Subject field of legislative studies in political science
https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2023.01.01
Abstract
The article presents an overview of the subject field of legislative research in political science. The author conceptualizes the concepts of “legislative” and “lawmaking”, describes the main historical milestones in the development of the mentioned research area, and he also talks about the most popular topics now. The author writes about the scientific approaches and methods of studying legislative bodies and other political actors. The author's typology is built on the difference between the external and internal environment of the parliamentary activity as a subject of research. In the first case, researchers analyze the legislative work of the president, government, courts, non-majoritarian bodies, and public groups that use parliament as a field for interaction during decision-making. In the second, scholars study the legislative institutions within parliament, the processes within them and the technologies they employ. The author also notes the topics of the structural diversity of parliament, decisionmaking procedures, and networking of political actors. He describes promising directions of research on discourse and argumentation practices, including the use of neural networks.
About the Author
I. Pomiguev
HSE University; Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation; Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INION RAN)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. Alekseev D.V. Possibilities of using political technologies in the legislative process (on the example of the State Duma of the 7 th convocation). Political science (RU). 2023, N 1, P. 159–179. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2023.01.XX
2. Aleman E., Calvo E. Explaining policy ties in presidential congresses: a network analysis of bill initiation data. Political studies. 2013, Vol. 61, N 2, P. 356–377. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00964.x
3. Alemán E., Ramírez M.M., Slapin J.B. Party strategies, constituency links, and legislative speech: party strategies, constituency links, and legislative speech. Legislative studies quarterly. 2017, Vol. 42, N 4, P. 637–659.
4. Avakyan S.A., Gutsenko K.F., Kovler A.I., Marchenko M.N. Constitutional law: encyclopedic dictionary. In: Avakyan S.A. (ed.). Moscow: NORMA: NORMA-INFRA, 2001, 675 p. (In Russ.)
5. Bächtiger A. Debate and deliberation in legislatures. The Oxford handbook of legislative studies. 2014, P. 145-166.
6. Bates F.G. Legislative organization and procedure. American political science review. 1916, Vol. 10, N 1, P. 120–123.
7. Blomgren M., Rozenberg O. (eds). Parliamentary roles in modern legislatures. – Abingdon ; New York: Routledge, 2012, xxviii + 237 p.
8. Borges F.A. Rules of procedure as a cause of legislative paralysis: the case of Costa Rica, 2002–2012. Latin American politics and society. 2014, Vol. 56, N 4, P. 119–142.
9. Borisov V.I., Ilyukhov A.A., Kozhanov O.A. Dictionary of the constitutional law of the Russian Federation. Moscow: Economy, 2003, 366 p. (In Russ.)
10. Bräuninger T., Debus M., Wüst F. Governments, parliaments and legislative activity. PSRM. 2017, Vol. 5, N 3, P. 529–554.
11. Bruncken E. Defective methods of legislation. American political science review. 1909, . 3, N 2, P. 167–179.
12. Calca P. Executive-legislative relations in parliamentary systems: policy-making and legislative processes. Cham: Springer international publishing, 2022, 184 p.
13. Chaisty P. The legislative effects of presidential partisan powers in post-communist Russia. Government and opposition. 2008, Vol. 43, N 3, P. 424–453.
14. Chaisty P., Whitefield S. Building voting coalitions in electoral authoritarian regimes: a case study of the 2020 constitutional reform in Russia. Post-soviet affairs. 2023, P. 1–18.
15. Converse P.E., Pierce R. Representative roles and legislative behavior in France. Legislative studies quarterly. 1979, N 4, P. 525–62.
16. Cooper I. Dominant party cohesion in comparative perspective: evidence from South Africa and Namibia. Democratization. 2017, Vol. 24, N 1, P. 1–19.
17. Cordero G., Coller X. Cohesion and candidate selection in parliamentary groups. Parliamentary affairs. 2015, Vol. 68, P. 592–615.
