From bureaucratic capacity to legislation: how ministerial resources shape governments’ policy-making capabilities

References

• Ai, Chunrong, and Edward C. Norton (2003). ‘Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models’, Economics Letters, 80:1, 123–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bäck, Hanna, Marc Debus, and Patrick Dumont (2011). ‘Who Gets What in Coalition Governments? Predictors of Portfolio Allocation in Parliamentary Democracies’, European Journal of Political Research, 50:4, 441–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks, Jeffrey S. (1989). ‘Agency Budgets, Cost Information, and Auditing’, American Journal of Political Science, 33:3, 670.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barberá, Pablo, Andreu Casas, Jonathan Nagler, Patrick J. Egan, Richard Bonneau, John T. Jost, and Joshua A. Tucker (2019). ‘Who Leads? Who Follows? Measuring Issue Attention and Agenda Setting by Legislators and the Mass Public Using Social Media Data’, The American Political Science Review, 113:4, 883–901.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, Frank R., Christian Breunig, and Emiliano Grossman, eds. (2019). Comparative Policy Agendas: Theory, Tools, Data. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berman, Daniel M. (1966). A Bill Becomes Law: Congress Enacts Civil Rights Legislation. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bevan, Shaun (2019). ‘Gone Fishing: The Creation of the Comparative Agendas Project Master Codebook’, in Frank R. Baumgartner, Christian Breunig, and Emiliano Grossman (eds.), Comparative Policy Agendas: Theory, Tools, Data. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17–34.
   Google Scholar
• Bo Smith-udvalget (2015). Embedsmanden I Det Moderne Folkestyre. 1st ed. Copenhagen: Jurist- og ØkonomforbundetsForlag.
   Google Scholar
• Bonnaud, Laure, and Emmanuel Martinais (2014). ‘Drafting the Law: Civil Servants at Work at the French Ministry of Ecology’, Sociologie du Travail, 56, e1–e20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borghetto, Enrico, Marcello Carammia, and Francesco Zucchini (2014). ‘The Impact of Party Policy on Italian Lawmaking from the First to the Second Republic’, in Christoffer Green-Pedersen and Stefaan Walgrave (eds.), Agenda Setting, Policies, and Political Systems: A Comparative Approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 164–82.
   Google Scholar
• Breunig, Christian (2014). ‘Content and Dynamics of Legislative Agendas in Germany’, in Christoffer Green-Pedersen and Stefaan Walgrave (eds.), Agenda Setting, Policies, and Political Systems: A Comparative Approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 125–44.
   Google Scholar
• Breunig, Christian, Emiliano Grossman, and Tinette Schnatterer (2019). ‘Connecting Government Announcements and Public Policy’, in Frank R. Baumgartner, Christian Breunig, and Emiliano Grossman (eds.), Comparative Policy Agendas: Theory, Tools, Data. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 300–16.
   Google Scholar
• Breunig, Christian, and Tinette Schnatterer (2019). ‘Political Agendas in Germany’, in Frank R. Baumgartner, Christian Breunig, and Emiliano Grossman (eds.), Comparative Policy Agendas: Theory, Tools, Data. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–104.
   Google Scholar
• Budge, Ian, and Richard I. Hofferbert (1990). ‘Mandates and Policy Outputs: U.S. Party Platforms and Federal Expenditures’, American Political Science Review, 84:1, 111–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaqués-Bonafont, Laura, and Anna M. Palau (2014). ‘Policy Promises and Governmental Activities in Spain’, in Christoffer Green-Pedersen and Stefaan Walgrave (eds.), Agenda Setting, Policies, and Political Systems: A Comparative Approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 183–200.
   Google Scholar
• Coxe, Stefany, Stephen G. West, and Leona S. Aiken (2009). ‘The Analysis of Count Data: A Gentle Introduction to Poisson Regression and Its Alternatives’, Journal of Personality Assessment, 91:2, 121–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewan, Torun, and Rafael Hortala‐Vallve (2011). ‘The Three As of Government Formation: Appointment, Allocation, and Assignment’, American Journal of Political Science, 55:3, 610–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeWinter, Lieven (1993). ‘The Links between Cabinets and Parties and Cabinet Decision-Making’, in Jean Blondel and Ferdinand Müller-Rommel (eds.), Governing Together: The Extent and Limits of Joint Decision-Making in Western European Cabinets. London: St. Martin’s Press, 153–78.
   Google Scholar
• Fernandes, Jorge M., Florian Meinfelder, and Catherine Moury (2016). ‘Wary Partners: Strategic Portfolio Allocation and Coalition Governance in Parliamentary Democracies’, Comparative Political Studies, 49:9, 1270–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graw, Ansgar, and Claudia Ehrenstein (2007). ‘Parteien wollen gegen unerlaubte Telefonwerbung vorgehen’, Die Welt, January 30, 4.
   Google Scholar
• Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, and Peter B. Mortensen (2019). ‘The Danish Agendas Project’, in Frank R. Baumgartner, Christian Breunig, and Emiliano Grossman (eds.), Comparative Policy Agendas: Theory, Tools, Data. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 82–9.
   Google Scholar
• Greve, Carsten (2018). ‘Public Administration Characteristics and Performance in EU28: Denmark’, in Nick Thijs and Gerhard Hammerschmid (eds.), The Public Administration in the EU 28. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 216–42.
   Google Scholar
• Hainmueller, Jens, Jonathan Mummolo, and Yiqing Xu (2019). ‘How Much Should We Trust Estimates from Multiplicative Interaction Models? Simple Tools to Improve Empirical Practice’, Political Analysis, 27:2, 163–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heppell, Timothy (2011). ‘Departmental Restructuring under New Labour’, The Political Quarterly, 82:3, 425–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höhmann, Daniel, and Ulrich Sieberer (2020). ‘Parliamentary Questions as a Control Mechanism in Coalition Governments’, West European Politics, 43:1, 225–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, John D. (2000). ‘Delegation to Civil Servants in Parliamentary Democracies’, European Journal of Political Research, 37:3, 397–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, Lotte (2008). Vaek Fra Afgrunden: Finansministeriet Som Økonomisk Styringsaktør. Odense: University of Sothern Denmark Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joly, Jeroen, Brandon C. Zicha, and Régis Dandoy (2015). ‘Does the Government Agreement’s Grip on Policy Fade over Time? An Analysis of Policy Drift in Belgium’, Acta Politica, 50:3, 297–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, Bryan D., and Frank R. Baumgartner (2005). The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klüser, K. Jonathan, and Christian Breunig (2019). ‘Ministerial Issue Dominance in Four European Countries’, in 115th American Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting & Exhibition. Washington, DC, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Klüver, Heike, and Hanna Bäck (2019). ‘Coalition Agreements, Issue Attention, and Cabinet Governance’, Comparative Political Studies, 52:13–14, 1995–2031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuipers, Sanneke, Kutsal Yesilkagit, and Brendan Carroll (2021). ‘Ministerial Influence on the Machinery of Government: Insights on the Inside’, West European Politics, 44:4, 897–920.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laver, Michael, and Kenneth A. Shepsle (1996). Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laver, Michael, and Kenneth A. Shepsle, eds. (1994). Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leins, Carolin (2007). ‘Kein Abschluss unter dieser Nummer’, Stuttgarter Zeitung, July 16, 8.
   Google Scholar
• Lupia, Arthur, and Mathew D. McCubbins (1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, Lanny W., and Georg Vanberg (2011). Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mayntz, Renate, and Fritz W. Scharpf (1975). Policy-Making in the German Federal Bureaucracy. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• McCubbins, Mathew D., and Thomas Schwartz (1984). ‘Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms’, American Journal of Political Science, 28:1, 165–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, Michael D., and Ian Budge, eds. (2005). Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, Bernhard, and Wolfgang C. Müller (2010). ‘Managing Grand Coalitions: Germany 2005–09’, German Politics, 19:3–4, 332–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moury, Catherine, and Arco Timmermans (2013). ‘Inter-Party Conflict Management in Coalition Governments: Analyzing the Role of Coalition Agreements in Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands’, Politics and Governance, 1:2, 117–31.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, Wolfgang C. (1997). ‘Österreich: Festgefügte Koalitionen und Stabile Regierungen’, in Wolfgang C. Müller (ed.), Koalitionsregierungen in Westeuropa: Bildung, Arbeitsweise und Beendigung, Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für angewandte Politikforschung. Wien: Signum, 109–61.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, Wolfgang C., and Kaare Strøm (2008). ‘Coalition Agreements and Cabinet Governance’, in Kaare Strøm, Wolfgang C. Müller, and Torbjörn Bergman (eds.), Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 159–99.
   Google Scholar
• North, Douglass C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, Edward C., Hua Wang, and Chunrong Ai (2004). ‘Computing Interaction Effects and Standard Errors in Logit and Probit Models’, The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 4:2, 154–67.
   Google Scholar
• Page, Edward C. (2003). ‘The Civil Servant as Legislator: Law Making in British Administration’, Public Administration, 81:4, 651–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saalfeld, Thomas, and Daniel Schamburek (2014). ‘Labels and Jurisdictions: An Empirical Critique of Standard Models of Portfolio Allocation in Political Science’, in Tapio Raunio and Hanno Nurmi (eds.), The Serious Game of Politics: Festschrift for Matti Wiberg. Tampere: Juvenes, 193–219.
   Google Scholar
• Sagarzazu, Iñaki, and Heike Klüver (2017). ‘Coalition Governments and Party Competition: Political Communication Strategies of Coalition Parties’, Political Science Research and Methods, 5:2, 333–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scharpf, Fritz W., and Matthias Mohr (1994). ‘Efficient Self-Coordination in Policy Networks. A Simulation Study’, MPIFG discussion paper, Köln.
   Google Scholar
• Sieberer, Ulrich, et al. (2021). ‘The Political Dynamics of Portfolio Design in European Democracies’, British Journal of Political Science, 51:2, 772–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stimson, James A., Michael B. Mackuen, and Robert S. Erikson (1995). ‘Dynamic Representation’, American Political Science Review, 89:3, 543–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thijs, Nick, and Gerhard Hammerschmid, eds. (2018). The Public Administration in the EU 28. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Thome, Helmut (1999). ‘Party Mandate Theory and Time-Series Analysis: A Methodological Comment’, Electoral Studies, 18:4, 569–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson, Robert (1999). ‘Election Pledges and Coalition Agreements in the Netherlands’, Acta Politica, 34, 302–30.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, Robert (2001). ‘The Programme to Policy Linkage: The Fulfilment of Election Pledges on Socio–Economic Policy in the Netherlands, 1986–1998’, European Journal of Political Research, 40:2, 171–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson, Robert, et al. (2017). ‘The Fulfillment of Parties’ Election Pledges: A Comparative Study on the Impact of Power Sharing’, American Journal of Political Science, 61:3, 527–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timmermans, Arco (2003). High Politics in the Low Countries: An Empirical Study of Coalition Agreements in Belgium and the Netherlands. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Timmermans, Arco, and Gerard Breeman (2014). ‘The Policy Agenda in Multiparty Government: Coalition Agreements and Legislative Activity in the Netherlands’, in Christoffer Green-Pedersen and Stefaan Walgrave (eds.), Agenda Setting, Policies, and Political Systems: A Comparative Approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 86–104.
   Google Scholar
• Tsai, Tsung-han, and Jeff Gill (2013). ‘Interactions in Generalized Linear Models: Theoretical Issues and an Application to Personal Vote-Earning Attributes’, Social Sciences, 2:2, 91–23.
   Google Scholar
• van der Meer, Frits M. (2018). ‘Public Administration Characteristics and Performance in EU28: The Netherlands’, in Nick Thijs and Gerhard Hammerschmid (eds.), The Public Administration in the EU 28. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 755–84.
   Google Scholar
• Volkens, Andrea, et al. (2019). The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2019a. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WBZ).
   Google Scholar
• von Beyme, Klaus (1983). ‘Coalition Government in Western Germany’, in Vernon Bogdanor (ed.), Coalition Government in Western Europe. London: Heinemann Educational Books, 16–33.
   Google Scholar
• Walgrave, Stefaan, Frédéric Varone, and Patrick Dumont (2006). ‘Policy with or without Parties? A Comparative Analysis of Policy Priorities and Policy Change in Belgium, 1991 to 2000’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13:7, 1021–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegrich, Kai, and Gerhard Hammerschmid (2018). ‘Public Administration Characteristics and Performance in EU28: Germany’, in Nick Thijs and Gerhard Hammerschmid (eds.), The Public Administration in the EU 28. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 354–88.
   Google Scholar
• Weingast, Barry R., and Mark J. Moran (1983). ‘Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission’, Journal of Political Economy, 91:5, 765–800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, Anne, and Patrick Dunleavy (2010). Making and Breaking Whitehall Departments: A Guide to Machinery of Government Changes. London: Institute for Government.
   Google Scholar
• Wlezien, Christopher (2005). ‘On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with “Most Important Problem”’, Electoral Studies, 24:4, 555–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe, Michelle, Bryan D. Jones, and Frank R. Baumgartner (2013). ‘A Failure to Communicate: Agenda Setting in Media and Policy Studies’, Political Communication, 30:2, 175–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar