Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Party Systems Across Western Europe by oae20205


									    Party Systems Across Western Europe

                           Lecture 5

Party systems
Institutional structures
Party system evaluation
► Objectives:
            (i) to establish what ‘party’ and ‘party
  system’ means

     to understand the relationship between party
► (ii)
  systems and cleavage structures

► (iii)   to outline a typology of party systems

Lecture III: located roots of electoral cleavages

Lecture IV: Located cleavages and their relation to
    ideological families

Lecture V: Factors determining party systems
a) Parties
b) Cleavages
c) Institutional structures
 Typologies of parties/party systems
► Comparative   Politics puts lot of emphasis on
► But categories cannot explain anything
► Rather a tool for
   Compact description (abstraction)
   Constructing meaningful explanations
► Differenttypologies because different authors put
  emphasis on different things
► Not a matter of right or wrong but a question of
  useful/not so useful
             Party typologies

Duverger’s organizational typology:

► Notables  party: established parties, personal
  leadership, e.g. Gaullist Party
► Branch party: central organization with local
  association, e.g. Scandinavian Social
    Party typologies (Duverger)
► Cadre  party: organized as tight cells with
  strong centre, e.g. communist parties
► Mass party: formed outside parliament,
  central organization but with elaborate
  arrangement to incorporate members, e.g.
  early Socialist/Social-democratic parties
           Other Party typologies

► Catch-allparty (Kirchheimer): mass parties
 which broaden their ideological scope in
 order to attract indecisive voters, e.g. social
 democrats and Christian democrats

► Cartelparty (Katz and Mair): have become
 part of the state system because of reliance
 on subsidies; have lost touch with voters
          Why do parties matter?
► Eliterecruitment
► Link between citizenry and government
► They help
    politicians act collectively in government to produce
    mobilize people into politics, especially people who
     might otherwise not participate
    voters resolve uncertainty about electoral options
    voters hold politicians accountable for their behavior in
► They  aggregate diverse interests and identities
  into a single, cohesive political front
      The modern mass party
The emergence of the modern mass party
► Created the profession of a politician
► Defined the structure of modern democratic
► Structured popular vote
► Integrated and mobilized the mass citizenry
► Aggregated diverse interests
► Recruited leaders for public office
► Formulated public policy
       Link: cleavages and parties
► the number of cleavages and the ways they intersect can
  vary considerably
► Examples: 1 Cleavage – 2 groups, 2 Cleavages – 2/4
  groups, 3 Cleavages – 2, 4, 5 or 8 groups etc.
► in every country there are a number of parties in
Hypothesis: Societies that are more diverse and have more
  cleavages are likely to have more parties
► BUT: In most countries, there are far more divisions in
  society than there are parties
► Explanation:
     Cross-cutting/reinforcing cleavages
     Institutions. The rules of the electoral system profoundly shape
      party systems.
            Cleavage structures
Polarizing cleavages         Cross-cutting cleavages

Class, religion, ethnicity


   Deeply divided             Moderate division
           Defining party systems
► Party system: a collection of and interaction
  between parties in a polity
► Cleavages find expression in:             Sartori:
     Composition in governments            ‘Parties are the
     Government outputs (policies)
     Stability of governments            between society and

                         Party system          Type of
     structure                               government
          Institutional structures
► Cleavages   underpin party systems
► But not sufficient in determining voting behavior
  (not static)
► Otherwise
   Electoral outcome would be predictable
   Party systems would be ‘frozen’
► Other determinants: electoral structures, party
  organization, structure of party competition
► Look at typologies of party systems
Author                    Principle for                                Principle Types of Party systems
                          Classification                               identified

Duverger (1954) Numbers of parties                                     Two-party systems
                                                                       Multi-party system
Dahl (1966)               Competitiveness of                           Strictly competitive
                          opposition                                   Cooperative-competitive
                                                                       Strictly coalescent
Blondel (1968)            Numbers of parties                           Two-party systems
                          Relative size of parties                     Two-and-a-half-party systems
                                                                       Multi-party systems with one dominant
                                                                       Multi-party systems without dominant
Rokkan (1968)             Numbers of parties                           The British-German ‘1 vs. 1+1’ system
                          Likelihood of single-party                   The Scandinavian ‘1 vs. 3-4’ system
                          majorities                                   Even multi-party systems
                                                                       ‘1 vs. 1 vs. 1+ 2-3’
                          Distribution of minority
                          party strength
Sartori (1976)            Numbers of parties                           Two-party systems
                          Ideological distance                         Moderate pluralism
                                                                       Polarized pluralism
                                                                       Predominant-party system
   LeDuc, L., Niemi, R. and Norris, P. (1996). Comparing Democracies. Elections and Voting in Global Perspective (Sage: London).
              Party system evaluation
A party system is the more or less stable
  configuration of political parties which normally
  compete in national elections.
(Bale 2008)

