Ministerial responsibility in the 1990s: when do ministers resign?

Woodhouse, Diana

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pa.a052420

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Having analysed 205 resignation issues from the years 1945 to 1997, Dowding and Kang (1998, p. 425) make the following synopsis in their, by modern resignation research standards, groundbreaking article: ‘… ministers resign when they are forced to, rather than because of constitutional conventions they feel the need to abide by’. Woodhouse (1993) understands ministerial resignations also as usually an indicator of the state of ministerial responsibility. The absence of ministerial resignations in the early 1990s is logically interpreted as an ‘erosion’ (Woodhouse 1993, p. 291) of ministerial responsibility.…”

Section: The Results In An International Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Woodhouse (1993) understands ministerial resignations also as usually an indicator of the state of ministerial responsibility. The absence of ministerial resignations in the early 1990s is logically interpreted as an ‘erosion’ (Woodhouse 1993, p. 291) of ministerial responsibility. Nevertheless she regards ministerial responsibility along with political deliberations as determining factors in resignation decisions (Woodhouse 1994, pp.…”

Section: The Results In An International Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even international research on ministerial resignations has shown that resignation decisions – as in Germany – are to a great extent influenced by cost benefit calculations (Alderman and Cross 1985, pp. 387ff., 403; Page 1990, p. 155; Woodhouse 1993, p. 281; Thompson and Tillotsen 1999, p. 57; Blick 1999, p. 58; Mulgan 2002, p. 122). And one thing is clear: where political cost benefit calculations prevail, there is no place for traditional conventions like those of ministerial responsibility.…”

Section: The Results In An International Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ministers resign when they are forced to, rather than because of constitutional conventions they feel the need to abide by'. Woodhouse (1993) understands ministerial resignations also as usually an indicator of the state of ministerial responsibility. The absence of ministerial resignations in the early 1990s is logically interpreted as an 'erosion' (Woodhouse 1993, p. 291) of ministerial responsibility.…”

Section: The Results In An International Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the agent is guilty of a misdemeanour, then they are sanctioned for their wrong‐doing by the principal. According to this, the resignation or dismissal of the minister can be expected for gross misconduct: ‘Resignation is (…) at the extreme of the spectrum or scale of accountability’ (Woodhouse 1993, p. 279). Dowding and Dumont (2009, p. 1) offer a similar argument.…”

Section: Ministerial Responsibility and Ministerial Resignations: Thementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

‘…i Take Political Responsibility!’: The Theoretical and Empirical Relation Between Ministerial Responsibility and Ministerial Resignations in Germany

Fischer

2011

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How is the doctrine of ministerial responsibility applied in the decisions of German ministers (not) to resign? This question arises from an empirical puzzle as well as from a theoretical contradiction. Despite the prominent principle of ministerial responsibility, empirically, the ‘personal consequences' of ministerial scandals in their area of responsibility, display a large variance. Some ministers resign because of rather trifling affairs, others stay in office in spite of serious scandals. Taking into consideration the delegation relationship between the executive and the parliament, in view of the principal‐agent theory, a minister's resignation due to major political or personal misconduct is to be expected. On the other hand, the actual constitutional configuration of ministerial responsibility casts theoretical doubts on the ministerial loss of office. The quantitative analysis of 133 resignation issues in the years 1949 to 2009 reveals that ministerial responsibility bears no relevance to the decision whether to resign or not. Indeed, when the cause of the resignation issue is directly connected to ministerial responsibility, the probability of a resignation even decreases.

show abstract

Section: The Results In An International Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Results In An International Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Results In An International Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Results In An International Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ministerial Responsibility and Ministerial Resignations: Thementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

‘…i Take Political Responsibility!’: The Theoretical and Empirical Relation Between Ministerial Responsibility and Ministerial Resignations in Germany

Fischer

2011

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ministerial turnover in the German Länder (1991–2010)

Jäckle

2013

Z Vgl Polit Wiss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nutzungsbedingungen: Dieser Text wird unter einer Deposit-Lizenz (Keine Weiterverbreitung-keine Bearbeitung) zur Verfügung gestellt. Gewährt wird ein nicht exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments müssen alle Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise auf gesetzlichen Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses Dokument nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen Sie dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an. Terms of use: This document is made available under Deposit Licence (No Redistribution-no modifications). We grant a non-exclusive, nontransferable, individual and limited right to using this document. This document is solely intended for your personal, noncommercial use. All of the copies of this documents must retain all copyright information and other information regarding legal protection. You are not allowed to alter this document in any way, to copy it for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the document in public, to perform, distribute or otherwise use the document in public. By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated conditions of use.

show abstract

Worth the Wait: Determinants of Ministerial Appointment in Canada, 1935–2008

Kerby

2009

Can J Pol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe exploration of ministerial careers has attracted considerable attention among political scientists in recent years~Dewan and Dowding, 2005;Dowding and Kang, 1998; Martinez-Gallardo, 2004, 2008;Kam, 2006;Kam and Indridason, 2005;Laver and Shepsle, 1994;Sutherland, 1991a; Woodhouse, 1993! The purpose of this article is to present a new perspective on a burgeoning area of study by focusing on ministerial appointments rather than the determinants of ministerial exit or survival. This article introduces an original dataset of ministerial appointments for a single country, Canada, for the period 1935-2008. This dataset serves as the foundation for an event history model that highlights the causal mechanisms that underlie the ministerial appointment process while simultaneously considering the effects of time. The results of the event history analysis systematically confirm many commonly held assumptions regarding cabinet appointments in Canada; they emphasize the particular significance of gender and legal training as well as previous ministerial experience and leadership challenger status as characteristics that accelerate an appointment to cabinet. The article concludes with recommendations for continued research in this field of study.Some certainties can be put assumed when discussing ministerial appointments in Canada. First, most elected representatives to the House of Commons are ambitious and would welcome a seat at the cabinet table.Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank Kenneth Benoit, Keith Dowding, Patrick Dumont, Kelly Blidook, Eoin O'Malley, and Denise Ledoux, as well as the editors and anonymous reviewers of the CJPS, for their comments and suggestions.

show abstract

Ministerial responsibility in the 1990s: when do ministers resign?

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

‘…i Take Political Responsibility!’: The Theoretical and Empirical Relation Between Ministerial Responsibility and Ministerial Resignations in Germany

‘…i Take Political Responsibility!’: The Theoretical and Empirical Relation Between Ministerial Responsibility and Ministerial Resignations in Germany

Ministerial turnover in the German Länder (1991–2010)

Worth the Wait: Determinants of Ministerial Appointment in Canada, 1935–2008

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About