Cover of book: Opposition Party Behavior and Minority Government Support
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Monograph No access

Opposition Party Behavior and Minority Government Support

Challenges, Strategies and Trade-Offs
Authors:
Publisher:
 2022

Summary

Opposition parties in minority governments are partly responsible for government stability without being able to neglect their accountability to the electorate, a dilemma that, as this book shows, has many electoral as well as policy advantages for opposition parties. This book’s analysis of opposition behavior in the Swedish Riksdag (1991–2018) sheds light on the rationality of minority governments from an opposition perspective: receiving political influence without jeopardizing one's party profile. The author studies oppositional behavior in Swedish minority governments using quantitative and qualitative methods.

Keywords

Bibliographic data

Edition
1/2022
Copyright Year
2022
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-8473-8
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-2853-9
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Studien zum Parlamentarismus
Volume
36
Language
English
Pages
310
Product Type
Monograph

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 16
  2. 1 Introduction No access 17 - 28
    1. 2.1 Literature on opposition behavior – a general review No access
    2. 2.2 The dilemma of opposition parties under minority governments No access
      1. 2.3.1 Theoretical expectations in hypothesis block 1: Expectations about opposition party support regarding closeness to the minority government No access
      2. 2.3.2 Theoretical expectations in hypothesis block 2: Expectations about opposition party support on important issues No access
      3. 2.3.3 Theoretical expectations in hypothesis block 3: Expectations about strategic timing in opposition party support No access
      4. 2.3.4 Theoretical expectations in hypothesis block 4: Expectations about opposition party support regarding minority government size No access
        1. 2.3.5.1 Office-seeking opposition parties under minority government formation No access
        2. 2.3.5.2 Policy-seeking opposition parties under minority government formation No access
        3. 2.3.5.3 Votes-seeking opposition parties under minority government formation No access
        4. 2.3.5.4 Policy, Office, Votes: Gains and Trade-Offs No access
    4. 2.4 Expectations on opposition party behavior and minority government support – a brief summary No access
    1. 3.1 Case selection: The Swedish political system No access
    2. 3.2 Investigation period No access
        1. 3.3.1.1 Data for quantitative analysis No access
          1. 3.3.1.2.1 Dependent variable: Minority government support by an opposition party No access
          2. 3.3.1.2.2 Independent variables: Hypothesis block 1 No access
          3. 3.3.1.2.3 Independent variables: Hypothesis block 2 No access
          4. 3.3.1.2.4 Independent variables: Hypothesis block 3 No access
          5. 3.3.1.2.5 Independent variables: Hypothesis block 4 No access
          6. 3.3.1.2.6 Control variables No access
        3. 3.3.1.3 Quantitative method No access
        1. 3.3.2.1 Data and method for qualitative analysis No access
        2. 3.3.2.2 Qualitative measures No access
    1. 4.1 Minority government support in parliamentary votes No access
      1. 4.2.1 Descriptive statistics of hypothesis block 1: Closeness No access
      2. 4.2.2 Descriptive statistics of hypothesis block 2: Issue saliency No access
      3. 4.2.3 Descriptive statistics of hypothesis block 3: Timing No access
      4. 4.2.4 Descriptive statistics of hypothesis block 4: Minority government factors No access
      1. 4.3.1 Quantitative analysis of hypothesis block 1: Closeness No access
      2. 4.3.2 Quantitative analysis of hypothesis block 2: Issue saliency No access
      3. 4.3.3 Quantitative analysis of hypothesis block 3: Timing No access
      4. 4.3.4 Quantitative analysis of hypothesis block 4: Minority government factors No access
      1. 4.4.1 Robustness tests of hypothesis block 1: Closeness No access
      2. 4.4.2 Robustness tests of hypothesis block 2: Issue saliency No access
      3. 4.4.3 Robustness tests of hypothesis block 3: Timing No access
      4. 4.4.4 Robustness tests of hypothesis block 4: Minority government factors No access
    5. 4.5 Opposition party strategies – between opposing and supporting minority governments. Summarizing results from quantitative analysis No access
    1. 5.1 Qualitative analysis of hypothesis block 1: Closeness No access
    2. 5.2 Qualitative analysis of hypothesis block 2: Issue saliency No access
    3. 5.3 Qualitative analysis of hypothesis block 3: Timing No access
    4. 5.4 Qualitative analysis of hypothesis block 4: Minority government factors No access
    5. 5.5 Hypotheses tests of the qualitative analysis: A brief summary No access
  7. 6 Opposition party distinctiveness and minority government support – Results from and limitations of a mixed-methods approach No access 190 - 197
      1. 7.1.1 Cooperation type 1: Support agreement No access
      2. 7.1.2 Cooperation type 2: Issue agreement No access
      3. 7.1.3 Cooperation type 3: Short connections No access
      4. 7.1.4 Cooperation type 4: Information exchange No access
      5. 7.1.5 Organizing parliamentary majorities under minority government: Summary of four types of cooperation No access
      1. 7.2.1 Office-seeking opposition party type (1): The largest opposition party No access
      2. 7.2.2 Votes-seeking opposition party type: Smaller opposition parties that primarily strive to expand their electorate No access
      3. 7.2.3 Office-seeking opposition party type (2): Smaller opposition parties that strive for government offices No access
      4. 7.2.4 Policy-seeking opposition party type: Opposition parties willing to broadly cooperate No access
      5. 7.2.5 Changes in opposition parties’ goals: a summary of the four types of opposition parties No access
    3. 7.3 Support agreement, cooperation, or conflict? A policy field analysis No access
    4. 7.4 Opposition party goals – between opposing and cooperating with a minority government. Summarizing results from qualitative analysis No access
  9. 8 Brief summary and discussion of results: Prospects and limitations No access 245 - 251
  10. 9 Conclusion: Opposition party behavior and minority government support No access 252 - 266
  11. 10 List of references No access 267 - 284
    1. 11.1 Regression tables of further model specifications No access
      1. 11.2.1 Regression tables of Jackknife analyses No access
      2. 11.2.2 Regression tables of alternative and additional measures No access
    3. 11.3 Handbook of the Dataset ‚Parliamentary voting behavior under minority governments in the Swedish Riksdag 1991-2018’ No access

Bibliography (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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  3. Allison, Paul. 2012. “When Can You Safely Ignore Multicollinearity?” September 20. https://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity (November 13, 2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  5. Anton, Thomas J. 1969. “Policy-Making and Political Culture in Sweden.” Scandinavian Political Studies 4 (A4): 88–102. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  6. Anton, Thomas J. 1980. Administered Politics: Elite Political Culture in Sweden [eng]. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  8. Arter, David. 2006. Democracy in Scandinavia: Consensual, majoritarian or mixed? Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  9. Artés, Joaquín. 2011. “Do Spanish politicians keep their promises?” Party Politics 19 (1): 143–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068811407581. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  10. Axelrod, Robert. 1970. Conflict of interest: A theory of divergent goals with applications to politics [eng]. Markham political science series. Chicago: Markham. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  12. Aylott, Nicholas. 2016. “The Party System.” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics. Vol. 1, ed. Jon Pierre. Oxford University Press, 152–68. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  13. Aylott, Nicholas, and Niklas Bolin. 2015. “Polarising Pluralism: The Swedish Parliamentary Election of September 2014.” West European Politics 38 (3): 730–40. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  16. Bäck, Henry, and Torbjörn Larsson. 2008. Den svenska politiken: Struktur, processer och resultat [swe]. 2nd ed. Malmö: Liber. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  19. Bale, Tim, and Torbjörn Bergman. 2006a. “A Taste of Honey Is Worse Than None at All?” Party Politics 12 (2): 189–209. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  21. Bale, Tim, and Christine Dann. 2002. “Is the Grass Really Greener?” Party Politics 8 (3): 349–65. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  22. Bannert, Michael. 2020. Oppositionsverhalten im Deutschen Bundestag am Beispiel des Migrationspakts. University of Kaiserslautern. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  23. Becher, Michael, and Flemming J. Christiansen. 2015. “Dissolution Threats and Legislative Bargaining.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 641–55. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  24. Bergman, Torbjörn. 1993. “Constitutional Design and Government Formation: The Expected Consequences of Negative Parliamentarism.” Scandinavian Political Studies 16 (4): 285–304. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  31. Bergman, Torbjörn, Johan Hellström, and Camilla Sandström. Regeringsbildningen efter riksdagsvalet 2018. Sundsvall: Mittuniversitetet. https://www.miun.se/snabbtankt. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  34. Beyme, Klaus. 1997. Der Gesetzgeber: Der Bundestag als Entscheidungszentrum [ger]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  35. Blombäck, Sofie. 2015. “Vänsterpartiet: Pådrivare eller pragmatiskt stödparti?” Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift 117 (2): 219–30. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  36. Blondel, Jean. 1997. “Political Opposition in the Contemporary World.” Government and Opposition 32 (4): 462–86. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  38. Boston, Jonathan, and David Bullock. 2012. “Multi-party governance: Managing the unity-distinctiveness dilemma in executive coalitions.” Party Politics 18 (3): 349–68. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  39. Brambor, Thomas, William R. Clark, and Matt Golder. 2005. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14 (1): 63–82. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  40. Bräuninger, Thomas, and Marc Debus. 2009. “Legislative agenda-setting in parliamentary democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 48 (6): 804–39. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  41. Bräuninger, Thomas, Marc Debus, and Fabian Wüst. 2017. “Governments, Parliaments and Legislative Activity.” Political Science Research and Methods 5 (3): 529–54. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  42. Bretzer, Ylva N. 2017. Sveriges politiska system [swe]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  44. Budge, Ian. 2015. “Issue Emphases, Saliency Theory and Issue Ownership: A Historical and Conceptual Analysis.” West European Politics 38 (4): 761–77. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  45. Carlsson, Ingvar. 2003. Så tänkte jag: Politik & dramatik [swe]. 1st ed. Stockholm: Hjalmarson & Högberg. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  46. Christiansen, Flemming J. 2008. Politiske forlig i folketinget: Partikonkurrence og samarbejde [dan]. Politicas ph.d.-serie. Zugl.: Aarhus, Univ., Diss., 2008. Århus: Politica. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  49. Christiansen, Flemming J., and Erik Damgaard. 2008. “Parliamentary Opposition under Minority Parliamentarism: Scandinavia.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 14 (1-2): 46–76. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  50. Christiansen, Flemming J., and Helene H. Pedersen. 2014a. “Minority coalition governance in Denmark.” Party Politics 20 (6): 940–49. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  51. Christiansen, Flemming J., and Helene H. 2014b. “Regeringsgrundlag i Danmark. Hvordan benytter regeringen dem, og hvordan reagerer oppositionen?” politica 46 (3): 362–85. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  56. Creswell, John W., and J. D. Creswell. 2018. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches [eng]. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi: SAGE. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  58. Crombez, Christophe. 1996. “Minority governments, minimal winning coalitions and surplus majorities in parliamentary systems.” European Journal of Political Research 29 (1): 1–29. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  59. Dahl, Robert A., ed. 1966. Political oppositions in western democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  61. Dalton, Russell J. 2008. “The Quantity and the Quality of Party Systems.” Comparative Political Studies 41 (7): 899–920. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  66. Deutscher Bundestag. 2020. “Sitzverteilung im 19. Deutschen Bundestag.” January 28. https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/plenum/sitzverteilung_19wp (December 14, 2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  67. Döring, Holger, and Philip Manow. 2019. Parliaments and governments database (ParlGov): Information on parties, elections and cabinets in modern democracies. Development version. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  68. Downs, Anthony. 1957. “An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy 65 (2): 135–50. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  70. Ecker, Alejandro, and Thomas M. Meyer. 2015. “The duration of government formation processes in Europe.” Research & Politics 2 (4): 205316801562279. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  71. Efron, Bradley, and Charles Stein. 1981. “The Jackknife Estimate of Variance.” The Annals of Statistics 9 (3): 586–96. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  73. Euchner, Walter, ed. 1993. Politische Opposition in Deutschland und im internationalen Vergleich [ger]. Vol. 1566 of Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  77. Fichtelius, Erik, and Göran Persson. 2007. Aldrig ensam, alltid ensam: Samtalen med Göran Persson 1996 - 2006 [swe]. Stockholm: Norstedt. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  78. Field, Andy P., Jeremy Miles, and Zoë Field. 2014. Discovering statistics using R. London: SAGE. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  80. Field, Bonnie N. 2016. Why Minority Governments Work: Multilevel Territorial Politics in Spain [eng]. Europe in Transition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  81. Fisher, Stephen D., and Sara B. Hobolt. 2010. “Coalition government and electoral accountability.” Electoral Studies 29 (3): 358–69. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  82. Fortunato, David. 2019. “The Electoral Implications of Coalition Policy Making.” British Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 59–80. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  83. Franzese, Robert J. 2002. “Electoral and Partisan Cycles in Economic Policies and Outcomes.” Annual Review of Political Science 5 (1): 369–421. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  90. Golder, Sona N. 2010. “Bargaining Delays in the Government Formation Process.” Comparative Political Studies 43 (1): 3–32. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  92. Greene, Zachary, and Christian B. Jensen. 2018. “Ruling divided.” Party Politics 24 (6): 640–51. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  96. Hall, Peter A. 2008. “Systematic process analysis: when and how to use it.” European Management Review 3 (1): 24–31. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  97. Halvarson, Arne, Kjell Lundmark, and Ulf Staberg. 2003. Sveriges statsskick: Fakta och perspektiv [swe]. 12th ed. Stockholm: Liber. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  98. Harvey, William S. 2010. “Methodological Approaches for Interviewing Elites.” Geography Compass 4 (3): 193–205. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  99. Hellström, Anders. 2010. Vi är de goda: Den offentliga debatten om Sverigedemokraterna och deras politik [swe]. Hägersten: Tankekraft förl. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  102. Hellström, Johan. 2018. Övergångsregeringar. Om makt och politik. https://maktochpolitik.wordpress.com/category/budgeten/ (Accessed January 26, 2021). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  104. Helms, Ludger. 2002. Politische Opposition: Theorie und Praxis in westlichen Regierungssystemen [ger]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  118. Hug, Simon. 2010. “Selection Effects in Roll Call Votes.” British Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 225–35. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  120. Indridason, Indridi H. 2011. “Coalition formation and polarisation.” European Journal of Political Research 50 (5): 689–718. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  123. King, Anthony. 1976. “Modes of Executive-Legislative Relations: Great Britain, France, and West Germany.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 1 (1): 11. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  124. Kirchheimer, Otto. 1957a. “The Waning of Opposition in Parliamentary Regimes.” Social Research 24 (2): 127–56. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  125. Kirchheimer, Otto. 1957b. “Vom Wandel der politischen Opposition.” Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 43 (1): 59–86. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  127. Kitschelt, Herbert. 1994. The transformation of European social democracy [eng]. Cambridge studies in comparative politics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  129. Klüver, Heike, and Hanna Bäck. 2019. “Coalition Agreements, Issue Attention, and Cabinet Governance.” Comparative Political Studies 52 (13-14): 1995–2031. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  134. Kuckartz. 2014. Mixed-methods. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  135. Laakso, Markku, and Rein Taagepera. 1979. ““Effective” Number of Parties.” Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 3–27. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  136. Larsson, Torbjörn, and Henry Bäck. 2008. Governing and governance in Sweden [eng]. 1st ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  137. Laver, M. J., and Ian Budge, eds. 1992. Party Policy and Government Coalitions [eng]. London, s.l.: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  138. Laver, Michael. 2006. “Legislatures and Parliaments in Comparative Context.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, 121–40. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  140. Leech, Beth L. 2002. “Asking Questions: Techniques for Semistructured Interviews.” Political Science & Politics 35 (4): 665–68. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  141. Lewin, Leif. 1998. “Majoritarian and Consensus Democracy: the Swedish Experience.” Scandinavian Political Studies 21 (3): 195–206. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  142. Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 99 (3): 435–52. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  143. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  144. Lilleker, Darren G. 2003. “Interviewing the Political Elite: Navigating a Potential Minefield.” Politics 23 (3): 207–14. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  146. Louwerse, Tom, and Simon Otjes. 2019. “How Populists Wage Opposition: Parliamentary Opposition Behaviour and Populism in Netherlands.” Political Studies 67 (2): 479–95. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  147. Louwerse, Tom, Simon Otjes, David M. Willumsen, and Patrik Öhberg. 2017. “Reaching across the aisle.” Party Politics 23 (6): 746–59. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  156. May, Tim. 2001. Social research: Issues, methods and process [eng]. Buckingham: Open Univ. Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  158. Möller, Tommy. 2016. “The Parliamentary System.” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics. Vol. 1, ed. Jon Pierre. Oxford University Press, 115–29. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  159. Morgan, David L. 2007. “Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained.” Journal of Mixed-methods Research 1 (1): 48–76. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  160. Morgan, David L. 2014. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  165. Myers, Raymond H. 1990. Classical and modern regression with applications. 2nd ed. Duxbury classic series. Australia, Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury/Thomson Learning. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  168. Norton, Philip. 2008. “Making Sense of Opposition.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 14 (1-2): 236–50. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  173. Oskarson, Maria, and Marie Demker. 2015. “Room for Realignment: The Working-Class Sympathy for Sweden Democrats.” Government and Opposition 50 (4): 629–51. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  177. Petrocik, John R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  181. Quenouille, M. H. 1956. “Notes on Bias in Estimation.” Biometrika 43 (3/4): 353. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  182. Rasch, Bjorn E., and George Tsebelis. 2011. Role of governments in legislative agenda setting. TAYLOR & FRANCIS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  183. Riker, William H. 1962. The theory of political coalitions [eng]. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  184. Rogoff, Kenneth, and Anne Sibert. 1988. “Elections and Macroeconomic Policy Cycles.” Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  185. Rohlfing, Ingo. 2008. “What You See and What You Get.” Comparative Political Studies 41 (11): 1492–1514. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  186. Rustow, Dankwart A. 1955. The Politics of Compromise: A Study of Parties and Cabinet Government in Sweden. Pennsylvania State University: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  189. Sartori, Giovanni. 1966. “Opposition and Control Problems and Prospects.” Government and Opposition 1 (2): 149–54. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  191. Schumann, Hans-Gerd. 1976. Die Rolle der Opposition in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Wege der Forschung. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  192. Seeberg, Henrik B. 2013. “The opposition's policy influence through issue politicisation.” Journal of Public Policy 33 (1): 89–107. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  195. Sjölin, Mats. 1993. Coalition politics and parliamentary power. Lund political studies. Lund: Lund University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  199. Steffani, Winfried. 1968. “Möglichkeiten der Opposition: In einer parlamentarischen Demokratie und anderswo.” Die politische Meinung (13): 43–54. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  200. Sternberger, Dolf. 1956. Lebende Verfassung: Studien über Koalition und Opposition. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain K.G. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  203. Strøm, Kaare. 1984. “Minority Governments in Parliamentary Democracies. The Rationality of Nonwinning Cabinet Solutions.” Comparative Political Studies 17 (2): 199–227. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  204. Strøm, Kaare. 1986. “Deferred Gratification and Minority Governments in Scandinavia.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 11 (4): 583. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  205. Strøm, Kaare. 1990. Minority government and majority rule. Studies in rationality and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  206. Strøm, Kaare. 1998. “Parliamentary committees in european democracies.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 4 (1): 21–59. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  210. Strøm, Kaare, Wolfgang C. Müller, and Torbjörn Bergman, eds. 2010. Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. Comparative politics. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  214. Sveriges Regering. 2019. Januariöverenskommelse: Sakpolitisk överenskommelse mellan Socialdemokraterna, Centerpartiet, Liberalerna och Miljöpartiet de gröna. https://www.januarioverenskommelsen.se/ (Accessed June 10, 2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  215. Sveriges Regering - Utbildningsdepartementet. 2010. Den nya skollagen – för kunskap, valfrihet och trygghet: Regeringens proposition 2009/10:165. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  216. Sveriges Riksdag. 2002-2018. “Riksdagens öppna data: Voteringar.” Stockholm. http://data.riksdagen.se/ (October 16, 2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  219. Sveriges Riksdag. 2018c. “Kontrollerar regeringen.” March 2. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/sa-funkar-riksdagen/riksdagens-uppgifter/kontrollerar-regeringen/ (October 7, 2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  222. Sveriges Riksdag. 2020b. “The 15 parliamentary committees.” November 21. https://www.riksdagen.se/en/committees/the-15-parliamentary-committees/. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  225. Thesen, Gunnar. 2016. “Win Some, Lose None? Support Parties at the Polls and in Political Agenda-Setting.” Political Studies 64 (4): 979–99. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  229. Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto players: How political institutions work. New York, Princeton, N.J.: Russell Sage Foundation; Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  232. Urban, Dieter, and Jochen Mayerl. 2011. Regressionsanalyse: Theorie, Technik und Anwendung. 4th ed. Studienskripten zur Soziologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  234. van Biezen, Ingrid, and Helen Wallace. 2013. “Old and New Oppositions in Contemporary Europe.” Government and Opposition 48 (3): 289–313. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  235. Volkens, Andrea, Werner Krause, Pola Lehmann, Theres Matthieß, Nicolas Merz, Sven Regel, Bernhard Weßels, and Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. Manifesto Project Dataset [eng]. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  237. Walgrave, Stefaan, Jonas Lefevere, and Anke Tresch. 2012. “The Associative Dimension of Issue Ownership.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (4): 771–82. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  241. Weinberg, Steve. 1996. The reporter's handbook: An investigator's guide to documents and techniques. 3rd ed. New York: St. Martin's Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  242. Wenzelburger, Georg. 2010. Haushaltskonsolidierungen und Reformprozesse: Determinanten, Konsolidierungsprofile und Reformstrategien in der Analyse. Vol. 10 of Policy-Forschung und vergleichende Regierungslehre. Münster: Lit. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  243. Wenzelburger, Georg, Sebastian Jäckle, and Pascal D. König. 2014. Weiterführende statistische Methoden für Politikwissenschaftler: Eine anwendungsbezogene Einführung mit Stata. München: DeGruyter Oldenbourg. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  246. Williams, Laron K. 2016. “Opposition Parties and the Timing of Successful No-Confidence Motions.” Political Science Research and Methods 4 (3): 533–53. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  247. Wingborg, Mats. 2016. Den blåbruna röran: SD:s flirt med Alliansen och högerns vägval [swe]. Stockholm: Leopard förlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  249. Winther Nielsen, Sigge, and Martin Vinæs Larsen. 2014. “Party brands and voting.” Electoral Studies 33: 153–65. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  251. Wolf, Frieder. 2015a. “Methodentriangulation.” In Handbuch Policy-Forschung, eds. Georg Wenzelburger and Reimut Zohlnhöfer. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 483–502. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539
  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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748928539

Similar publications

from the series "Studien zum Parlamentarismus"
Cover of book: Die Aufstellung der Kandidaten für den Deutschen Bundestag
Monograph No access
Suzanne S. Schüttemeyer, Pia Berkhoff, Malte Cordes, Oscar W. Gabriel, Daniel Hellmann, Benjamin Höhne, Oliver Kannenberg, Sophie Kopsch, Oskar Niedermayer, Anastasia Pyschny, Danny Schindler
Die Aufstellung der Kandidaten für den Deutschen Bundestag
Cover of book: Öffentliche Anhörungen im Deutschen Bundestag
Monograph No access
Sebastian Hünermund
Öffentliche Anhörungen im Deutschen Bundestag
Cover of book: Bundesverfassungsgericht und Parlamentarismus
Monograph No access
Astrid Kuhn
Bundesverfassungsgericht und Parlamentarismus
Cover of book: Nationale Parlamentarier im Europarat
Monograph No access
Veronika Ohliger
Nationale Parlamentarier im Europarat
Cover of book: Politische Führung im Fraktionenparlament
Monograph No access
Danny Schindler
Politische Führung im Fraktionenparlament

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via your Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex