Understanding Government Survival

Empirical Exploration or Analytical Models?

Michael Laver, Kenneth A. Shepsle

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    We should begin our reply to Paul Warwick by stating how very flattered we are by the diligent attention that he has given to our work on government formation. In particular, we are delighted that he has taken up and applied the simulation technology that we suggested as a way to explore cabinet stability, a matter on which we were beginning to feel like voices wailing in the wilderness. This is not the place to bore readers of the Journal with detailed points of issue between us, of which there are obviously many. We want here to concentrate upon some larger issues provoked by Warwick's critique. These involve a debate on cabinet stability and duration between a school of thought, in Warwick's corner, that is essentially empiricist in its outlook and a school of thought, in ours, that takes analytical modelling as being more fundamental. This is a theme touched upon by Kaare Strom in his recent review essay on parliamentary democracy.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)395-401
    Number of pages7
    JournalBritish Journal of Political Science
    Volume29
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - 1999

    Fingerprint

    parliamentary democracy
    simulation

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Sociology and Political Science

    Cite this

    Understanding Government Survival : Empirical Exploration or Analytical Models? / Laver, Michael; Shepsle, Kenneth A.

    In: British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1999, p. 395-401.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Laver, Michael ; Shepsle, Kenneth A. / Understanding Government Survival : Empirical Exploration or Analytical Models?. In: British Journal of Political Science. 1999 ; Vol. 29, No. 2. pp. 395-401.
    @article{2c444395b0ed490797974e22b91fb175,
    title = "Understanding Government Survival: Empirical Exploration or Analytical Models?",
    abstract = "We should begin our reply to Paul Warwick by stating how very flattered we are by the diligent attention that he has given to our work on government formation. In particular, we are delighted that he has taken up and applied the simulation technology that we suggested as a way to explore cabinet stability, a matter on which we were beginning to feel like voices wailing in the wilderness. This is not the place to bore readers of the Journal with detailed points of issue between us, of which there are obviously many. We want here to concentrate upon some larger issues provoked by Warwick's critique. These involve a debate on cabinet stability and duration between a school of thought, in Warwick's corner, that is essentially empiricist in its outlook and a school of thought, in ours, that takes analytical modelling as being more fundamental. This is a theme touched upon by Kaare Strom in his recent review essay on parliamentary democracy.",
    author = "Michael Laver and Shepsle, {Kenneth A.}",
    year = "1999",
    doi = "10.1017/S0007123499210174",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "29",
    pages = "395--401",
    journal = "British Journal of Political Science",
    issn = "0007-1234",
    publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Understanding Government Survival

    T2 - Empirical Exploration or Analytical Models?

    AU - Laver, Michael

    AU - Shepsle, Kenneth A.

    PY - 1999

    Y1 - 1999

    N2 - We should begin our reply to Paul Warwick by stating how very flattered we are by the diligent attention that he has given to our work on government formation. In particular, we are delighted that he has taken up and applied the simulation technology that we suggested as a way to explore cabinet stability, a matter on which we were beginning to feel like voices wailing in the wilderness. This is not the place to bore readers of the Journal with detailed points of issue between us, of which there are obviously many. We want here to concentrate upon some larger issues provoked by Warwick's critique. These involve a debate on cabinet stability and duration between a school of thought, in Warwick's corner, that is essentially empiricist in its outlook and a school of thought, in ours, that takes analytical modelling as being more fundamental. This is a theme touched upon by Kaare Strom in his recent review essay on parliamentary democracy.

    AB - We should begin our reply to Paul Warwick by stating how very flattered we are by the diligent attention that he has given to our work on government formation. In particular, we are delighted that he has taken up and applied the simulation technology that we suggested as a way to explore cabinet stability, a matter on which we were beginning to feel like voices wailing in the wilderness. This is not the place to bore readers of the Journal with detailed points of issue between us, of which there are obviously many. We want here to concentrate upon some larger issues provoked by Warwick's critique. These involve a debate on cabinet stability and duration between a school of thought, in Warwick's corner, that is essentially empiricist in its outlook and a school of thought, in ours, that takes analytical modelling as being more fundamental. This is a theme touched upon by Kaare Strom in his recent review essay on parliamentary democracy.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85013936738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85013936738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1017/S0007123499210174

    DO - 10.1017/S0007123499210174

    M3 - Article

    VL - 29

    SP - 395

    EP - 401

    JO - British Journal of Political Science

    JF - British Journal of Political Science

    SN - 0007-1234

    IS - 2

    ER -