LEGISLATURE
SitemapKey findings
Does the legislature have the capacity and
resources to monitor the executive?
resources to monitor the executive?
Parliament’s resources scores are weighted composites, with each of the five quantitative measures contributing one-fifth of the weighting.
Legislature scores
Legislature scoresKey findings: Legislature’s resources
Criterion ranking are split into four groups. In the score distribution graphs, click on the bars to see individual countries’ scores.
Top group
In this top group, parliaments have substantial resources at their disposal, and a well-optimized committee system.
The USA is some senses in a class by itself, with far more staffing and research resources available to its members than is the case in any other OECD country. However, South Korea compares favorably to other nations in these categories as well, with a committee structure deemed close to optimal.
The USA is some senses in a class by itself, with far more staffing and research resources available to its members than is the case in any other OECD country. However, South Korea compares favorably to other nations in these categories as well, with a committee structure deemed close to optimal.
Upper middle group
3
6.7
4
6.6
6.6
6.6
7
6.5
6.5
9
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
13
6.3
6.3
15
6.2
6.2
In this group, the sizes and structures of parliamentary committees are in general viewed as quite close to optimal, while expert staffing resources are comparatively more limited.
Parliaments in Sweden, Finland, Turkey, Hungary, Portugal, Norway, the Czech Republic and Switzerland all have a committee count and average committee size falling within optimal ranges. Turkey, Hungary, Portugal, Norway and Germany also score well in terms of governing party influence over committee chair decisions.
Legislators’ expert staff resources are particularly scarce in Portugal and New Zealand. Japan, Australia and Canada score well in this area within the context of this group. Australia, Canada and New Zealand also have comparatively high levels of staff research capacity available to the legislature as a whole.
Parliaments in Sweden, Finland, Turkey, Hungary, Portugal, Norway, the Czech Republic and Switzerland all have a committee count and average committee size falling within optimal ranges. Turkey, Hungary, Portugal, Norway and Germany also score well in terms of governing party influence over committee chair decisions.
Legislators’ expert staff resources are particularly scarce in Portugal and New Zealand. Japan, Australia and Canada score well in this area within the context of this group. Australia, Canada and New Zealand also have comparatively high levels of staff research capacity available to the legislature as a whole.
Lower middle group
17
6.1
6.1
6.1
20
6.0
21
5.9
22
5.8
23
5.7
24
5.6
In this group, committee sizes or the overall number of committees tends to be near optimal, while staff resources are comparatively low.
Committee counts in Greece, Italy and Iceland each fell within the optimum range, while Chile, the Netherlands and Denmark each had optimally sized committees. Slovakia, Poland and Italy each scored comparatively well with respect to government party control over committee chair decisions.
All countries in this group have minimal expert staff resources assigned to individual legislators, but Chile and the Netherlands have comparatively strong legislature-wide staff research capacities.
Greece and the Netherlands both saw declines in the efficiency of committee structures as compared to the SGI 2009.
Committee counts in Greece, Italy and Iceland each fell within the optimum range, while Chile, the Netherlands and Denmark each had optimally sized committees. Slovakia, Poland and Italy each scored comparatively well with respect to government party control over committee chair decisions.
All countries in this group have minimal expert staff resources assigned to individual legislators, but Chile and the Netherlands have comparatively strong legislature-wide staff research capacities.
Greece and the Netherlands both saw declines in the efficiency of committee structures as compared to the SGI 2009.
Bottom group
In this bottom group, elements of parliamentary committee structures are likely to be deemed inefficient, and the availability of expert staffing assistance is low.
Ireland, Austria and Luxembourg each have optimal committee sizes, but score comparatively poorly in terms of the number of committees. Mexico and the UK score particularly poorly on this committee count measure, with Austria improving substantially in this area since the SGI 2009, but remaining relatively far from optimum.
Expert staff resources are particularly limited for Luxembourg’s individual legislators, while Spain, Ireland and Luxembourg all offer comparatively slender research staff resources to the legislature as a whole.
Ireland, Austria and Luxembourg each have optimal committee sizes, but score comparatively poorly in terms of the number of committees. Mexico and the UK score particularly poorly on this committee count measure, with Austria improving substantially in this area since the SGI 2009, but remaining relatively far from optimum.
Expert staff resources are particularly limited for Luxembourg’s individual legislators, while Spain, Ireland and Luxembourg all offer comparatively slender research staff resources to the legislature as a whole.