Government formation in Central and Eastern Europe

• Figures and tables
• p. 9

• 1
• Introduction
• p. 13

• 1.1
• The research question and its relevance
• p. 13

• 1.2
• Aim of the study, case selection, data and method
• p. 15

• 1.3
• Short outlook: research contribution and results
• p. 16

• 1.4
• Structure of the study
• p. 17

• 2
• Current state of research and research context
• p. 19

• 2.1
• Theoretical approaches and empirical background
• p. 19

• 2.1.1
• Government formation as a subject of coalition research
• p. 19

• 2.1.1.1
• Established democracies
• p. 19

• 2.1.1.2
• Central and Eastern Europe
• p. 23

• 2.1.2
• The formation of minority governments
• p. 29

• 2.1.2.1
• Established democracies
• p. 29

• 2.1.2.2
• Central and Eastern Europe
• p. 32

• 2.2
• Methodological approaches
• p. 34

• 2.2.1
• Approaches in coalition research: an overview
• p. 34

• 2.2.2
• A Qualitative Comparative Analysis: placement of the study at hand
• p. 36

• 2.2.2.1
• Three steps of a QCA
• p. 36

• 2.2.2.2
• Purposes of a QCA
• p. 37

• 2.3
• Summary: identification of the research gap
• p. 38

• 3
• Cases and data
• p. 39

• 3.1
• Definitions
• p. 39

• 3.2
• Case selection
• p. 40

• 3.3
• Data base
• p. 43

• 3.3.1
• Election data
• p. 43

• 3.3.2
• Information on government formation processes
• p. 43

• 3.3.3
• Measuring policy preferences
• p. 44

• 3.3.3.1
• Two main approaches: manifesto analyses and expert surveys
• p. 44

• 3.3.3.2
• Author's approach
• p. 49

• 4
• Factors influencing the formation of minority governments: discussion of their transferability to Central and Eastern Europe
• p. 51

• 4.1
• Institutional context
• p. 51

• 4.1.1
• Government formation rules
• p. 51

• 4.1.2
• Government termination rules
• p. 53

• 4.1.3
• Functioning of the parliament
• p. 54

• 4.2
• Electoral decisiveness
• p. 57

• 4.3
• Consensual democracy
• p. 58

• 4.4
• Party system factors
• p. 59

• 4.4.1
• Numerical dimension
• p. 60

• 4.4.2
• Ideological dimension
• p. 62

• 4.5
• Result: focus on five party system factors
• p. 69

• 4.5.1
• Strong divide
• p. 70

• 4.5.2
• Two-party doimnance
• p. 71

• 4.5.3
• Lack of policy closeness
• p. 71

• 4.5.4
• High percentage of 'non-coalitionable' parties
• p. 72

• 4.5.5
• Party near to majority
• p. 73

• 5
• Case descriptions
• p. 75

• 5.1
• Bulgaria
• p. 76

• 5.1.1
• Bulgarian Election 1991
• p. 76

• 5.1.2
• Bulgarian Election 2001
• p. 79

• 5.1.3
• Bulgarian Election 2005
• p. 83

• 5.1.4
• Bulgarian Election 2009
• p. 88

• 5.2
• Czech Republic
• p. 92

• 5.2.1
• Czech Election 1996
• p. 92

• 5.2.2
• Czech Election 1998
• p. 96

• 5.2.3
• Czech Election 2002
• p. 101

• 5.2.4
• Czech Election 2006
• p. 105

• 5.2.5
• Czech Election 2010
• p. 109

• 5.3
• Estonia
• p. 112

• 5.3.1
• Estonian Election 1992
• p. 112

• 5.3.2
• Estonian Election 1995
• p. 115

• 5.3.3
• Estonian Election 1999
• p. 118

• 5.3.4
• Estonian Election 2003
• p. 121

• 5.3.5
• Estonian Election 2007
• p. 126

• 5.4
• Latvia
• p. 131

• 5.4.1
• Latvian Election 1993
• p. 131

• 5.4.2
• Latvian Election 1995
• p. 135

• 5.4.3
• Latvian Election 1998
• p. 139

• 5.4.4
• Latvian Election 2002
• p. 142

• 5.4.5
• Latvian Election 2006
• p. 147

• 5.4.6
• Latvian Election 2010
• p. 150

• 5.5
• Lithuania
• p. 154

• 5.5.1
• Lithuanian Election 2000
• p. 154

• 5.5.2
• Lithuanian Election 2004
• p. 159

• 5.5.3
• Lithuanian Election 2008
• p. 162

• 5.6
• Poland
• p. 166

• 5.6.1
• Polish Election 1991
• p. 166

• 5.6.2
• Polish Election 1993
• p. 170

• 5.6.3
• Polish Election 1997
• p. 174

• 5.6.4
• Polish Election 2001
• p. 177

• 5.6.5
• Polish Election 2005
• p. 183

• 5.6.6
• Polish Election 2007
• p. 189

• 5.7
• Romania
• p. 193

• 5.7.1
• Romanian Election 1992
• p. 193

• 5.7.2
• Romanian Election 1996
• p. 196

• 5.7.3
• Romanian Election 2000
• p. 200

• 5.7.4
• Romanian Election 2004
• p. 205

• 5.7.5
• Romanian Election 2008
• p. 210

• 5.8
• Slovakia
• p. 214

• 5.8.1
• Slovak Election 1994
• p. 214

• 5.8.2
• Slovak Election 1998
• p. 217

• 5.8.3
• Slovak Election 2002
• p. 220

• 5.8.4
• Slovak Election 2006
• p. 226

• 5.8.5
• Slovak Election 2010
• p. 230

• 6
• The formation of minority governments in Central and Eastern Europe: a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
• p. 235

• 6.1
• The analytic moment
• p. 235

• 6.1.1
• Threshold setting: presence and absence of conditions
• p. 235

• 6.1.2
• Summary of the data: truth table
• p. 236

• 6.3.2.1
• Errors: contradictory configurations
• p. 238

• 6.1.2.1
• Missing empirical equivalence: logical remainders
• p. 240

• 6.1.3
• Minimisation of the data: solution term
• p. 240

• 6.1.3.1
• Three equifinal paths
• p. 242

• 6.1.3.2
• Explanatory power of the solution term: consistency and coverage
• p. 243

• 6.1.3.3
• Bifurcation of the party system as a 'necessary condition'
• p. 245

• 6.1.3.4
• Country- or time-specific aspects
• p. 246

• 6.1.3.5
• Different paths to formation, different degrees of stability?
• p. 247

• 6.2
• Downstream: interpretation
• p. 247

• 6.2.1
• A closer look at single conditions
• p. 248

• 6.2.1.1
• Strong divide
• p. 248

• 6.2.1.2
• Lacking policy closeness
• p. 249

• 6.2.2
• A closer look at single cases
• p. 251

• 6.2.2.1
• Czech Republic 1998: the 'prime example'!?
• p. 251

• 6.2.2.2
• Czech Republic 2002: Contradictory configuration Part 1
• p. 253

• 6.2.2.3
• Romania 2000: Contradictory configuration Part 2
• p. 254

• 6.2.2.4
• Latvia 1998: a minority government behaving like a majority government
• p. 255

• 6.2.2.5
• Latvia 1993: a case 'falling between two stools'
• p. 255

• 6.2.2.6
• A common denominator: the influence of personal relationships
• p. 256

• 6.3
• Summary
• p. 257

• 7
• Conclusion and outlook
• p. 259

• 7.1
• Conclusion: the formation of minority governments in Central and Eastern Europe
• p. 259

• 7.1.1
• Party system features as explanatory factors
• p. 259

• 7.1.2
• QCA as a compelling approach for the study of government formation
• p. 262

• 7.2
• Outlook
• p. 264

• Appendices
• p. 267

• References
• p. 271