        Party competition based upon:

        ► 1. Number of relevant parties
        ► 2. Fragmentation
        ► 3. Relative strength of parties
        ► 4. Party system dynamics
           Party System Criteria
          - 1. number of relevant parties -

► Austria
► Ireland          Usually 3-4 parties
                   in Parliament
► Germany
  (until 1990)

► Netherlands                                      Openness
                       At least 10 parties             =
► Italy                in Parliament          Greater opportunity
► Switzerland                                outcome unpredictable
           Party System Criteria
                  - 2. Fragmentation -
Germany (3/4/5)
Austria (3)           Low level of fragmentation (2-4)
Ireland (3)           Simple pattern of party competition
Greece (2/3)

Norway (5/7)
Finland (5)           Moderate level of fragmentation (4-6)
Sweden (5/6)
                      Limited pluralism
Spain (4/5)

Denmark (9/11)
Italy (10/13)         High level of fragmentation (10+)
Netherlands (9/12)    Extreme pluralism                       increasing
Switzerland (10)                                             complexity of
                                                            domestic politics
           Party System Criteria
        - 3. Relative strength of parties -

 Dominant party    2-party       2-block       Party parity

 SWEDEN - SAP                     FRANCE        BELGIUM
                  AUSTRIA (?)
NORWAY - Labour                    ITALY        DENMARK
  IRELAND - FF                  (post 1990)     FINLAND
   ITALY - DC                    GERMANY        ICELAND
   (pre-1990)                                 NETHERLANDS

                                              Likelihood of
   `Effective Number of Parties’
► Attempt   to represent number of relevant
  parties, fragmentation and relative strength
  by a single number
► Idea: when counting parties, one must
  account for their relative size (2+1/2 party
► ENP can be calculated for the nation, for
  parliament, for a single district …
     Effective Number of Parties
   ENP     M

           i 1

►M    is the absolute number of parties
► vi is the vote share for party 1,2, … M
► Square each share, sum the squares, divide
  1 by result
       Effective Number of Parties
► If all parties are of equal size, effective
  number = absolute number
► 1/(0.52+0.52)=1/(0.25+0.25)=2
► If sizes of parties differ, effective number is
  lower than absolute number
► 1/(0.52+0.32+0.12+0.12)=1/(0.25+0.09+
     An Example: The UK General
           Election 2005
► Vote shares for Lab, Con, Lib, Others: 35,
  32, 22, 10 per cent
► Effective Number of Parties: 3.5

► Seats   in the Commons: 55, 30, 10, 5 per
► Effective Number of Parties in Parliament:
         Party System Criteria
  - 4. Dynamics of party competition -

  Bipolar                           multipolar
competition                        competition


         GREECE                DENMARK
       GERMANY                 FINLAND
        IRELAND              NETHERLANDS
       PORTUGAL              SWITZERLAND
             Party System Dynamics
            Uni-dimensional/                              multipolar
           Bipolar competition


left              centre              right   left                           right


Centripetal = moderate, centrist parties      Centrifugal = extremist parties
     Party system classification by fragmentation
               and polarization (Sartori)
Fragmentation (number of parties)

                                    Polarized multipartyism: France,
                                    Netherlands, Italy

                           Moderate multipartyism: Germany, Spain, Sweden

                           Moderate two-partyism: UK

         Low                                                          High
                                                Polarizatation (ideological spread)
Party system change and electoral change

   Traditional view: electoral change triggers
   system change

   Challenging view: system change can trigger
   electoral change

                   Party system         Type of
 alignment                            government
 Dynamics of party system change - outlook

Developments in WE party systems indicating
  change from the traditional patterns of
  government formation

► In the last two decades WE party systems opened
► New parties increased range of party competition
► Relevant parties involved in government formation
  – new left, greens, extreme right
► I.e. new coalition alternatives
► signs of growing promiscuity (preparedness to
  change partners)

To top