Cabinets and Decision-Making Processes: Re-Assessing the Literature1

Abstract

One very promising way when it comes to illustrate how cabinets work and to classify them is to look at their internal decision-making processes. In this paper, I give a new and comprehensive picture of cabinets in parliamentary and semipresidential systems on this basis. In particular, in the first part, I review what the literature has proposed in this respect. Secondly, after illustrating some shortcomings of the works at issue, I present, proceeding from a famous Andeweg's proposal, a new typology of cabinets based on two dimensions. For each of the eight ideal-types stemming from it, some empirical examples are illustrated.Key words: Cabinet, Decision-Making, Typology, Prime Minister, Executive.1 INTRODUCTIONCabinet government is a very widespread system of government. Nowadays, not only almost all European countries are ruled through it, but also some of the most important extra-European democracies - such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, Israel - rely on it. Therefore, understanding how cabinets take decisions can be a very noteworthy operation in order to obtain a better knowledge of a central feature of these countries.A cabinet is the apex of the executive in parliamentary systems.3 It is made up of a set of ministers coordinated by a prime minister in a context of (formal4) collegiality. In semi-presidential democracies, this institution shares the governmental functions with a chief of State elected by the people. One of its main characteristic is that, in order to survive, it needs the confidence of Parliament.5To study the internal cabinet decision-making, two dimensions, more than others, seem to be useful: the internal distribution of power and the degree of centralisation of the decision-making process.6 These dimensions provide the general structural features of the decision-making.The main aim of the article is to offer a new typology of cabinets according to their internal decision-making processes. Initially, I will review some attempts of classification and typologies of cabinets in the literature. Then, I will point out their main problems and their strong points. Subsequently, I will advance my new proposal by means, in particular, of a re-assessment of a work by Andeweg; it will be argued that cabinets can be grouped into a limited number of ideal-types, and examples drawn from the real world will be brought forward. Some brief and preliminary annotations about the possible uses of this framework for further researches will be finally suggested.2 CLASSIFICATIONS AND TYPOLOGIES IN THE LITERATURE: THE STATE OF THE ARTYears ago, Philip Selznick wrote that '[d]ecision-making' is one of those fashionable phrases that may well obscure more than it illuminates.7 Nonetheless, a specification of models or types of cabinets on the basis of their decision-making processes seems to be a viable road to follow, and indeed many authors have chosen this path.Almost all8 classifications and typologies9 of cabinets in the politological literature are built having in mind two - or at least one of two - crucial aspects of the decision-making process, namely who takes decisions (or, in other words, who has the decisive power) and how s/he does so (that is, how s/he exercises his or her decisive power).10First of all, it is worth taking into account the classic dichotomy prime ministerial vs. cabinet government, applied in particular - but not only - to the United Kingdom.11 In the former, the prime minister is a real primus: the power is concentrated in his or her hands, s/he leads the life of the cabinet, sets the executive goals and determines the general governmental policy, and is able to give instructions to ministers within their jurisdiction. In the latter, on the contrary, the power is equally (or almost equally) distributed among ministers, and hence the head of government is only a first among equals.12But this dichotomy is rather simplistic and does not give a complete picture of the complex reality. …