SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Ames, Barry (2001). The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Andrews, Josephine T. and Gabriella R. Montinola (2004). “Veto Players and the Rule of Law in Emerging Democracies”, Comparative Political Studies: Forthcoming.
  • Bartelborth, Thomas (1999). “Verstehen und Kohärenz. Ein Beitrag zur Methodologie der Sozialwissenschaft”, Analyse & Kritik 21(1): 97116.
  • Bawn, Kathleen (1999). “Money and Majorities in the Federal Republic of Germany: Evidence for a Veto Players Model of Government Spending”, American Journal of Political Science 43(3): 707736.
  • Beck, Thorsten et al. (2001). “New Tools and New Tests in Comparative Political Economy: The Database of Poltical Institutions”, World Bank Economic Review 15(1): 165176.
  • Birchfield, Vicki and Markus M. L. Crepaz (1998). “The Impact of Constitutional Structures and Collective and Competitive Veto Points on Income Inequality in Industrialized Democracies”, European Journal of Political Research 34(2): 175200.
  • Bonoli, Giuliano (2000). The Politics of Pension Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bradford, David F. (1991). “The Politics of Tax Reform in the 1980s: Comment”, in AlbertoAlesina and GeoffreyCarliner (eds.). Politics and Economics in the Eighties. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 170173.
  • Bräuninger, Thomas (2003). Partisan Veto Players, Party Preferences, and the Composition of Government Expenditures. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, Nashville, March 21–23, 2003.
  • Bräuninger, Thomas and Thomas König (1999). “The checks and balances of party federalism: German federal government in a divided legislature”, European Journal of Political Research 36(2): 207234.
  • Crepaz, Markus M.L. (2001). “Veto Players, Globalization and the Redistributive Capacity of the State: A Panel Study of 15 OECD Countries”, Journal of Public Policy 21(1): 122.
  • Crepaz, Markus M.L. (2002). “Global, Constitutional, and Partisan Determinants of Redistribution in Fifteen OECD Countries”, Comparative Politics 34(1): 169188.
  • Damgaard, Erik and Palle Svensson (1989). “Who Governs - Parties and Policies in Denmark”, European Journal of Political Research 17(6): 731745.
  • Evans, Harry (2001). Odgers' Australian Senate Practice. 10 Ed. Canberra: Department of the Senate.
  • Franzese, Robert J. (2002). Macroeconomic Policies of Developed Democrcies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fuchs, Dieter (2000). “Typen und Indizes demokratischer Regime. Eine Analyse des Präsidentialismus- und des Veto-Spieler-Ansatzes”, in Hans-JoachimLauth et al. (eds.). Demokratiemessung. Konzepte und Befunde im internationalen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 2748.
  • Ganghof, Steffen (1999). “Steuerwettbewerb und Vetospieler: Stimmt die These der blockierten Anpassung? Politische Vierteljahresschrift 40(3): 458472.
  • Ganghof, Steffen (2003). Parties, Power and Progressivity. On the Political Economy of Income Taxation in Open States. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bremen.
  • Ganghof, Steffen and Thomas Bräuninger (2003). Policy, Office, and Votes in Comparative Veto Player Analysis. unpublished manuscript, Köln/Dublin.
  • Green-Pedersen, Christoffer (2001). “Minority Governments and Party Politics: The Political and Institutional Background to the “Danish Miracle””, Journal of Public Policy 21(1): 5370.
  • Haggard, Stephan and Mathew D.Mccubbins (eds.) (2001). Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy. Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hallerberg, Mark and Scott Basinger (1998). “Internationalization and Changes in Tax Policy in OECD Countries: The Importance of Domestic Veto Players”, Comparative Political Studies 31(3): 321352.
  • Haverland, Markus (2000). “National Adaptation to European Integration: The Importance of Institutional Veto Points”, Journal of Public Policy 20(1): 83103.
  • Hellman, Joel S. (1998). “Winners Take All: The Politics of Partial Reform in Postcommunist Transitions”, World Politics 50(2): 203234.
  • Henisz, Witold J. (2000a). “The Institutional Environment for Economic Growth”, Economics and Politics 12(1): 131.
  • Henisz, Witold J. (2000b). “The Institutional Environment for Multinational Investment”, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 16(2): 334364.
  • Hoover, Kevin D. (1994). “Econometrics as Observation: the Lucas Critique and the Nature of Econometric Inference”, Journal of Economic Methodology 1(1): 6580.
  • Huber, Evelyne, Charles Ragin and John D. Stephens (1993). “Social Democracy, Christian Democracy, Constitutional Structure and the Welfare State”, American Journal of Sociology 99(3): 711749.
  • Huber, Evelyne and John D. Stephens (2001). Development and crisis of the welfare state: parties and policies in global markets. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Huber, John D. (1999). “Parliamentary rules and party behavior during minortiy governments”, in Wolfgang C.Müller and KaareStrøm (eds.). Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Choices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 258278.
  • Hug, Simon and George Tsebelis (2001). “Veto players and referendums around the world”, Journal of Theoretical Politics 14(4): 465516.
  • Immergut, Ellen (1992). Health Politics: Interests and Institutions in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kaiser, André (1997). “Types of Democracy. From Classical to New Institutionalism”, Journal of Theoretical Politics 9(4): 419444.
  • Kaiser, André (1998). “Institutional regimes”, in Jan W.VanDeth (ed.). Comparative politics: the problem of equivalence. London: Routledge, pp. 205221.
  • Kaiser, André (2002). Mehrheitsdemokratie und Institutionenreform. Verfassungspolitischer Wandel in Australien, Großbritannien, Kanada und Neuseeland im Vergleich. Frankfurt: Campus.
  • Keefer, Philip and David Stasavage (2002). “Checks and Balances, Private Information, and the Credibility of Monetary Commitments”, International Organization 56(4): 751774.
  • Kittel, Bernhard and Herbert Obinger (2003). “Political Parties, Institutions, and the Dynamics of Social Expenditure in Times of Austerity”, Journal of European Public Policy 10(1): 2045.
  • König, Thomas (2001). “Bicameralism and Party Politics in Germany: an Empirical Social Choice Analysis”, Political Studies 49(3): 411437.
  • Kreppel, Amie (1997). “The Impact of Parties in Government on Legislative Output in Italy”, European Journal of Political Research 31(3): 327350.
  • Kunda, Ziva (1990). “The Case for Motivated Reasoning”, Psychological Bulletin 108(3): 480498.
  • Laver, Michael and Kenneth A. Shepsle (1991). “Divided Government: America is Not “Exceptional””, Governance 4(3): 250269.
  • Lijphart, Arend (1999). Patterns of Democracy. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press.
  • Macintyre, Andrew (2001). “Institutions and Investors: The Politics of the Economic Crisis in Southeast Asia”, International Organization 55(1): 81122.
  • Mainwaring, Scott and Matthew S. Shugart (1997). “Conclusion: Presidentialism and the Party System”, in ScottMainwaring and Matthew S.Shugart (eds.). Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 394439.
  • Miller, Richard W. (1987). Fact and Method: Explanation, Confirmation and Reality in the Natural and the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Mulé, Rosa (2000). Political Parties, Games and Redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Obinger, Herbert and UweWagschal (eds.) (2000). Der gezügelte Wohlfahrtsstaat. Sozialpolitik in reichen Industrienationen. Frankfurt/M.: Campus.
  • Powell, G. Bingham (2000). Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Roubini, Nouriel and Jeffrey D. Sachs (1989). “Political and Economic Determinants of Budget Deficits in the Industrial Democracies”, European Economic Review 33(5): 903934.
  • Sartori, Govianni (1994). Comparative Constitutional Engineering. New York: New York University Press.
  • Scharpf, Fritz W. (1997). Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, CO: Westview.
  • Schmidt, Manfred G. (1996). “When Parties Matter: A Review of the Possibilites and Limits of Partisan Influence on Public Policy”, European Journal of Political Research 30(2): 155183.
  • Schmidt, Manfred G. (2000). Demokratietheorien. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
  • Schmidt, Manfred G. (2001). “Ursachen und Folgen wohlfahrtsstaatlicher Politik: Ein internationaler Vergleich”, in Manfred G.Schmidt (ed.). Wohlfahrtsstaatliche Politik. Opladen: Leske+Budrich, pp. 3353.
  • Stewart Iii, Charles H. (1991). “The Politics of Tax Reform in the 1980s”, in AlbertoAlesina and GeoffreyCarliner (eds.). Politics and Economics in the Eighties. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 143170.
  • Strøm, Kaare (2000). “Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies”, European Journal of Political Research 37(3): 261289.
  • Strøm, Kaare and Wolfgang C. Müller (1999). “The Keys to Togetherness: Coalition Agreements in Parliamentary Democracy”, Journal of Legislative Studies 5(3/4): 255282.
  • Sundquist, James (1988). “Needed: A Political Theory for the New Era of Coalition Government in the United States”, Political Science Quarterly 103(4): 613635.
  • Swank, Duane (2001). “Political Institutions and Welfare State Restructuring: The Impact of Institutions on Social Policy Change in Developed Democracies”, in PaulPierson (ed.). The New Politics of the Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 197237.
  • Swank, Duane (2002). Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Treisman, Daniel (2000). “Decentralization and Inflation: Commitment, Collective Action, or Continuity? American Political Science Review 94(4): 837857.
  • Tsebelis, George (1995a). “Decision making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartism”, British Journal of Political Science 25(3): 289325.
  • Tsebelis, George (1995b). “Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies”, in HerbertDöring (ed.). Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, pp. 83113.
  • Tsebelis, George (1999). “Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies: An Empirical Analysis”, American Political Science Review 93(3): 591608.
  • Tsebelis, George (2002). Veto Players. How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Tsebelis, George and Eric Chang (2001). Veto Players and the Structure of Budgets in Advanced Industrialized Countries. unpublished manuscript, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Tsebelis, George and Jeanette Money (1997). Bicameralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Volkerink, Björn and Jakob de Haan (2001). “Fragmented Government Effects on Fiscal Policy: New E vidence”, Public Choice 109(3–4): 221242.
  • Wagschal, Uwe (1999a). “Blockieren Vetospieler Steuerreformen? Politische Vierteljahresschrift 40(4): 628640.
  • Wagschal, Uwe (1999b). “Schranken staatlicher Steuerungspolitik: Warum Steuerreformen scheitern können”, in AndreasBusch and ThomasPlümper (eds.). Nationaler Staat und internationale Wirtschaft. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 223247.
  • Young, Liz (1999). “Minor Parties and the Legislative Process in the Australian Senate: A Study of the 1993 Budget”, Australian Journal of Political Science 34(1): 727.
  • Zohlnhöfer, Reimut (1999). “Die große Steuerreform 1998/99: Ein Lehrstück für Politikentwicklung bei Parteienwettbewerb im Bundesstaat”, Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 30(2): 326345.