Democratic institutions and regime survival: Parliamentary and presidential democracies reconsidered

Annual Review of Political Science

Volumn 5, Issue , 2002, Pages 151-179

  Cheibub, José Antonio ^a   Limongi, Fernando ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Coalitions; Democratic stability; Legislative institutions; Minority governments

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036406630     PISSN: 10942939     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.5.102301.084508     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Ackerman B. 2000. The New Separation of Powers. Harvard Law Rev. 113(3):642-727.
2. Ames B. 2001. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: Mich. Univ. Press.
3. Andrews W.G. 1978. Parliamentary procedures in France. Legis. Stud. Q. 3:465-506.
4. Baron D.P. 1998. Comparative dynamics of parliamentary government. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 92:593-610.
5. Bowler S., Farrell D.M., Katz R.S., eds. 1999a. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Columbus: Ohio State Univ.
6. Bowler S., Farrell D.M., Katz R.S. 1999b. Party cohesion, party discipline, and parliaments. See Bowler et al. 1999, pp. 3-22.
7. Carey J.M., Amorin Neto O., Shugart M.S. 1997. Appendix: outlines of constitutional powers in Latin America. See Mainwaring & Shugart 1997b, pp. 440-60.
8. Carey J.M., Shugart M.S. 1994. Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Elec. Stud. 14:41739.
9. Carey J.M., Shugart M.S., eds. 1998. Executive Decree Authority. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
10. Cheibub J.A. 1998. Elections and alternation in power in democratic regimes. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polk. Sci. Assoc., Boston, Sept. 3-6.
11. Cheibub J.A. 2002. Minority governments, deadlock situations, and the survival of presidential democracies. Comp. Polit. Stud. In press.
12. Cheibub J.A., Przeworski A. 1999. Democracy, elections, and accountability for economic outcomes. In Democracy and Accountability, ed. A Przeworski, S.C. Stokes, B. Manin, pp. 222-50. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
13. Cheibub J.A., Przeworski A., Saiegh S. 2001. Government coalitions under presidentialism and parliamentarism. Presented at Conf. Brazilian Political Institutions in Comparative Perspective: The Role of Congress in Presidential Systems, Cent. Brazilian Stud., Oxford Univ., May 28-29.
14. Cotta M. 1990. The 'centrality' of parliament in a protracted democratic consolidation. In Parliament and Democratic Consolidation in Southern Europe, ed. U. Liebert, M. Cotta, pp. 55-91. London: Pinter.
15. Cox G.W. 1987. The Efficient Secret. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
16. Cox G.W., McCubbins M.D. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party, Government in the House. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press.
17. Di Palma G. 1976. Institutional rules and legislative outcomes in the Italian parliament. Legis. Stud. Q. 1:147-79.
18. Diermeier D., Feddersen T.J. 1998. Cohesion in legislatures and the vote of confidence procedure. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 92:611-22.
19. Figueiredo A.C., Limongi F. 1998. Institutional legacies and accountability: executive decrees in Brazil and Italy. Presented at Conf. Confronting Non-Democratic Legacies During Democratic Deepening: Latin America and Southern Europe. Buenos Aires, Arg., Aug. 17-19.
20. Figueiredo A.C., Limongi F. 2000. Presidential power, legislative organization and party behavior in the legislature. Comp. Polit. 32: 151-70.
21. González L.E., Gillespie C.G. 1994. Presidentialism and democratic stability in Uruguay. In The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America, ed. J.J. Linz, A. Valenzuela, 2:151-78. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
22. Hartlyn J. 1994. Presidentialism and Colombian politics. In The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America, ed. J.J. Linz, A. Valenzuela, 2:220-53. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
23. Herman V., Mendel F. 1976. Parliaments of the World. A Reference Compendium. London:Inter-Parliamentary Union/Macmillan.
24. rffrt Herman V., Mendel F. 1986. Parliaments of the World. A Reference Compendium. Berlin/New York: Inter-Parliamentary Union/De Gruyter.
25. Huang T. 1997. Party systems in Taiwan and South Korea. In Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies: Themes and Perspectives, ed. L. Diamond, M.F. Plattner, Y. Chu, H. Tien, pp. 135-59. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
26. Huber J.D. 1996a. Rationalizating Parliament. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
27. Huber J.D. 1996b. The vote of confidence in parliamentary democracies. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 90:269-82.
28. Jones M.P. 1995. Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democracies. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Univ. Press.
29. Kriebhel K. 1987. Why are congressional committees powerful? Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 81: 929-35.
30. Kriebhel K. 1988. Spatial models of legislative choice. Legis. Stud. Q. 8:259-319.
31. Kriebhel K. 1992. Constituency characteristics and legislative preferences. Public Choice 76:21-37.
32. Limongi F., Figueiredo A.C. 1995. Partidos políticos na cǎmara dos deputados: 1989-1994. Dados 38:497-543.
33. Linz J.J. 1978. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
34. Linz J.J. 1994. Presidential or parliamentary democracy: Does it make a difference? See Linz & Valenzuela 1994, pp. 3-87.
35. Linz J.J., Stepan A. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
36. Lowemberg G., Patterson S.C. 1979. Comparing Legislatures. Boston: Little, Brown.
37. Mainwaring S. 1991. Politicians, parties, and electoral systems: Brazil in comparative perspective. Comp. Polit. 24:21-43.
38. Mainwaring S. 1993. Presidentialism, multipartism, and democracy: the difficult combination. Comp. Polit. Stud. 26:198-228.
39. Mainwaring S., Scully T.R. 1995. Introduction: party systems in Latin America. In Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America, ed. S. Mainwaring, T.R. Scully, pp. 1-32. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
40. Mainwaring S., Shugart M.S. 1997a. Conclusion: presidentialism and the party system. See Mainwaring & Shugart 1997b, pp. 394-439.
41. Mainwaring S., Shugart M.S., eds. 1997b. Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
42. Mayhew D. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
43. Mershon C. 1996. The costs of coalition: coalition theories and Italian governments. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 90(3):534-54.
44. Mershon C. 1999. The costs of coalition: a fivenation comparison. See Bowler et al. 1999, pp. 227-68.
45. Nino C.S. 1996. Hyperpresidentialism and constitutional reform in Argentina. In Institutional Design in New Democracies: Eastern Europe and Latin America, ed. A. Lijphart, C.H. Waisman, pp. 161-74. Boulder, CO: Westview.
46. O'Donnell G. 1994. Delegative democracy. J. Democr. 5:55-69.
47. Ozbudun E. 1970. Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
48. Przeworski A., Alvarez M., Cheibub J.A., Limongi F. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Economic Performance, 1950-1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
49. Przeworski A., Alvarez M., Cheibub J.A., Limongi F. 2001. Regime and development database, http://pantheon.yale.edu/̃jac236/.
50. Rose R. 1986. British MPs: more bark than bite? In Parliaments and Parliamentarians in Democratic Politics, ed. EN Suleiman. New York: Holmes & Meier.
51. Sartori G. 1994. Neither presidentialism nor parliamentarism. See Linz & Valenzuela 1994, pp. 106-18.
52. Sartori G. 1997. Comparative Constitutional Engineering. An Inquiry Into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes. New York: New York Univ. Press.
53. Shepsle K. 1989. The changing textbook congress. In Can the Government Govern?, ed. J.E. Chubb, P.E. Patterson, pp. 238-66. Washington, DC: Brookings.
54. Shepsle K., Weingast B. 1987. Rejoinder-Why are congressional committees powerful? Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 81:935-45.
55. Shugart M.S. 1995. The electoral cycle and institutional sources of divided presidential government. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 89:327-43.
56. Shugart M.S., Carey J.M. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
57. Smith A. 1996. Endogenous election timing in majoritarian parliamentary systems. Econ. Polit. 8:85-110.
58. Stepan A., Skach C. 1993. Constitutional frameworks and democratic consolidation: parliamentarism versus presidentialism. World Polit. 46:1-22.
59. Strom K. 1990. Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
60. Tsebelis G. 1995. Decision making in political systems: veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 25:289-325.
61. Valenzuela A. 1994. Party politics and the crisis of presidentialism in Chile: a proposal for a parliamentary form of government. In The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America, ed. J.J. Linz, A. Valenzuela, 2:91-150. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.