Search

While coalition agreements are significant in structuring government behaviour, their comprehensiveness varies considerably across cabinets. We argue that the average correspondence between parties' priorities and portfolio allocation is important in explaining the comprehensiveness of coalition agreements because coalition parties that have obtained their preferred portfolios have less incentive to negotiate a detailed coalition agreement. We test our argument by combining newly collected data on coalition agreements drafted by 218 cabinets in 24 Western and Eastern European countries from 1945 to 2014 with data on the distribution of ministerial portfolios. We find that the shorter and less comprehensive the agreements, the higher the correspondence between parties' priorities and portfolio allocation. Our results have important implications for our understanding of coalition governments and the relationship between government formation and cabinet governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Management & Organization Review is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Management & Organization Review is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this study we examined linguistic and non-linguistic control mechanisms in 20 Spanish–English neurologically healthy bilingual adults and 13 Spanish–English bilingual adults with aphasia. Participants completed two linguistic and two non-linguistic control tasks accounting for low and high complexity. Healthy bilingual results were indicative of domain general cognitive control, whereas patient results were indicative of domain specific cognitive control. The magnitude of conflict required to complete the tasks was also examined. Healthy bilinguals exhibited significant amounts of conflict on all tasks and linguistic and non-linguistic conflict ratios were correlated; whereas patient results revealed significant conflict only on non-linguistic tasks and those conflict ratios were not correlated with linguistic conflict ratios, indicating a dissociation between how patients are controlling information in these two domains. Finally, a relationship between language impairment and language control was identified and brain damage was associated with linguistic and non-linguistic task performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]