Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T23:37:22.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legislative Institutionalization: A Bent Analytical Arrow?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

David Judge
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Institutionalization as a ‘process theory’ moves beyond the specification of a dichotomous variable – either an institution exists or it does not – to a continuous variable – whereby an institution can be more or less institutionalized. But if institutionalization is to be conceived in this way, then the specification of independent variables and the measurement of the degree of institutionalization become crucial to the understanding of the process. The essence of the argument presented in this article is that in the study of legislatures both the specification and measurement of institutionalization have been deficient. The comparative potential of the concept of legislative institutionalization has been limited by a failure to use common criteria and measures of institutionalization. As a general theory, institutionalization is of value in explaining how institutions become organized and how they become differentiated from other political organizations, but equally other organization theories might more usefully be deployed to explain institutional change in legislatures thereafter.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , 2003, pp. 497 - 516
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2003.

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 B. G. Peters, Institutional Theory in Political Science, London, Pinter, 1999, p. 85.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 R. L. Jepperson, ‘Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism’, in W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1991, p. 150.

5 B. G. Peters, Institutional Theory, op. cit., pp. 91–2.

6 See R. L. Jepperson, ‘Institutions …’ op. cit., p. 152.

7 L. D. Longley, ‘Parliaments as Changing Institutions and as Agents of Regime Change: Evolving Perspectives and a New Research Framework’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 2: 2 (1996), p. 24.

8 P. Kopecky, Parliaments in the Czech and Slovak Republics, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2001, p. 15.

9 S. P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven, Yale University Press. 1968, p. 12.

10 Ibid.

11 N. W. Polsby, ‘The Institutionalization of the US House of Representatives’, American Political Science Review (1968), p. 145.

12 G. Loewenberg and S. C. Patterson, Comparing Legislatures, Boston, Little, Brown, 1979, p. 22.

13 S. C. Patterson and G. W. Copeland, ‘Parliaments in the Twenty-first Century’, in G. W. Copeland and S. C. Paterson (eds), Parliaments in the Modern World, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1994, p. 4.

14 P. Norton, Parliaments and Governments in Western Europe, London, Frank Cass, 1998, p. 8.

15 R. Sisson, ‘Comparative Institutionalization: A Theoretical Explanation’, in A. Kornberg (ed.), Legislatures in Comparative Perspective, New York, David McKay Company, 1973, pp. 17–38.

16 Ibid., p. 25.

17 Ibid., p. 29.

18 S. P. Huntington, Political Order, op. cit., p. 13.

19 S. C. Patterson and G. W. Copeland, ‘Parliaments in the Twenty-first Century’, op. cit., p. 7.

20 G. Loewenberg and S. C. Patterson, Comparing Legislatures, op. cit., p. 21.

21 N. W. Polsby, ‘Legislatures’, in F. I. Greenstein and N. W. Polsby, Handbook of Political Science, Governmental Institutions and Processes, Volume 5, Boston, Mass., Addison-Wesley, 1975.

22 Ibid., p. 277.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., p. 285.

25 N. W. Polsby, ‘The Institutionalization of the US House of Representatives’, op. cit., p. 153.

26 Ibid., p. 160.

27 Ibid., p. 164.

28 Ibid., p. 144.

29 Ibid., p. 164.

30 Ibid., p. 166.

31 A. Rosenthal, ‘State Legislative Development: Observations from Three Perspectives’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 21: 2 (1996), p. 186.

32 J. Cooper and D. W. Brady, ‘Toward a Diachronic Analysis of Congress’, American Political Science Review, 75: 4 (1981), p. 997.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid., p. 998.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid., p. 997.

38 Ibid.

39 P. Squire, ‘The Theory of Legislative Institutionalization and the Californian Assembly’, The Journal of Politics, 54: 4 (1992), pp. 1026–54.

40 Ibid., p. 1046.

41 A. Rosenthal, ‘State Legislative Development’, op. cit., p. 185.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid., p. 186.

44 A. Kornberg, Legislatures in Comparative Perspective, New York, David McKay, 1973.

45 Ibid., pp. 1–2.

46 S. C. Patterson and G. W. Copeland, ‘Parliaments in the Twenty-first Century’, op. cit., p. 9.

47 Ibid., p. 3.

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid., p. 4.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid., p. 6.

52 Ibid., p. 152.

53 Ibid., p. viii.

54 J. R. Hibbing and S. C. Patterson, ‘The Emergence of Democratic Parliaments in Central and Eastern Europe’ in G. W. Copeland and S. C. Patterson, Parliaments in the Modern World, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1994, pp. 147–9.

55 J. R. Hibbing, ‘Legislative Institutionalization with Illustrations from the British House of Commons’, American Journal of Political Science, 32: 3 (1988), p. 707.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid., p. 708.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid., p. 710.

61 D. M. Olson, and P. Norton, The New Parliaments of Central And Eastern Europe, Frank Cass, London, 1996.

62 Ibid., p. 239.

63 M. D. Simon, ‘Institutional Development of Poland's Post-communist Sejm: A Comparative Analysis’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 2: 1 (1996), pp. 133–60.

64 W. Crowther and S. D. Roper, ‘A Comparative Analysis of Institutional Development in the Romanian and Moldovan Legislatures’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 2: 1 (1996), pp. 133–60.

65 Ibid., pp. 155–6.

66 Ibid., p. 158.

67 Ibid., p. 155.

68 Ibid.

69 P. Kopecky, Parliaments in the Czech and Slovak Republics, op. cit.

70 Ibid., p. 13.

71 Ibid., p. 14.

72 Ibid., p. 207.

73 Ibid., p. 15.

74 Ibid., p. 240.

75 P. Norton, ‘Conclusion: Making Sense of Diversity’, in P. Norton and N. Ahmed (eds), Parliaments in Asia, London, Frank Cass, 1998, p. 191.

76 Ibid., p. 190.

77 J. R. Hibbing, ‘Legislative Institutionalization’, op. cit., p. 707.

78 L. D. Longley, ‘Parliaments as Changing Institutions and as Agents of Regime Change’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 2: 2 (1996), p. 23.

79 S. C. Patterson and G. W. Copeland, ‘Parliaments in the Twenty-first Century’, op. cit., p. viii.

80 J. R. Hibbing, ‘Legislative Careers: Why and How We Should Study Them’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 24: 2 (1999), p. 156.

81 Ibid., p. 162.

82 In agreement with A. Rosenthal, ‘State Legislative Development’, op. cit., p. 189.

83 J. R. Hibbing, ‘Legislative Careers’, op. cit., p. 158.

84 C. Campbell, ‘The Interplay of Institutionalization and the Assignment of Tasks in Parliamentary and Congressional Systems’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 18: 1/2 (1977), p. 129.

85 J. R. Hibbing, ‘Legislative Careers’, op. cit., p. 161.

86 Ibid., pp. 161–2.

87 L. Ragsdale and J. J. Theis, ‘The Institutionalization of the American Presidency’, American Journal of Political Science, 41: 4 (1997), p. 1284.

88 Ibid.