Cover des Buchs: Opposition Party Behavior and Minority Government Support
Im Shop erwerben
, um zu prüfen, ob Sie einen Vollzugriff auf diese Publikation haben.
Monographie Kein Zugriff

Opposition Party Behavior and Minority Government Support

Challenges, Strategies and Trade-Offs
Autor:innen:
Verlag:
 2022

Zusammenfassung

Oppositionsparteien in Minderheitsregierungen sind für Regierungsstabilität mitverantwortlich ohne jedoch ihre Rechenschaftspflicht gegenüber dem Elektorat vernachlässigen zu können. Ein Dilemma das, wie diese Arbeit zeigt, jedoch viele elektorale wie auch Policy-Vorteile für Oppositionsparteien bedeutet. Die Analyse des Oppositionsverhalten im schwedischen Riksdag (1991–2018) beleuchtet die Rationalität von Minderheitsregierungen aus Oppositionsperspektive: politischen Einfluss erhalten ohne das eigene Parteiprofil zu gefährden. Die Autorin forscht zu oppositionellem Verhalten in schwedischen Minderheitsregierungen mit Hilfe von quantitativen und qualitativen Methoden.

Schlagworte

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Copyrightjahr
2022
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-8473-8
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-2853-9
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe
Studien zum Parlamentarismus
Band
36
Sprache
Englisch
Seiten
310
Produkttyp
Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis Kein Zugriff 1 - 16
  2. 1 Introduction Kein Zugriff 17 - 28
    1. 2.1 Literature on opposition behavior – a general review Kein Zugriff
    2. 2.2 The dilemma of opposition parties under minority governments Kein Zugriff
      1. 2.3.1 Theoretical expectations in hypothesis block 1: Expectations about opposition party support regarding closeness to the minority government Kein Zugriff
      2. 2.3.2 Theoretical expectations in hypothesis block 2: Expectations about opposition party support on important issues Kein Zugriff
      3. 2.3.3 Theoretical expectations in hypothesis block 3: Expectations about strategic timing in opposition party support Kein Zugriff
      4. 2.3.4 Theoretical expectations in hypothesis block 4: Expectations about opposition party support regarding minority government size Kein Zugriff
        1. 2.3.5.1 Office-seeking opposition parties under minority government formation Kein Zugriff
        2. 2.3.5.2 Policy-seeking opposition parties under minority government formation Kein Zugriff
        3. 2.3.5.3 Votes-seeking opposition parties under minority government formation Kein Zugriff
        4. 2.3.5.4 Policy, Office, Votes: Gains and Trade-Offs Kein Zugriff
    4. 2.4 Expectations on opposition party behavior and minority government support – a brief summary Kein Zugriff
    1. 3.1 Case selection: The Swedish political system Kein Zugriff
    2. 3.2 Investigation period Kein Zugriff
        1. 3.3.1.1 Data for quantitative analysis Kein Zugriff
          1. 3.3.1.2.1 Dependent variable: Minority government support by an opposition party Kein Zugriff
          2. 3.3.1.2.2 Independent variables: Hypothesis block 1 Kein Zugriff
          3. 3.3.1.2.3 Independent variables: Hypothesis block 2 Kein Zugriff
          4. 3.3.1.2.4 Independent variables: Hypothesis block 3 Kein Zugriff
          5. 3.3.1.2.5 Independent variables: Hypothesis block 4 Kein Zugriff
          6. 3.3.1.2.6 Control variables Kein Zugriff
        3. 3.3.1.3 Quantitative method Kein Zugriff
        1. 3.3.2.1 Data and method for qualitative analysis Kein Zugriff
        2. 3.3.2.2 Qualitative measures Kein Zugriff
    1. 4.1 Minority government support in parliamentary votes Kein Zugriff
      1. 4.2.1 Descriptive statistics of hypothesis block 1: Closeness Kein Zugriff
      2. 4.2.2 Descriptive statistics of hypothesis block 2: Issue saliency Kein Zugriff
      3. 4.2.3 Descriptive statistics of hypothesis block 3: Timing Kein Zugriff
      4. 4.2.4 Descriptive statistics of hypothesis block 4: Minority government factors Kein Zugriff
      1. 4.3.1 Quantitative analysis of hypothesis block 1: Closeness Kein Zugriff
      2. 4.3.2 Quantitative analysis of hypothesis block 2: Issue saliency Kein Zugriff
      3. 4.3.3 Quantitative analysis of hypothesis block 3: Timing Kein Zugriff
      4. 4.3.4 Quantitative analysis of hypothesis block 4: Minority government factors Kein Zugriff
      1. 4.4.1 Robustness tests of hypothesis block 1: Closeness Kein Zugriff
      2. 4.4.2 Robustness tests of hypothesis block 2: Issue saliency Kein Zugriff
      3. 4.4.3 Robustness tests of hypothesis block 3: Timing Kein Zugriff
      4. 4.4.4 Robustness tests of hypothesis block 4: Minority government factors Kein Zugriff
    5. 4.5 Opposition party strategies – between opposing and supporting minority governments. Summarizing results from quantitative analysis Kein Zugriff
    1. 5.1 Qualitative analysis of hypothesis block 1: Closeness Kein Zugriff
    2. 5.2 Qualitative analysis of hypothesis block 2: Issue saliency Kein Zugriff
    3. 5.3 Qualitative analysis of hypothesis block 3: Timing Kein Zugriff
    4. 5.4 Qualitative analysis of hypothesis block 4: Minority government factors Kein Zugriff
    5. 5.5 Hypotheses tests of the qualitative analysis: A brief summary Kein Zugriff
  7. 6 Opposition party distinctiveness and minority government support – Results from and limitations of a mixed-methods approach Kein Zugriff 190 - 197
      1. 7.1.1 Cooperation type 1: Support agreement Kein Zugriff
      2. 7.1.2 Cooperation type 2: Issue agreement Kein Zugriff
      3. 7.1.3 Cooperation type 3: Short connections Kein Zugriff
      4. 7.1.4 Cooperation type 4: Information exchange Kein Zugriff
      5. 7.1.5 Organizing parliamentary majorities under minority government: Summary of four types of cooperation Kein Zugriff
      1. 7.2.1 Office-seeking opposition party type (1): The largest opposition party Kein Zugriff
      2. 7.2.2 Votes-seeking opposition party type: Smaller opposition parties that primarily strive to expand their electorate Kein Zugriff
      3. 7.2.3 Office-seeking opposition party type (2): Smaller opposition parties that strive for government offices Kein Zugriff
      4. 7.2.4 Policy-seeking opposition party type: Opposition parties willing to broadly cooperate Kein Zugriff
      5. 7.2.5 Changes in opposition parties’ goals: a summary of the four types of opposition parties Kein Zugriff
    3. 7.3 Support agreement, cooperation, or conflict? A policy field analysis Kein Zugriff
    4. 7.4 Opposition party goals – between opposing and cooperating with a minority government. Summarizing results from qualitative analysis Kein Zugriff
  9. 8 Brief summary and discussion of results: Prospects and limitations Kein Zugriff 245 - 251
  10. 9 Conclusion: Opposition party behavior and minority government support Kein Zugriff 252 - 266
  11. 10 List of references Kein Zugriff 267 - 284
    1. 11.1 Regression tables of further model specifications Kein Zugriff
      1. 11.2.1 Regression tables of Jackknife analyses Kein Zugriff
      2. 11.2.2 Regression tables of alternative and additional measures Kein Zugriff
    3. 11.3 Handbook of the Dataset ‚Parliamentary voting behavior under minority governments in the Swedish Riksdag 1991-2018’ Kein Zugriff

Literaturverzeichnis (254)

  1. Akkerman, Tjitske, and Anniken Hagelund. 2007. “‘Women and children first!’ Anti-immigration parties and gender in Norway and the Netherlands.” Patterns of Prejudice 41 (2): 197–214. Google Scholar öffnen
  2. Akkerman, Tjitske, Sarah L. d. Lange, and Matthijs Rooduijn, eds. 2016. Radical right-wing populist parties in Western Europe: Into the mainstream? Extremism and democracy. London, New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen
  3. Allison, Paul. 2012. “When Can You Safely Ignore Multicollinearity?” September 20. https://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity (November 13, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  4. Anghel, Veronica, and Maria Thürk. 2021. “Under the Influence: Pay-Offs to Legislative Support Parties under Minority Governments.” Government and Opposition 56 (1): 121–40. Google Scholar öffnen