18. Cox G.W. On the effects of legislative rules. Legislative studies quarterly. 2000, Vol. 25, N 2, P. 169–192.
19. Cox G.W., McCubbins M.D. Managing plenary time: the U.S. Congress in comparative context. In: Edwards G.C., Lee F.E., Schicker E. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of the American Congress. New York: Oxford university press, 2011, P. 451–472.
20. Craig A.W. It takes a coalition: the community impacts of collaboration. Legislative studies quarterly. 2021, Vol. 46, N 1, P. 11–48.
21. Cunningham D.E. Veto players and civil war duration. American journal of political science. 2006, Vol. 50, N 4, P. 875–892.
22. Davidson-Schmich L.K. The development of party discipline in new parliaments: Eastern German state legislatures 1990–2000. The journal of legislative studies. 2003, Vol. 9, P. 88–101.
23. Dewan T., Dowding K., Shepsle K. (eds). Rational choice politics. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2009, 440 p.
24. Duverger M. Political parties. Moscow: Academic Project, 2000, 538 p. (In Russ.) Elgie R. From Linz to Tsebelis: three waves of presidential/parliamentary studies? Democratization. London, 2005, N 12 (1), P. 106–122.
25. Fortunato D. Legislative scholars should study extralegislative outcomes. Legislative studies quarterly. 2021, Vol. 46, N 1, P. 3–9.
26. Fowler J.H. Connecting the Congress: a study of cosponsorship networks. Political analysis. 2006, Vol. 14, N 4, P. 456–487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl002
27. Freund E. Principles of legislation. American political science review. 1916, Vol. 10, N 1, P. 1–19.
28. Fruhstorfer A., Hein M. Institutional interests and the politics of constitutional amendment. International political science review. 2021, Vol. 42, N 2, P. 229–244.
29. Gaines B.J., Goodwin M., Holden Bates S., Sin G. The study of legislative committees. The journal of legislative studies. 2019, Vol. 25, N 3, P. 331–339.
30. Gessen V.M. On the bicameral system. Law. 1906, N 19, P.1726–1738. (In Russ.)
31. Giannetti D., Pedrazzani A. Rules and speeches: how parliamentary rules affect legislators’ speech-making behavior: rules and speeches. Legislative studies quarterly. 2016, Vol. 41, N 3, P. 771–800.
32. Grigoriev I.S. Political science of courts: subject and research program. Political science (RU). 2012, N 3, P. 258–275. (In Russ.)
33. Grigoriev I.S., Rodionova E.A. Relations between legislatures and non-majority institutions as a subject of legislative research. Political science (RU). 2023, N 1, P. 16–34. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2023.01.02 (In Russ.)
34. Guy Peters B. Bureaucracy for democracy: administration in support of legislatures. The journal of legislative studies. 2021, Vol. 27, N 4, P. 577–594.
35. Haspel M. Committees in the Russian state Duma: continuity and change in comparative perspective. The journal of legislative studies. 1998, Vol. 4, N 1, P. 188–205.
36. Norton Ph. Cohesion without discipline: party voting in the House of Lords. In: Hazan R.Y. (ed.). Cohesion and discipline in legislatures. Routledge, 2005, P. 65–80.
37. Hooghe M., Deschouwer K. Veto players and electoral reform in Belgium. West European politics. 2011, Vol. 34, N 3, P. 626–643.
38. Hug S., Tsebelis G. Veto players and referendums around the world. Journal of theoretical politics. 2002, Vol. 14, N 4, P. 465–515.
39. Hull M.D. Legislative procedure. American political science review. 1913, Vol. 7, N 2, P. 239–241.
40. Ilie C. Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates. Journal of language and politics. 2003, N 1, P. 269–91.
41. Jenkins J.A., Monroe N.W. On measuring legislative agenda – setting power. American journal of political science. 2016, Vol. 60, N 1, P. 158–174.
