Ruxandra Serban
Biographic Data
| ID | 4379675 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Ruxandra Serban |
| GIVEN NAMES | Ruxandra |
| FAMILY NAME | Serban |
| SIGNATURE | SERBAN R |
| AFFILIATIONS | London School of Economics and Political Science |
| ORCID | 0000-0001-7331-9926 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 6 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 38 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 6 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2021 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2025 |
| H-INDEX | 4 |
Questions to the Prime Minister in the Canadian House of Commons
Parliamentary questions are important democratic accountability instruments, but little is known about how these procedures are reformed, and with what consequences. This paper uses the introduction of Prime Minister’s Question Period (PMQP) in the Canadian House of Commons in 2017 as a case study of questioning procedure reform. Under PMQP, the Prime Minister would answer all questions once a week, diverging from the traditional Question Period …
Conflictual behaviour in legislatures
Questioning mechanisms such as Prime Minister’s Questions in the United Kingdom and Question Time in Australia are notoriously adversarial. Much less is known about whether and how questioning facilitates conflict in other legislatures. This question is particularly important given the criticism that excessive adversarialism may hinder the performance of accountability, and hence may be detrimental to the work of legislatures. Building on legisla…
How are prime ministers held to account? Exploring procedures and practices in 31 parliamentary democracies
The relationship between governments and legislatures is founded upon a confidence agreement, whereby the executive derives its authority from, and is accountable to, the legislature. As heads of government, prime ministers are crucial political actors in parliamentary systems, yet there is little understanding of how they are held accountable by legislatures. What are the mechanisms through which parliamentarians may question them? How do such m…
Why it Is Indeed Time for the Westminster Model to Be Retired from Comparative Politics
The term ‘Westminster model’ is frequently used by political scientists and practitioners. But our recent examination (Russell and Serban 2021), published in this journal, uncovered wide variation in how it is defined – demonstrating that it is more ‘muddle’ than ‘model’. This sparked a response article from Flinders et al. (2021), which we in turn respond to in this piece. We briefly revisit our initial research questions, methodology and findin…
The practice of accountability in questioning prime ministers
This paper compares the practice of holding prime ministers to account in four case studies: Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Using text analysis, as well as research on prime ministerial responsibilities, it investigates oral questions asked in parliamentary procedures where prime ministers are questioned together with ministers (Question Period in Canada and Question Time in Australia) versus procedures where they are questio…
The Muddle of the ‘Westminster Model
The term ‘Westminster model’, widely used in both the academic and practitioner literatures, is a familiar one. But detailed examination finds significant confusion about its meaning. This article follows Giovanni Sartori's advice for ‘reconstructing’ a social science term whose meaning may be unclear through review of its use in the recent literature. It finds that many authors in comparative politics use the term ‘Westminster model’ without def…
The Muddle of the ‘Westminster Model
The term ‘Westminster model’, widely used in both the academic and practitioner literatures, is a familiar one. But detailed examination finds significant confusion about its meaning. This article follows Giovanni Sartori's advice for ‘reconstructing’ a social science term whose meaning may be unclear through review of its use in the recent literature. It finds that many authors in comparative politics use the term ‘Westminster model’ without def…
How are prime ministers held to account? Exploring procedures and practices in 31 parliamentary democracies
The relationship between governments and legislatures is founded upon a confidence agreement, whereby the executive derives its authority from, and is accountable to, the legislature. As heads of government, prime ministers are crucial political actors in parliamentary systems, yet there is little understanding of how they are held accountable by legislatures. What are the mechanisms through which parliamentarians may question them? How do such m…
Why it Is Indeed Time for the Westminster Model to Be Retired from Comparative Politics
The term ‘Westminster model’ is frequently used by political scientists and practitioners. But our recent examination (Russell and Serban 2021), published in this journal, uncovered wide variation in how it is defined – demonstrating that it is more ‘muddle’ than ‘model’. This sparked a response article from Flinders et al. (2021), which we in turn respond to in this piece. We briefly revisit our initial research questions, methodology and findin…
The practice of accountability in questioning prime ministers
This paper compares the practice of holding prime ministers to account in four case studies: Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Using text analysis, as well as research on prime ministerial responsibilities, it investigates oral questions asked in parliamentary procedures where prime ministers are questioned together with ministers (Question Period in Canada and Question Time in Australia) versus procedures where they are questio…
Conflictual behaviour in legislatures
Questioning mechanisms such as Prime Minister’s Questions in the United Kingdom and Question Time in Australia are notoriously adversarial. Much less is known about whether and how questioning facilitates conflict in other legislatures. This question is particularly important given the criticism that excessive adversarialism may hinder the performance of accountability, and hence may be detrimental to the work of legislatures. Building on legisla…
The practice of accountability in questioning prime ministers
This paper compares the practice of holding prime ministers to account in four case studies: Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Using text analysis, as well as research on prime ministerial responsibilities, it investigates oral questions asked in parliamentary procedures where prime ministers are questioned together with ministers (Question Period in Canada and Question Time in Australia) versus procedures where they are questio…
The Muddle of the ‘Westminster Model
The term ‘Westminster model’, widely used in both the academic and practitioner literatures, is a familiar one. But detailed examination finds significant confusion about its meaning. This article follows Giovanni Sartori's advice for ‘reconstructing’ a social science term whose meaning may be unclear through review of its use in the recent literature. It finds that many authors in comparative politics use the term ‘Westminster model’ without def…
How are prime ministers held to account? Exploring procedures and practices in 31 parliamentary democracies
The relationship between governments and legislatures is founded upon a confidence agreement, whereby the executive derives its authority from, and is accountable to, the legislature. As heads of government, prime ministers are crucial political actors in parliamentary systems, yet there is little understanding of how they are held accountable by legislatures. What are the mechanisms through which parliamentarians may question them? How do such m…
Why it Is Indeed Time for the Westminster Model to Be Retired from Comparative Politics
The term ‘Westminster model’ is frequently used by political scientists and practitioners. But our recent examination (Russell and Serban 2021), published in this journal, uncovered wide variation in how it is defined – demonstrating that it is more ‘muddle’ than ‘model’. This sparked a response article from Flinders et al. (2021), which we in turn respond to in this piece. We briefly revisit our initial research questions, methodology and findin…
Conflictual behaviour in legislatures
Questioning mechanisms such as Prime Minister’s Questions in the United Kingdom and Question Time in Australia are notoriously adversarial. Much less is known about whether and how questioning facilitates conflict in other legislatures. This question is particularly important given the criticism that excessive adversarialism may hinder the performance of accountability, and hence may be detrimental to the work of legislatures. Building on legisla…
Questions to the Prime Minister in the Canadian House of Commons
Parliamentary questions are important democratic accountability instruments, but little is known about how these procedures are reformed, and with what consequences. This paper uses the introduction of Prime Minister’s Question Period (PMQP) in the Canadian House of Commons in 2017 as a case study of questioning procedure reform. Under PMQP, the Prime Minister would answer all questions once a week, diverging from the traditional Question Period …
Law (5 works) · Law (5 works) · Political science (5 works) · Politics (5 works) · Sociology (5 works) · Political Systems and Governance (4 works) · Prime (order theory (4 works) · Accountability (3 works) · Public Administration (3 works) · Public Administration (3 works)