Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T04:48:02.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Making of a More Partisan Electorate in West Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Helmut Norpoth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The mid-1960s to mid-1970s was a period of unexpected upheaval, ideological ferment, issue polarization and changing of the guard in the United States no less than in West Germany or other European countries. Nearly everywhere politics moved from an era of tranquillity to an era of confrontation. Established political parties were challenged by the salience of new issues and by new forms of political participation. The ability of parties to govern and, at the same time, to prove responsive under these circumstances was put to a severe test. The hold of parties on the mass electorate appeared to be slipping, and the writing of scenarios for partisan realignment and dealignment turned into a cottage industry.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 1984 , pp. 53 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See for example Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John, The Changing American Voter (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976)Google Scholar, and Miller, Arthur H., ‘Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964–1970,’ American Political Science Review, LXVIII (1974), 951–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 See Miller, Arthur H. and Miller, Warren E., ‘Partisanship and Performance: “Rational” Choice in the 1976 Presidential Elections’, paper presented at the American Political Science Association meeting, Washington, DC, 1977Google Scholar. For the term ‘steady-state period’, see Converse, Philip E., The Dynamics of Party Support (Beverly Hills and London: Sage, 1976), p. 34Google Scholar. It might be added that while many Independents still ‘lean’ toward one of the parties, the share of partisans including such leaners has also declined since 1964.

3 See Crewe, Ivor, ‘Prospects for Party Realignment: An Anglo-American Comparison,’ Comparative Politics, XII (1980), 379–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Inglehart, Ronald and Hochstein, Avram, ‘Alignment and Dealignment in France and the United States’, Comparative Political Studies, V (1972), 343–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 For explanations in those terms, see Ladd, Everett Carl with Hadley, Charles D., Transformations of American Party System (New York: Norton, 1975)Google Scholar, and Inglehart, Ronald, The Silent Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

5 On the definitions of such ‘effects,’ see Glenn, Norval D., Cohort Analysis (Beverly Hills and London: Sage, 1977)Google Scholar and Riley, Matilda W., ‘Aging and Cohort Succession: Interpretations and Misinterpretations’, Public Opinion Quarterly, XXXVII (1973), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 For this interpretation, see Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voler (New York: Wiley, 1960), pp. 153–6Google Scholar. For a provocative challenge of this view, see Erikson, Robert S. and Tedin, Kent L., ‘The 1928–1936 Partisan Realignment: The Case for the Conversion Hypothesis’, American Political Science Review, LXXV (1981), 951–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 See Jennings, M. Kent and Niemi, Richard G., ‘Continuity and Change in Political Orientations: A Longitudinal Study of Two Generations’, American Political Science Review, LXIX (1975), 1316–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Abramson, Paul R., ‘Generational Change and the Decline of Party Identification in America: 1952–1974’, American Political Science Review, LXX (1976), 469–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nie, et al. , The Changing American Voter, pp. 59–65Google Scholar; and Beck, Paul Allen, ‘Partisan Dealignment in the Postwar South,’ American Political Science Review, LXXI (1977), 477–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 See Mannheim, Karl, ‘The Problem of Generations’, in Kecskemeti, P., ed., Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge (London: Routledge, 1952).Google Scholar

9 Converse, , Dynamics of Party Support, p. 79.Google Scholar

10 Campbell, et al. , The American Voter, pp. 161–5Google Scholar; Butler, David and Stokes, Donald, Political Change in Britain (London: Macmillan, 1969), pp. 55–61Google Scholar; and Converse, Philip E., ‘Of Time and Partisan Stability’, Comparative Political Studies, II (1969), 139–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 See Norpoth, Helmut, ‘Party Identification in West Germany: Tracing an Elusive Concept’, Comparative Political Studies, XI (1978), 36–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Baker, Kendall L., Dalton, Russell J., and Hildebrandt, Kai, Germany Transformed (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), pp. 221–9.Google Scholar

12 For critical studies, see Glenn, Norval D., ‘Sources of the Shifts to Political Independence: Some Evidence from a Cohort Analysis’, Social Science Quarterly, LIII (1972), 494–519Google Scholar; Abramson, , ‘Generational Change’Google Scholar; Knoke, David and Hout, Michael, ‘Social and Demographic Factors in American Party Affiliations’, American Sociological Review, LXIX (1974), 700–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In The Dynamics of Party Support, Converse discusses these criticisms. For a further round of intellectual sparring, see Abramson, Paul R., ‘Developing Party Identification: A Further Examination of Life-Cycle, Generational and Period Effects’, American Journal of Political Science, XXIII (1979), 78–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the rejoinder by Converse in the same issue.

13 Abramson, , ‘Generational Change,’ p. 469.Google Scholar

14 These complications are discussed and tested by Converse, , Dynamics of Party Support, p. 93Google Scholar; Shively, W. Phillips, ‘The Relationship between Age and Party Identification: A Cohort Analysis’, Political Methodology, VI (1979), 437–60Google Scholar; and Claggett, William, ‘Partisan Acquisition Versus Partisan Intensity: Life-Cycle, Generation, and Period Effects, 1952–1976’, American Journal of Political Science, XXV (1981), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 See Helmut Norpoth and Rusk, Jerrold G., ‘Partisan Dealignment in the American Electorate: Itemizing the Deductions since 1964’, American Political Science Review, LXXVI (1982), 522–37.Google Scholar

16 See for example, the exchange between Abramson, and Shively, in Political Methodology, VI (1979), 447–61Google Scholar, concerning Shively, , ‘The Relationship between Age and Party Identification’.Google Scholar

17 Carlsson, Costa and Karlsson, Katarina, ‘Age, Cohorts and the Generation of Generations’, American Sociological Review, XXXV (1970), 710–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Carlsson, and Karlsson, , ‘Age, Cohorts and the Generation of Generations’, p. 710.Google Scholar

19 Campbell, et al. , The American Voter, pp. 155–6.Google Scholar

20 See Converse, , Dynamics of Party Support, pp. 78–80Google Scholar; also Norpoth, and Rusk, , ‘Partisan Dealignment’, pp. 526–33.Google Scholar

21 For an excellent survey of this literature, see Baker, , Dalton, , and Hildebrandt, , Germany Transformed, Chap. 8Google Scholar; also Shively, W. Phillips, ‘Voting Stability and the Nature of Party Attachments in the Weimar Republic’, American Political Science Review, LXVI (1972), 1203–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Norpoth, , ‘Party Identification in West Germany’.Google Scholar

23 See Fiorina, Morris P., Retrospective Voting in American National Elections (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1981), Chap. 5Google Scholar; and Markus, Gregory B. and Converse, Philip E., ‘A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice’, American Political Science Review, LXXIII (1979), 1055–70, especially p. 1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However puzzling it may seem to find Converse cited alongside Fiorina, it goes to show that there is much common ground in the dispute over party identification in the American electorate.

24 Fiorina, , Retrospective Voting, p. 84.Google Scholar

25 Falter, Jürgen W. and Rattinger, Hans, ‘Parties, Candidates and Issues in the German Federal Election of 1980: An Application of Normal Vote Analysis’, Electoral Studies, I (1982), 69–94.Google Scholar

26 Falter, and Rattinger, , ‘Parties, Candidates and Issues’, p. 70.Google Scholar

27 See Norpoth, Helmut, ‘Choosing a Coalition Partner: Mass Preferences and Elite Decisions in West Germany’, Comparative Political Studies, XII (1980), 424–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 See Bürklin, Wilhelm P., ‘Die Grunen und die “Neue Politik”: Abschied vom Dreiparteien-system?’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, XXII (1981), 359–82.Google Scholar

29 As proposed, for example, by Mason, Karen O., Mason, W. M., Winsborough, H. H., and Poole, W. K., ‘Some Methodological Issues in Cohort Analysis of Archival Data,’ American Sociological Review, XXXVIII (1973), 242–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 For a case of a non-linear ageing effect, see Norpoth, and Rusk, , ‘Partisan Dealignment’, PP. 531–2.Google Scholar

31 See Baker, , Dalton, , Hildebrandt, , Germany Transformed, p. 309Google Scholar; also Burklin, , ‘Die Grünen’, p. 372.Google Scholar

32 Claggett, , ‘Partisan Acquisition,’ pp. 207–11.Google Scholar

33 See Converse, , ‘Of Time and Partisan Stability’Google Scholar; Norpoth, , ‘Party Identification’Google Scholar; and Baker, , Dalton, , Hildebrandt, , Germany Transformed, pp. 221–9.Google Scholar

34 See Falter, and Rattinger, , ‘Parties, Candidates and Issues’, p. 70Google Scholar. Results of this 1980 survey are cited in Table 1 on p. 60.

35 See Norpoth, Helmut, ‘The Parties Come to Order! Dimensions of Preferential Choice in the West German Electorate’, American Political Science Review, LXXIII (1979), 724–36, especially p. 730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 See, for example, Hildebrandt, Kai and Dalton, Russell J., ‘Die Neue Politik: Politischer Wandel oder Schönwetterpolitik?’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, XVIII (1977), 157–79Google Scholar. For a detailed account of an inside observer, see Baring, Arnulf, Machtwechsel: Die Ära Brandt-Scheel (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1982).Google Scholar

37 For evidence of a changed configuration, see Pappi, Franz Urban, ‘Parteiensystem und Sozialstruktur in der Bundesrepublik’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, XIV (1973), 191–214Google Scholar; Norpoth, Helmut, ‘Kanzlerkandidaten: Wie sie vom Wähler bewertet werden und seine Wahlentscheidung beeinflussen’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, XVIII (1977), 551–72Google Scholar; and ‘Dimensionen des Parteienkonflikts und Präferenzordnungen der deutschen Wählerschaft’, Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, X (1980), 350–62.Google Scholar

38 See Dalton, Russell J. and Hildebrandt, Kai, ‘Koalitionen und Konflikte in Parteiensystem’, in Kaase, Max and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, eds, Wahlen und Politische Kultur (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1983).Google Scholar

39 Carlsson, and Karlsson, , ‘Age Cohorts and the Generation of Generations’, p. 710.Google Scholar

40 See Miller, Arthur H., Miller, Warren E., Raine, Alden S., and Brown, Thad A., ‘A Majority Party in Disarray: Policy Polarization in the 1972 Election’, American Political Science Review, LXX (1976), 753–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 For the American case, see Norpoth, and Rusk, , ‘Partisan Dealignment’, pp. 535–6.Google Scholar

42 One way in which this might occur is through ‘retrospective evaluations’. For a discussion of this concept in the American context, see Fiorina, , Retrospective Voting, Chap. 5.Google Scholar

43 For a cohort analysis of party preference, see Plum, Wolfgang, ‘Kohortenanalyse als Methode der Untersuchung von Einflussfaktoren Politischen Verhaltens’, Zentralarchiv Informationen, No. 10 (1982), 9–21.Google Scholar

44 See Burklin, , ‘Die Grünen’, p. 375.Google Scholar