The Semi-Presidential Cases in Comparative Context

  • Tapio RaunioEmail author
  • Thomas Sedelius
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Presidential Politics book series (PASTPRPO)


This chapter sets Finland, Lithuania, and Romania in a comparative context of semi-presidentialism in Europe. It justifies the selection of cases by including them in a broader set of semi-presidential regimes and uses this comparison to provide a range of basic and institutional data for setting the stage for the subsequent chapters on executive coordination. It provides key indicators on semi-presidential subtypes (premier-presidentialism and president-parliamentarism): level of democracy, presidential power, intra-executive conflict, and cohabitation. Drawing on public opinion surveys, it also assesses general levels of institutional trust with an emphasis on public support for the presidency.


Semi-presidentialism Presidential powers Cohabitation Intra-executive conflict Public opinion 


  1. Åberg, J., & Denk, T. (2019, forthcoming). Diffusion as Explanation of Regime Choice at Democratization.Google Scholar
  2. Anckar, C. (1999). Semipresidentialism: En taxonomisk betraktelse. Historisk Tidskrift för Finland, 84(4), 495–518.Google Scholar
  3. Arter, D. (1999). Finland. In R. Elgie (Ed.), Semi-Presidentialism in Europe (pp. 48–66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvo- ja asennetutkimus/EVA Attitude and Value Survey. (2018). Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
  5. Bell, D. (2000). Presidential Politics in the Fifth Republic. London: Berg Publisher.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, D., & Gaffney, J. (2013). The Presidents of the French Fifth Republic. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beuman, L. M. (2016). Political Institutions in East Timor: Semi-Presidentialism and Democratisation. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blondel, J., & Penescu, I. (2001). Romania. In J. Blondel & F. Müller-Rommel (Eds.), Cabinets in Eastern Europe (pp. 109–119). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bucur, C. (2017, March 15). Romania: President Postpones Anti-Corruption Referendum. Presidential Power blog.
  10. Doyle, D., & Elgie, R. (2016). Maximizing the Reliability of Cross-National Measures of Presidential Power. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 731–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ekman, J., Duvold, K., & Berglund, S. (2014). Baltic Barometer 2014 [Datafile]. Huddinge: Södertörn University.Google Scholar
  12. Ekman, J., Duvold, K., & Berglund, S. (2016). Social-Political Survey in Central Europe [Datafile]. Huddinge: Södertörn University.Google Scholar
  13. Elgie, R. (Ed.). (1999). Semi-Presidentialism in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Elgie, R. (2010). Duverger, Semi-Presidentialism and the Supposed French Archetype. In E. Grossman & N. Sauger (Eds.), France’s Political Institutions at 50 (pp. 6–25). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Elgie, R. (2011). Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elgie, R. (2015). Presidential Power Scores. Dataset available at Presidential Power. Accessed 3 Oct 2018.
  17. Elgie, R. (2018a). Political Leadership: A Pragmatic Institutionalist Approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elgie, R. (2018b). List of Cohabitations. The Semi-Presidential One. Blog post by Robert Elgie. Accessed 7 Oct 2018.
  19. Elgie, R., & McMenamin, I. (2011). Explaining the Onset of Cohabitation under Semi-Presidentialism. Political Studies, 59(3), 616–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elgie, R., & Moestrup, S. (Eds.). (2008). Semi-Presidentialism in Central and Eastern Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Freedom in the World 2018. (2018). Accessed 4 Oct 2018.
  22. George, A. L., & Bennet, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gerghina, S., & Miscoiu, S. (2013). The Failure of Cohabitation: Explaining the 2007 and 2012 Institutional Crises in Romania. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures, 27(4), 668–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holm-Hansen, J. (2006). Litauen: sovjetrepublikken som fekk vesteuropeisk partimønster. In E. Bakke (Ed.), Sentral-Europa og Baltikum etter 1989. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.Google Scholar
  25. Jung, J. K., & Deering, C. J. (2015). Constitutional Choices: Uncertainty and Institutional Design in Democratizing Nations. International Political Science Review, 36(1), 60–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirschke, L. (2007). Semipresidentialism and the Perils of Power-Sharing in Neopatrimonial States. Comparative Political Studies, 40(11), 1372–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kitschelt, H. (1995). Formation of Party Cleavages in Post-Communist Democracies: Theoretical Propositions. Party Politics, 1(4), 447–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krupavičius, A. (2013). Lithuania’s President: A Formal and Informal Power. In V. Hloušek et al. (Eds.), Presidents Above Parties? Presidents in Central and Eastern Europe. Their Formal Competencies and Informal Power (pp. 205–232). Brno: Masaryk University.Google Scholar
  30. Lazardeux, S. G. (2015). Cohabitation and Conflicting Politics in French Policymaking. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lijphart, A., & Waisman, C. H. (Eds.). (2006). Institutional Design in New Democracies: Eastern Europe and Latin America. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  33. List of Electoral Systems by Country. (2018). Wikipedia. Accessed 2 Nov 2018.
  34. Nations in Transit 2018. (2018). Accessed 3 Oct 2018.
  35. New Baltic Barometer 1-6, CSPP School of Government & Public Policy at the University of Strathclyde. Accessed 2 Nov 2018.
  36. New Europe Barometer 2001. “NDB VI Autumn. Dataset SPP 364.”, CSPP School of Government & Public Policy at the University of Strathclyde. Accessed 15 Sept 2016.
  37. New Europe Barometer 2004. “NDB VII Winter. Dataset SPP 404.”, CSPP School of Government & Public Policy at the University of Strathclyde. Accessed 15 Sept 2016.
  38. Nørgaard, O., & Johannsen, L. (Eds.). (1999). The Baltic States After Independence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  39. Paloheimo, H. (2001). Divided Government in Finland: From a Semi-Presidential to a Parliamentary Democracy. In R. Elgie (Ed.), Divided Government in Comparative Perspective (pp. 86–105). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Protsyk, O. (2005). Politics of Intra-Executive Conflict in Semi-Presidential Regimes in Eastern Europe. East European Politics & Societies, 19(2), 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Protsyk, O. (2006). Intra-Executive Competition Between President and Prime Minister: Patterns of Institutional Conflict and Cooperation under Semi-Presidentialism. Political Studies, 54(2), 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Ragin, C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  44. Raunio, T., & Sedelius, T. (2017). Shifting Power-Centres of Semi-Presidentialism: Exploring Executive Coordination in Lithuania. Government and Opposition, First view.
  45. Sartori, G. (1994). Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sedelius, T. (2006). The Tug-of-War between Presidents and Prime Ministers: Semi-Presidentialism in Central and Eastern Europe. Örebro: Örebro Studies in Political Science 15.Google Scholar
  47. Sedelius, T. (2008). Demokrati eller presidentdiktatur: Konstitutionella vägval i postkommunistiska länder. Nordisk Østforum, 22(2), 141–161.Google Scholar
  48. Sedelius, T., & Ekman, J. (2010). Intra-executive Conflict and Cabinet Instability: Effects of Semi-Presidentialism in Central and Eastern Europe. Government and Opposition, 45(4), 505–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sedelius, T., & Mashtaler, O. (2013). Two Decades of Semi-Presidentialism: Issues of Intra-executive Conflict in Central and Eastern Europe 1991–2011. East European Politics, 29(2), 109–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shugart, M. S., & Carey, J. M. (1992). Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Siaroff, A. (2003). Comparative Presidencies: The Inadequacy of the Presidential, Semi-Presidential and Parliamentary Distinction. European Journal of Political Research, 42(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Suleiman, E. N. (1994). Presidentialism and Political Stability in France. In J. J. Linz & A. Valenzuela (Eds.), The Failure of Presidential Democracy: Comparative Perspectives, Volume 1 (pp. 137–162). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Taras, R. (1997). Separating Power: Keeping Presidents in Check. In R. Taras (Ed.), Postcommunist Presidents (pp. 15–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Transparency International. (2019). The Corruption Perception Index 2017. Accessed 2 Jan 2019.
  55. Verheijen, T. (1999). Romania. In R. Elgie (Ed.), Semi-Presidentialism in Europe (pp. 193–2015). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. World Statesmen. (2018). Accessed 2 Oct 2018.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Management and BusinessTampere UniversityTampereFinland
  2. 2.School of Education, Health and Social SciencesDalarna UniversityFalunSweden

Personalised recommendations