Book contents
- The New Handbook of Political Sociology
- The New Handbook of Political Sociology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- I Theories of Political Sociology
- II Media Explosion, Knowledge as Power, and Demographic Reversals
- III The State and Its Political Organizations
- IV Civil Society: The Roots and Processes of Political Action
- 22 The Challenges of Citizenship in Civil Society
- 23 Social Movements
- 24 Political Parties
- 25 Machine Politics and Clientelism
- 26 The Good, the Bland, and the Ugly
- 27 The Politics of Economic Crisis
- 28 The Influence of Public Opinion and Advocacy on Public Policy
- 29 Nationalism
- V Established and New State Policies and Innovations
- VI Globalization and New and Bigger Sources of Power and Resistance
- Index
- References
25 - Machine Politics and Clientelism
from IV - Civil Society: The Roots and Processes of Political Action
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2020
Book contents
- The New Handbook of Political Sociology
- The New Handbook of Political Sociology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- I Theories of Political Sociology
- II Media Explosion, Knowledge as Power, and Demographic Reversals
- III The State and Its Political Organizations
- IV Civil Society: The Roots and Processes of Political Action
- 22 The Challenges of Citizenship in Civil Society
- 23 Social Movements
- 24 Political Parties
- 25 Machine Politics and Clientelism
- 26 The Good, the Bland, and the Ugly
- 27 The Politics of Economic Crisis
- 28 The Influence of Public Opinion and Advocacy on Public Policy
- 29 Nationalism
- V Established and New State Policies and Innovations
- VI Globalization and New and Bigger Sources of Power and Resistance
- Index
- References
Summary
The party “machine” is one of the few concepts that has become relevant in the scholarship of widely different political systems, with often divergent normative meanings associated with it. Although the term originated in the turn-of-the-century United States to describe the political structures that evolved in the context of mass migration, scholars have found similarities with party functioning in cases across Europe, South and Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The concept of the party machine has traveled as much geographically as it has theoretically. Starting from its implied roots in immigrant cultural ethos, it came to be employed in a more comparative, institutional, and sequential approach that took into account the timing of bureaucratization, democratization, and the mobilization of the working classes particularly across Europe.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The New Handbook of Political Sociology , pp. 666 - 680Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties?: The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Auyero, Javier. 1999. “From the Client’s point(s) of View: How Poor People Perceive and Evaluate Political Clientelism.” Theory and Society 28(2): 297–334.Google Scholar
Auyero, Javier. 2008. “Patronage and Contention.” Paper presented at “Contention, Change and Explanation: A Conference in Honor of Charles Tilly,” Social Science Research Council, New York. October 3–5.Google Scholar
Berenschot, Ward. 2009. “Rioting as Maintaining Relations: Hindu–Muslim Violence and Political Mediation in Gujarat, India.” Civil Wars 11(4): 414–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berenschot, Ward. 2010. “Everyday Mediation: The Politics of Public Service Delivery in Gujarat, India.” Development and Change 41(5): 883–905.Google Scholar
Brass, Paul. 2004. The Politics of Hindu–Muslim Violence in Contemporary India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bridges, Amy. 1987. A City in the Republic: Antebellum New York and the Origins of Machine Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, Partha. 2004. The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gilmartin, David. 2014. “The Paradox of Patronage and the People’s Sovereignty” pp.125–153 in Piliavsky, Anastasia (ed.) Patronage as Politics in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golosov, Grigori V. 2013. “Machine Politics: The Concept and Its Implications for Post-Soviet Studies.” Demokratizatsiya 21(4): 459–480.Google Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen and Levitsky, Steve. 2006. Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, Craig. 2002. “Caste, Class, and Clientelism: A Political-Economy of Corruption in Rural North India.” Economic Geography 78(1): 28–41.Google Scholar
Khan, Mushtaq H. and Jomo, K. S. (eds.). 1996. Rents, Rent-Seeking and Economic Development: Theory and Evidence in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert and Wilkinson, Steve (eds.). 2007. Patrons, Clients and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steve. 2003. “From Labor Politics to Machine Politics: The Transformation of Party–Union Linkages in Argentine Peronism, 1983–1999.” Latin American Research Review 38(3): 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molotch, Harvey. 1976. “The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.” American Journal of Sociology 82(2): 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, Daniel P. 1993. “When the Irish Ran New York.” City Journal, Spring Issue. Retrieved July 6, 2017. www.city-journal.org:8080/html/when-irish-ran-new-york-12656.htmlGoogle Scholar
Pacewicz, Josh. 2015. “Playing the Neoliberal Game: Why Community Leaders Left Party Politics to Partisan Activists.” American Journal of Sociology 121(3): 826–881.Google Scholar
Piattoni, Simona (ed.). 2001. Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic Representation: The European Experience in Historical and Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Piliavsky, Anastasia (ed.). 2014. Patronage as Politics in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, James C. 1969. “Corruption, Machine Politics, and Political Change.” American Political Science Review 63(4): 1142–1158.Google Scholar
Shefter, Martin. 1994. “Political Parties and States” pp. 3–18 in Political Parties and the State: The American Historical Experience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan. 2005. “Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina.” American Political Science Review 99(3): 315–325.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. P. 1971. “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century.” Past & Present 50: 76–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Walle, Nicholas. 2007. “The Path from Neopatrimonialism: Democracy and Clientelism in Africa Today.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Center for International Studies, Working Paper (3–07).Google Scholar
Villarreal, Andres. 2002. “Political Competition and Violence in Mexico: Hierarchical Social Control in Local Patronage Structures.” American Sociological Review 67: 477–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, Robert. 1985. “The Market for Public Office: Why the Indian State Is Not Better at Development.” World Development 13: 467–497.Google Scholar
Ware, Alan. 1985. The Breakdown of the Democratic Party Organization, 1940–1980. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Wilson, James and Banfield, Edward. 1971. “Political Ethos Revisited.” The American Political Science Review 65(4): 1048–1062.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond E. 1972. “Why Political Machines Have Not Withered Away and Other Revisionist Thoughts.” Journal of Politics 34(2): 365–398.Google Scholar