  5. Anton, Thomas J. 1969. “Policy-Making and Political Culture in Sweden.” Scandinavian Political Studies 4 (A4): 88–102. Google Scholar öffnen
  6. Anton, Thomas J. 1980. Administered Politics: Elite Political Culture in Sweden [eng]. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Google Scholar öffnen
  7. Armingeon, Klaus, Virginia Wenger, Fiona Wiedemeier, Christian Isler, Laura Knöpfel, David Weisstanner, and Sarah Engler. 2019. Comparative Political Data Set 1960-2017. Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne. Google Scholar öffnen
  8. Arter, David. 2006. Democracy in Scandinavia: Consensual, majoritarian or mixed? Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  9. Artés, Joaquín. 2011. “Do Spanish politicians keep their promises?” Party Politics 19 (1): 143–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068811407581. Google Scholar öffnen
  10. Axelrod, Robert. 1970. Conflict of interest: A theory of divergent goals with applications to politics [eng]. Markham political science series. Chicago: Markham. Google Scholar öffnen
  11. Aylott, Nicholas. 2014. Why did Sweden’s new government call an extraordinary election? Om makt och politik. https://maktochpolitik.wordpress.com/category/extra-val-2015/ (Accessed January 26, 2021). Google Scholar öffnen
  12. Aylott, Nicholas. 2016. “The Party System.” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics. Vol. 1, ed. Jon Pierre. Oxford University Press, 152–68. Google Scholar öffnen
  13. Aylott, Nicholas, and Niklas Bolin. 2015. “Polarising Pluralism: The Swedish Parliamentary Election of September 2014.” West European Politics 38 (3): 730–40. Google Scholar öffnen
  14. Bäck, Hanna, and Torbjörn Bergman. 2016. “The Parties in Government Formation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics. Vol. 1, ed. Jon Pierre. Oxford University Press, 206–26. Google Scholar öffnen
  15. 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. Google Scholar öffnen
  16. Bäck, Henry, and Torbjörn Larsson. 2008. Den svenska politiken: Struktur, processer och resultat [swe]. 2nd ed. Malmö: Liber. Google Scholar öffnen
  17. Bailer, Stefanie. 2014. “Interviews and Surveys in Legislative Research.” In The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies, eds. Shane Martin, Thomas Saalfeld and Kaare W. Strøm. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  18. Bale, Tim. 2012. “The Black Widow Effect: Why Britain's Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Might Have an Unhappy Ending.” Parliamentary Affairs 65 (2): 323–37. Google Scholar öffnen
  19. Bale, Tim, and Torbjörn Bergman. 2006a. “A Taste of Honey Is Worse Than None at All?” Party Politics 12 (2): 189–209. Google Scholar öffnen
  20. Bale, Tim, and Torbjörn Bergman. 2006b. “Captives No Longer, but Servants Still? Contract Parliamentarism and the New Minority Governance in Sweden and New Zealand.” Government and Opposition 41 (3): 422–49. Google Scholar öffnen
  21. Bale, Tim, and Christine Dann. 2002. “Is the Grass Really Greener?” Party Politics 8 (3): 349–65. Google Scholar öffnen
  22. Bannert, Michael. 2020. Oppositionsverhalten im Deutschen Bundestag am Beispiel des Migrationspakts. University of Kaiserslautern. Google Scholar öffnen
  23. Becher, Michael, and Flemming J. Christiansen. 2015. “Dissolution Threats and Legislative Bargaining.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 641–55. Google Scholar öffnen
  24. Bergman, Torbjörn. 1993. “Constitutional Design and Government Formation: The Expected Consequences of Negative Parliamentarism.” Scandinavian Political Studies 16 (4): 285–304. Google Scholar öffnen
  25. Bergman, Torbjörn. 1995. Constitutional rules and party goals in coalition formation: An analysis of winning minority governments in Sweden. 1995:1 of Research report. Umeå, Sweden: Dept. of Political Science, Umeå University. Google Scholar öffnen
  26. Bergman, Torbjörn. 1999. “Trade-offs in Swedish Constitutional Design: The Monarchy under Challenge.” In Policy, Office, or Votes?: How political parties in Western Europe make hard decisions [eng]. Cambridge studies in comparative politics, eds. Kaare Strøm and Wolfgang C. Müller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 237–57. Google Scholar öffnen
  27. Bergman, Torbjörn. 2006. “Sweden. When Minority Cabinets are the Rule and Majority Coalitions the Exception.” In Coalition governments in Western Europe. Comparative politics, eds. Wolfgang C. Müller and Kaare Strøm. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 192–230. Google Scholar öffnen
  28. Bergman, Torbjörn. 2014. What a difference a vote makes? Om makt och politik. https://maktochpolitik.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/what-a-difference-a-vote-makes/ (Accessed October 12, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  29. Bergman, Torbjörn, and Hanna Bäck. 2014. Vem stöttar vem i regeringsbildningen? – Om minoritetsregeringar och ”stödpartier”. Om makt och politik. https://maktochpolitik.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/vem-stottar-vem-i-regeringsbildningen-om-minoritetsregeringar-och-stodpartier/ (Accessed November 12, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  30. Bergman, Torbjörn, and Niklas Bolin. 2011. “Swedish Democracy: Crumbling Political Parties, a Feeble Riksdag, and Technocratic Power Holders?” In The Madisonian Turn: Political Parties and Parliamentary Democracy in Nordic Europe (New Comparative Politics), eds. Torbjörn Bergman and Kaare Strøm. University of Michigan Press, 251–93. Google Scholar öffnen
  31. Bergman, Torbjörn, Johan Hellström, and Camilla Sandström. Regeringsbildningen efter riksdagsvalet 2018. Sundsvall: Mittuniversitetet. https://www.miun.se/snabbtankt. Google Scholar öffnen
  32. Bergman, Torbjörn, and Stefan Jacobsson. 2017. Votera eller reservera? Om metodens betydelse för analysen av konflikterna i svensk politik! Om makt och politik. https://maktochpolitik.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/votera-eller-reservera-om-metodens-betydelse-for-analysen-av-konflikterna-i-svensk-politik/ (Accessed October 13, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  33. Bergman, Torbjörn, and Kaare Strøm, eds. 2011. The Madisonian Turn: Political Parties and Parliamentary Democracy in Nordic Europe (New Comparative Politics). University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  34. Beyme, Klaus. 1997. Der Gesetzgeber: Der Bundestag als Entscheidungszentrum [ger]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Google Scholar öffnen
  35. Blombäck, Sofie. 2015. “Vänsterpartiet: Pådrivare eller pragmatiskt stödparti?” Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift 117 (2): 219–30. Google Scholar öffnen
  36. Blondel, Jean. 1997. “Political Opposition in the Contemporary World.” Government and Opposition 32 (4): 462–86. Google Scholar öffnen
  37. Bolingbroke, Henry J. 1749. Letters, on the Spirit of Patriotism: in the Idea of a Patriot King: and on the State of Parties: At the Accession of King George the First. London: Millar. Google Scholar öffnen
  38. Boston, Jonathan, and David Bullock. 2012. “Multi-party governance: Managing the unity-distinctiveness dilemma in executive coalitions.” Party Politics 18 (3): 349–68. Google Scholar öffnen
  39. Brambor, Thomas, William R. Clark, and Matt Golder. 2005. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14 (1): 63–82. Google Scholar öffnen
  40. Bräuninger, Thomas, and Marc Debus. 2009. “Legislative agenda-setting in parliamentary democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 48 (6): 804–39. Google Scholar öffnen
  41. Bräuninger, Thomas, Marc Debus, and Fabian Wüst. 2017. “Governments, Parliaments and Legislative Activity.” Political Science Research and Methods 5 (3): 529–54. Google Scholar öffnen
  42. Bretzer, Ylva N. 2017. Sveriges politiska system [swe]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Google Scholar öffnen
  43. Bröchler, Stephan, Manuela Glaab, and Helmar Schöne, eds. 2020. Kritik, Kontrolle, Alternative: Was leistet die parlamentarische Opposition? 1st ed. Regierungssystem und Regieren in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Google Scholar öffnen
  44. Budge, Ian. 2015. “Issue Emphases, Saliency Theory and Issue Ownership: A Historical and Conceptual Analysis.” West European Politics 38 (4): 761–77. Google Scholar öffnen
  45. Carlsson, Ingvar. 2003. Så tänkte jag: Politik & dramatik [swe]. 1st ed. Stockholm: Hjalmarson & Högberg. Google Scholar öffnen
  46. Christiansen, Flemming J. 2008. Politiske forlig i folketinget: Partikonkurrence og samarbejde [dan]. Politicas ph.d.-serie. Zugl.: Aarhus, Univ., Diss., 2008. Århus: Politica. Google Scholar öffnen
  47. Christiansen, Flemming J. 2016. “The Danish People's Party: Combining Cooperation and Padical Positions.” In Radical right-wing populist parties in Western Europe: Into the mainstream? Extremism and democracy, eds. Tjitske Akkerman, Sarah L. d. Lange and Matthijs Rooduijn. London, New York, NY: Routledge, 94–112. Google Scholar öffnen
  48. Christiansen, Flemming J. 2018. “Denmark: Strengthened opposition, yet high levels of cooperation.” In Opposition Parties in European Legislatures: Conflict or Consensus? Routledge Studies on Political Parties and Party Systems Ser, eds. Elisabetta de Giorgi and Gabriella Ilonszki. Milton: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen
  49. Christiansen, Flemming J., and Erik Damgaard. 2008. “Parliamentary Opposition under Minority Parliamentarism: Scandinavia.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 14 (1-2): 46–76. Google Scholar öffnen
  50. Christiansen, Flemming J., and Helene H. Pedersen. 2014a. “Minority coalition governance in Denmark.” Party Politics 20 (6): 940–49. Google Scholar öffnen
  51. Christiansen, Flemming J., and Helene H. 2014b. “Regeringsgrundlag i Danmark. Hvordan benytter regeringen dem, og hvordan reagerer oppositionen?” politica 46 (3): 362–85. Google Scholar öffnen
  52. Christiansen, Flemming J., and Henrik B. Seeberg. 2016. “Cooperation between counterparts in parliament from an agenda-setting perspective: legislative coalitions as a trade of criticism and policy.” West European Politics 39 (6): 1160–80. Google Scholar öffnen
  53. Clark, William R., and Manijeh Badiee. 2010. “Research Questions in Mixed-methods Research.” In Sage handbook of mixed-methods in social & behavioral research [eng], eds. Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie. Los Angeles, London, New Dehli, Singapore, Wshington D.C.: SAGE, 275–304. Google Scholar öffnen
  54. Creswell, John W. 2010. “Mapping the Developing Landscape of Mixed-methods Research.” In Sage handbook of mixed-methods in social & behavioral research [eng], eds. Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie. Los Angeles, London, New Dehli, Singapore, Wshington D.C.: SAGE, 45–68. Google Scholar öffnen
  55. Creswell, John W. 2015. “Revisiting Mixed-methods and Advancing Scientific Practices.” In The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed-methods Research Inquiry [eng]. Oxford Library of Psychology, eds. Sharlene N. Hesse-Biber and R. B. Johnson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 57–71. Google Scholar öffnen
  56. Creswell, John W., and J. D. Creswell. 2018. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches [eng]. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi: SAGE. Google Scholar öffnen
  57. Creswell, John W., Ann C. Klassen, Vicki L. Plano Clark, and Katherine Clegg Smith. 2011. “Best Practices for Mixed-methods Research in the Health Sciences.” Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. https://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/best_prac_mixed_methods.pdf (October 16, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  58. Crombez, Christophe. 1996. “Minority governments, minimal winning coalitions and surplus majorities in parliamentary systems.” European Journal of Political Research 29 (1): 1–29. Google Scholar öffnen
  59. Dahl, Robert A., ed. 1966. Political oppositions in western democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  60. Dalmus, Caroline, Regula Hänggli, and Laurent Bernhard. 2017. “The Charm of Salient Issues? Parties’ Strategic Behavior in Press Releases.” In How political actors use the media: A functional analysis of the media's role in politics, eds. Peter van Aelst and Stefaan Walgrave. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 187–205. Google Scholar öffnen
  61. Dalton, Russell J. 2008. “The Quantity and the Quality of Party Systems.” Comparative Political Studies 41 (7): 899–920. Google Scholar öffnen
  62. Dalton, Russell J. 2017. Party System Polarization Index for CSES Modules 1-4. https://cses.org/data-download/download-data-documentation/party-system-polarization-index-for-cses-modules-1-4/ (Accessed November 23, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  63. Darke, Peter R., Laurence T. Ashworth, and Kelley J. Main. 2009. “Great Expectations and Broken Promises: Misleading Claims, Product Failure, Expectancy Disconfirmation and Consumer Distrust.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38 (3): 347–62. Google Scholar öffnen
  64. Davidsson, Lars. 2006. I linje med partiet? Maktspel och lojalitet i den svenska riksdagen [swe]. 1st ed. Zugl.: Uppsala, Univ., Diss., 2006. Stockholm: SNS Förl. Google Scholar öffnen
  65. Decker, Frank. 2019. “Über Jamaika zur Fortsetzung der Großen Koalition. Die Entwicklung des Parteiensystems vor und nach der Bundestagswahl 2017.” In Die Bundestagswahl 2017: Analysen der Wahl-, Parteien-, Kommunikations- und Regierungsforschung, eds. Karl-Rudolf Korte and Jan Schoofs. Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg. in Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, 201–24. Google Scholar öffnen
  66. Deutscher Bundestag. 2020. “Sitzverteilung im 19. Deutschen Bundestag.” January 28. https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/plenum/sitzverteilung_19wp (December 14, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  67. Döring, Holger, and Philip Manow. 2019. Parliaments and governments database (ParlGov): Information on parties, elections and cabinets in modern democracies. Development version. Google Scholar öffnen
  68. Downs, Anthony. 1957. “An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy 65 (2): 135–50. Google Scholar öffnen
  69. Dreyer, Philipp, and Johann Bauer. 2019. “Does voter polarisation induce party extremism? The moderating role of abstention.” West European Politics 42 (4): 824–47. Google Scholar öffnen
  70. Ecker, Alejandro, and Thomas M. Meyer. 2015. “The duration of government formation processes in Europe.” Research & Politics 2 (4): 205316801562279. Google Scholar öffnen
  71. Efron, Bradley, and Charles Stein. 1981. “The Jackknife Estimate of Variance.” The Annals of Statistics 9 (3): 586–96. Google Scholar öffnen
  72. Einarsson, Per, and Anton Kasurinen. 2015. “KD vill riva upp DÖ.” svt.se, October 9. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/kd-1 (Accessed November 12, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  73. Euchner, Walter, ed. 1993. Politische Opposition in Deutschland und im internationalen Vergleich [ger]. Vol. 1566 of Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Google Scholar öffnen
  74. Falcó-Gimeno, Albert, and Ignacio Jurado. 2011. “Minority governments and budget deficits: The role of the opposition.” European Journal of Political Economy 27 (3): 554–65. Google Scholar öffnen
  75. Fasold, Max, and Johannes Eva. 2020. “Schwarz-Grün, GroKo oder Rot-Rot-Grün?: Mögliche Koalitionen nach der Bundestagswahl 2021.” December 13. https://www.bundestagswahl-2021.de/koalitionen/ (December 14, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  76. Fetters, Michael D., Leslie A. Curry, and John W. Creswell. 2013. “Achieving integration in mixed-methods designs-principles and practices.” [eng]. Health services research 48 (6 Pt 2): 2134–56. Google Scholar öffnen
  77. Fichtelius, Erik, and Göran Persson. 2007. Aldrig ensam, alltid ensam: Samtalen med Göran Persson 1996 - 2006 [swe]. Stockholm: Norstedt. Google Scholar öffnen
  78. Field, Andy P., Jeremy Miles, and Zoë Field. 2014. Discovering statistics using R. London: SAGE. Google Scholar öffnen
  79. Field, Bonnie N. 2009. “Minority Government and Legislative Politics in a Multilevel State: Spain under Zapatero.” South European Society and Politics 14 (4): 417–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13608740903503829. Google Scholar öffnen
  80. Field, Bonnie N. 2016. Why Minority Governments Work: Multilevel Territorial Politics in Spain [eng]. Europe in Transition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. Google Scholar öffnen
  81. Fisher, Stephen D., and Sara B. Hobolt. 2010. “Coalition government and electoral accountability.” Electoral Studies 29 (3): 358–69. Google Scholar öffnen
  82. Fortunato, David. 2019. “The Electoral Implications of Coalition Policy Making.” British Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 59–80. Google Scholar öffnen
  83. Franzese, Robert J. 2002. “Electoral and Partisan Cycles in Economic Policies and Outcomes.” Annual Review of Political Science 5 (1): 369–421. Google Scholar öffnen
  84. Ganghof, Steffen, Sebastian Eppner, Christian Stecker, Katja Heeß, and Stefan Schukraft. 2019. “Do Minority Cabinets Govern More Flexibly and Inclusively? Evidence from Germany.” German Politics 28 (4): 541–61. Google Scholar öffnen
  85. Garritzmann, Julian L. 2017. “How much power do oppositions have? Comparing the opportunity structures of parliamentary oppositions in 21 democracies.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 23 (1): 1–30. Google Scholar öffnen
  86. Gathmann, Florian, Kevin Hagen, and Christian Teevs. 2020. “Bundestagswahl 2021: Alle gegen die Grünen.” DER SPIEGEL, November 20. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundestagswahl-2021-cdu-spd-linke-alle-gegen-die-gruenen-a-92a889b4-d00f-4927-ac86-626f003c98b7 (Accessed December 14, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  87. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences [eng]. BCSIA studies in international security. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  88. Giorgi, Elisabetta de, and Gabriella Ilonszki. 2018a. “Conclusions.” In Opposition Parties in European Legislatures: Conflict or Consensus? Routledge Studies on Political Parties and Party Systems Ser, eds. Elisabetta de Giorgi and Gabriella Ilonszki. Milton: Routledge, 229–46. Google Scholar öffnen
  89. Giorgi, Elisabetta de, and Gabriella Ilonszki, eds. 2018b. Opposition Parties in European Legislatures: Conflict or Consensus? Routledge Studies on Political Parties and Party Systems Ser. Milton: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen
  90. Golder, Sona N. 2010. “Bargaining Delays in the Government Formation Process.” Comparative Political Studies 43 (1): 3–32. Google Scholar öffnen
  91. Green, Jane, and Sara B. Hobolt. 2008. “Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections.” Electoral Studies 27 (3): 460–76. Google Scholar öffnen
  92. Greene, Zachary, and Christian B. Jensen. 2018. “Ruling divided.” Party Politics 24 (6): 640–51. Google Scholar öffnen
  93. Green-Pedersen, Christoffer. 2001. “Minority Governments and Party Politics: The Political and Institutional Background to the “Danish Miracle”.” Journal of Public Policy 21 (1): 53–70. Google Scholar öffnen
  94. Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, and Jesper Krogstrup. 2008. “Immigration as a political issue in Denmark and Sweden.” European Journal of Political Research 47 (5): 610–34. Google Scholar öffnen
  95. Haberland, Stephan. 1995. Die verfassungsrechtliche Bedeutung der Opposition nach dem Grundgesetz [ger]. Vol. 30 of Beiträge zum Parlamentsrecht. Zugl.: Münster (Westfalen), Univ., Diss., 1994. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Google Scholar öffnen
  96. Hall, Peter A. 2008. “Systematic process analysis: when and how to use it.” European Management Review 3 (1): 24–31. Google Scholar öffnen
  97. Halvarson, Arne, Kjell Lundmark, and Ulf Staberg. 2003. Sveriges statsskick: Fakta och perspektiv [swe]. 12th ed. Stockholm: Liber. Google Scholar öffnen
  98. Harvey, William S. 2010. “Methodological Approaches for Interviewing Elites.” Geography Compass 4 (3): 193–205. Google Scholar öffnen
  99. Hellström, Anders. 2010. Vi är de goda: Den offentliga debatten om Sverigedemokraterna och deras politik [swe]. Hägersten: Tankekraft förl. Google Scholar öffnen
  100. Hellström, Anders, Tom Nilsson, and Pauline Stoltz. 2012. “Nationalism vs. Nationalism: The Challenge of the Sweden Democrats in the Swedish Public Debate.” Government and Opposition 47 (2): 186–205. Google Scholar öffnen
  101. Hellström, Johan. 2016. Att skynda långsamt. Hur lång tid tar det att bilda nya regeringar? Om makt och politik. https://maktochpolitik.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/att-skynda-langsamt-hur-lang-tid-tar-det-att-bilda-nya-regeringar/ (Accessed November 12, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  102. Hellström, Johan. 2018. Övergångsregeringar. Om makt och politik. https://maktochpolitik.wordpress.com/category/budgeten/ (Accessed January 26, 2021). Google Scholar öffnen
  103. Hellström, Johan, Torbjörn Bergman, and Hanna Bäck. 2018. Party Government in Europe Database (PAGED). https://erdda.org/party-government-in-europe-database/ (Accessed November 30, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  104. Helms, Ludger. 2002. Politische Opposition: Theorie und Praxis in westlichen Regierungssystemen [ger]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Google Scholar öffnen
  105. Helms, Ludger. 2010. “Opposition nach dem Machtwechsel. Ein Vergleich der CDU/CSU. Opposition im 6. und 14. Deutschen Bundestag.” Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft (10): 511–38. Google Scholar öffnen
  106. Henley, Jon. 2017. “Dutch parties agree coalition government after a record 208 days.” The Guardian, October 9. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/09/dutch-politicians-ready-form-government-election-coalition. Google Scholar öffnen
  107. Hildebrandt, Achim. 2015. “Lineare und logistische Regression.” In Methodologie, Methoden, Forschungsdesign: Ein Lehrbuch für fortgeschrittene Studierende der Politikwissenschaft. 2015th ed., eds. Achim Hildebrandt, Sebastian Jäckle, Frieder Wolf and Andreas Heindl. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 63–108. Google Scholar öffnen
  108. Hix, Simon, and Abdul Noury. 2016. “Government-Opposition or Left-Right? The Institutional Determinants of Voting in Legislatures.” Political Science Research and Methods 4 (2): 249–73. Google Scholar öffnen
  109. Hoffmann-Lange, Ursula. 1987. “Surveying national elites in the Federal Republic of Cermany.” In Research methods for elite studies. Vol. 14 of Contemporary social research series, ed. George Moyser. London: Allen & Unwin, 27–47. Google Scholar öffnen
  110. Holmberg, Sören, and Henrik Ekengren Oscarsson. 2010. Swedish election study 2010 [en]. Trans. Swedish National Data Service and University Of Gothenburg, Department Of Political Science. Google Scholar öffnen
  111. Holmberg, Sören, Mikael Gilljam, and Statistics Sweden. 1991. Swedish election study 1991 [en]. Trans. Swedish National Data Service and University Of Gothenburg, Department Of Political Science. Google Scholar öffnen
  112. Holmberg, Sören, Mikael Gilljam, and Statistics Sweden. 1994. Swedish election study 1994 [en]. Trans. Swedish National Data Service and University Of Gothenburg, Department Of Political Science. Google Scholar öffnen
  113. Holmberg, Sören, and Statistics Sweden. 2002. Swedish election survey panel 1998-2002 [en]. Trans. Swedish National Data Service, The Parliament and University Of Gothenburg, Department Of Political Science. Google Scholar öffnen
  114. Holmqvist, Anette. 2020. “Åkesson: Vi tar varje chans att avsätta den här regeringen.” Aftonbladet, May 25. https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/samhalle/a/1nEw5q/akesson-vi-tar-varje-chans-att-avsatta-den-har-regeringen (Accessed October 7, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  115. Höreth, Marcus. 1999. Die Europäische Union im Legitimationstrilemma: Zur Rechtfertigung des Regierens jenseits der Staatlichkeit. Bd. 10 of Schriften des Zentrum für europäische Integrationsforschung. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen
  116. Höreth, Marcus, and Jörn Ketelhut. 2020. “Was ist effektive Opposition? Überlegungen zu einem Schlüsselbegriff der Regierungslehre.” In Kritik, Kontrolle, Alternative: Was leistet die parlamentarische Opposition? 1st ed. Regierungssystem und Regieren in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, eds. Stephan Bröchler, Manuela Glaab and Helmar Schöne, 95–118. Google Scholar öffnen
  117. Höreth, Marcus, Melanie Müller, and Michael Bannert. 2019. Patterns of Opposition. Neuer Antagonismus und Dissoziationsgrad in der Parlamentsdebatte. Eine Untersuchung zum Zwischenrufverhalten am Beispiel des Migrationspakts: Paper für die Inauguraltagung der DVPW-Themengruppe „Vergleichende Parlamentarismusforschung“. University of Kaiserslautern. Google Scholar öffnen
  118. Hug, Simon. 2010. “Selection Effects in Roll Call Votes.” British Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 225–35. Google Scholar öffnen
  119. Ilonszki, Gabriella, and Elisabetta de Giorgi. 2018. “Introduction.” In Opposition Parties in European Legislatures: Conflict or Consensus? Routledge Studies on Political Parties and Party Systems Ser, eds. Elisabetta de Giorgi and Gabriella Ilonszki. Milton: Routledge, 1–16. Google Scholar öffnen
  120. Indridason, Indridi H. 2011. “Coalition formation and polarisation.” European Journal of Political Research 50 (5): 689–718. Google Scholar öffnen
  121. Jakobson, Hanna. 2020. “Det blir Jonas Sjöstedts sista strid.” Dagens Nyheter, September 20. https://www.dn.se/sverige/det-blir-jonas-sjostedts-sista-strid/ (Accessed October 7, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  122. Johnson, R. B., Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, and Lisa A. Turner. 2007. “Toward a Definition of Mixed-methods Research.” Journal of Mixed-methods Research 1 (2): 112–33. Google Scholar öffnen
  123. King, Anthony. 1976. “Modes of Executive-Legislative Relations: Great Britain, France, and West Germany.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 1 (1): 11. Google Scholar öffnen
  124. Kirchheimer, Otto. 1957a. “The Waning of Opposition in Parliamentary Regimes.” Social Research 24 (2): 127–56. Google Scholar öffnen
  125. Kirchheimer, Otto. 1957b. “Vom Wandel der politischen Opposition.” Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 43 (1): 59–86. Google Scholar öffnen
  126. Kirchheimer, Otto. 1966. “Germany: The Vanishing Opposition.” In Political oppositions in western democracies, ed. Robert A. Dahl. New Haven: Yale University Press, 237–59. Google Scholar öffnen
  127. Kitschelt, Herbert. 1994. The transformation of European social democracy [eng]. Cambridge studies in comparative politics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  128. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Richard I. Hofferbert, and Ian Budge. 1994. Parties, policies, and democracy [eng]. Theoretical lenses on public policy. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  129. Klüver, Heike, and Hanna Bäck. 2019. “Coalition Agreements, Issue Attention, and Cabinet Governance.” Comparative Political Studies 52 (13-14): 1995–2031. Google Scholar öffnen
  130. Klüver, Heike, and Jae-Jae Spoon. 2020. “Helping or Hurting? How Governing as a Junior Coalition Partner Influences Electoral Outcomes.” The Journal of Politics 82 (4): 1231–42. Google Scholar öffnen
  131. Klüver, Heike, and Radoslaw Zubek. 2017. “Minority governments and legislative reliability.” Party Politics 24 (6): 719–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068817695742. Google Scholar öffnen
  132. König, Pascal D. 2016. “Communicating austerity measures during times of crisis: A comparative empirical analysis of four heads of government.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 18 (3): 538–58. Google Scholar öffnen
  133. König, Pascal D., and Georg Wenzelburger. 2017. “Honeymoon in the crisis: A comparative analysis of the strategic timing of austerity policies and their effect on government popularity in three countries.” Comparative European Politics 15 (6): 991–1015. Google Scholar öffnen
  134. Kuckartz. 2014. Mixed-methods. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Google Scholar öffnen
  135. Laakso, Markku, and Rein Taagepera. 1979. ““Effective” Number of Parties.” Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 3–27. Google Scholar öffnen
  136. Larsson, Torbjörn, and Henry Bäck. 2008. Governing and governance in Sweden [eng]. 1st ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Google Scholar öffnen
  137. Laver, M. J., and Ian Budge, eds. 1992. Party Policy and Government Coalitions [eng]. London, s.l.: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Google Scholar öffnen
  138. Laver, Michael. 2006. “Legislatures and Parliaments in Comparative Context.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, 121–40. Google Scholar öffnen
  139. Lazega, Emmanuel, and Tom A. B. Snijders, eds. 2012. Multilevel network analysis for the social sciences: Theory, methods and applications [eng]. Vol. 12 of Methodos series. Google Scholar öffnen
  140. Leech, Beth L. 2002. “Asking Questions: Techniques for Semistructured Interviews.” Political Science & Politics 35 (4): 665–68. Google Scholar öffnen
  141. Lewin, Leif. 1998. “Majoritarian and Consensus Democracy: the Swedish Experience.” Scandinavian Political Studies 21 (3): 195–206. Google Scholar öffnen
  142. Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 99 (3): 435–52. Google Scholar öffnen
  143. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  144. Lilleker, Darren G. 2003. “Interviewing the Political Elite: Navigating a Potential Minefield.” Politics 23 (3): 207–14. Google Scholar öffnen
  145. Lindström, Annica. 2019. “M:s olika SD-besked – och kritiken från Hédi Fried.” Svenska Dagbladet, December 5. https://www.svd.se/ms-olika-sd-besked--och-kritiken-fran-hedi-fried (Accessed May 15, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  146. Louwerse, Tom, and Simon Otjes. 2019. “How Populists Wage Opposition: Parliamentary Opposition Behaviour and Populism in Netherlands.” Political Studies 67 (2): 479–95. Google Scholar öffnen
  147. Louwerse, Tom, Simon Otjes, David M. Willumsen, and Patrik Öhberg. 2017. “Reaching across the aisle.” Party Politics 23 (6): 746–59. Google Scholar öffnen
  148. Loxbo, Karl, and Mats Sjölin. 2017. “Parliamentary Opposition on the Wane? The Case of Sweden, 1970–2014.” Government and Opposition 52 (4): 587–613. Google Scholar öffnen
  149. Luke, Douglas A. 2010. Multilevel modeling [eng]. Vol. 143 of Sage university papers series Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publ. Google Scholar öffnen
  150. Lupia, Arthur, and Kaare Strøm. 2008. “Bargaining, Transaction Costs, and Coalition Governance.” In Cabinets and coalition bargaining: The democractic life cycle in Western Europe [eng]. Comparative politics, eds. Kaare Strøm, Wolfgang C. Müller and Torbjörn Bergman. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 51–83. Google Scholar öffnen
  151. Lupu, Noam. 2013. “Party Brands and Partisanship: Theory with Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Argentina.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (1): 49–64. Google Scholar öffnen
  152. Magnusson, Örjan, and Thomas Larsson. 2011. “Regeringen och MP överens om migrationspolitiken.” svt.se, March 3. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/regeringen-och-mp-overens-om-migrationspolitiken (Accessed May 6, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  153. March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 2013. “The Logic of Appropriateness.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, ed. Robert E. Goodin. Oxford University Press, 479–97. Google Scholar öffnen
  154. Marx, Iris. 2020. “Auf verlorenem Posten: Corona-Krise lähmt Opposition.” tagesschau.de, April 22. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/analyse-opposition-corona-krise-parteien-101.html (Accessed June 8, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  155. Mattson, Ingvar. 2016. “Parliamentary Committees: A Ground for Compromise and Conflict.” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics. Vol. 1, ed. Jon Pierre. Oxford University Press, 679–90. Google Scholar öffnen
  156. May, Tim. 2001. Social research: Issues, methods and process [eng]. Buckingham: Open Univ. Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  157. Modin, Jenny. 2010. “MP: Ja till samarbete – nej till koalition med alliansen.” svt.se, September 27. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/mp-ja-till-samarbete-nej-till-koalition-med-alliansen (Accessed May 19, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  158. Möller, Tommy. 2016. “The Parliamentary System.” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics. Vol. 1, ed. Jon Pierre. Oxford University Press, 115–29. Google Scholar öffnen
  159. Morgan, David L. 2007. “Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained.” Journal of Mixed-methods Research 1 (1): 48–76. Google Scholar öffnen
  160. Morgan, David L. 2014. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE. Google Scholar öffnen
  161. Morse, Janice M., and Linda Niehaus. 2009. Mixed Method Design: Principles and Procedures [eng]. v.4 of Developing Qualitative Inquiry. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  162. Moseholm, Ellen, and Michael D. Fetters. 2017. “Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis in convergent mixed-methods studies.” Methodological Innovations 10 (2): 205979911770311. Google Scholar öffnen
  163. Müller, Melanie. 2020. “Minderheitsregierung und Mehrheitsopposition – Zur Aktualität der Oppositionstrias „Kritik, Kontrolle, Alternative“ im Fall Schweden.” In Kritik, Kontrolle, Alternative: Was leistet die parlamentarische Opposition? 1st ed. Regierungssystem und Regieren in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, eds. Stephan Bröchler, Manuela Glaab and Helmar Schöne, 193–216. Google Scholar öffnen
  164. Müller, Wolfgang C., and Kaare Strøm. 2006. “Conclusion: Coalition Governance in Western Europe.” In Coalition governments in Western Europe. Comparative politics, eds. Wolfgang C. Müller and Kaare Strøm. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 559–92. Google Scholar öffnen
  165. Myers, Raymond H. 1990. Classical and modern regression with applications. 2nd ed. Duxbury classic series. Australia, Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury/Thomson Learning. Google Scholar öffnen
  166. Naeselius, Anders. 2015. “Decemberöverenskommelsen: Detta har hänt.” svt.se, October 9. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/decemberoverenskommelsen-detta-har-hant (Accessed November 12, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  167. Norocel, Ov C. 2013. ““Give Us Back Sweden!” A Feminist Reading of the (Re)Interpretations of the Folkhem Conceptual Metaphor in Swedish Radical Right Populist Discourse.” NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 21 (1): 4–20. Google Scholar öffnen
  168. Norton, Philip. 2008. “Making Sense of Opposition.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 14 (1-2): 236–50. Google Scholar öffnen
  169. Oberreuter, Heinrich. 1993. “Parlamentarische Opposition in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.” In Politische Opposition in Deutschland und im internationalen Vergleich [ger]. Vol. 1566 of Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe, ed. Walter Euchner. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 60–75. Google Scholar öffnen
  170. Odendahl, Teresa, and Aileen M. Shaw. 2001. “Interviewing Elites.” In Handbook of interview research, eds. Jaber Gubrium, James Holstein, Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein. Thousand Oaks, [Calif.]: SAGE, 299–316. Google Scholar öffnen
  171. Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., and John H. Hitchcock. 2015. “Advanced Mixed Analysis Approaches.” In The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed-methods Research Inquiry [eng]. Oxford Library of Psychology, eds. Sharlene N. Hesse-Biber and R. B. Johnson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 275–95. Google Scholar öffnen
  172. Örbrink, Andreas. 2018. “Så samsynta är partierna i sakpolitiska frågor.” svt.se, October 10. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sa-ser-samsynen-ut-mellan-de-olika-partierna (Accessed September 25, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  173. Oskarson, Maria, and Marie Demker. 2015. “Room for Realignment: The Working-Class Sympathy for Sweden Democrats.” Government and Opposition 50 (4): 629–51. Google Scholar öffnen
  174. Otjes, Simon, and Tom Louwerse. 2014. “A Special Majority Cabinet? Supported Minority Governance and Parliamentary Behavior in the Netherlands.” World Political Science 10 (2): 343–63. Google Scholar öffnen
  175. Otjes, Simon, and Tom Louwerse. 2015. “Populists in Parliament: Comparing Left-Wing and Right-Wing Populism in the Netherlands.” Political Studies 63 (1): 60–79. Google Scholar öffnen
  176. Persson, Thomas. 2016. “Policy Coordination under Minority and Majority Rule.” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics. Vol. 1, ed. Jon Pierre. Oxford University Press, 634–49. Google Scholar öffnen
  177. Petrocik, John R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825. Google Scholar öffnen
  178. Pierre, Jon. 2016. “Introduction: The Decline of Swedish Exceptionalism?” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics. Vol. 1, ed. Jon Pierre. Oxford University Press, 1–18. Google Scholar öffnen
  179. Plano Clark, Vicki L., and Nataliya V. Ivankova. 2016. Mixed-methods research: A guide to the field [eng]. Vol. 3 of Sage mixed-methods research series. Los Angeles: SAGE. Google Scholar öffnen
  180. Polk, Jonathan, Jan Rovny, Ryan Bakker, Erica Edwards, Liesbet Hooghe, Seth Jolly, Jelle Koedam, Filip Kostelka, Gary Marks, Gijs Schumacher, Marco Steenbergen, Milada Vachudova, and Marko Zilovic. 2017. “Explaining the salience of anti-elitism and reducing political corruption for political parties in Europe with the 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey data.” Research & Politics 4 (1): 205316801668691. Google Scholar öffnen
  181. Quenouille, M. H. 1956. “Notes on Bias in Estimation.” Biometrika 43 (3/4): 353. Google Scholar öffnen
  182. Rasch, Bjorn E., and George Tsebelis. 2011. Role of governments in legislative agenda setting. TAYLOR & FRANCIS. Google Scholar öffnen
  183. Riker, William H. 1962. The theory of political coalitions [eng]. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  184. Rogoff, Kenneth, and Anne Sibert. 1988. “Elections and Macroeconomic Policy Cycles.” Google Scholar öffnen
  185. Rohlfing, Ingo. 2008. “What You See and What You Get.” Comparative Political Studies 41 (11): 1492–1514. Google Scholar öffnen
  186. Rustow, Dankwart A. 1955. The Politics of Compromise: A Study of Parties and Cabinet Government in Sweden. Pennsylvania State University: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  187. Saalfeld, Thomas. 2008. “Institutions, Chance, and Choices: The Dynamics of Cabinet Survival.” In Cabinets and coalition bargaining: The democractic life cycle in Western Europe [eng]. Comparative politics, eds. Kaare Strøm, Wolfgang C. Müller and Torbjörn Bergman. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 327–68. Google Scholar öffnen
  188. 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. Google Scholar öffnen
  189. Sartori, Giovanni. 1966. “Opposition and Control Problems and Prospects.” Government and Opposition 1 (2): 149–54. Google Scholar öffnen
  190. Schneider, Hans-Peter. 1998. “Keine Demokratie ohne Opposition.” In Opposition als Triebkraft der Demokratie: Bilanz und Perspektiven der zweiten Republik ; Jürgen Seifert zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Michael Buckmiller. Trans. Jürgen Seifert. Hannover: Offizin, 245–57. Google Scholar öffnen
  191. Schumann, Hans-Gerd. 1976. Die Rolle der Opposition in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Wege der Forschung. Google Scholar öffnen
  192. Seeberg, Henrik B. 2013. “The opposition's policy influence through issue politicisation.” Journal of Public Policy 33 (1): 89–107. Google Scholar öffnen
  193. Shikano, Susumu. 2006. “Bootstrap und Jacknife.” In Methoden der Politikwissenschaft: Neuere qualitative und quantitative Analyseverfahren. 1st ed. Forschungsstand Politikwissenschaft, eds. Joachim Behnke, Thomas Gschwend, Delia Schindler and Kai-Uwe Schnapp. Trans. Joachim Behnke. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 69–79. Google Scholar öffnen
  194. Sjöholm, Gustav, and Lena Hennel. 2011. “Stormig höst väntar i riksdagen.” Svenska Dagbladet, August 20. https://www.svd.se/stormig-host-vantar-i-riksdagen (Accessed November 12, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  195. Sjölin, Mats. 1993. Coalition politics and parliamentary power. Lund political studies. Lund: Lund University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  196. Skagerström Lindau, Amanda. 2019. “Ebba Busch Thor (KD): ”Beredda att förhandla med SD i alla frågor”.” svt.se, December 14. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ebba-busch-thor-kd-vi-bidrog-till-att-losa-upp-knuten-kring-sd (Accessed May 15, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  197. SOM-institutet, and Göteborgs universitet. 2019. Kodbok Super-Riks-SOM 1986–2018: v2019.1. Gothenburg: SOM-institutet and Göteborgs universitet. file:///C:/Users/Melanie%20M%C3%BCller/Downloads/Kodbok%20Super-Riks-SOM%20(1986-2018)%20v2019.1.pdf (Accessed October 21, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  198. Staff, Helge. 2021. The Political Economy of Private Security: How European States Privatize, Regulate and Produce Domestic Security. Vol. 24 of Policy-Forschung und vergleichende Regierungslehre. Google Scholar öffnen
  199. Steffani, Winfried. 1968. “Möglichkeiten der Opposition: In einer parlamentarischen Demokratie und anderswo.” Die politische Meinung (13): 43–54. Google Scholar öffnen
  200. Sternberger, Dolf. 1956. Lebende Verfassung: Studien über Koalition und Opposition. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain K.G. Google Scholar öffnen
  201. Sternquist, Nils. 1966. “Sweden: Stability or Deadlock?” In Political oppositions in western democracies, ed. Robert A. Dahl. New Haven: Yale University Press, 116–46. Google Scholar öffnen
  202. Strobl, Daniel, Hanna Bäck, Wolfgang C. Müller, and Mariyana Angelova. 2019. “Electoral Cycles in Government Policy Making: Strategic Timing of Austerity Reform Measures in Western Europe.” British Journal of Political Science: 1–22. Google Scholar öffnen
  203. Strøm, Kaare. 1984. “Minority Governments in Parliamentary Democracies. The Rationality of Nonwinning Cabinet Solutions.” Comparative Political Studies 17 (2): 199–227. Google Scholar öffnen
  204. Strøm, Kaare. 1986. “Deferred Gratification and Minority Governments in Scandinavia.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 11 (4): 583. Google Scholar öffnen
  205. Strøm, Kaare. 1990. Minority government and majority rule. Studies in rationality and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  206. Strøm, Kaare. 1998. “Parliamentary committees in european democracies.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 4 (1): 21–59. Google Scholar öffnen
  207. Strøm, Kaare. 1999. “Leadership Accountability and Bargaining Failure in Norway: The Presthus Debacle.” In Policy, Office, or Votes?: How political parties in Western Europe make hard decisions [eng]. Cambridge studies in comparative politics, eds. Kaare Strøm and Wolfgang C. Müller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 192–215. Google Scholar öffnen
  208. Strøm, Kaare, and Wolfgang C. Müller, eds. 1999a. Policy, Office, or Votes?: How political parties in Western Europe make hard decisions [eng]. Cambridge studies in comparative politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  209. Strøm, Kaare. 1999b. “Political Parties and Hard Choices.” In Policy, Office, or Votes?: How political parties in Western Europe make hard decisions [eng]. Cambridge studies in comparative politics, eds. Kaare Strøm and Wolfgang C. Müller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–35. Google Scholar öffnen
  210. Strøm, Kaare, Wolfgang C. Müller, and Torbjörn Bergman, eds. 2010. Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. Comparative politics. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  211. Strömbäck, Jesper, Ann-Cathrine Jungar, and Stefan Dahlberg. 2016. “Sweden: No Longer a European Exception.” In Populist Political Communication in Europe, eds. Toril Aalberg, Frank Esser, Carsten Reinemann, Jesper Strömbäck and Claes de Vreese. New York, NY: Routledge, 2016. | Series: Routledge research in: Routledge, 68–84. Google Scholar öffnen
  212. Stubager, Rune, and Rune Slothuus. 2013. “What Are the Sources of Political Parties’ Issue Ownership? Testing Four Explanations at the Individual Level.” Political Behavior 35 (3): 567–88. Google Scholar öffnen
  213. Svensson, Niklas. 2017. “Centerpartiet och Liberalerna säger nej till att fälla regeringen.” svt.se, January 19. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/loof-c-inte-redo-att-falla-regeringen (Accessed November 12, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  214. Sveriges Regering. 2019. Januariöverenskommelse: Sakpolitisk överenskommelse mellan Socialdemokraterna, Centerpartiet, Liberalerna och Miljöpartiet de gröna. https://www.januarioverenskommelsen.se/ (Accessed June 10, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  215. Sveriges Regering - Utbildningsdepartementet. 2010. Den nya skollagen – för kunskap, valfrihet och trygghet: Regeringens proposition 2009/10:165. Google Scholar öffnen
  216. Sveriges Riksdag. 2002-2018. “Riksdagens öppna data: Voteringar.” Stockholm. http://data.riksdagen.se/ (October 16, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  217. Sveriges Riksdag. 2018a. “Debatter och beslut i kammaren.” September 3. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/sa-funkar-riksdagen/arbetet-i-riksdagen/debatter-och-beslut-i-kammaren/#fef8051d3c5cd7c50e7f85935a943bf1 (October 9, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  218. Sveriges Riksdag. 2018b. “Den nya riksdagen efter valet.” September 17. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/valet-2018/den-nya-riksdagen-efter-valet/ (May 15, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  219. Sveriges Riksdag. 2018c. “Kontrollerar regeringen.” March 2. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/sa-funkar-riksdagen/riksdagens-uppgifter/kontrollerar-regeringen/ (October 7, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  220. Sveriges Riksdag. 2019. “Beslutar om lagar.” October 22. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/sa-funkar-riksdagen/riksdagens-uppgifter/beslutar-om-lagar/ (October 8, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  221. Sveriges Riksdag. 2020a. “Allmänna motionstiden.” October 6. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/sa-funkar-riksdagen/riksdagens-uppgifter/beslutar-om-lagar/allmanna-motionstiden/ (October 8, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  222. Sveriges Riksdag. 2020b. “The 15 parliamentary committees.” November 21. https://www.riksdagen.se/en/committees/the-15-parliamentary-committees/. Google Scholar öffnen
  223. Tashakkori, Abbas, and John W. Creswell. 2007. “Editorial: Exploring the Nature of Research Questions in Mixed-methods Research.” Journal of Mixed-methods Research 1 (3): 207–11. Google Scholar öffnen
  224. Teddlie, Charles, and Abbas Tashakkori. 2009. Foundations of mixed-methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences [eng]. Los Angeles: SAGE Publ. Google Scholar öffnen
  225. Thesen, Gunnar. 2016. “Win Some, Lose None? Support Parties at the Polls and in Political Agenda-Setting.” Political Studies 64 (4): 979–99. Google Scholar öffnen
  226. Thesen, Gunnar, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, and Peter B. Mortensen. 2017. “Priming, Issue Ownership, and Party Support: The Electoral Gains of an Issue-Friendly Media Agenda.” Political Communication 34 (2): 282–301. Google Scholar öffnen
  227. Thürk, Maria, Johan Hellström, and Holger Döring. 2020. “Institutional constraints on cabinet formation: Veto points and party system dynamics.” European Journal of Political Research 50 (3): 513. Google Scholar öffnen
  228. Tosun, Jale. 2013. Environmental policy change in emerging market democracies: Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America compared [eng]. Studies in comparative political economy and public policy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  229. Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto players: How political institutions work. New York, Princeton, N.J.: Russell Sage Foundation; Princeton University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  230. Tuttnauer, Or. 2018. “If you can beat them, confront them: Party-level analysis of opposition behavior in European national parliaments.” European Union Politics 19 (2): 278–98. Google Scholar öffnen
  231. University of Gothenburg, SOM Institute. The National SOM Survey Cumulative Dataset 1986-2017 [eng]. Trans. Swedish National Data Service and University of Gothenburg, SOM Institute. Google Scholar öffnen
  232. Urban, Dieter, and Jochen Mayerl. 2011. Regressionsanalyse: Theorie, Technik und Anwendung. 4th ed. Studienskripten zur Soziologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Google Scholar öffnen
  233. van Aelst, Peter, and Knut de Swert. 2009. “Politics in the news: Do campaigns matter? A comparison of political news during election periods and routine periods in Flanders (Belgium).” Communications 34 (2). Google Scholar öffnen
  234. van Biezen, Ingrid, and Helen Wallace. 2013. “Old and New Oppositions in Contemporary Europe.” Government and Opposition 48 (3): 289–313. Google Scholar öffnen
  235. Volkens, Andrea, Werner Krause, Pola Lehmann, Theres Matthieß, Nicolas Merz, Sven Regel, Bernhard Weßels, and Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. Manifesto Project Dataset [eng]. Google Scholar öffnen
  236. Wagner, Markus. 2012. “When do parties emphasise extreme positions? How strategic incentives for policy differentiation influence issue importance.” European Journal of Political Research 51 (1): 64–88. Google Scholar öffnen
  237. Walgrave, Stefaan, Jonas Lefevere, and Anke Tresch. 2012. “The Associative Dimension of Issue Ownership.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (4): 771–82. Google Scholar öffnen
  238. Walgrave, Stefaan, and Peter van Aelst. 2006. “The Contingency of the Mass Media's Political Agenda Setting Power: Toward a Preliminary Theory.” Journal of Communication 56 (1): 88–109. Google Scholar öffnen
  239. Walther, Daniel, and Johan Hellström. 2014. Regeringsstabilitet i Europa: Varför avgår så många regeringar? https://maktochpolitik.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/regeringsstabilitet-i-europa-varfor-avgar-sa-manga-regeringar/ (Accessed October 12, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  240. Wedin, Helena. 2020. “V hotar regeringen med att förhandla med M om välfärden.” svt.se, January 14. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/m-ge-mer-statsbidrag-till-kommunerna (Accessed November 12, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen
  241. Weinberg, Steve. 1996. The reporter's handbook: An investigator's guide to documents and techniques. 3rd ed. New York: St. Martin's Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  242. Wenzelburger, Georg. 2010. Haushaltskonsolidierungen und Reformprozesse: Determinanten, Konsolidierungsprofile und Reformstrategien in der Analyse. Vol. 10 of Policy-Forschung und vergleichende Regierungslehre. Münster: Lit. Google Scholar öffnen
  243. Wenzelburger, Georg, Sebastian Jäckle, and Pascal D. König. 2014. Weiterführende statistische Methoden für Politikwissenschaftler: Eine anwendungsbezogene Einführung mit Stata. München: DeGruyter Oldenbourg. Google Scholar öffnen
  244. Wenzelburger, Georg, Carsten Jensen, Seonghui Lee, and Christoph Arndt. 2020. “How governments strategically time welfare state reform legislation: empirical evidence from five European countries.” West European Politics 43 (6): 1285–1314. Google Scholar öffnen
  245. Wenzelburger, Georg, and Pascal D. König. 2017. “Different by Design? Analyzing How Governments Justify GMO Liberalization through the Lens of Strategic Communication.” Review of Policy Research 34 (3): 331–56. Google Scholar öffnen
  246. Williams, Laron K. 2016. “Opposition Parties and the Timing of Successful No-Confidence Motions.” Political Science Research and Methods 4 (3): 533–53. Google Scholar öffnen
  247. Wingborg, Mats. 2016. Den blåbruna röran: SD:s flirt med Alliansen och högerns vägval [swe]. Stockholm: Leopard förlag. Google Scholar öffnen
  248. Winter, Lieven de, and Patrick Dumont. 2008. “Uncertainty and Complexity in Cabinet Formation.” In Cabinets and coalition bargaining: The democractic life cycle in Western Europe [eng]. Comparative politics, eds. Kaare Strøm, Wolfgang C. Müller and Torbjörn Bergman. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 123–57. Google Scholar öffnen
  249. Winther Nielsen, Sigge, and Martin Vinæs Larsen. 2014. “Party brands and voting.” Electoral Studies 33: 153–65. Google Scholar öffnen
  250. Wolf, Frieder. 2010. “Enlightened Eclecticism or Hazardous Hotchpotch? Mixed-methods and Triangulation Strategies in Comparative Public Policy Research.” Journal of Mixed-methods Research 4 (2): 144–67. Google Scholar öffnen
  251. Wolf, Frieder. 2015a. “Methodentriangulation.” In Handbuch Policy-Forschung, eds. Georg Wenzelburger and Reimut Zohlnhöfer. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 483–502. Google Scholar öffnen
  252. Wolf, Frieder. 2015b. “Methodenverbindende Forschungsdesigns.” In Methodologie, Methoden, Forschungsdesign: Ein Lehrbuch für fortgeschrittene Studierende der Politikwissenschaft. 2015th ed., eds. Achim Hildebrandt, Sebastian Jäckle, Frieder Wolf and Andreas Heindl. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 335–60. Google Scholar öffnen
  253. Yin, Robert K. 2015. “Causality, Generalizability, and the Future of Mixed-methods Research.” In The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed-methods Research Inquiry [eng]. Oxford Library of Psychology, eds. Sharlene N. Hesse-Biber and R. B. Johnson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 652–64. Google Scholar öffnen
  254. Yoon, Sung‐Joon, and Joo‐Ho Kim. 2000. “An empirical validation of a loyalty model based on expectation disconfirmation.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 17 (2): 120–36. Google Scholar öffnen

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus dem Schwerpunkt "Vergleichende Politikforschung & Länderstudien", "Parteienforschung & Wahlforschung", "Politische Kultur", "Parlamentarismus"
Cover des Buchs: Die politische Rechte in Lateinamerika
Sammelband Vollzugriff
Nadja Ahmad, Hans-Jürgen Burchardt, Kristina Dietz, Hannes Warnecke-Berger, Jonas Wolff
Die politische Rechte in Lateinamerika
Cover des Buchs: Kirche und Demokratie
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Deborah Geiger
Kirche und Demokratie
Cover des Buchs: Jahrbuch Extremismus & Demokratie (E & D)
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Uwe Backes, Alexander Gallus, Eckhard Jesse, Tom Thieme
Jahrbuch Extremismus & Demokratie (E & D)
Cover des Buchs: Geschichte des Parlamentarismus
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Werner J. Patzelt
Geschichte des Parlamentarismus
Cover des Buchs: Helmut Schmidt und Karl Popper
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Thomas Stölzel
Helmut Schmidt und Karl Popper

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login via Open Athens
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex