Abstract
The book Bicameralism, by George Tsebelis and Jeannette Money, was published in 1997 by New York: Cambridge University Press. As indicated by the sober title, the authors study bicameralism, or a “legislature that involves two distinct chambers in its deliberation” – from the Latin bi (two) and camera (chamber). George Tsebelis and Jeannette Money are either Professor (or Assistant Professor) of Political Science at the University of California, Mr. Tsebelis in Los Angeles and Mrs. Money in Davis. Mr. Tsebelis is famous and often cited for his work published in 2002 entitled Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. This study focuses on the interaction between chambers, considering that forgetting this interaction is equivalent to studying unicameralism. This is a première in the study of bicameralism, which hasn't been studied much, and the authors therefore manage to come up with new conclusions on bicameralism, or correct preceding assertions from other authors.
The book is separated in three parts: the first two chapters establish the diversity of bicameral institutions, historically and geographically. In the next three chapters, the authors elaborate models for investigating the different aspects of bicameralism. Finally, the four subsequent chapters present empirical evidence corroborating the different predictions of the models. The authors focus on the French case, presented as especially interesting for its complexity. The study also pays attention to Germany, Japan, Switzerland, the United States and the European Union. This book review will also be separated in three parts. First of all, the main arguments will be summarised, and the most important points of the book will be highlighted. In a second part, I will try to establish a critic of the methods and the claims used and supported by the authors.
Extract
[...] The chapter concludes with the author wondering whether bicameralism has had the effects expected. Chapter in this chapter, the authors compel all the data on the different upper houses around the world. They also describe effectively, with another table, the different navette systems worldwide, as well as establishing the different institutions regulating intercameral relations (conference committee and unicameral procedures). The conclusions deduced are that the institutions vary widely one from another, which makes one wonder how this diversity can be explained and how can the weak upper houses impact on the legislature-making. [...]
[...] Book review: Bicameralism Introduction: The book Bicameralism, by George Tsebelis and Jeannette Money, was published in 1997 by New York: Cambridge University Press. As indicated by the sober title, the authors study bicameralism, or a "legislature that involves two distinct chambers in its deliberation"1 - from the Latin bi (two) and camera (chamber). George Tsebelis and Jeannette Money are either Professor (or Assistant Professor) of Political Science at the University of California, Mr. Tsebelis in Los Angeles and Mrs. Money in Davis. [...]
[...] This chapter of the book was again very hard to read and understand; the final outcome of conference committees depends on bicameral restrictions and the committee yolk/features. Chapter this chapter presents a case study of the French republic to test the models of chapter 4. The empirical study led by the authors is coherent with the conclusions elaborated in chapter 4. Chapter as titled, this chapter is centred on the process of intercameral bargaining, again by studying empirically the French case. [...]
[...] Finally, the authors put a stress on the impact of bicameralism and of the institutions regulating bicameralism on legislative outcomes. Chapter by chapter, let's briefly summarise the main points argued and developed by the authors. Chapter in this chapter, the authors retrace the origins of bicameralism to Ancient Greece. The authors also define two dimensions for the analysis of the legislatures. First of all, there is the efficient dimension, meaning the common interests of the both houses (if the voted text goes in favour of both houses or not). [...]
[...] Thus, just criticising the form, this book was too specialised and inaccessible for the untrained reader. Moreover, I found the style of the authors (even though it is no literature) too heavy: they kept repeating themselves, maybe to sound more scientific, but this quickly made the book soporific. Overall, even if the subject interested me, it took me some time to find the courage to go through this book. The original claims of the book, as the authors concede, seem to be obvious (studying the interactions between chambers) yet the authors were precursors of this type of study. [...]