42. Kayser M.A., Rehmert J. Coalition prospects and policy change: an application to the environment. Legislative studies quarterly. 2021, Vol. 46, N 1, P. 219–246.
43. Kirkland J.H., Kroeger M.A. Companion bills and cross-chamber collaboration in the U.S. Congress. American politics research. 2018, Vol. 46, N 4, P. 629–670. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x17727094
44. Komshukova O.V. Does the court think politically? Experience of the constitutional court of Russia. Political science (RU). 2019, N 4, P. 312–331. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2019.04.13
45. Koß M. Executive prerogatives in the legislative process and democratic stability: evidence from non-presidential systems. Political studies review. 2020, Vol. 18, N 1, P. 71–86.
46. Kroeger M.A. Bureaucrats as lawmakers. Legislative studies quarterly. 2022, Vol. 47, N 1, P. 257–289.
47. Krol G. Legislative performance of the Russian State Duma: the role of parliament in an authoritarian regime. East European politics. 2017, Vol. 33, N 4, P. 450–471.
48. Lagona F., Padovano F. The political legislation cycle. Public choice. 2008, Vol. 134, N 3–4, P. 201–229.
49. Lazarevsky N. People's representation and its place in the system of other state institutions. In: Constitutional state. St. Petersburg, 1905, P.179–252 (In Russ.)
50. Leifeld P. Discourse network analysis: policy debates as dynamic networks. In: Victor J.N, Montgomery A.H., Lubell M. (eds). The Oxford handbook of political networks. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2016, P. 1–29.
51. Lewallen J. Booster seats: new committee chairs and legislative effectiveness. The journal of legislative studies. 2020, Vol. 26, N 4, P. 495–522.
52. Lord C., Tamvaki D. The Politics of justification? Applying the ‘Discourse Quality Index’ to the study of the European Parliament. European political science review. 2013, N 5, P. 27–54.
53. Martin S., Saalfeld T., Strøm K. (eds). The Oxford handbook of legislative studies. New York, NY: Oxford university press, 2014, 761 p.
54. Martin S., Saalfeld T., Strøm K.W. (eds). Procedure and rules in legislatures. The Oxford handbook of legislative studies. Oxford university press, 2014, P. 1–23.
55. McCubbins M.D. Legislative process and the mirroring principle. In: Menard C., Shirley M.M. Handbook of new institutional economics. Berlin / Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2005, P. 123–147.
56. Medushevsky A.N. Theory of constitutional cycles. 2nd ed. Moscow ; Berlin: Direct-Media, 2015, 936 p.
57. Melenhorst L. The media’s role in lawmaking: a case study analysis. The international journal of press/politics. 2015, Vol. 20, N 3, P. 297–316.
58. Michel M., Djurica D., Mendling J. Identification of decision rules from legislative documents using machine learning and natural language processing. HICSS. 2022, P. 1–10.
59. Miller D.R. On whose door to knock? Organized interests’ strategic pursuit of access to members of congress. Legislative studies quarterly. 2022, Vol. 47, N 1, P. 157–192.
60. Müller W.C., Saalfeld T. (eds). Members of parliament in Western Europe: roles and behavior. London: Frank Cass, 1997, 176 p.
61. Neal Z.P. A sign of the times? Weak and strong polarization in the U.S. Congress, 1973–2016. Social networks. 2020, Vol. 60, P. 103–112.
62. Noble B. Authoritarian amendments: legislative institutions as Intraexecutive constraints in post-soviet Russia. Comparative political studies. 2020, Vol. 53, N 9, P. 1417–1454.
63. Noble B. Rethinking 'rubber stamps': Legislative subservience, executive factionalism, and policy-making in the Russian State Duma [PhD thesis]. University of Oxford, 2015.
64. Nolde B.E. The concept of a session in Russian state law. Law. 1911, N 30, P.1673–1682. (In Russ.)
65. Norton P. Playing by the rules: the constraining hand of parliamentary procedure. The journal of legislative studies. 2001, Vol. 7, N 3, P. 13–33.
