Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:05:55.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Actors, Motivations and Outcomes in the Legislative Process: Policy Influence at Westminster

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2015

Meg Russell ,
Daniel Gover Open the ORCID record for Daniel Gover [Opens in a new window] ,
Kristina Wollter  and
Meghan Benton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Legislatures in parliamentary systems are frequently seen as weak policy actors, and this is nowhere more true than of the British Westminster parliament. But real-world changes, and recent research, suggest that Westminster’s influence is significant and growing. This raises new questions about which non-government actors are influential, and we explore this through analysing 4,361 amendments proposed to 12 government bills. Assessing non-government amendment ‘success’ presents challenges, however, since many such proposals are clearly not sincere attempts at legislative change. We thus make two substantive contributions. First, we quantitatively assess the influence of different groups at Westminster, showing both non-government influence and cross-party working to be more extensive than traditionally assumed. Second, we link predictions about opposition and backbench parliamentarians’ motivations to the legislative amendment process, proposing a typology of motivations for such amendments, with wider application. Overall, we argue that understanding non-government parliamentarians’ diverse motivations shows that they ‘fail’ far less often than commonly assumed.

Keywords

Westminsterlegislationparliamentary influenceanticipated reactions
Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 1 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 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.)

Footnotes

*

Meg Russell is Professor of British and Comparative Politics at the Constitution Unit, University College London. Contact email: [email protected].

Daniel Gover is a Research Assistant at the Constitution Unit, University College London. Contact email: [email protected].

Kristina Wollter is a former Research Assistant at the Constitution Unit, University College London.

Meghan Benton is a former Research Associate at the Constitution Unit, University College London.

References

Andeweg, R.B. (2013), ‘Parties in Parliament: The Blurring of Opposition’, in W.C. Müller and H.M. Narud (eds), Party Governance and Party Democracy (New York: Springer): 99–114.Google Scholar
Arter, D. (1985), ‘The Nordic Parliaments: Patterns of Legislative Influence’, West European Politics, 8(1): 55–70.Google Scholar
Benton, M. and Russell, M. (2012), ‘Assessing the Impact of Parliamentary Oversight Committees: The Select Committees in the British House of Commons’, Parliamentary Affairs, 66(4): 772–797.Google Scholar
Blondel, J. (1970), ‘Legislative Behaviour: Some Steps Towards a Cross-National Measurement’, Government and Opposition, 5(1): 67–85.Google Scholar
Brunner, M. (2012), Parliaments and Legislative Activity: Motivations for Bill Introduction (Wiesbaden: Springer VS).Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (2012), Guide to Making Legislation (June 2012 edition) (London: The Stationery Office).Google Scholar
Cowley, P. (2002), Revolts and Rebellions: Parliamentary Voting Under Blair (London: Politico’s).Google Scholar
Cowley, P. (2005), The Rebels: How Blair Mislaid his Majority (London: Politico’s).Google Scholar
Cowley, P. and Stuart, M. (2012), The Bumper Book of Coalition Rebellions (Nottingham: University of Nottingham).Google Scholar
Earnshaw, D. and Judge, D. (1996), ‘From Co-operation to Co-decision: The European Parliament's Path to Legislative Power’, in J.J. Richardson (ed.), European Union: Power and Policy-making (London: Routledge): 96–126.Google Scholar
Flinders, M. and Kelso, A. (2011), ‘Mind the Gap: Political Analysis, Public Expectations and the Parliamentary Decline Thesis’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13(2): 249–268.Google Scholar
Griffith, J.A.G. (1974), Parliamentary Scrutiny of Government Bills (London: Allen and Unwin).Google Scholar
Helms, L. (2004), ‘Five Ways of Institutionalizing Political Opposition: Lessons from the Advanced Democracies’, Government and Opposition, 39(1): 22–54.Google Scholar
Helms, L. (2008), ‘Studying Parliamentary Opposition in Old and New Democracies: Issues and Perspectives’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 14(1–2): 6–19.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. (1997), ‘Opposition in the British Political System’, Government and Opposition, 32(4): 487–510.Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. (2008), ‘Parliamentary Opposition in Westminster Democracies: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 14(1): 20–45.Google Scholar
Kelso, A. (2009), Parliamentary Reform at Westminster (Manchester: Manchester University Press).Google Scholar
Kerrouche, E. (2006), ‘The French Assemblée Nationale: The Case of a Weak Legislature?’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 12(3): 336–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, A. (1976), ‘Modes of Executive–Legislative Relations: Great Britain, France and West Germany’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1(1): 11–36.Google Scholar
Kinnock, N. (2011), ‘Leading the Opposition’, in N. Fletcher (ed.), How to be in Opposition: Life in the Political Shadows (London: Biteback): 113–132.Google Scholar
Kreppel, A. (1999), ‘What Affects the European Parliament’s Legislative Influence? An Analysis of the Success of EP Amendments’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(3): 521–537.Google Scholar
Kreppel, A. (2014), ‘Typologies and Classifications’, in S. Martin, T. Saalfeld and K. Strom (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 82–100.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (2012), Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Martin, L.W. and Vanberg, G. (2004), ‘Policing the Bargain: Coalition Government and Parliamentary Scrutiny’, American Journal of Political Science, 48(1): 13–27.Google Scholar
Martin, L.W. and Vanberg, G. (2005), ‘Coalition Policymaking and Legislative Review’, American Political Science Review, 99(1): 93–106.Google Scholar
Martin, L.W. and Vanberg, G. (2008), ‘Coalition Government and Political Communication’, Political Research Quarterly, 61(3): 502–516.Google Scholar
Martin, L.W. and Vanberg, G. (2011), Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
McGann, A. (2006), ‘Social Choice and Comparing Legislatures: Constitutional versus Institutional Constraints’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 12(4): 443–461.Google Scholar
Mezey, M.L. (1979), Comparative Legislatures (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).Google Scholar
Norton, P. (2008), ‘Making Sense of Opposition’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 14(1–2): 236–250.Google Scholar
Russell, M. (2010), ‘A Stronger Second Chamber? Assessing the Impact of House of Lords Reform in 1999, and the Lessons for Bicameralism’, Political Studies, 58(5): 866–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, M. (2013), The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Russell, M. and Sciara, M. (2008), ‘The Policy Impact of Defeats in the House of Lords’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 10(4): 571–589.Google Scholar
Russell, M., Gover, D. and Wollter, K. (2015), ‘Does the Executive Dominate the Westminster Legislative Process?: Six Reasons for Doubt’, Parliamentary Affairs, published early online, May, doi: 10.1093/pa/gsv016.Google Scholar
Ryle, M. (2005), ‘Forty Years on and a Future Agenda’, in P. Giddings (ed.), The Future of Parliament: Issues for a New Century (Basingstoke: Palgrave): 3–11.Google Scholar
Seeberg, H.B. (2013), ‘The Opposition’s Policy Influence through Issue Politicisation’, Journal of Public Policy, 33(1): 89–107.Google Scholar
Shephard, M. and Cairney, P. (2005), ‘The Impact of the Scottish Parliament in Amending Executive Legislation’, Political Studies, 53(2): 303–319.Google Scholar
Strøm, K. (2000), ‘Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies’, European Journal of Political Research, 37(3): 261–289.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. (2013), ‘More of the Same or a Period of Change? The Impact of Bill Committees in the Twenty-First Century House of Commons’, Parliamentary Affairs, 66(3): 459–479.Google Scholar
Uhr, J. (2009), ‘Parliamentary Opposition Leadership’, in H. Patapan, P. ’t Hart and J. Kane (eds), Dispersed Democratic Leadership (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 59–81.Google Scholar
Yong, B. (2012), ‘The Coalition in Parliament’, in R. Hazell and B. Yong (eds), The Politics of Coalition: How the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government Works (Oxford: Hart): 92–115.Google Scholar
Zubek, R. (2011), ‘Negative Agenda Control and Executive–Legislative Relations in East Central Europe, 1997–2008’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(2): 172–192.Google Scholar