Intergroup Bias in Parliamentary Rule Enforcement

    Abstract

    Political actors are often assigned roles requiring them to enforce rules without giving in-groups special treatment. But are such institutional roles likely to be successful? Here, I exploit a special case of exogenously assigned intergroup relations: debates in the Danish Parliament, in which Parliament chairmen drawn from parliamentary parties enforce speaking time. Analyzing 5,756 speeches scraped from online transcripts, I provide evidence that speech lengths are biased in favor of the presiding chairman’s party. On average, speakers of the same party as the presiding chairman give 5 percent longer speeches and are 5 percent more likely to exceed the speaking time limit. The paper contributes to the extant literature by demonstrating political intergroup bias in a natural setting, suggesting that group loyalties can supersede institutional obligations even in a “least likely” context of clear rules, complete observability, and a tradition of parliamentary cooperation.
    OriginalsprogEngelsk
    TidsskriftPolitical Research Quarterly
    Vol/bind69
    Udgave nummer4
    Sider (fra-til)692-702
    Antal sider12
    ISSN1065-9129
    DOI
    StatusUdgivet - 1 dec. 2016

    Emneord

    • Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet

    Fingeraftryk

    Dyk ned i forskningsemnerne om 'Intergroup Bias in Parliamentary Rule Enforcement'. Sammen danner de et unikt fingeraftryk.

    Citationsformater