66. Norton P. Roles and behaviour of British MPs. The journal of legislative studies. 1997, Vol. 3, N 1, P. 17–31.
67. Ostrogorsky M.Ya. Democracy and political parties. Moscow: “Russian Political Encyclopedia” (ROSSPEN), 1997, 640 p. (In Russ.)
68. Patty J.W., Turner I.R. Ex post review and expert policy making: when does oversight reduce accountability? The journal of politics. 2021, Vol. 83, N 1, P. 23–39.
69. Pedersen M.N. Parliamentary roles in modern legislatures (Book reviews). The journal of legislative studies. 2012, Vol. 18, N 3–4, P. 532–533.
70. Petrov K., Gel’man V. Do elites matter in Russian foreign policy? The gap between self-perception and influence. Post-Soviet affairs. 2019, Vol. 35, N 5–6, P. 450–460.
71. Pomiguev I.A. The concept of veto players: a new approach to the study of forms of government. Political science (RU). 2014, N 1, P. 199–210. (In Russ.)
72. Pomiguev I.A. The council of the state duma: real veto player or a technical executive? Polis. Political studies. 2016 b, N 2, P. 171–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2016.02.12 (In Russ.)
73. Pomiguev I.A. The role of veto players in the federal legislative process in modern Russia: dis. Ph.D. Moscow: Moscow state university, 2016 a, 228 p. (In Russ.)
74. Pomiguev I.A., Alekseev D.V. Resetting bills: discontinuity as a political technology for blocking policy decision. Polis. Political studies. 2021, N 4, P. 176–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.04.13 (In Russ.)
75. Pomiguev I.A., Fomin I.V., Maltsev A.M. Network approach in legislative studies: perspective methods for qualitative and quantitative analysis of parliamentary activity. Political science (RU). 2021, N 4, P. 31–59. DOI: http://www.doi.org/ 10.31249/poln/2021.04.02 (In Russ.)
76. Pralle S.B. Timing and sequence in agenda-setting and policy change: a comparative study of lawn care pesticide politics in Canada and the US. Journal of European public policy. 2006, Vol. 13, N 7, P. 987–1005.
77. Princen S. Agenda-setting in the European Union: a theoretical exploration and agenda for research. Journal of European public policy. 2007, Vol. 14, N 1, P. 21–38.
78. Remington T. Patronage and the party of power: president–parliament relations under Vladimir Putin. Europe-Asia studies. 2008, Vol. 60, P. 959–987.
79. Reuter O.J., Szakonyi D. Elite defection under autocracy: evidence from Russia. American political science review. 2019, Vol. 113, P. 552–568.
80. Rice S.A. The behavior of legislative groups: a method of measurement. Political science quarterly. 1925, Vol. 40, P. 60.
81. Ritchie M.N., You H.Y. Legislators as lobbyists: legislators as lobbyists. Legislative studies quarterly. 2019, Vol. 44, N 1, P. 65–95.
82. Rogers S. Electoral Accountability for state legislative roll calls and ideological representation. American political science review. 2017, Vol. 111, N 3, P. 555–571.
83. Russell M. Parliamentary party cohesion. Party politics. 2014, Vol. 20, P. 712–723.
84. Saalfeld T. Rational – choice theory in legislative studies: models of politics without romanticism. The journal of legislative studies. 1995, Vol. 1, N 1, P. 32–64.
85. Saalfeld T., Müller W.C. Roles in legislative studies: a theoretical introduction. The journal of legislative studies. 1997, Vol. 3, N 1, P. 1–16.
86. Schoch D., Brandes U. Legislators’ roll-call voting behavior increasingly corresponds to intervals in the political spectrum. Scientific reports. 2020, Vol. 10, N 1, P. 17369.
87. Searing D.D. Westminster's world: understanding political roles. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard university press, 1994 xiv, 498 p.
88. Serban R. How are prime ministers held to account? Exploring procedures and practices in 31 parliamentary democracies. The journal of legislative studies. 2020, P. 1–24.
89. Shenhav S.R., Rahat G., Sheafer T. Testing the language–power assumption of critical discourse analysis: the case of Israel’s legislative discourse. Canadian journal of political science. 2012, Vol. 45, N 1, P. 207–222.
90. Shirikov A. Who gets ahead in authoritarian parliaments? The case of the Russian state duma. The journal of legislative studies. 2021, P. 1–24.
91. Shugart M.S. Comparative executive–legislative relations. In: Binder S.A., Rhodes R.A.W., Rockman B.A. The Oxford handbook of political institutions. Oxford university press, 2009, Vol. 1, P. 344–365.
92. Shulman E.M. Lawmaking as a political process. Moscow: Moscow School of Civil Education, 2014, 184 p.
93. Sokolov K.N. Parliamentarism. Experience of the legal theory of the parliamentary system. St. Petersburg: "Printed Work", 1912, 432 p. (In Russ.)
94. Sousa P.A. Central bank independence and democratic accountability. SSRN journal. 2002.
95. Stepan A., Skach C. Constitutional frameworks and democratic consolidation: parliamentarianism versus presidentialism. World politics. 1993, Vol. 46, N 1, P. 1–22.
96. Strøm K. Rules, reasons and routines: legislative roles in parliamentary democracies. The journal of legislative studies. 1997, Vol. 3, N 1, P. 155–174.
97. Tsebelis G. Nested games: rational choice in comparative politics. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1990, 274 p.
98. Tsebelis G. Veto players and constitutional change. Política y gobierno. 2018, N 1, P. 28–48.
99. Tsebelis G. Veto players: how political institution work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university press, 2002, 440 p.
100. Tsebelis G., Rasch B.E. (eds). The role of government in legislative agenda setting. London, New York: Routledge 2011, 304 p.
101. Van Dijk T.A., Wodak R. Racism at the top: parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European countries. Klagenfurt, Austria: Drava Verlag: 2000, 391 p.
102. Van Dijk T.A. Text and context of parliamentary debates. In: Bayley P. (ed.). Cross-Cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004, P. 339–372.
103. Volcansek M.L. Constitutional courts as veto players: divorce and decrees in Italy. European journal of political research. 2001, Vol. 39, N 3, P. 347–372.
104. Wahlke J.C., Eulau H., Buchanan W., Ferguson L.C. The Legislative system. Explorations in legislative behavior. New York: Wiley, 1962, 517 p.
105. Wegmann S. Policy-making power of opposition players: a comparative institutional perspective. The journal of legislative studies. 2020, Vol. 28, Iss. 1, P. 1–25.
106. West W.F. Formal procedures, informal processes, accountability, and responsiveness in bureaucratic policy making: an institutional policy analysis. Public administration review. 2004, Vol. 64, N 1, P. 66–80.
107. Williamson S., Magaloni B. Legislatures and policy making in authoritarian regimes. Comparative political studies. 2020, Vol. 53, N 9, P. 1525–1543.
108. Winzen T. Technical or political? An exploration of the work of officials in the committees of the European Parliament. The journal of legislative studies. 2011, Vol. 17, N 1, P. 27–44.
109. Yackee S.W. The politics of rulemaking in the United States. Annual review of political science. 2019, Vol. 22, N 1, P. 37–55.
110. Young J.K., Dugan L. Veto players and terror. Journal of peace research. 2011, Vol. 48, N 1, P. 19–33.
111. Zubek R. Negative agenda control and executive–legislative relations in East Central Europe, 1997–2008. The journal of legislative studies. 2011, Vol. 17, N 2, P. 172–192.
Review
Views:
1430
Email this article 
Post a Comment 