Where Is the Party? Party Work and Party Representation in the District

  • Elisa Deiss-Helbig
  • Danny Schindler
  • Laure Squarcioni
Part of the New Perspectives in German Political Studies book series (NPG)


Drawing on systematic participant observations, the study offers unique comparative findings about the importance of parties within French and German MPs’ district work. First, it looks at deputies’ communication with their party organization at the grassroots level. Second, it sheds light on whether MPs act locally as representatives of their party and, thus, contribute to the parties’ linkage function. Moreover, the study investigates MPs distancing themselves from their party, thereby providing valuable insights for the party unity literature. Comparatively, the data confirm that dissimilar incentives lead to differences regarding internal party work and party representation. However, contrasting results from questionnaires and observations also reveal divergences between words and deeds. Not least, the results are important because of France’s recent abolition of the cumul des mandats (multiple office-holding).


  1. Bach, Laurent. 2012. Faut-il abolir le cumul des mandats? Paris: Rue d’Ulm.Google Scholar
  2. Brouard, Sylvain, Olivier Costa, and Éric Kerrouche. 2013. The ‘New’ French Parliament: Changes and Continuities. In Developments in French Politics, Five, ed. Alistair Cole, Sophie Meunier, and Vincent Tiberj, 35–52. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, Rupert. 2000. Group Processes: Dynamics Within and Between Groups. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Colomer, Josep M. 2011. Introduction: Personal and Party Representation. In Personal Representation: The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems, ed. Josep M. Colomer, 1–19. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  5. Costa, Olivier, and Eric Kerrouche. 2009. Representative Roles in the French National Assembly: The Case of a Dual Typology? French Politics 7: 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cox, Karen E., and Leonard J. Schoppa. 2002. Interaction Effects in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Theory and Evidence From Germany, Japan, and Italy. Comparative Political Studies 35: 1027–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fenno, Richard J., Jr. 1977. U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration. American Political Science Review 71: 883–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
  9. François, Abel. 2006. Testing the ‘Baobab Strategy’ of French Politicians. The ‘cumul des mandats’ as a Way of Obtaining More Political Resources and Limiting Electoral Competition. French Politics 4: 269–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 2009. Who Are the Candidates and Substitute Candidates in the French Legislative Elections? A Statistical Note on the 2007 Elections. French Politics 7: 206–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. François, Abel, and Laurent Weill. 2014. Le cumul de mandats locaux affecte-t-il l’activité des députés français? Revue économique 65: 881–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fulbright, J. William. 1979. The Legislator as Educator. Foreign Affairs 57: 719–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gabriel, Oscar W., and Everhard Holtmann. 2010. Der Parteienstaat—ein immerwährendes demokratisches Ärgernis?—Ideologiekritische und empirische Anmerkungen zu einer aktuellen Debatte. Zeitschrift für Politik 57: 307–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallagher, Michael. 1988. Introduction. In Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective, ed. Michael Gallagher and Michael Marsh, 1–19. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Katz, Richard S. 2008. Political Parties. In Comparative Politics, ed. Daniele Caramani, 293–317. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kempf, Udo. 2007. Das Politische System Frankreichs. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  17. Laurent, Annie, and Christian-Marie Wallon-Leducq. 1998. Les Candidats Aux Élections Législatives de 1997. Sélection et Dissidence. In Le Vote surprise. Les élections législatives des 25 mai et 1er juin 1997, ed. Pascal Perrineau, 120–138. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  18. Mair, Peter. 2003. Political Parties and Democracy: What Sort of Future? Central European Political Science Review 4: 6–20.Google Scholar
  19. Mair, Peter, and Ingrid van Biezen. 2001. Party Membership in Twenty European Democracies. 1980–2000. Party Politics 7: 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Manow, Philip. 2013. Mixed Rules, Different Roles? An Analysis of the Typical Pathways into the Bundestag and of MPs’ Parliamentary Behavior. Journal of Legislative Studies 19: 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marrel, Guillaume. 2003. L’élu et son double. Cumul de mandats et construction de l’État républicain en France du milieu du 19ème siècle au milieu du 20ème siècle. Grenoble: Institut d’Études Politiques de Grenoble.Google Scholar
  22. Miler, Kristina C. 2010. Constituency Representation in Congress: The View from Capitol Hill. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mitchell, Paul. 2000. Voters and Their Representatives: Electoral Institutions and Delegation in Parliamentary Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37: 335–351.Google Scholar
  24. Müller, Wolfgang C. 2000. Political Parties in Parliamentary Democracies: Making Delegation and Accountability Work. European Journal of Political Research 37: 309–333.Google Scholar
  25. Murray, Rainbow. 2010. Parties, Gender Quotas and Candidate Selection in France, French Politics, Society and Culture. Paris: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Navarro, Julien. 2009. Multiple-Office Holders in France and Germany. An Elite Within the Elite? SFB 580 Mitteilungen. Universität Jena.Google Scholar
  27. Nohlen, Dieter. 2014. Wahlrecht und Parteiensystem. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  28. Patzelt, Werner J., and Karin Algasinger. 2001. Abgehobene Abgeordnete? Die gesellschaftliche Vernetzung der deutschen Volksvertreter. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 32: 503–527.Google Scholar
  29. Pütz, Christine. 2000. Rolle und Funktionen der Parteien in der V. Republik. In Parteien in Frankreich, ed. Sabine Ruß, Joachim Schild, Jochen Schmidt, and Ina Stephan, 77–98. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rahat, Gideon, and Reuven Y. Hazan. 2001. Candidate Selection Methods: An Analytical Framework. Party Politics 7: 297–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rahn, Wendy M. 1993. The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing About Political Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37: 472–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reiser, Marion. 2011. “Wer entscheidet unter welchen Bedingungen über die Nominierung von Kandidaten?” Die innerparteilichen Selektionsprozesse zur Aufstellung in den Wahlkreisen. In Die Parteien nach der Bundestagswahl 2009, ed. Oskar Niedermayer, 237–259. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 2014. The Universe of Group Representation in Germany: Analysing Formal and Informal Party Rules and Quotas in the Process of Candidate Selection. International Political Science Review 35: 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Renzsch, Wolfgang. 2000. Bundesstaat oder Parteienstaat. Überlegungen zu Entscheidungsprozessen im Spannungsfeld von föderaler Konsensbildung und parlamentarischem Wettbewerb in Deutschland. In Zwischen Wettbewerbs- und Verhandlungsdemokratie, ed. Everhard Holtmann and Helmut Voelzkow, 53–78. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sawicki, Frédéric. 1988. Question de recherche: pour une analyse locale des partis politiques. Politix 1: 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schindler, Danny. 2013. Die Mühen der Ebene: Parteiarbeit der Bundestagsabgeordneten im Wahlkreis. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 44: 507–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schüttemeyer, Suzanne S. 2002. Wer wählt wen wie aus? Pfade in das unerschlossene Terrain der Kandidatenaufstellung. Gesellschaft–Wirtschaft–Politik 51: 145–159.Google Scholar
  38. Schüttemeyer, Suzanne S., and Roland Sturm. 2005. Der Kandidat—das (fast) unbekannte Wesen: Befunde und Überlegungen zur Aufstellung der Bewerber zum Deutschen Bundestag. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 36: 539–553.Google Scholar
  39. Sieberer, Ulrich. 2010. Behavioral Consequences of Mixed Electoral Systems: Deviating Voting Behavior of District and List MPs in the German Bundestag. Electoral Studies 29: 484–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sineau, Mariette, and Vincent Tiberj. 2007. Candidats et députés français en 2002. Revue française de science politique 57: 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Steg, Christian. 2016. Die Kandidatenaufstellung zur Bundestagswahl. In Analyse der Nominierung von CDU und SPD in Baden-Württemberg zur Bundestagswahl 2009. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Strøm, Kaare. 2000. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37: 261–289.Google Scholar
  43. Thiébault, Jean-Louis. 1988. France: The Impact of Electoral System Change. In Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective, ed. Michael Gallagher and Michael Marsh, 72–93. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Vaillant, Jérôme, and Wolfram Vogel. 2009. Le système des partis en France et en Allemagne. In L’avenir des partis politiques en France et en Allemagne, ed. Claire Demesmay and Manuela Glaab, 23–41. Presses universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisa Deiss-Helbig
    • 1
  • Danny Schindler
    • 2
  • Laure Squarcioni
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Comparative Politics and Political SociologyUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Parliamentary ResearchHalle (Saale)Germany
  3. 3.Centre Emile DurkheimSciences-Po BordeauxBordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations