Review Article: A Structured Review of Semi-Presidential Studies: Debates, Results and Missing Pieces

Jenny Åberg,Thomas Sedelius

doi:10.1017/s0007123418000017

Abstract

This study maps the general lines of semi-presidential research with regard to theory, topics and methods. It identifies research gaps and provides recommendations for future studies. The review includes a general screening of 327 publications covering the period 1970–2015, and a close reading of sixty-five selected publications. The findings suggest that the inconsistent use of regime type definitions has limited the possibilities for generalizations. The study tracks the influence of some seminal articles, as well as the recent trend of focusing on the role and powers of the president. The article calls for more studies beyond Europe, and suggests that the field would benefit from including Historical and Normative Institutionalism. Finally, it suggests the need for studies on public administration that are relevant to the functioning of semi-presidential government.

Highlights

In the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, the number of countries with a semi-presidential form of government rose sharply
Summaries and the tables of contents of selected books, we ended up with a second sample of 327 peer-reviewed items, which either include semi-presidentialism as a term or that mention some institutional aspect of a particular semi-presidential country or countries
Assessing the main research themes of semi-presidentialism (Table 4), we find, quite expectedly, that formal institutions and the regime type as such is clearly the most common – identified in 150 cases and predominantly as an independent variable

Summary

Introduction

In the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, the number of countries with a semi-presidential form of government rose sharply. The varied definitions have been carefully illuminated in three review articles.[8] Elgie[9] describes the development as one characterized by three waves, whereby the main research focus has gradually shifted from definitional debates to aspects of democratic survival, and from there to the influence and role of the president. Notwithstanding these variations, the influence of a few seminal articles has afforded a degree of commonality within the field.[10] Juan Linz’s11 argument, to the effect that both presidentialism and semi-presidentialism contain inherent institutional perils, has ‘established the terms of the debate’. Gradual change does not necessarily imply a ‘move beyond’ a particular theoretical lens

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Conclusion