This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kaiser, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Types of Democracy

From Classical to New Institutionalism

Discussion of concepts in empirical democratic theory has proceeded down two main lines: in terms of theory, from classical institutionalism to new institutionalism; in terms of substance, from the traditional notion of the separation of powers to ever more refined versions of that doctrine. The article contrasts three stages of development and discusses their relevance for contemporary research: the conventional types of parliamentary vs presidential democracy; consociational democracy as a behaviouralist conception; and Arend Lijphart's differentiation of majoritarian and consensus democracy. It is argued that, although these types remain valuable frameworks in some respects, they are unsatisfactory tools for the sort of research which has come to the fore in recent years: the effects of different types of democracy on policy outputs; the structural implications of political institutions for political action; and political institutions as outcomes of constitutional engineering processes. For purposes like these a new institutionalist framework for analysis is proposed which develops further the idea of veto points.

Key Words: classical institutionalism • democracy • new institutionalism • typology • veto points

Journal of Theoretical Politics, Vol. 9, No. 4, 419-444 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/0951692897009004001


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Vatter and J. Bernauer The Missing Dimension of Democracy: Institutional Patterns in 25 EU Member States between 1997 and 2006 European Union Politics, September 1, 2009; 10(3): 335 - 359. [Abstract] [PDF]

				V. H. Schmidt Multiple Modernities or Varieties of Modernity? Current Sociology, January 1, 2006; 54(1): 77 - 97. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Bolleyer Federal Dynamics in Canada, the United States, and Switzerland: How Substates' Internal Organization Affects Intergovernmental Relations Publius, January 1, 2006; 36(4): 471 - 502. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Tavits The Size of Government in Majoritarian and Consensus Democracies Comparative Political Studies, April 1, 2004; 37(3): 340 - 359. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. S. Herron Book Reviews Comparative Political Studies, December 1, 2003; 36(10): 1243 - 1246. [PDF]

				J. D. Scribner, E. Aleman, and B. Maxcy Emergence of the Politics of Education Field: Making Sense of the Messy Center Educational Administration Quarterly, February 1, 2003; 39(1): 10 - 40. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Kaiser Alternation, Inclusion and the European Union European Union Politics, December 1, 2002; 3(4): 445 - 458. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Bogaards The Uneasy Relationship between Empirical and Normative Types in Consociational Theory Journal of Theoretical Politics, October 1, 2000; 12(4): 395 - 423. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. Barker and E. McLeay How Much Change?: An Analysis of the Initial Impact of Proportional Representation on the New Zealand Parliamentary Party System Party Politics, April 1, 2000; 6(2): 131 - 154. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Coultrap From Parliamentarism to Pluralism: Models of Democracy and the European Union's `Democratic Deficit' Journal of Theoretical Politics, January 1, 1999; 11(1): 107 - 135. [Abstract] [PDF]