Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-l84fh Total loading time: 0.196 Render date: 2021-10-26T15:29:33.100Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Organizational and Ideological Strategies for Nationalization: Evidence from European Parties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2017

Abstract

How does a party’s organizational structure affect its chances of becoming a national party? While existing explanations of party nationalization focus on country-level institutional and societal variables, we argue that aspects of party organization such as the degree of centralization of authority, ideological unity and leadership factionalism also matter. By bringing the analysis to the party level, this article provides a multilevel analysis of institutional and party organization variables and disentangles the effect of each set of influences. We use original data on party organization and party nationalization for 142 parties across twenty European countries. This research contributes to the literature on nationalization and party development by advancing organizational strategies which parties could adopt in different social and institutional environments.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

School of Government and Public Policy, University of Strathclyde (gabriela.borz@strath.ac.uk); Department of Political Science, University of Toronto (carol.demiguel@utoronto.ca). We would like to add special thanks to Lauren Birch, Anton Rizor, Brianna Guertin and Kenneth Watt for excellent research help in collecting electoral and party organization data. We would also like to thank Daniel Bochsler for his guidance in calculating the standardized party nationalization scores and the discussant and audience members at the ECPR General Conference, Glasgow 2014, and the MPSA annual conference, Chicago 2015. Finally thanks to the editor Sona Golder and to the anonymous reviewers for excellent comments and guidance. Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/S3BX7A (Borz and de Miguel (2017)) and online appendicies at https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341700028X

References

Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina. 2011. Segregation and the Quality of Government in a Cross-section of Countries. American Economic Review 5 (101):18721911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, Devleeschauwer, Arnaud, Easterly, William, and Kurlat, Sergio. 2003. Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth 8 (2):155194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amorim Neto, Octavio, and Cox, Gary W.. 1997. Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties. American Journal of Political Science 41 (1):149174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakke, Kristin, and Wibbels, Erik. 2006. Diversity, Disparity, and Civil Conflict in Federal States. World Politics 59:150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Ryan, de Vries, Catherine, Edwards, Erica, Hooghe, Liesbet, Jolly, Seth, Marks, Gary, Polk, Jonathan, Rovny, Jan, Steenbergen, Marco, and Vachudova, Milada. 2015. Measuring Party Positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File, 1999–2010. Party Politics 21 (1):143152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardi, Luciano, Bartolini, Stefano, and Trechsel, Alexander H.. 2014. Responsive and Responsible? The Role of Parties in Twenty-First Century Politics. West European Politics 37 (2):235252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Thorsten, Clarke, George, Groff, Alberto, Keefer, Philip, and Walsh, Patrick. 2001. New Tools in Comparative Political Economy: The Database of Political Institutions. World Bank Economic Review 15 (1):165176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2007. Estimating Party Policy Positions: Comparing Expert Surveys and Hand-Coded Content Analysis. Electoral Studies 26:235252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Golder, Matt, and Milton, Daniel. 2012. Improving Tests of Theories Positing Interaction. Journal of Politics 74:653671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochsler, Daniel. 2010. Measuring Party Nationalisation: A New Gini-based Indicator that Corrects for the Number of Units. Electoral Studies 29:155168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borz, Gabriela, and de Miguel, Carolina. 2017. “Replication data for: Organizational and Ideological Strategies for Nationalization: Evidence from European Parties”, https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7910/DVN/S3BX7A, Harvard Dataverse, V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boucek, Francoise. 2003. Managing Factional Conflict under Severe Constraints: John Major and British Conservatives 1992–97. Paper Presented at the PSA 2003 Annual Conference, Leicester.Google Scholar
Boucek, Francoise. 2012. Factional Politics: How Dominant Parties Implode or Stabilize. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14:6382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brancati, Dawn. 2009. Peace by Design: Managing Intrastate Conflict through Decentralization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caramani, Daniele. 2004. The Nationalization of Politics: The Formation of National Electorates and Party Systems in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John, and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote. Electoral Studies 14 (4):417439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceron, Andrea. 2015. The Politics of Fission: Analysis of Faction Breakaways among Italian Parties (1946–2011). British Journal of Political Science 2:121139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandra, Kanchan. 2004. Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Head Counts in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep K., and Kollman, Kenneth. 1998. Party Aggregation and the Number of Parties in India and the United States. American Political Science Review 92 (2):329342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep K., and Kollman, Kenneth. 2004. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep K., and Suryanarayan, Pavithra. 2014. Party Organization and Party Proliferation in India. Party Politics 20 (4):489505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. Rehabilitating Duverger’s Theory: Testing the Mechanical and Strategic Modifying Effects of Electoral Laws. Comparative Political Studies 39 (6):679708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary, and Knoll, Jonathan S.. 2003. Ethnes, Fiscs, and Electoral Rules: The Determinants of Party-System Inflation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1999. Electoral Rules and Electoral Coordination. Annual Review of Political Science 2:145161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czaniawska-Joerges, Barbara. 1988. Ideological Control in Nonideological Organizations. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
de Miguel, Carolina. 2017. The Role of Electoral Geography in the Territorialization of Party Systems. Electoral Studies 47:6783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State Methuen: Wiley.Google Scholar
Forestiere, Carolyn. 2009. Kirchheimer Italian Style: Catch-All Parties or Catch-All Blocs. Party Politics 15:573591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2006. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golosov, Grigorii V. 2016. Factors of Party Nationalization. International Political Science Review 37 (2):246260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Zachary, and Haber, Matthias. 2015. Leadership Competition and Disagreement at Party National Congresses. British Journal of Political Science 2:122.Google Scholar
Hale Williams, Michelle. 2009. Kirchheimer’s French Twist: A Model of the Catch-all Thesis Applied to the French Case. Party Politics 15 (5):592614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmel, Robert. 2002. Party Organizational Change: Competing Explanations? Pp. 119142, in Political Parties in the New Europe: Political and Analytical Challenges, edited by Kurt Richard Luther and Ferdinand Muller Rommel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hatch, Mary Jo. 1997. Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hazan, Reuven Y. 2002. Candidate Selection. Pp. 108126, in Comparing Democracies. Elections and Voting in Global Perspective, edited by Pippa Norris, Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G. Niemi. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hicken, Allen. 2009. Building Party Systems in Developing Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicken, Allen, and Stoll, Heather. 2013. Are All Presidents Created Equal? Presidential Powers and the Shadow of Presidential Elections. Comparative Political Studies 46 (3):291319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, Marks, Gary, Schakel, Arjan H., Osterkatz, Sandi Chapman, Niedzwiecki, Sara, and Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah. 2015. A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ishiyama, John T. 2001. Party Organization and the Political Success of the Communist Successor Parties. Social Science Quarterly 82 (4):844864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Kenneth. 1980. Political Parties: A Cross-National Survey. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Kenneth, and Colman, Tyler. 1998. Effects of Party Organization on Performance during the ‘Golden Age’ of Parties. Political Studies 46:611632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Kenneth, and King, Desmond S.. 1985. Formalizing and Testing Duverger’s Theories on Political Parties. Comparative Political Studies 18:139169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Mark P., and Mainwaring, Scott. 2003. The Nationalization of Parties and Party Systems: An Empirical Measure and an Application to the Americas. Party Politics 9 (2):139166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, R. S. 1980. A Theory of Parties and Electoral Systems. Baltimore, MD, and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Kernell, Georgia. 2013. Political Party Organizations, Civic Representation, and Participation. Pp. 114137, in Representation: Elections and Beyond, edited by Jack Nagel and Rogers Smith. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Kirchheimer, Otto. 1966. The Transformation of the West European Party Systems. Pp. 177200, in Political Parties and Political Development, edited by Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, Mansfeldova, Zdenka, Markowski, Radoslaw, and Toka, Gabor. 1999. Postcommunist Party Systems. Competition. Representation and Inter-Party Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leon, Sandra. 2014. How Does Decentralization Affect Electoral Competition of State-wide Parties? Evidence from Spain. Party Politics 20 (3):391402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M., and Rokkan, Stein. 1967. Party Systems and Voters Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lublin, David. 2015. Minority Rules Dataset [data file and codebook] available at: http://davidlublin.com/sample-page/data/.Google Scholar
McAllister, I. 1991. Party Adaptation and Factionalism within the Australian Party System. American Journal of Political Science 35:206227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGann, A. J. 2002. The Advantages of Ideological Cohesion: A Model of Constituency Representation and Electoral Competition in Multi-Party Democracies. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14:3770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meguid, Bonnie. 2008. Institutional Change as Strategy: The Role of Decentralization in Party Competition. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, Henry. 1990. The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, Scott, Swindle, Stephen M., and Castagnola, Andrea. 2009. Party Nationalization and Institutions. Journal of Politics 71 (4):13221341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mylonas, Harris, and Roussias, Nasos. 2012 Does Party Structure Affect Electoral Success? Center-Right Party Organization in Europe. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1996. Legislative Recruitment. Pp. 184216, in Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective, edited by Pippa Norris Lawrence LeDuc and Richard G. Niemi. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia, and Skrondal, Anders. 2012. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata. Stata Press: Texas.Google Scholar
Rahat, Gideon. 2009. Which Candidate Selection Method is the Most Democratic?. Government and Opposition 44 (1):6890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahat, Gideon, and Hazan, Reuven Y.. 2001. Candidate Selection Methods: An Analytical Framework. Party Politics 7:297322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahat, Gideon, Hazan, Reuven, and Katz, Richard. 2008. Democracy and Political Parties: On the Uneasy Relationships between Participation, Competition and Representation. Party Politics 14 (6):663683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodden, Jonathan. 2010. Federalism and Inter-Regional Redistribution. Pp. 191220, in The Political Economy of Inter-Regional Flows, edited by Bosch Marta Espasa and Albert Sole Olle. Nuria: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard, and Urwin, Derek W.. 1975. Regional Differentiation and Political Unity in Western Nations. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scarrow, Susan E. 1994. The ‘Paradox of Enrollment’: Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Party Memberships. European Journal of Political Research 1:4160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarrow, Susan E., and Webb, Paul D.. 2013. Assessing Party Organizational Change: Participation, Representation and Power. Paper prepared for presentation at the American Political Science Association Annual Meetings, Chicago, IL, 29 August–1 September.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1942. Party Government. New York: Rinehart & Co.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Gijs, de Vries, Catherine, and Vis, Barbara. 2013. Why Do Parties Change Position? Party Organization and Environmental Conditions. Journal of Politics 75:464477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selway, Joel Sawat. 2011. The Measurement of Cross-cutting Cleavages and Other Multidmensional Cleavage Structures. Political Analysis 19:4865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, James M., and Ting, Michael M.. 2002. An Informational Rationale for Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 46 (1):90110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, Kaare. 1990. A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 34 (2):565598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2011. Organizing for Success: Party Organizational Strength and Electoral Performance in Postcommunist Europe. Journal of Politics 74 (1):8397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegfeld, Adam. 2016. Why Regional Parties? Clientelism, Elites, and the Indian Party System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Borz and De Miguel Dataset

Link
6
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Organizational and Ideological Strategies for Nationalization: Evidence from European Parties
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Organizational and Ideological Strategies for Nationalization: Evidence from European Parties
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Organizational and Ideological Strategies for Nationalization: Evidence from European Parties
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *