Advertisement

Party institutionalization and intra-party preference homogeneity

  • Matthias MaderEmail author
  • Nils D. Steiner
Aufsätze

Abstract

This paper studies the relation between party institutionalization and intra-party preference homogeneity in democracies. In weakly institutionalized parties, it cannot be taken for granted that party actors have similar policy views because they lack the capability or motivation to coordinate agreement and to recruit personnel in line with this agreement. This should matter most when other safeguards against preference heterogeneity are missing. Empirically, we explore the association between institutionalization and intra-party preference homogeneity at the level of candidates to the national legislature based on survey data. In a single-country study, we first look at the case of Germany in 2013 and 2017, contrasting the young and weakly institutionalized Alternative for Germany (AfD) with the older, established parties. In a second step, we study the link between party institutionalization and preference homogeneity in a cross-country analysis of 19 established democracies. We find that parties with high value infusion—parties whose candidates are committed to the party—are generally more homogenous in their policy preferences. Moreover, value infusion is more consequential when the issues in question are not constitutive for the party and when candidates are selected in a decentralized way. Similarly, routinization of internal party behavior—the second dimension of institutionalization that we account for—seems to contribute to preference homogeneity only when parties are less policy oriented and have decentralized candidate selection procedures.

Keywords

party institutionalization intra-party heterogeneity party positions elite surveys party organization 

Parteieninstitutionalisierung und innerparteiliche Präferenzhomogenität

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel argumentiert, dass ein höherer Grad der Institutionalisierung von Parteien zu homogeneren Präferenzen innerhalb von Parteien beitragen sollte. Um den Zusammenhang zwischen Institutionalisierungsgrad und interner Präferenzhomogenität empirisch zu untersuchen, nutzen wir Daten aus Befragungen nationaler Parlamentskandidaten in einer Fallstudie zur AfD und in einer komparativen Analyse von Parteien aus 19 Demokratien. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass „value infusion“ – das Ausmaß, in dem sich Kandidaten ihrer Partei verpflichtet fühlen – die Homogenität von Sachfrageorientierungen innerhalb von Parteien begünstigt, insbesondere, wenn unwichtige Themen betroffen sind und die Kandidaten dezentral ausgewählt werden. Die zweite berücksichtigte Dimension von Institutionalisierung, die Routinisierung von Parteiprozessen, scheint die Präferenzhomogenität (nur) in Parteien mit geringer Policy-Orientierung und dezentraler Kandidatenauswahl zu erhöhen.

Schlüsselwörter

Parteieninstitutionalisierung Präferenzhomogenität Parteipositionen Elitenbefragungen 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the editors as well as the co-participants of this special issue, especially Saskia Ruth and Michelangelo Vercesi, for helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript. We are also grateful for the two anonymous reviewers’ thoughtful and constructive remarks. Theresa Bernemann, Ayse Gün and Lukas Isermann provided excellent research assistance.

Supplementary material

12286_2019_421_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.8 mb)
Online appendix with additional supporting information (issue items used; raw party level data), regression tables for figures 3 and 4, and regression results from robustness checks (interactions in one model; random effect models; controls for party family; only one election per country; excluding candidates who thought they could not win)

References

  1. AfD. 2013. Wahlprogramm der Alternative für Deutschland zur Bundestagswahl 2013. https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/41953_2013.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr 2018. Wahlprogramm, Parteitagsbeschluss vom 14.04.2013.Google Scholar
  2. AfD. 2016. Grundsatzprogramm der Alternative für Deutschland. https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/111/2017/01/2016-06-27_afd-grundsatzprogramm_web-version.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr 2018. Programm für Deutschland. Das Grundsatzprogramm der Alternative für Deutschland.Google Scholar
  3. Andeweg, Rudy B., and Jacques Thomassen. 2011. Pathways to party unity: sanctions, loyalty, homogeneity and division of labour in the Dutch parliament. Party Politics 17(5):655–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arter, David, and Elina Kestilä-Kekkonen. 2014. Measuring the extent of party institutionalisation: the case of a populist entrepreneur party. West European Politics 37(5):932–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arzheimer, Kai. 2015. The AfD: finally a successful right-wing populist Eurosceptic party for Germany? West European Politics 38(3):535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bäck, Hanna, Marc Debus, and Wolfgang C. Müller. 2016. Intra-party diversity and ministerial selection in coalition governments. Public Choice 166(3–4):355–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basedau, Matthias, and Alexander Stroh. 2008. Measuring party institutionalization in developing countries: A new research instrument applied to 28 african political parties. GIGA Working Paper 69:1–28.Google Scholar
  8. Baumann, Markus, Marc Debus, and Martin Gross. 2017. Strength of weakness? Innerparteiliche Heterogenität, divergierende Koalitionspräferenzen und die Ergebnisse von Koalitionsverhandlungen in den deutschen Bundesländern. PVS Politische Vierteljahresschrift 58(2):179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolleyer, Nicole. 2013. New parties in old party systems: persistence and decline in seventeen democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolleyer, Nicole, and Evelyn Bytzek. 2013. Origins of party formation and new party success in advanced democracies. European Journal of Political Research 52(6):773–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bräuninger, Thomas, and Nathalie Giger. 2018. Strategic ambiguity of party positions in multi-party competition. Political Science Research and Methods 6(3):527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carroll, Royce A., and Hiroki Kubo. 2019. Measuring and comparing party ideology and heterogeneity. Party Politics 25(2):245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Casal Bértoa, Fernando. 2017. Political parties or party systems? Assessing the ‘myth’ of institutionalisation and democracy. West European Politics 40(2):402–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CCS. 2016. Comparative candidates survey module I—2005–2013. Lausanne: FORS.Google Scholar
  16. Cross, William P., and Richard S. Katz. 2013. The challenges of intra-party democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Däubler, Thomas. 2012. The preparation and use of election manifestos: Learning from the Irish case. Irish Political Studies 27(1):51–70.Google Scholar
  18. Deutscher Bundestag. 2017. Namentliche Abstimmun: Eheschließung für Personen gleichen Geschlechts, Drucksache 18/6665 und 18/12989, 30. Juni 2017: Deutscher Bundestag, https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/plenum/abstimmung/abstimmung/?id=486. Accessed 13 Jul 2017.
  19. Dix, Robert H. 1992. Democratization and the institutionalization of latin American political parties. Comparative Political Studies 24(4):488–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dolezal, Martin, Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik, Wolfgang C. Müller, Anna Katharina Winkler. 2012. The life cycle of party manifestos: The austrian case. West European Politics 35(4):869–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goertz, Gary. 2006. Social science concepts: a user’s guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Harmel, Robert, and John D. Robertson. 1985. Formation and success of new parties. International Political Science Review 6(4):501–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harmel, Robert, and Lars Svåsand. 1993. Party leadership and party institutionalisation: three phases of development. West European Politics 16(2):67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harmel, Robert, Lars Svåsand, and Hilmar Mjelde. 2016. Party institutionalizartion and de-institutionalization: concepts and indicators. ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Pisa, 04.2016.Google Scholar
  25. Hazan, Reuven Y., and Gideon Rahat. 2010. Democracy within parties: candidate selection methods and their political consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hogg, Michael A., and Dominic Abrams. 1988. Social identifications: a social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Hogg, Michael A., and Joanne R. Smith. 2007. Attitudes in social context: a social identity perspective. European Review of Social Psychology 18(1):89–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political order in developing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Janda, Kenneth. 1980. Political parties: a cross-national survey. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Katz, Richard S., and Peter Mair. 1993. The evolution of party organizations in Europe: the three faces of party organization. American Review of Politics 14(4):593–617.Google Scholar
  31. Kitschelt, Herbert. 2000. Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies 33(6–7):845–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kitschelt, Herbert. 2013. Dataset of the democratic accountability and linkages project (DALP). https://sites.duke.edu/democracylinkage.Google Scholar
  33. Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2012. Personalization of national election campaigns. Party Politics 18(6):825–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laver, Michael, and Kenneth A. Shepsle. 1990. Government coalitions and intraparty politics. British Journal of Political Science 20(4):489–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levitsky, Steven. 1998. Institutionalization and Peronism: the concept, the case and the case for unpacking the concept. Party Politics 4(1):77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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):29–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Luebbert, Gregory M. 1986. Comparative democracy: policymaking and governing coalitions in Europe and Israel. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacAllister, Ian. 2007. The personalization of politics. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, ed. Russell J. Dalton, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, 570–588. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mader, Matthias. 2014. Notes on the German federal election, 2013. Electoral Studies 34:353–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mader, Matthias, and Harald Schoen. 2019. The European refugee crisis, party competition, and voters’ responses in Germany. West European Politics 42(1):67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Norris, Pippa. 1995. May’s law of curvilinear disparity revisited: leaders, officers, members and voters in British political parties. Party Politics 1(1):29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Panebianco, Angelo. 1988. Political parties: organization and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Payton, Mark E., Matthew H. Greenstone, and Nathaniel Schenker. 2003. Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: what do they mean in terms of statistical significance? Journal of Insect Science 3(1):34–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Randall, Vicky, and Lars Svåsand. 2002. Party institutionalization in new democracies. Party Politics 8(1):5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rattinger, Hans, Sigrid Roßteutscher, Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, Bernhard Weßels, Christof Wolf, Aiko Wagner, and Heiko Giebler. 2014. Candidate campaign survey 2013, survey and electoral/structural data (GLES). Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.  https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12043. ZA5716 Data file Version 3.0.0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roßteutscher, Sigrid, Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, Harald Schoen, Bernhard Weßels, Christof Wolf, Heiko Giebler, Reinhold Melcher, and Aiko Wagner. 2018. Candidate campaign survey (GLES 2017). Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.  https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13004. ZA6814 Data file Version 1.0.0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rovny, Jan. 2012. Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition. European Union Politics 13(2):269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sieberer, Ulrich. 2006. Party unity in parliamentary democracies: a comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies 12(2):150–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steenbergen, Marco R., and David J. Scott. 2004. Contesting europe? The salience of European integration as a party issue. In European integration and political conflict, ed. Gary Marks, Marco R. Steenbergen, 165–192. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Steiner, Nils D., and Claudia Landwehr. 2018. Populist conceptions of democracy and voting for the alternative for Germany: evidence from a panel study. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 59:463–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Steiner, Nils D., and Matthias Mader. 2019. Intra-party heterogeneity in policy preferences and its effect on issue salience: developing and applying a measure based on elite survey data. Party Politics 25(3):336–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tavits, Margit. 2013. Post-communist democracies and party organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tromborg, Mathias. 2019. Issue salience and candidate position taking in parliamentary parties. Political Studies 67(2):307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van der Eijk, Cees. 2001. Measuring agreement in ordered rating scales. Quality and Quantity 35(3):325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Volkens, Andrea, Judith Bara, Ian Budge, Michael D. McDonald, and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. 2013. Mapping policy preferences from texts: statistical solutions for manifesto analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Volkens, Andrea, Pola Lehmann, Theres Matthieß, Nicolas Merz, and Sven Regel. 2016. The manifesto data collection. Manifesto project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Berlin: WZB.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Institut für PolitikwissenschaftJohannes Gutenberg-Universität MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations