Understanding parliamentary reform
in Parliamentary reform at Westminster
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Institutions can purchase access to individual titles; please contact manchesterhive@manchester.ac.uk for pricing options.


If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

This book has used historical institutionalism because it not only forces us to take the long-term view of an institution's development, but also gives us insights into norms and values, institutional contexts, agents and ideas, path dependency and critical junctures, all of which assist in the analysis of institutional persistence and change. It is in facilitating consideration of the context in which parliament and its reform exist that the application of the historical institutionalist lens provides the most value. The historical development of the Westminster parliament in Britain points to three central norms and values that contribute to its structured institutional context: parliamentary sovereignty, ministerial responsibility, and party government. Parliamentary reform is pursued as a means to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 24 8 0
Full Text Views 14 0 0
PDF Downloads 10 0 0