Parliamentary questions as strategic party tools

References

• Andeweg, R.B., and J.J.A. Thomassen (2011). ‘Pathways to Party Unity: Sanctions, Loyalty, Homogeneity and Division of Labour in the Dutch Parliament’, Party Politics, 17:5, 655–72. doi: 10.1177/1354068810377188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auel, K. (2007). ‘Democratic Accountability and National Parliaments: Redefining the Impact of Parliamentary Scrutiny in EU Affairs’, European Law Journal, 13:4, 487–504.10.1111/eulj.2007.13.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailer, S. (2011). ‘People’s Voice or Information Pool? The Role of, and Reasons for, Parliamentary Questions in the Swiss Parliament’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17:3, 302–14. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2011.595123.
   Google Scholar
• Bakker, R., C. De Vries, E. Edwards, L. Hooghe, S. Jolly, G. Marks, and M.A. Vachudova (2015). ‘Measuring Party Positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File, 1999-2010’, Party Politics, 21:1, 143–52. doi: 10.1177/1354068812462931.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bardi, L., and P. Mair (2008). ‘The Parameters of Party Systems’, Party Politics, 14:2, 147–66. doi: 10.1177/1354068807085887.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne, W.J., S.V. Subramanian, K. Jones, and H. Goldstein (2005). ‘Variance Partitioning in Multilevel Logistic Models That Exhibit Overdispersion’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A: Statistics in Society, 168:3, 599–613. 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00365.x10.1111/rssa.2005.168.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budge, I. (2015). ‘Issue Emphases, Saliency Theory and Issue Ownership: A Historical and Conceptual Analysis’, West European Politics, 38:4, 761–777. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2015.1039374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmines, E.G., and J.A. Stimson (1989). Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Döring, H. (1995). Time as a Scarce Resource: Government Control of the Agenda. In Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, 223–46. Campus Verlag, available at https://www.uni-potsdam.de/db/vergleich/Publikationen/Parliaments/chapter07.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Elmelund-Præstekær, C. (2008). ‘Negative Campaigning in a Multiparty System’, Representation, 44:1, 27–39. doi: 10.1080/00344890701869082.
   Google Scholar
• Elston, D.A., R. Moss, T. Boulinier, C. Arrowsmith, and X. Lambin (2001). ‘Analysis of Aggregation, a Worked Example: Numbers of Ticks on Red Grouse Chicks’, Parasitology, 122:Pt 5, 563–69. doi: 10.1017/S0031182001007740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green-Pedersen, C. (2010). ‘Bringing Parties into Parliament: The Development of Parliamentary Activities in Western Europe’, Party Politics, 16:3, 347–69. doi: 10.1177/1354068809341057.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, K.M., and R.T. Pedersen (2008). ‘Negative Campaigning in a Multiparty System’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 31:4, 408–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2008.00213.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haynes, A.A., and S.L. Rhine (1998). ‘Attack Politics in Presidential Nomination Campaigns: An Examination of the Frequency and Determinants of Intermediated Negative Messages against Opponents’, Political Research Quarterly, 51:3, 691–721. doi: 10.1177/106591299805100307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inglehart, R., and H.-D. Klingemann (1976). ‘Party Identification, Ideological Preference and the Left-Right Dimension among Western Mass Publics’. in I. Budge, I. Crewe, and D. Farlie (eds.), Party Identification and beyond. Representations of Voting and Party Competition, 243–73. London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, D.-H. H., and G. Loewenberg (2005). ‘The Role of Parliamentary Committees in Coalition Governments: Keeping Tabs on Coalition Partners in the German Bundestag’, Comparative Political Studies, 38:9, 1104–129. doi: 10.1177/0010414005276307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, A. (1976). ‘Modes of Executive-Legislative Relations - Great-Britain, France, and West-Germany’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1:1, 11–36.10.2307/439626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y., and J. a. Nelder (2000). ‘Two Ways of Modelling Overdispersion in Non-Normal Data’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 49:4, 591–98. doi: 10.1111/1467-9876.00214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louwerse, T., and S. Otjes (2015). ‘The Impact of Parliamentary Specialisation on Cosponsorship’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 21:4, 476–94. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2015.1076653.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louwerse, T., and S. Otjes (2016). ‘Personalised Parliamentary Behaviour without Electoral Incentives: The Case of the Netherlands’, West European Politics, 39:4, 778–99. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2015.1111041.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maatoug, S. (2013). Changing Executive-Legislative Relations in Oversight? An Operationalization of King’s Modes Using Written Questions in the Netherlands, 1960–2011. Leiden: Leiden University.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, S. (2011a). ‘Parliamentary Questions, the Behaviour of Legislators, and the Function of Legislatures: An Introduction’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17:3, 259–70. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2011.595120.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, S. (2011b). ‘Using Parliamentary Questions to Measure Constituency Focus: An Application to the Irish Case’, Political Studies, 59:2, 472–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00885.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, L.W., and G. Vanberg (2004). ‘Policing the Bargain: Coalition Government and Parliamentary Scrutiny’, American Journal of Political Science, 48:1, 13–27. doi: 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00053.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mickler, T. A. (2017). Parliamentary Committees in a Party-Centred Context. Structure, Composition, Functioning. Leiden University, available at https://hdl.handle.net/1887/46112
