Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Parliamentary Party Groups: To Whom is the Midfield Accountable?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Party Governance and Party Democracy

Abstract

In multiparty parliamentary democracies, the parliamentary party groups (PPGs) relate to voters and the general public, to the party organization, and—particularly if in government—to government initiatives. Especially in countries with traditionally strong party organizations, like in the Nordic democracies, this puts the PPGs at the crossroad of three different streams of policy making. Modeling unitary parties consequently become a dubious undertaking. Weak party discipline in parliament may of course be an indication that the overall party unity is shaky. But also strong disciplined PPGs may act in ways that fragmentize overall party power. Moreover, it follows that not considering the crucial power of PPGs and the role they play in decision making may lead to inadequate maps of power structures. In this chapter, I will first explore the position attributed to PPGs in some recent works on parties and parliaments. Expanding on the work by Heidar and Koole, I explore the thesis that PPGs are underestimated in many works both on parties and on parliaments. The chapter provides a discussion of the implications of this relative neglect for both fields of research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the following, I use the term EPO—extra-parliamentary party organization—to refer to the whole party organization outside of parliament and the government: the organizational leadership, the central committee, the external party secretariat, constituency-level parties and party branches, and the membership and activists.

  2. 2.

    The other mechanism, “external constraints,” works primarily through ex post accountability. That will not be discussed here.

  3. 3.

    The literature here is extensive, see, for example, McKenzie (1963) and Ware (1979).

References

  • Bendor, J., & Moe, T. M. (1985). An adaptive model of bureaucratic politics. The American Political Science Review, 79(3), 755–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blondel, J., & Cotta, M. (Eds.). (2000). The nature of party government: A comparative European perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, D., Farrell, M., & Katz, R. (Eds.). (1999). Party cohesion, party discipline and the organization of parliaments. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budge, I. (1996). The new challenge of direct democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, J. M. (2009). Legislative voting and accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. J., Farrell, D., & McAllister, I. (2011). Political parties and democratic linkages: How parties organize democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duverger, M. (1954). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, D., & O’Halloran, S. (1999). Delegating powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fenno, R. F. (1973). Congressmen in committees. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazan, R. Y. (2003). Does cohesion equal discipline? Towards a conceptual delineation. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 9(4), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidar, K. (1995). Partigruppene på Stortinget. Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift, 11, 277–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidar, K. (2000). Parliamentary party groups. In P. Esaiasson & K. Heidar (Eds.), Beyond Westminster and congress: The Nordic experience (pp. 183–209). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidar, K., & Koole, R. (Eds.). (2000a). Parliamentary party groups in European democracies: Political parties behind closed doors. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidar, K., & Koole, R. (2000b). Approaches to the study of parliamentary party groups. In K. Heidar & R. Koole (Eds.), Parliamentary party groups in European democracies: Political parties behind closed doors (pp. 4–22). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidar, K., & Koole, R. (2000c). Parliamentary party groups compared. In K. Heidar & R. Koole (Eds.), Parliamentary party groups in European democracies: Political parties behind closed doors (pp. 248–270). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helms, L. (2000). Parliamentary party groups and their parties: A comparative assessment. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 6(2), 104–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, M. R. (1992). The constructed explanation: Interpreting election results in the 1984 presidential race. The Journal of Politics, 54(4), 943–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, T. K. (2000). Party cohesion. In P. Esaiasson & K. M. Heidar (Eds.), Beyond Westminster and Congress: The Nordic experience (pp. 210–236). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. S. (1987). Party government and its alternatives. In R. S. Katz (Ed.), Party governments: European and American experiences (pp. 1–26). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Key, V. O. (1964). Politics, parties and pressure groups (5th ed.). New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1969). Political parties in western democracies. Polity, 2(2), 111–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laver, M., & Shepsle, K. A. (1999). How political parties emerged from the primeval slime: Party cohesion, party discipline and the formation of governments. In S. Bowler, D. M. Farrell, & R. Katz (Eds.), Party cohesion, party discipline and the organization of parliaments (pp. 23–52). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, J. D. (1973). Opinion structure of political parties: The special law of curvilinear disparity. Political Studies, 2(21), 135–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, R. (1963). British political parties (2nd ed.). London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, W. C. (2000). Political parties in parliamentary democracies: Making delegation and accountability work. European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 309–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, W. C., & Strøm, K. (Eds.). (2000). Coalition governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mykkänen, J. (2001). Inside rationality: The division of labour in a parliamentary party group. Then Journal of Legislative Studies, 7(3), 92–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, J. E. (2003). Explaining party cohesion and discipline in democratic legislators: Purposiveness and context. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 9(4), 12–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özbudun, E. (1970). Party cohesion in western democracies: A causal analysis. Sage Professional Papers in Comparative Politics, Series 01, No. 001, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, H. H. (2010). Differences and changes in Danish party organisations: Central party organization versus parliamentary party group power. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 16(2), 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polsby, N. W. (1983). Consequences of party reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1942). Party government. New York: Rinehart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieberer, U. (2003). Party unity in parliamentary democracies: A comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 12(2), 150–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöblom, G. (1968). Party strategies in a multiparty system. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skjæveland, A. (2001). Party cohesion in the Danish Parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 7(2), 35–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, K. (1997). Rules, reasons and routines: Legislative roles in parliamentary democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 3(1), 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, K. (2000a). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 261–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, K. (2000b). Parties at the core of government. In R. J. Dalton & M. P. Wattenberg (Eds.), Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies (pp. 180–207). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, K. (2003). Parliamentary democracy and delegation. In K. Strøm, W. C. Müller, & T. Bergman (Eds.), Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies (pp. 55–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, K., Müller, W. C., & Bergman, T. (Eds.) (2003a). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, K., Müller, W. C., Bergman, T., & Nyblade, B. (2003b). Dimensions of citizen control. In K. Strøm, W. C. Müller, & T. Bergman (Eds.), Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies (pp. 651–706). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, K., Müller, W. C., & Bergman, T. (Eds.) (2008). Cabinets and coalition bargaining: The democratic life cycle in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, G. (1990). Nested games: Rational choice in comparative politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Bietzen, I., Mair, P., & Poguntke, T. (2012). Going, going,…gone? The decline of party membership in contemporary Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 55(1), 24–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware, A. (1979). The logic of party democracy. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ware, A. (1987). Citizens, parties and the state. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Knut Heidar

Authors
  1. Knut Heidar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Knut Heidar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Government, University of Vienna, Hohenstaufengasse 9A, Vienna, 1010, Wien, Austria

    Wolfgang C. Müller

  2. University of Oslo, Oslo, 0317, Oslo, Norway

    Hanne Marthe Narud

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Heidar, K. (2013). Parliamentary Party Groups: To Whom is the Midfield Accountable?. In: Müller, W., Narud, H. (eds) Party Governance and Party Democracy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6588-1_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation