Abstract:In the German parliament, the Bundestag, floor time is a scarce resource and is allocated to MPs by leaders of their respective parliamentary party groups. Previous research indicates that highly salient plenary debates tend to be dominated by party leaders and other loyal frontbenchers. Plenary speeches can therefore offer only limited insights into party unity. Any MP can give a so-called ‘explanation of vote’ (EoVs) to justify their voting decision and/or express their point of view. These written statement… Show more
“…Yet, if we combine speeches and EoVs the percentage of contested claims is higher, which indicates that some claims that remained undisputed on the plenary floor are challenged by MPs through EoVs and that MPs raise additional controversial issues in their written expressions. Supporting earlier findings (Bhattacharya, 2020), we also see that disagreement tended to be higher among government MPs than opposition MPs (see Figure 2). As confirmed by confidence intervals, for government MPs the combined contestedness is considerably higher (on average 15.6% contested claims compared to around 10% for speeches and EoVs individually), which tells us that for them in particular EoVs are an important outlet for communicating divergent views.Figure 1.Share of contested claims (left) and average contestedness score (right) for speeches, EoVs and all documents.Figure 2.Average share of contested claims for different document types by government MPs (left) and opposition MPs (right), with 95% confidence interval.…”
Section: Analytical Findingssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…There is empirical evidence from Italy (Giannetti and Pedrazzani, 2016) and Germany (Bhattacharya, 2020; Proksch and Slapin, 2015) that restrictive rules are used to enforce party discipline by excluding critical backbenchers. The next logical step in this research area is to examine the link between the diversity of the speakers’ list and the quality of ‘discursive representation’ (Dryzek and Niemeyer, 2008).…”
Section: Intra-parliamentary Rules and Legislative Speechmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In my previous work (Bhattacharya, 2020), I have introduced a contestedness score to identify the most disputed claims within legislative parties. Though the tool was first developed for the study of party unity, it can also be used to measure the intensity of direct confrontation over time and across communication channels.…”
Section: Analytical Findingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only little systematic research (Bäck et al, 2014; Bhattacharya, 2020; Giannetti and Pedrazzani, 2016; Proksch and Slapin, 2012, 2015) exists describing and comparing rules governing plenary floor access. This scholarship has shown that patterns of floor participation differ depending on whether floor time is allocated to MPs on an individual basis or via PPGs.…”
In parliaments with party-centred rules of speechmaking, like the German Bundestag, we observe an overrepresentation of loyal frontbenchers on the speakers’ list. Previous research shows that party-controlled access to the plenary floor limits opportunities to voice dissent, but we lack empirical investigation of the overall impact on the contestation in debates. This article presents a case study of Bundestag debates on the euro crisis, which estimates the discursive impact by comparing speeches with MPs’ written expressions, known as explanations of vote (EoVs), and introducing association rule mining in an innovative network analytical approach. The findings confirm that restrictive rules reduce the visibility of intra-party conflict and constrain the space for coherent narratives, backbench concerns and political alternatives at an aggregate level, raising questions about the democratic functions of parliamentary debates. In this case, MPs use EoVs as an alternative channel to promote transnational solidarity in a European crisis.
“…Yet, if we combine speeches and EoVs the percentage of contested claims is higher, which indicates that some claims that remained undisputed on the plenary floor are challenged by MPs through EoVs and that MPs raise additional controversial issues in their written expressions. Supporting earlier findings (Bhattacharya, 2020), we also see that disagreement tended to be higher among government MPs than opposition MPs (see Figure 2). As confirmed by confidence intervals, for government MPs the combined contestedness is considerably higher (on average 15.6% contested claims compared to around 10% for speeches and EoVs individually), which tells us that for them in particular EoVs are an important outlet for communicating divergent views.Figure 1.Share of contested claims (left) and average contestedness score (right) for speeches, EoVs and all documents.Figure 2.Average share of contested claims for different document types by government MPs (left) and opposition MPs (right), with 95% confidence interval.…”
Section: Analytical Findingssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…There is empirical evidence from Italy (Giannetti and Pedrazzani, 2016) and Germany (Bhattacharya, 2020; Proksch and Slapin, 2015) that restrictive rules are used to enforce party discipline by excluding critical backbenchers. The next logical step in this research area is to examine the link between the diversity of the speakers’ list and the quality of ‘discursive representation’ (Dryzek and Niemeyer, 2008).…”
Section: Intra-parliamentary Rules and Legislative Speechmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In my previous work (Bhattacharya, 2020), I have introduced a contestedness score to identify the most disputed claims within legislative parties. Though the tool was first developed for the study of party unity, it can also be used to measure the intensity of direct confrontation over time and across communication channels.…”
Section: Analytical Findingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only little systematic research (Bäck et al, 2014; Bhattacharya, 2020; Giannetti and Pedrazzani, 2016; Proksch and Slapin, 2012, 2015) exists describing and comparing rules governing plenary floor access. This scholarship has shown that patterns of floor participation differ depending on whether floor time is allocated to MPs on an individual basis or via PPGs.…”
In parliaments with party-centred rules of speechmaking, like the German Bundestag, we observe an overrepresentation of loyal frontbenchers on the speakers’ list. Previous research shows that party-controlled access to the plenary floor limits opportunities to voice dissent, but we lack empirical investigation of the overall impact on the contestation in debates. This article presents a case study of Bundestag debates on the euro crisis, which estimates the discursive impact by comparing speeches with MPs’ written expressions, known as explanations of vote (EoVs), and introducing association rule mining in an innovative network analytical approach. The findings confirm that restrictive rules reduce the visibility of intra-party conflict and constrain the space for coherent narratives, backbench concerns and political alternatives at an aggregate level, raising questions about the democratic functions of parliamentary debates. In this case, MPs use EoVs as an alternative channel to promote transnational solidarity in a European crisis.
“…Ghinoi and Steiner (2020) apply DNA to another specific group of actors-legislators from different parties-in their analysis of the climate debate in the Italian parliament. In the fourth article of this thematic issue, Bhattacharya (2020) introduces DNA to the comparative study of legislative politics by measuring party unity and party control in the German parliament with DNA, in a case study of the German response to the Euro crisis and the Greek bailout. This is a promising avenue for future research as we ultimately want to understand if and how discourse networks influence legislative behaviour and decisions.…”
Section: Contributions In This Thematic Issuementioning
Discourse network analysis (DNA) is a combination of network analysis and qualitative content analysis. DNA has been applied to various policy processes and debates to show how policy actors are related at the discursive level, complementing coordination relations among them that are often analysed in the application of the policy networks approach. This editorial takes stock of the theoretical and methodological research frontiers in DNA and summarises the contributions of the eleven articles in the thematic issue on “Policy Debates and Discourse Network Analysis” in <em>Politics and Governance</em>.
ZusammenfassungUmwelt- und Klimapolitik ist in den letzten Jahren zu einem äußerst relevanten Themenfeld des Parteienwettbewerbs in Deutschland avanciert, an welchem sich gut beobachten lässt, welche bedeutende Rolle spezifische Themen und Probleme im Wettbewerb um Wählerstimmen spielen. In diesem Artikel demonstrieren wir erstmalig, wie die Methode der Diskursnetzwerkanalyse zur Analyse solcher Themenwettbewerbe eingesetzt werden kann. Diskursnetzwerkanalysen verbinden die qualitative Inhaltsanalyse von Medienberichten mit Methoden der Sozialen Netzwerkanalyse und erlauben es so, über exakte Zeitfenster hinweg die Dynamik eines Themenwettbewerbs und die Interaktion von Parteien detailliert zu verfolgen und zu vergleichen. Dieses Potenzial demonstrieren wir am Beispiel des Issue-Wettbewerbs in der bayrischen Umweltpolitik in den Jahren 2018 und 2019. Ein besonderer Fokus liegt dabei auf der staatstragenden CSU, die im Landtagswahlkampf 2018 noch versuchte, mit ausgeprägten migrationspolitischen Forderungen Wähler der AfD abzuwerben. Ein Jahr später zündete Ministerpräsident und Parteichef Markus Söder hingegen ein ganzes „Feuerwerk“ an umwelt- und klimapolitischen Vorschlägen. Wie kam es zu dieser Neuausrichtung des Diskurses? Anhand von Zeitungsartikeln aus der Süddeutschen Zeitung und im Vergleich dreier Diskursperioden zeigen wir, wie sich die Salienz der Umweltpolitik im Diskursverlauf veränderte. Eine entscheidende Rolle spielte dabei vor allem das überaus erfolgreiche Volksbegehren „Rettet die Bienen“, infolgedessen sich der umweltpolitische Diskurs deutlich intensivierte und diversifizierte. Unsere Analyse zeigt, dass sich die CSU bedingt durch diese Dynamik und die Bedrohung durch die elektoralen Erfolge der Grünen, daraufhin gezwungen sah mit diesen in einen Wettkampf um die Issue-Ownership grüner Themen einzutreten.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