   Google Scholar
• Officiële Bekendmakingen (2015). Officiële Bekendmakingen, available at https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/
   Google Scholar
• Otjes, S. (2011). ‘The Fortuyn Effect Revisited: How Did the LPF Affect the Dutch Parliamentary Party System?’, Acta Politica, 46:4, 400–24. doi: 10.1057/ap.2011.12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parlementair Documentatie Centrum (2010). ‘Parlement & Politiek’, available at https://www.parlement.com
   Google Scholar
• Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science, 40:3, 825–50, available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2111797
   Google Scholar
• Proksch, S.O., and J.B. Slapin (2011). ‘Parliamentary Questions and Oversight in the European Union’, European Journal of Political Research, 50:1, 53–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01919.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridout, T.N., and J.L. Holland (2010). ‘Candidate Strategies in the Presidential Nomination Campaign’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40:4, 611–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5705.2010.03803.x.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, D. (1976). A Theory of Party Competition. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Russo, F. (2011). ‘The Constituency as a Focus of Representation: Studying the Italian Case through the Analysis of Parliamentary Questions’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17:3, 290–301. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2011.595122.
   Google Scholar
• Russo, F., and M. Wiberg (2010). ‘Parliamentary Questioning in 17 European Parliaments: Some Steps towards Comparison’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 16:2, 215–32. doi: 10.1080/13572331003740115.
   Google Scholar
• Saalfeld, T. (2011). ‘Parliamentary Questions as Instruments of Substantive Representation: Visible Minorities in the UK House of Commons, 2005–10’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17:3, 271–89. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2011.595121.
   Google Scholar
• Sánchez de Dios, M., and M. Wiberg (2011). ‘Questioning in European Parliaments’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17:3, 354–67. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2011.595129.
   Google Scholar
• Schweers, M. (2012). Het stemmen van een vals instrument. Leiden: Leiden University.
   Google Scholar
• Stichting Kiezersonderzoek Nederland (2010). Thematische Collectie: Nationale Kiezersonderzoeken Vanaf 1971 https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-zcv-uybr (accessed 1 January 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Strøm, K. (1990). ‘A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties’, American Journal of Political Science, 34:2, 565–98, available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/211146110.2307/2111461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Aelst, P., and R. Vliegenthart (2014). ‘Studying the Tango’, Journalism Studies, 15:4, 392–410. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2013.831228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Vonno, C.M.C. (2012). ‘Role-Switching in the Dutch Parliament: Reinvigorating Role Theory?’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 18:2, 119–36. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2012.673061.
   Google Scholar
• Visscher, G. (2006). ‘De spiegel van het dagelijks gebeuren Een eeuw vragenrecht in de Tweede Kamer’, Jaarboek Parlementaire Geschiedenis, 2006, 87–98.
   Google Scholar
• Vliegenthart, R., and S. Walgrave (2011). ‘Content Matters: The Dynamics of Parliamentary Questioning in Belgium and Denmark’, Comparative Political Studies, 44:8, 1031–059. doi: 10.1177/0010414011405168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vliegenthart, R., S. Walgrave, and C. Meppelink (2011). ‘Inter-Party Agenda-Setting in the Belgian Parliament: The Role of Party Characteristics and Competition’, Political Studies, 59:2, 368–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00867.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vliegenthart, R., S. Walgrave, and B. Zicha (2013). ‘How Preferences, Information and Institutions Interactively Drive Agenda-Setting: Questions in the Belgian Parliament, 1993–2000’, European Journal of Political Research, 52:3, 390–418. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02070.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walgrave, S., and R. Vliegenthart (2010). ‘Why Are Policy Agendas Punctuated? Friction and Cascading in Parliament and Mass Media in Belgium’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17:8, 1147–170. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2010.513562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walgrave, S., and R. Vliegenthart (2012). ‘The Complex Agenda-Setting Power of Protest: Demonstrations, Media, Parliament, Government, and Legislation in Belgium, 1993–2000’, Mobilization, 17:2, 129–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walgrave, S., A. Tresch, and J. Lefevere (2015). ‘The Conceptualisation and Measurement of Issue Ownership’, West European Politics, 38:4, 778–96. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2015.1039381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter, A.S. (2014). ‘Choosing the Enemy: Attack Behaviour in a Multiparty System’, Party Politics, 20:3, 311–23. doi: 10.1177/1354068811436050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar