Different constitutional prescriptions, different (s)election – different representation? The case of four European second chambers

Bibliographic Data

ID19048853
AuthorsC Bloquet (0000-0003-0465-2682, Institute for Parliamentary Research (IParl), corresponding author), Franziska Carstensen (Institute for Parliamentary Research (IParl))
Year2026
Pages1-26
Publication date2026-05-14
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Legislative Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1357-2334 • E-ISSN: 1743-9337
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/13572334.2026.2668880
OpenAlexW7161143968
LanguageEN
References cited41

This paper examines how the constitutional roles of European second chambers relate to the type of representation their members adopt. Focusing on four cases – the French Sénat, the German Bundesrat, the Polish Senat and the Irish Seanad – it analyses the extent to which members of these chambers fulfil their intended representational roles – or take on others. Using attitudinal data collected in a comparative survey of members of the second chambers, the paper finds that while constitutional mandates are broadly consistent with members’ declared representational missions (e.g. territorial focus in France and Germany), these prescriptions alone are insufficient to fully explain their behaviour. The mode of (s)election, as well as general party incentives, also play an important role in explaining the kind of representation they believe in providing, and how this may differ from what the constitution originally intended.

European union · Education, Psychology, and Complexity Research · Legal Language and Interpretation · Political Systems and Governance

Tools

Open DOI