The Muddle of the ‘Westminster Model’: A Concept Stretched Beyond Repair

Abstract

The term ‘Westminster model’, widely used in both the academic and practitioner literatures, is a familiar one. But detailed examination finds significant confusion about its meaning. This article follows Giovanni Sartori's advice for ‘reconstructing’ a social science term whose meaning may be unclear through review of its use in the recent literature. It finds that many authors in comparative politics use the term ‘Westminster model’ without definition, while those providing definitions associate it with a large (and sometimes conflicting) set of attributes, and a set of countries often not demonstrating those attributes. Some have sought to respect this diversity by proposing variants like ‘Washminster’ or ‘Eastminster’, while others suggest that the term should be seen as a loose ‘family resemblance’ concept. But on examination it no longer meets even the – relatively weak – requirements for family resemblance. To end the muddle, and the risk of flawed inferences and false generalization, comparative scholars should drop this term, and select cases based on more precise attributes instead.

‘Stretched But Not Snapped’: A Response to Russell and Serban on Retiring the ‘Westminster Model’

“…‘The term “Westminster model” appears often in both the academic and practitioner literatures. It will be familiar to many specialists in comparative politics, public administration and law.’ R&S (2021: 744) ask in the opening line of their article: ‘But what precisely does it mean, and is there consistency in its application? If put under the microscope, can any clear meaning actually be discerned?…”

“…If put under the microscope, can any clear meaning actually be discerned? This article suggests that while ostensibly serving as a “model” in the comparative literature, the term instead risks inducing muddle and unclear thinking ’ (R&S 2021: 744, emphasis added). The aim of this section is to provide a brief account of the theory, methods and data that support R&S's suggestion that the Westminster model had become stretched ‘beyond repair’.…”

“…‘Hence the key is “reconstructing a concept from its literature ”' (Sartori 2009 [1984]: 121, italics in original). R&S (2021: 748) ‘take our cue from this suggestion’.…”

“…

This article engages with Meg Russell and Ruxandra Serban's (2020) argument that the Westminster model is 'a concept stretched beyond repair' that deserves 'to be retired'. We examine the logic, theory and methods that led to such a powerful, potent and provocative argument.

…”

“…The article ‘The Muddle of the “Westminster Model”: A Concept Stretched Beyond Repair’ reflects many institutional, cultural and sociopolitical shifts, but does the approach adopted by Meg Russell and Ruxandra Serban (2021, hereafter ‘R&S’) further muddy the concept rather than clarifying what the term covers and why it matters? The narrative about ‘a concept stretched beyond repair’ and conclusion that ‘it is time for the “Westminster model” to be retired’ poses a powerful, potent and provocative challenge that we would like to meet.…”