cole, M. (1999), ‘The role of parliamentary question’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 5(1): 77–101.Google Scholar
de Vries, C.E., Edwards, E.E. and Tillman, E.R. (2011), ‘Clarity of responsibility beyond the pocketbook: how political institutions condition EU issue voting’, Comparative Political Studies 44(3): 339–363.Google Scholar
Duch, M.R. and Stevenson, R.T. (2008), How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gemenis, K. and Nezi, R. (2012), ‘The 2011 political parties expert survey in Greece’. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). http://dx.doi.org/10.17026/dans-23z-utr9 Google Scholar
Gemenis, K. and Triga, V. (2012), ‘Party positions for the May and June 2012 parliamentary elections in Greece’. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). http://dx.doi.org/10.17026/dans-xtg-5gup Google Scholar
Gerlich, P. (1973), Parlamentarische Kontrolle im Politischen System, Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
Giger, N. and Nelson, M. (2011), ‘The electoral consequences of welfare state retrenchment: blame avoidance or credit claiming in the era of permanent austerity’, European Journal of Political Research 1(50): 1–23.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. (2010), ‘Bringing parties into parliament: the development of parliamentary activities in Western Europe’, Party Politics 16(3): 347–369.Google Scholar
Grimmer, J. (2010), ‘A Bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: measuring expressed agendas in senate press releases’, Political Analysis 18(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. (2002), ‘The risk game and the blame game’, Government and Opposition 1(37): 15–37.Google Scholar
Huber, E. and Stephens, J. (2001), Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Indridason, H.I. and Kristinsson, G.H. (2013), ‘Making words count: coalition agreements and cabinet management’, European Journal of Political Research 52(6): 822–846.Google Scholar
Jensen, C. and Mortensen, P.B. (2014), ‘Government responses to fiscal austerity: the effect of institutional fragmentation and partisanship’, Comparative Political Studies 47(2): 143–170.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H. (2001), ‘Partisan composition and welfare state retrenchment: when do politicians choose unpopular policies’, in P. Pierson (ed.), The New Politics of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 266–299.Google Scholar
Kosmidis, S. (2014), ‘Government constraints and accountability: economic voting in Greece before and during the IMF intervention’, West European Politics 37(5): 1136–1155.Google Scholar
Laver, M. and Shepsle, K. (1996), Making and Breaking Governments Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lipsmeyer, S.C. and Pierce, H.N. (2011), ‘The eyes that bind: junior ministers as oversight mechanisms in coalition governments’, The Journal of Politics 73(4): 1152–1164.Google Scholar
Loewenberg, C. and Kim, D.-H. (2005), ‘The role of parliamentary committees in coalition governments: keeping tabs on coalition partners in the German Bundestag’, Party Politics 38(9): 1104–1129.Google Scholar
Lowe, W., Benoit, K., Mikhaylov, S. and Laver, M. (2011), ‘Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(1): 123–155.Google Scholar
Martin, W.L. and Vanberg, G. (2004), ‘Policing the bargain: coalition government and parliamentary scrutiny’, American Journal of Political Science 48(1): 13–27.Google Scholar
Martin, W.L. and Vanberg, G. (2005), ‘Coalition policymaking and legislative review’, American Political Science Review 99(1): 93–106.Google Scholar
Martin, W.L. and Vanberg, G. (2008), ‘Coalition government and political communication’, Political Research Quarterly 61(3): 502–516.Google Scholar
Monroe, B.L., Colaresi, M. and Quinn, K. (2008), ‘Fightin’ words: lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict’, Political Analysis 16(4): 372–403.Google Scholar
Monroe, B.L., Rice, D.R. and Tzelgov, E. (2012), ‘Measurement of topics and topicky concepts in text’. In Northeast Methodology Program Annual Meeting, October, MA, Boston.Google Scholar
Müller, W.C. (2000), ‘Political parties in parliamentary democracies: making delegation and accountability work’, European Journal of Political Research 37(3): 309–333.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1996), ‘The new politics of the welfare state’, World Politics 48(2): 143–179.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2001), The New Politics of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, K., Monroe, B., Colaresi, M., Crespin, M. and Ragev, D. (2010), ‘How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs’, American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 209–228.Google Scholar
Schumacher, G., Vis, B. and van Kersbergen, K. (2013), ‘Political parties welfare image, electoral punishment and welfare state retrenchment’, Comparative European Politics 11: 1–21.Google Scholar
Thesen, G. (2013), ‘When good news is scarce and bad news is good: government responsibilities and opposition possibilities in political agenda-setting’, European Journal of Political Research 52(3): 364–389.Google Scholar
Thies, F.M. (2001), ‘Keeping tabs on partners: the logic of delegation in coalition governments’, American Journal of Political Science 45(3): 1152–1164.Google Scholar
Vasilopoulou, S., Halikiopoulou, D. and Exadaktylos, T. (2014), ‘Greece in crisis: austerity, populism and the politics of blame’, Journal of Common Market Studies 2(52): 388–402.Google Scholar
Weaver, K. (1986), ‘The politics of blame avoidance’, Journal of Public Policy 4(6): 371–398.Google Scholar
Wiberg, M. (1994), ‘Parliamentary questioning: control by communication’, in M. Wiberg (ed.), Parliamentary Control in the Nordic Countries, Helsinki: The Finnish Political Science Association, pp. 103–200.Google Scholar
Wiberg, M. (1995), ‘Parliamentary questioning: control by communication’, in H. Doring (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, Albany, NY, Frankfurt/New York, NY: Campus/St. Martin’s, pp. 179–222.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Eitan Tzelgov supplementary material S1

Appendix

Download Eitan Tzelgov supplementary material S1(PDF)
PDF 256.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Eitan Tzelgov supplementary material S2

Appendix

Download Eitan Tzelgov supplementary material S2(File)
File 14.8 KB