Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-44mx8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-16T05:28:07.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Houses: Legislative Studies and the Atlantic Divide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2008

Shane Martin
Shane Martin
Affiliation:
Dublin City University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Legislative scholars have a history of stepping back occasionally to examine thedevelopment and state of the sub-discipline (Budge 1973; Gamm and Huber 2002; Loewenberg,Patterson, and Jewell 1985; Mezey 1993; Morris-Jones 1983; Pasquino 1973; Patterson 1989). Many of these existing reviews, althoughvaluable, are predominantly of a qualitative and subjective nature and are, in most cases,now dated. This paper provides a bibliometrical analysis of the state of legislative studiesin the United States and Europe by exploring the content of eight political sciencejournals. I looked at six general political science journals, three originating in theUnited States and three in Europe, as well as the content of two legislative studiesjournals—the American-based Legislative Studies Quarterly and theBritish-based Journal of Legislative Studies.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 557 - 565
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2008

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bryce, James. 1921. Modern Democracies. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian. 1973. “Recent Legislative Research: Assumptions and Strategies.” European Journal of Political Research 1 (4): 317–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crewe, Ivor, and Norris, Pippa. 1991. “British and American Journal Evaluation: Divergence and Convergence.” PS: Political Science & Politics 24 (September): 524–31.Google Scholar
Döring, Herbert, ed. 1995. Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Gamm, G., and Huber, J.. 2002. “Legislatures as Political Institutions: Beyond the Contemporary Congress.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline III, ed. Katznelson, Ira and Milner, Helen V.. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Garand, James C. 2005. “Integration and Fragmentation in Political Science: Exploring Patterns of Scholarly Communication in a Divided Discipline.” Journal of Politics 67 (4): 979–1,005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garand, James C., and Giles, Micheal W.. 2003. “Journals in the Discipline: A Report on a New Survey of American Political Scientists.” PS: Political Science & Politics 36 (April): 293–308.Google Scholar
Giannetti, Daniela, and Benoit, Kenneth, eds. 2008. Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments in Parliamentary Democracies. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, and Shapiro, Ian. 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Schofield, Norman. 1990. Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loewenberg, Gerhard, Patterson, Samuel C., and Jewell, Malcolm E., eds. 1985. Handbook of Legislative Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mezey, Michael L. 1991. “Studying Legislatures: Lessons for Comparing the Russian Experience.” In Democratization in Russia: The Development of Legislative Institutions, ed. Jeffrey, W. H.. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Mezey, Michael L. 1993. “Legislatures: Individual Purpose and Institutional Performance.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, ed. Finifter, Ada W.. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Monroe, Kristen Renwick, ed. 2005. Perestroika! The Raucous Revolution in Political Science. New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morris-Jones, W.H. 1983. “The Politics of Political Science: The Case of Comparative Legislative Studies.” Political Studies 31 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1997. “Towards a More Cosmopolitan Political Science?” European Journal of Political Research 30 (1): 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okubo, Yoshiko. 1997. “Bibliometric Indicators and Analysis of Research Systems: Methods and Examples.” OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Pasquino, Gianfranco. 1973. “Elective Assemblies.” European Journal of Political Research 1 (4): 331–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, Samuel C. 1989. “Understanding the British Parliament.” Political Studies 37:449–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 2002. “Assessing Comparative Legislative Research.” In Legislatures: Comparative Perspectives on Representative Assemblies, ed. Loewenberg, Gerhard, Squire, Peverill, and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R., eds. 1995. Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, Kaare. 1997. “Rules, Reasons and Routines: Legislative Roles in Parliamentary Democracies.” In Members of Parliament in Western Europe: Roles & Behaviour, ed. Müller, Wolfgang C. and Saalfeld, Thomas. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar