Content area
Full Text
The term ‘Westminster model’ appears frequently in both the academic and practitioner literatures and will be familiar to many specialists in comparative politics, public administration and law. 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? This article suggests that while ostensibly serving as a ‘model’ in the comparative literature, the term instead risks inducing muddle and unclear thinking.
Following Giovanni Sartori's (2009 [1984]) advice for ‘reconstructing’ a social science term whose meaning may be unclear, our article analyses uses of the term ‘Westminster model’ and its equivalents in the academic literature since 1999. We find that, while the term occurs frequently in comparative texts, authors’ interpretations of it are often unclear. Definitions are often absent, and, where present, they are frequently partial, divergent and sometimes even mutually contradictory. If a dominant interpretation exists, this is probably of a majoritarian parliamentary system – but such use is far from universal. It would be far better, if focusing on such systems, to state this explicitly. Too frequently scholars’ use of the term implies that empirical findings in single country or small-n studies have broader scope – which risks feeding flawed inferences and encouraging false generalization. In order to avoid this, and to bring greater clarity to debates, we propose that the ‘Westminster model’ should now be retired from comparative politics – and more precise terms, based on authors’ specific variables of interest, be put in its place.
The article proceeds as follows. First, we summarize the roots and general uses of the term ‘Westminster model’, which began as a descriptor in British politics, but developed over time to take on a more widely comparative use. We then review the literature on concept formation in political science, to consider the reasonable expectations for a useful political science term. Next, we briefly outline our methods. The substantive part of the article is then structured around three key questions. First, to what extent do authors define the Westminster model at all? Second, where it is defined, what are its suggested meanings and how much consistency exists? Third, having determined (as far as is possible) what the Westminster model is thought to mean, where...