In analysing speeches made by legislators, this book provides theoretical and empirical answers to questions such as: Why do some Members of Parliament (MPs) take the parliamentary floor and speak more than others, and why do some MPs deviate more than others from the ideological position of their party? The authors evaluate their hypotheses on legislative speechmaking by considering parliamentary debates in seven European democracies: Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway and Sweden. Assuming that MPs are concerned with policy-making, career advancement, and re-election, the book discusses various incentives to taking the floor, and elaborates on the role of gender and psychological incentives in speechmaking. The authors test our expectations on a novel dataset that covers information on the number of speeches held by MPs and on the ideological positions MPs adopted when delivering a speech.

Why do some Members of Parliament (MPs) take the parliamentary floor and speak more than others? Why do some MPs deviate more than others from the ideological position of their party? This book develops hypotheses on legislative speechmaking and evaluates them by analysing parliamentary debates in seven European democracies: Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway and Sweden. Assuming that MPs are concerned with policy-making, career advancement, and re-election, the authors discuss various incentives to taking the floor, and elaborate on the role of gender and psychological incentives in speechmaking. They test their expectations on a novel dataset that covers information on the number of speeches held by MPs and on the ideological positions MPs adopted when delivering a speech.

This book explains how parties and their members of parliament structure parliamentary debate, providing novel insights into intra-party politics and representation.

Legislative debates make democracy and representation work. Political actors engage in legislative debates to make their voice heard to voters. Parties use debates to shore up their brand. This book makes the most comprehensive study of legislative debates thus far, looking at the politics of legislative debates in 33 liberal democracies in Europe, North America and Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. The book begins with theoretical chapters focused on the key concepts in the study of legislative debates. Michael Laver, Slapin and Proksch, and Taylor examine the politics of legislative debates in parliamentary and presidential democracies. Subsequently, Goplerud makes a critical review of the methodological challenges in the study of legislative debates. Schwalbach and Rauh further discuss the difficulties in the comparative empirical study of debates. Country-chapters offer a wealth of original material organized around structured sections. Each chapter begins with a details discussion of the institutional design, focusing on the electoral system, legislative organization, and party parties, to which a section on the formal and informal rules of legislative debates ensues. Next, each country chapter focuses on analyzing the determinants of floor access, with a particular emphasis on the role of gender, seniority, legislative party positions, among others. In the concluding chapter, the editors explore comparative patterns and point out to multiple research avenues opened by this edited volume. The Oxford Politics of Institutions series is designed to provide in-depth coverage of research on a specific political institution. Each volume includes a mix of theoretical contributions, state-of-the-art research review chapters, comparative empirical chapters, country case study chapters, and chapters aimed at practitioners. Typically, the majority of chapters in each volume comprises of country studies written by country experts. Volumes in the series are aimed at political scientists, students in political science programmes, social scientists more generally, and policy practitioners. Series editors: Shane Martin, Anthony King Chair in Comparative Government and Head of the Department of Government, University of Essex; and Sona N. Golder, Professor of Politics, Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University.

This book provides an original argument that rejects the idea of national MPs having but one ‘standard’ mode of representation. It acknowledges the national electoral connection, but considers representation beyond national borders. The author empirically investigates such patterns of representation in MPs’ parliamentary speech-making behavior and their attitudes in Austria, Germany, Ireland and the UK. The book analyzes representative claims in parliamentary debates on the Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty and the Eurozone crisis, and relies on qualitative interviews with members of the European affairs and budget committees. It finds a Eurosceptic Europeanization in that national MPs from the Eurosceptic left particularly represent other EU citizens.

This text examines the interaction and contention between party leaders and MPs to study the underlying structure of party unity.