ABSTRACT
Britain's pre-democratic institutions, the House of Lords and the monarchical head of state, are only uneasily compatible with the way majoritarian democracy works today. While they have no clear, legitimate powers to limit the will of governments, they are not completely lacking in political influence. The chapter argues that failure to fundamentally alter the composition and the powers of the second chamber, as well as the enduring acceptance of a non-elected head of state, can be explained by institutional conservatism. Political actors rationally calculate the costs and benefits of changing institutional arrangements. Reform will only be brought about if the political costs of maintaining a current institutional arrangement are higher than the expected transaction costs of an alternative. The chapter also deals with the House of Lords more extensively than with the monarchy. This is because the debate on the monarchy as an institution is quite recent and has not really developed at party-political level.
