Skip Navigation


Parliamentary Affairs Advance Access originally published online on July 26, 2007
Parliamentary Affairs 2007 60(4):637-654; doi:10.1093/pa/gsm036
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
60/4/637    most recent
gsm036v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Anckar, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government; all rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Westminster Lilliputs? Parliaments in Former Small British Colonies

Dag Anckar*

Correspondence: * Dag Anckar is with the Department of Political Science, Åbo Akademi University, Department of Political Science, Biskopsgatan 15, 20500 Åbo 50, Finland. E-mail: dag.anckar{at}abo.fi

Taking a point of departure in rationalistic versus cultural and historical approaches to the study of political institutions, the article investigates to what extent former small British colonies did introduce at independence a Westminster-styled metropolitan conception of the legislature. The findings are that both approaches claim validity, although the diffusion perspective has the better of the rationality perspective. Only a small handful of the 24 colonies represent a perfect fit with the Westminster model, and only one colony represents a total rejection of the model. Concerning the transfer of individual devices, the plurality electoral method and the principle of cabinet dominance are well represented in the colonies; on the other hand, bicameralism and the principle of parliament sovereignty are less appreciated.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.