| dc.description.abstract | The Parliamentary Powers Index (PPI) is the most recent and best-known index of legislative powers. Published in 2009, the PPI analysed 32 legislative powers, covering areas from executive removal to legislative staffing. Constitutional rules and a survey of subject experts were used to generate a score for each parliament. Despite its ubiquity in legislative studies, the Index has encountered criticisms for its approach. Scholars noted that it generated many tie scores between legislatures, making differentiation difficult, as well as containing a distinct bias towards parliamentary systems over others. One matter, Index ties, was addressed by the later Weighted Legislative Powers Survey, but that study retained many of the biases of the original PPI methodology. This thesis uses a new methodology to address these issues and to create a more accurate portrayal of legislative powers by analysing the operational rules and conventions of legislatures. This analysis is supported by information from interviews with high-level legislative staff. The purpose of the thesis is to test this methodology alone and against the PPI, observing any changes to its outcomes. To complete this task, primary legislative powers are analysed to assign a range of scores to the primary legislative powers to create an overall score for each legislature. These scores will also be reinserted into the PPI to see how the method affects its outcomes. The thesis shows that focusing in detail on the rules and conventions creates a more accurate understanding of legislative powers. It removed index ties while properly grouping legislatures. To assess legislative powers properly, rules and conventions must be a primary tool of analysis. | en_US |
