ABSTRACT

Theories of parliamentary committees are often contradictory and recent studies have emphasised the need for theoretically-informed qualitative analyses of committee practices. In this paper we draw from 81 interviews with Finnish politicians, party employees, and parliamentary officials to analyse seven theoretical propositions. We show that contradictory theories to hold true under different conditions, allowing individual theories to both underestimate and overestimate committee importance if the interactions between factors are not considered. Based on the findings, we argue that theories have so far overlooked variation in the level of partisanship associated with individual bills. We identify factors that influence levels of partisanship and techniques to actively manage it. Finnish committees are controlled by political parties and the government coalition, but our analysis reveals that MPs have more freedom of maneuver than previously assumed. Overall, bargaining takes places during the committee stage but not so much within formal committee meetings.

摘要

议会委员会的理论往往是相互矛盾的，最近的研究强调了对委员会实践进行理论知情定性分析的必要性。在这篇论文中，我们从对芬兰政治家、政党雇员和议会官员的 81 次采访中得出结论，分析了七个理论命题。我们表明，相互矛盾的理论在不同条件下都成立，如果不考虑因素之间的相互作用，则允许个人理论低估和高估委员会的重要性。根据调查结果，我们认为，到目前为止，理论忽略了与个别法案相关的党派关系水平的变化。我们确定影响党派关系水平的因素和积极管理它的技术。芬兰的委员会由政党和政府联盟控制，但我们的分析表明，国会议员的行动自由度比之前假设的要大。总的来说，讨价还价发生在委员会阶段，而不是在正式的委员会会议上。