Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T22:23:03.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing Decision Modes at the Country Level: Some Methodological Considerations Using Swiss Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Raimund E. Germann and
Jürg Steiner
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In comparative politics, the units of analysis are usually countries. For many variables, this does not raise any particular measurement problems, because they can easily be aggregated at the country level. For other variables, however, measurement at the country level is a much more severe problem. The prevailing decision mode in a country is perhaps the most conspicuous case. In the last ten to fifteen years, this variable has gained key importance in several theories, most prominently in the theories of consciationalism and corporatism. Yet, these theories are plagued by perennial measurement problems. As an illustration, we use the case of Switzerland, but our argument should apply to other countries as well.

Information

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 1985, pp. 123 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

1 Barry, Brian, ‘Political Accommodation and Consociational Democracy’, British Journal of Political Science, V (1975), 477–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Steiner, Jürg, Amicable Agreement Versus Majority Rule: Conflict Resolution in Switzerland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1974).Google Scholar

3 The sample was drawn from two lists: (1) all expert committees appointed from 1970 to 1977; (2) all expert committees existing in 1978. Experts with membership in four or more committees are overrepresented in the sample.

4 Steiner, Jürg and Dorff, Robert H., ‘Decision by Interpretation: A New Concept for an Often Overlooked Decision Mode’, British Journal of Political Science, X (1980), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Steiner, Jürg, ‘Decision Process and Policy Outcome: An Attempt to Conceptualize the Problem at the Cross-National Level’, European Journal of Political Research, XI (1983), 309–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar