Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:17:36.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why it Is Indeed Time for the Westminster Model to Be Retired from Comparative Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2021

Meg Russell Open the ORCID record for Meg Russell [Opens in a new window]  and
Ruxandra Serban Open the ORCID record for Ruxandra Serban [Opens in a new window]
Meg Russell*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University College London, London, UK
Ruxandra Serban
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The term ‘Westminster model’ is frequently used by political scientists and practitioners. But our recent examination (Russell and Serban 2021), published in this journal, uncovered wide variation in how it is defined – demonstrating that it is more ‘muddle’ than ‘model’. This sparked a response article from Flinders et al. (2021), which we in turn respond to in this piece. We briefly revisit our initial research questions, methodology and findings, before reflecting on their analysis. We emphasize that, notwithstanding the critics’ negative tone, we and they agree on certain fundamentals. In particular on our original central point, that the ‘Westminster model’ is an ill-defined term with a long history, which mostly makes it unsuited to positivist comparative political science research. While the ‘Westminster model’ may have some valid vestigial uses, within the UK political system, or as an object of study for interpretivist political science, it does not provide a rigorous basis for case selection and comparative political science analysis.

Keywords

Westminster modelWestminster democracyWestminster systemconceptsconstitutions
Type
Article
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , April 2022 , pp. 370 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Government and Opposition Limited

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

Abramson, CM and Gong, N (eds) (2020) Beyond the Case: The Logics and Practices of Comparative Ethnography. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burawoy, M (2009) The Extended Case Method: Four Countries, Four Decades, Four Great Transformations, and one Theoretical Tradition. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, D and Levitsky, S (1997) Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research. World Politics 49(3), 430–451. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.1997.0009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Della Porta, D (2008) Comparative Analysis: Case-Oriented versus Variable-Oriented Research. In Della Porta, D and Keating, M (eds), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 198–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, P (2010) Every Key ‘Westminster Model’ Country Now Has a Hung Parliament, Following Australia's ‘Dead Heat’ Election. LSE British Politics and Policy blog, 23 August. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/every-key-%e2%80%98westminster-model%e2%80%99-country-now-has-a-hungparliament-following-australia%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98dead-heat%e2%80%99-election/.Google Scholar
Elgie, R (2020) An Intellectual History of the Concepts of Premier-Presidentialism and President-Parliamentarism. Political Studies Review 18(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929919864770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinders, M (2005) Majoritarian Democracy in Britain: New Labour and the Constitution. West European Politics 28(1), 62–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140238042000297099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinders, M (2009) Democratic Drift: Majoritarian Modification and Democratic Anomie in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinders, M, Judge, D, Rhodes, RAW, Vatter, A (2021) ‘Stretched but Not Snapped’: A Response to Russell and Serban on Retiring the ‘Westminster Model’. Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics, published early online. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.19.Google Scholar
Gallie, W (1956) Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, new series, 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J (2004) What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good For? American Political Science Review 98(2), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404001182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, G (2006) Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazell, R (2008) Conclusion: Where Will the Westminster Model End Up? In Hazell, R (ed.), Constitutional Futures Revisited: Britain's Constitution to 2020. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A (1984) Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A (2012) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, 2nd edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, P (2001) The Twilight of Westminster? Electoral Reform and Its Consequences. Political Studies 49(5), 877–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, D (2019) Bicameralism in Small States: The Experience of the Commonwealth Caribbean. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 47(4), 591–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2018.1539728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paun, A (2011) After the Age of Majority? Multi-Party Governance and the Westminster Model. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 49(4), 440–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/14662043.2011.615167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, C (2009) Reflections on Casing and Case-Oriented Research. In Byrne, D and Ragin, CC (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Case-Based Methods. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 522–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, RAW (2011) Everyday Life in British Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, RAW, Wanna, J and Weller, P (2009) Comparing Westminster. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, M and Serban, R (2021) The Muddle of the ‘Westminster Model’: A Concept Stretched Beyond Repair. Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics 56(4), 744–764. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2020.12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, G (1970) Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. American Political Science Review 64(4), 1033–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, ES (2016) Meaningful Resistance: Market Reforms and the Roots of Social Protest in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, ES, Smith, NR and Schwartz, RA (2018) Rethinking Comparison in the Social Sciences. Qualitative & Multi-method Research 16(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2562143.Google Scholar
So, F (2018) More Spotlight, More Problems? Westminster Parliamentary Systems and Leadership Replacement in Large Opposition Parties. Party Politics 24(5), 588–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068816678885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kessel, S (2014) The Populist Cat-dog: Applying the Concept of Populism to Contemporary European Party Systems. Journal of Political Ideologies 19(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2013.869457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venugopal, R (2015) Neoliberalism as Concept. Economy and Society 44(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2015.1013356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar