Czech Republic

Linek, Lukáš; Lacina, Tomáš

doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01948.x

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While Josef Tošovský's government in 1998 contained a majority of party representatives (including some who had been ministers in the previous Vaclac Klaus cabinet), Jan Fischer's 2009–2010 government was more like those of Lamberto Dini and Monti in Italy in the sense that it did not include any party representatives (Hanley ). However, it is worth noting that the members of Fischer's cabinet were all explicitly nominated by specific parties – a factor which seems to us to render it slightly less distant from the parties than the executives of Dini and Monti (Linek & Lacina ). In this sense, we agree with Rudy Andeweg (: 128) that, when assessing the partyness of government, ‘as a rule of thumb, the nature of the nominators should usually tip the balance in the diagnosis’.…”

Section: Composition Of Technocrat‐led Governmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the meantime, the Czech Republic was faced with a severe economic crisis, which required the adoption of strong austerity measures. As a result, the Fischer administration went from being a ‘nonpartisan caretaker’ to what we term a ‘full technocratic government’ for most of its time in office (Linek & Lacina : 939). We could also say that the Monti government made the opposite journey.…”

Section: Real‐existing Full Technocratic Governmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defining and classifying technocrat‐led and technocratic governments

McDonnell

Valbruzzi

2014

European J Political Res

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governments led by technocrats remain a nebulous category in political science literature, with little clarity about how they differ from party governments, how many have existed and how we can differentiate between them. This article aims to provide that conceptual and empirical clarity. Having proposed an ideal type definition of ‘technocratic government’, it sets out three conditions for an operational definition of a ‘technocrat’ and, on that basis, lists the 24 technocrat‐led governments that have existed in 27 European Union (EU) democracies from the end of the Second World War until June 2013. It then classifies these according to their partisan/technocrat composition and remit. This allows for the presentation of a typology of four different types of technocrat‐led governments and the definition of ‘full technocratic governments’ as those which contain a majority of technocrats and – unlike caretaker governments – have the capacity to change the status quo. The article concludes that full technocratic governments remain extremely rare in EU democracies since there have been only six cases – of which three have occurred in the last decade.

show abstract

Section: Composition Of Technocrat‐led Governmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Real‐existing Full Technocratic Governmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining and classifying technocrat‐led and technocratic governments

McDonnell

Valbruzzi

2014

European J Political Res

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Supporting our theory, the long‐term predominance of the sociocultural dimension in the protest arena is consistent with the content and strength of the master‐issue dimension of Czech party politics, as the economic dimension was a strong master‐issue dimension there throughout the period studied (Mansfeldová : 221; Kopecký : 120). The issues of economic transformation dominated the 1990s, and economic issues such as taxes, health care and pensions have structured party politics ever since (Linek & Lacina ). Since 1996, the economic dimension was the focal issue dimension of the two largest political parties: the Czech Social Democratic Party, which was the dominant party on the left side of the political spectrum, and the Civic Democratic Party, which was the dominant party on the right.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

National protest agenda and the dimensionality of party politics: Evidence from four East‐Central European democracies

Císař

Vráblíková

2019

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary democracies show considerable differences in the issue composition of their protest politics, which tends to remain relatively stable over time. In countries like Germany or the Czech Republic, the vast majority of protests have been mobilised around sociocultural issues, such as human rights, peace, nuclear power or the environment, and only a tiny portion of protest has focused on economic issues. At the opposite extreme, protest in France or Poland usually has a strongly economic character and voices demands relating to material redistribution and social policy. What lies behind the cross‐country differences in national protest agendas? In this article, the national protest agenda depends on what issues mainstream political parties are contesting: the content and strength of the master‐issue dimension. In reference to the literature on the multidimensional political space and niche political parties, one should expect that there is a substitutive effect; where the stronger a specific master‐issue dimension is in party politics, the less salient that issue dimension is in protest politics. This substitutive effect results from the tendency of electoral politics to reduce political conflict to a single‐dimension equilibrium, which decreases the importance of other issues and relegates the contest over secondary, niche issues to the realm of policy‐seeking strategies, with protest being a common type of this political strategy. In party systems where single‐dimension equilibrium does not exist and the master‐issue dimension is weaker, the same dynamics result in a more convergent relationship between party and protest politics and a greater similarity between the protest‐ and party‐system agendas. To investigate this theory, the national protest agendas in four countries are examined. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia show four combinations of two crucial factors that are not available in the old Western democracies: the content and the strength of the master‐issue dimension. The study draws on an original dataset of protest events organised in the four countries between 1993 and 2010, and on qualitative and quantitative data on issue dimensions of party politics obtained from studies on party politics and expert surveys. The results show that in the Czech Republic, where the master‐issue dimension has remained strongly economic, protest has been predominantly sociocultural. In Poland between 1993 and 2001 and Hungary between 1993 and 2006, the master‐issue dimensions are strongly sociocultural, while protest is predominantly economic. There is no single‐dimension equilibrium in party politics in Slovakia or in post‐2001 Poland and mainstream parties compete on both economic and sociocultural issues. Consequently, the substitutive dynamics between party and protest politics is weaker and the issue agendas in party and protest arenas are here more alike.

show abstract

“…In September 2009, however, the Constitutional Court annulled the Act under which the dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies and the early elections were to take place. The political parties finally agreed to hold the elections at the time they were due – on 28 and 29 May 2010 (see Linek & Lacina 2010). Thus, the election campaign went on from March 2009 to May 2010 with short breaks.…”

Section: National Election Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%