Abstract
This article engages with Meg Russell and Ruxandra Serban's (2021) argument that the Westminster model is 'a concept stretched beyond repair' that deserves 'to be retired'. We examine the logic, theory and methods that led to such a powerful, potent and provocative argument. We suggest their approach may have inadvertently 'muddied' an already muddled concept. We assess the implications of 'muddying' for their conclusion that the Westminster model is, in essence, a dead concept in need of a decent funeral. We suggest the concept is 'stretched but not snapped' by developing a simple four-perspective broadening of the analytical lens. This approach aids understanding about what the concept covers, how it is operationalized and why it remains useful in comparative research.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 353-369 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Government and Opposition |
| Volume | 57 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Early online date | 3 Nov 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 30 Apr 2022 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Keywords
- Westminster model
- democracy
- comparative politics
- concepts
- interpretivism
- interpretivism, institutionalism
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of ''Stretched but not snapped': a response to Russell & Serban on Retiring the 'Westminster Model''. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver