Advertisement

Party institutionalization as multilevel concept: base- versus elite-level routinization

  • Nicole BolleyerEmail author
  • Saskia P. Ruth-Lovell
Aufsätze
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

This article adds to the refinement of the concept of party institutionalization by focusing on its multilevel character, capturing possible variation between the institutionalization of the party elite and a party’s base. Hence, we argue that debates around party institutionalization as an analytical concept can profit from clarifying whose behavior we actually theorize when specifying and operationalizing the concept’s various dimensions. We illustrate this by focusing on different configurations of the internal property of routinization, more specifically, the presence or absence of elite-level and of base-level routinization. We hypothesize that distinct combinations influence whether and to which extent a party’s overall organization can be considered routinized or not, which, in turn, affects intra-organizational dynamics. We illustrate the usefulness of our conceptual distinctions using comparative case studies of parties characterized by either elite-level or base-level routinization—from both established and new democracies—to illustrate each dimension’s distinct implications for patterns of intra-party conflict and stability.

Keywords

Party institutionalization Routinization Party organization Latin America Established democracies 

Parteiinstitutionalisierung, ein mehrstufiges Konzept: Routinisierung von Parteibasis und Parteielite

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel trägt zur Verfeinerung des Konzepts der Parteiinstitutionalisierung bei, indem er sich auf seinen mehrstufigen Charakter konzentriert und mögliche Abweichungen zwischen der Institutionalisierung auf der Ebene der Parteielite und der Parteibasis erfasst. Wir argumentieren, dass Debatten über das Konzept der Institutionalisierung von Parteien von der Klarstellung wessen Verhalten wir eigentlich theoretisieren, wenn wir die verschiedenen Dimensionen des Konzepts spezifizieren und operationalisieren, profitieren würden. Wir veranschaulichen dies indem wir uns auf verschiedene Konfigurationen der internen Routinisierung von Parteien konzentrieren, insbesondere das Vorhandensein oder Nichtvorhandensein der Routinisierung auf der Ebene der Parteielite und der Parteibasis. Wir stellen die Hypothese auf, dass unterschiedliche Kombinationen beeinflussen, ob und inwieweit die gesamte Parteiorganisation als routinisiert betrachtet werden kann oder nicht, was wiederum die organisationsinterne Dynamik beeinflusst. Wir veranschaulichen die Nützlichkeit unserer konzeptionellen Unterscheidung anhand vergleichender Fallstudien von Parteien in neuen und etablierten Demokratien, die entweder durch die Routinisierung der Parteielite oder der Parteibasis gekennzeichnet sind, um die unterschiedlichen Auswirkungen jeder Dimension auf die Konfliktmuster und interne Stabilität der Parteien zu veranschaulichen.

Schlüsselwörter

Parteiinstitutionalisierung Routinisierung Parteiorganisation Lateinamerika Etablierte Demokratien 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the editors of this special issue, the referees of the journal as well as the participants of the Workshop “Different Worlds of Party Development” at the University Duisburg-Essen for their helpful input on earlier versions of this paper.

Funding

This research has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–13/ERC grant agreement 335890 STATORG). This support is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Auyero, Javier. 2000. The logic of Clientelism in Argentina: an Ethnographic account. Latin American Research Review 35(3):55–81.Google Scholar
  2. Aylott, Nicholas, and Niklas Bolin. 2017. Managed intra-party democracy. Party Politics 23(1):55–65.Google Scholar
  3. Bolleyer, Nicole. 2009. Inside the cartel party: party Organisation in government and opposition. Political Studies 57(3):559–579.Google Scholar
  4. Bolleyer, Nicole. 2013. New parties in old party systems: persistence and decline in 17 democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bolleyer, Nicole, and Saskia P. Ruth. 2018. Elite investments in party institutionalization in new democracies: a two-dimensional approach. The Journal of Politics 80(1):288–302.Google Scholar
  6. Bolleyer, Nicole, Wilfried Swenden, and Nicola McEwen. 2014. A theoretical perspective on multi-level systems in Europe: Constitutional power and partisan conflict. Comparative European Politics 12(4):367–383.Google Scholar
  7. Burgess, Katrina, and Steven Levitsky. 2003. Explaining populist party adaptation in latin america. Comparative Political Studies 36(8):881–911.Google Scholar
  8. Casal Bértoa, Fernando. 2017. Political parties or party systems? Assessing the “myth” of institutionalization and democracy. West European Politics 40(2):402–429.Google Scholar
  9. Christiansen, Flemming J. 2016. The Danish people’s party: combining coopration and radical positions. In Radical right-wing populist parties in western europe. Into the mainstream?, ed. Tjitske Akkerman, Sarah L. De Lange, and Matthijs Rooduijn, 94–112. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Christiansen, Flemming J. 2017. Conflict and co-operation among the Danish mainstream as a condition for adaptation to the populist radical right. In The European mainstream and the populist radical right, ed. Pontus Odmalm, Eve Hepburn, 49–70. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Corrales, Javier. 2002. Presidents without parties. The politics of economic reform in Argentina and Venezuela in the 1990s. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cross, William, and André Blais. 2012. Who selects the party leader? Party Politics 18(2):127–150.Google Scholar
  13. Diamond, Larry, and Richard Gunther. 2001. Introduction. In Political parties and democracy, ed. Larry Diamond, Richard Gunther, ix–xxxiv. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dix, Robert H. 1992. Democratization and the institutionalization of latin American political parties. Comparative Political Studies 24(4):488–511.Google Scholar
  15. Freidenberg, Flavia, and Steven Levitsky. 2006. Informal institutions and party organization in latin america. In Informal institutions and democracy. Lessons from latin america, ed. Gretchen Helmke, Steven Levitsky, 178–197. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gayoso, Christian. 2011. Konflikt und Kooperation in der chilenischen Concertación. Ursachen und Formen der langjährigen Stabilität des Mehrparteienbündnisses. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  17. Harmel, Robert, and Lars Svåsand. 1993. Party leadership and party institutionalisation: Three phases of development. West European Politics 16(2):67–88.Google Scholar
  18. Harmel, Robert, Lars Svåsand, and Hilmar Mjelde. 2018. Institutionalisation (and de-Institutionalisation) of right-wing protest parties. The progress parties in Denmark and Norway. Colchester: ECPR Press/Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  19. Hazan, Reuven Y., and Gideon Rahat. 2010. Democracy within parties. Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political order in changing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jackson, Stewart. 2011. The Australian greens: from movement to electoral professional party. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  22. Janda, Kenneth. 1980. Political parties: a cross-national survey. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Katz, Richard S., and Peter Mair. 1993. The evolution of party organizations in europe: the three faces of party Organiaztion. The American Review of Politics 14:593–617.Google Scholar
  24. Katz, Richard S., and Peter Mair. 1995. Changing models of party organization and party democracy. The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics 1(1):5–28.Google Scholar
  25. Kitschelt, Herbert. 1994. The transformation of European social democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kitschelt, Herbert, and Daniel M. Kselman. 2010. The organizational foundations of democratic accountability: organizational form and the choice of electoral linkage strategy. Annual Meeting of the APSA, Washington, D. C., 01.–05.09.2010.Google Scholar
  27. de Lange, Sarah L., and David Art. 2011. Fortuyn versus wilders: an agency-based approach to radical right party building. West European Politics 34(6):1229–1249.Google Scholar
  28. Levitsky, Steven. 1998. Institutionalization and Peronism: the case, the concept, and the case for unpacking the concept. Party Politics 4(1):77–92.Google Scholar
  29. Levitsky, Steven. 2001. An “Organised Disorganisation”: informal Organisation and the persistence of local party structures in Argentine Peronism. Journal of Latin American Studies 33(1):29–66.Google Scholar
  30. Levitsky, Steven. 2003. Transforming labor-based parties in latin america: Argentine Peronism in comparative perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Levitsky, Steven, and María Victoria Murillo. 2003. Argentina weathers the storm. Journal of Democracy 14(4):152–166.Google Scholar
  32. Levitsky, Steven, James Loxton, and Brandon Van Dyck. 2016. Introduction: challenges of party-building in latin america. In Challenges of party-building in latin america, ed. Steven Levitsky, James Loxton, Brandon Van Dyck, and Jorge I. Domínguez, 1–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lipset, Seymour Martin, Martin Trow, and James S. Coleman. 1956. Union democracy: the internal politics of the international typographical union. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. De Luca, Miguel. 2008. Political recruitment and candidate selection in Argentina: presidents and governors, 1983 to 2006. In Pathways to power. Political recruitment and candidate selection in latin america, ed. Peter Siavelis, Scott Morgenstern, 189–217. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  35. De Luca, Miguel, Mark P. Jones, and María Inés Tula. 2002. Back rooms or ballot boxes? Comparative Political Studies 35(4):413–436.Google Scholar
  36. Luna, Juan Pablo. 2014. Party system institutionalization: do we need a new concept? Studies in Comparative International Development 49(4):403–425.Google Scholar
  37. Luna, Juan Pablo, and David Altman. 2011. Uprooted but stable: Chilean parties and the concept of party system institutionalization. Latin American Politics and Society 53(2):1–28.Google Scholar
  38. Lupu, Noam. 2013. Party brands and partisanship: theory with evidence from a survey experiment in Argentina. American Journal of Political Science 57(1):49–64.Google Scholar
  39. Lupu, Noam. 2015. Nacionalización e institutcionalización de partidos en la Argentina del siglo XX. In Sistemas de partidos en América Latina: causas y consequencias de su equilibrio inestable, ed. Mariano Torcal, 183–202. Buenos Aires: Anthropos/SigloXXI.Google Scholar
  40. Mainwaring, Scott, and Timothy R. Scully. 1995. Building democratic institutions. Party systems in latin america. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Malamud, Andrés. 2005. Winning elections versus governing: a two-tier approach to party adaptation in Argentina, 1983–2003. XI Encuentro de Latinoamericanistas Espanoles (CEEIB), Tordesillas, Spain, 26.–28.05.2005.Google Scholar
  42. McGuire, James W. 1997. Peronism without Perón. Unions, parties, and democracy in Argentina. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Meret, Susi. 2010. The Danish people’s party, the Italian northern league and the Austrian freedom party in a comparative perspective: party ideology and electoral support. Ph. D. Series, Vol. 25. Aalborg: SPIRIT.Google Scholar
  44. Meret, Susi, Birte Siim, and Etienne Pingaud. 2017. Men’s parties with women leaders: A comparative study of the rightwing populist leaders Pia Kjærsgaard, Marine Le Pen and Siv Jensen. In Understanding the Populist shift. Othering in a Europe in Crisis, ed. Gabriella Lazaridis, Giovanna Campani, 122–149. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Michels, Robert. 1962. Political parties: a sociological study of the Oligarchial tendencies of modern democracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  46. Miragliotta, Narelle. 2012. Federalism, party organization and Australia’s green parties. Journal of Politics and History 52(1):97–110.Google Scholar
  47. Miragliotta, Narelle, and Stewart Jackson. 2015. Green parties in federal systems: resistant or compliant to centralizing pressures? Government and Opposition 50(4):549–577.Google Scholar
  48. Müller, Gonzalo. 2008. Democracia interna y selección de autoridades. In Reforma de los partidos políticos en Chile, ed. Arturo Fontaine, Cristián Larroulet, Jorge Navarrete, and Ignacio Walker, 413–428. Santiago de Chile: Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD).Google Scholar
  49. Mustillo, Thomas J. 2009. Modeling new party performance: a conceptual and methodological approach for volatile party systems. Political Analysis 17(3):311–332.Google Scholar
  50. Navia, Patricio. 2008. Legislative candidate selection in Chile. In Pathways to power. Political recruitment and candidate selection in latin america, ed. Peter Siavelis, Scott Morgenstern, 92–118. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Panebianco, Angelo. 1988. Political parties: organization and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Payne, J. Mark. 2006. Sistemas de partidos y gobernabilidad democrática. In La política importa. Democracia y desarrollo en América Latina, ed. J. Mark Payne, Daniel Zovatto G., and Mercedes Mateo Díaz, 165–196. Washington, D. C.: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.Google Scholar
  53. Pedahzur, Ami, and Avraham Brichta. 2002. The institutionalization of extreme right-wing charismatic parties: a paradox? Party Politics 8(1):31–49.Google Scholar
  54. Pedersen, Karina. 2006. Driving a populist party: the Danish people’s party. Copenhagen: Institute for Statskundskab University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  55. Pedersen, Mogens N. 1982. Towards a new typology of party Lifespans and minor parties. Scandinavian Political Studies 5(1):1–16.Google Scholar
  56. Pedersen, Karina, and Jens Ringsmose. 2004. From the progress party to the Danish people’s party—from protest party to government supporting party. ECPR Joint Session of Workshops, Uppsala, 13.–18.04.2004.Google Scholar
  57. Ponce, Aldo F., and Susan E. Scarrow. 2016. Which members? Using cross-national surveys to study party membership. Party Politics 22(6):679–690.Google Scholar
  58. Randall, Vicky, and Lars Svåsand. 2002. Party institutionalization in new democracies. Party Politics 8(1):5–29.Google Scholar
  59. Ribera Neumann, Teodoro. 2008. Estatuto jurídico de los partidos políticos en Chile. Veinte años de la ley Orgánica Constitutcional de los Partidos Políticos. In Reforma de los partidos políticos en Chile, ed. Arturo Fontaine, Cristián Larroulet, Jorge Navarrete, and Ignacio Walker, 127–158. Santiago de Chile: Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD).Google Scholar
  60. Rose, Richard, and Thomas T. Mackie. 1988. Do parties persist or fail? The big trade-off facing organizations. In When parties fail: emerging alternative organizations, ed. Kay Lawson, Peter H. Merkl, 533–578. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Samuels, David. 2004. From socialism to social democracy: party organization and the transformation of the workers’ party in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies 37(9):999–1024.Google Scholar
  62. Sartori, Giovanni. 1973. What is “politics”. Political Theory 1(1):5–26.Google Scholar
  63. Scarrow, Susan E., and Burcu Gezgor. 2010. Declining memberships, changing members? European political party members in a new era. Party Politics 16(6):823–843.Google Scholar
  64. Scarrow, Susan E., Paul Webb, and David Farrell. 2001. From social integration to electoral contestation: the changing distribution of power within political parties. In Parteis without partisans: political change in advanced industrial democracies, ed. Russell Dalton, Martin P. Wattenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Scherlis, Gerardo. 2012. Designaciones y organización partidaria: el partido de redes gubernamentales en el Peronismo Kirchnerista. América Latina Hoy 62:47–77.Google Scholar
  66. Siavelis, Peter, and Bonnie N. Field. 2015. The Presidentialization of parties in Chile. In The Presidentialization of political parties. Organizations, institutions and leaders, ed. Gianluca Passarelli, 26–48. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  67. Swenden, Wilfried, and Simon Toubeau. 2013. Mainstream Parteis and territorial dynamics in the UK, Spain and India. In Federal dynamics. Continuity, change and the varieties of federalism, ed. Arthur Benz, Jörg Broschek, 249–276. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Tavits, Margit. 2012. Organizing for success: party organizational strength and electoral performance in Postcommunist europe. The Journal of Politics 74(01):83–97.Google Scholar
  69. Tavits, Margit. 2013. Post-communist democracies and party organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Thorlakson, Lori. 2009. Patterns of party integration, influence and autonomy in seven federations. Party Politics 15(2):157–177.Google Scholar
  71. Wills-Otero, Laura. 2009. From party systems to party organizations: the adaptation of latin American parties to changing environments. Journal of Politics in Latin America 1(1):123–141.Google Scholar
  72. Wills-Otero, Laura. 2016. The electoral performance of latin American traditional parties, 1978–2006: does the internal structure matter? Party Politics 22(6):758–772.Google Scholar
  73. Zalewski, Frédéric. 2005. La professionalisation des partis “populistes” en Europé: une comparaison entre le mouvement polonais Samoobrona et le Dansk Folkeparti. Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée 12(4):487–501.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PoliticsUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  2. 2.Institute of Latin American StudiesGIGA German Institute of Global and Area StudiesHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations