On the Study of New Parties
Author(s): Robert Harmel
Source: International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, Vol.
6, No. 4, New Political Parties (1985), pp. 403-418
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1601052
Accessed: 13/10/2010 13:08
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International
Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique.
http://www.jstor.org
ON THE STUDY OF
NEW PARTIES
ROBERT HARMEL
The large number of new parties appearing in western democracies and their actual
and potential impacts offer important avenues of research on parties in general. This
paper reviews work on the definition and enumeration of new parties, their variability,
classification and distinctiveness, and the development and testing of theory concerning new parties. It suggests areas of research that, in the author's view, will provide
evidence of the need to integrate an understanding of new-party phenomena in the
broader spectrum of political studies.
A quarter of a century ago, the comparative study of political parties
was invigorated by the onset of an exciting focus: the development
of new party systems in newly developing democratic states. Although
these were certainly not the first party systems to have been initiated,
the large number of systems being generated at approximately the same
time-along with their theorized importance in helping to stabilize new
political systems-gave political scientists an opportunity to use new
tools of empirical study to observe and compare systematically births
and early successes or failures within an institution that had long been
associated with stable democracy. Detailed studies were made of individual party systems. Empirical theories were developed and tested
to help explain variations in new party systems. In later years, attempts
were made to assess and explain the stability and relative "success"
of the new systems. Other studies considered the ramifications of
specific party system characteristics for the political systems and
societies in which they operated. In general, questions concerning party
system development took on greater importance in the context of
broader queries concerning the stability and survival of new political
systems. In that context, the study of new party systems-and parties
in general-flourished.'
In the study of political parties, many things differ today from the
1960s, and yet with a few important substitutions, the above account
could describe the situation today. In the 1980s, the comparative study
International Political Science Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, October 1985 403-418
@ 1985 by the International Political Science Association
403
404
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
of political parties may be reinvigorated by recognition of an equally
exciting focus: the development of many new political parties within
existing party systems throughout the world, including the established
party systems of the West. And although some of those parties (most
notably West Germany's Die Grunen and Britain's Social Democrats)
would have gained attention in any context, questions concerning the
development and impact of new parties generally have assumed much
greater importance at a time when observers have proclaimed the
decline of western party systems (e.g., Crozier et al., 1975; Epstein,
1980; Flanaganand Dalton, 1984), and some (e.g., Dalton et al., 1984b)
have suggested a possible role for new parties in either furthering or
halting that decline. Just as the new-party systems of the 1960s were
not the first to have been developed, the new parties of today are part
of an ongoing process of party system change. But the large number
of them today, the fact that a few of them have gained international
media attention, and especially the potential importance attributed to
them in the context of party system decline enhance the opportunities
they offer for furtheringthe development of theory on parties to make
the study of new political parties one of the most important and interesting areas of parties research in the 1980s.
The articles in this issue are, to a large extent, a reflection of the
"state of the art" in researchon new parties. Each adds to, and builds
upon, an existing literature. Each contributes to the futher development of theory on parties, and especially to theory on new party
development. And each is, in a way, a tribute to the pathfinding work
that has gone before-much of it in just the past few years.
These articles also represent a range of interests and approaches
employed in the development of theory involving new parties. Political
and historical studies of the development of new parties in single nations are represented here by Berrington's study of Britain and
Rochon's study of the Netherlands. In-depth studies of the electorates
of one type of new party, the greens, are representedby Burklin'sstudy
of the West German greens, and Muller-Rommel'sanalysis of ecology
parties throughout western Europe. Cross-nationalanalysis of all types
of new parties in many nations is representedby Harmel and Robertson's study of the formation and success of western European and
Anglo-American new parties.
In this introductory article, it is not my purpose to provide a
thorough review of the literature on new parties; collectively, the remaining articlesof the issue accomplishthat task more than adequately.
Harmel / STUDY OF NEW PARTIES
405
Nor is it my purpose to offer descriptions of each of the articles in
the issue; the abstracts accompanying the articles provide that service.
It is my purpose here to place these articles in the context of some
of the important questions currently being addressed by research on
new parties, and in so doing to identify areas in which additional work
is most needed. To that end, the remainder of this article is organized,
as is the study of new parties generally, around a number of questions pertaining to the frequency, variability, distinctiveness, causes,
and effects of new party development: How many new parties are there
today? To what extent are new parties "all alike"? To what extent
are new parties "different" from older parties? What "explains" new
party formation and success? And finally, what difference, if any, do
new parties make?
DEFINITION AND ENUMERATION
OF NEW PARTIES
How many new parties exist today? Obviously, to even begin
to answer such a question one must first operationalize "new" and
define "party."
DEFINITION
Some might consider as "new" only those parties that have been
formed to do battle over what are perceived to be "new issues". These
parties are new because of what they do for or to their party systems;
they add a new dimension of conflict to the arena of party politics,
and in so doing may fundamentally change the nature of party combat. Such parties would certainly include the ecology parties found
today throughout western Europe (see Burklin; Muller-Rommel, this
issue). Others may consider as "new" all parties formed after the occurrence of some particularly important historical event or guidepost;
twentieth-century new parties, post-World War II new parties, nuclear
era, post-industrial, post-1960, and so on.
Presumably, such parties are new not only because they were formed
more recently but also because they were formed in an environment
changed from that of earlier party formation. Rochon's decision to
include all parties formed in the Netherlands after adoption of proportional representation in 1917 would be explained by such reasoning. Yet another formulation would include as new parties all those
that have been added to a country's original party system, however
406
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
the latter might itself be defined. Berrington's analysis (this issue) of
parties formed since the original party system in Britain is an example. The "non-original" parties are new and possibly different from
the original parties if only because their initial role in the system is
different; the new parties may be advantaged and/or disadvantaged
by the decisions and actions of parties that have come before. Each
of these formulations can be justified on grounds of reasonableness
and utility. My choice of the last of the formulations to guide the
adoption of selections for this issue was motivated by a desire for comprehensiveness (i.e., because that formulation actually subsumes the
others); there is no pretense, however, that for all purposes it would
be better than the rest-in fact, it is likely not all of the authors of
this issue would subscribe to it.
Whereas a student of parties may be willing to accept another's
operationalization of "new" graciously, definitions of "party" tend
to evoke stronger feelings. Definitions run the gamut from "any
organization which nominates candidates for election to a legislature"
(Riggs, 1968: 51) to "all political organizationswhich regardthemselves
as parties and are generally so regarded" (Hodgkin, 1961: 16). (See
Lawson, 1976: 2-4; Sartori, 1976: 58-64; and Janda, 1980: 5-7, for
more examples and discussions of the definitional issue.)
Even for those who may agree on a particular, abstract conceptualization of party, there may be a difference of opinion on when
such organizations are big enough or organized enough or important
enough to be included in a sample for study. Janda, for instance, includes only legal parties winning 5 Noof the legislative seats in two successive elections and illegal parties obtaining support from lOo%of the
population for five years, with the cutoffs used to "certify the party's
strength and stability within the political system" (1980: 7). Rochon
requires that a party have representation in the national legislature at
least once in order to be included in his analysis. By making a practical distinction between real (or important or significant) parties and
pretenders, authors are intentionally or inadvertently limiting the
universe to which they are able to generalize their findings and conclusions. They are, for all practical purposes, making a cutoff point
part of the definition of party. Janda is, for all practical purposes,
limiting the universe of parties to those reaching a particular level of
support. Rochon is, for all practical purposes, limiting the universe
of parties to those that hold seats in the Parliament. For the practical
purposes of particular studies, it may be reasonable to limit the
universe, but it must always be understood that there is a cost in doing
Harmel / STUDY OF NEW PARTIES
407
so, and that cost is prohibitive if one wishes to generalize to all parties (or in this case, all new parties). Faulty inferences could result from
generalizing to all new parties from studies of just parties with some
level of electoral support or legislative representation, for instance; the
inferences may not apply to parties that win few votes or seats but
that may still be important in ways not tapped by those measures. (In
the two cases cited here, I should add, Janda and Rochon have been
clear in stating the parameters of their populations.)
The decision to eliminate such cutoff points brings its own set of
potential problems. Although a more inclusive rule for identifying parties for study has the advantage of broadening the generalizability of
the findings, it also creates the potential for greater slippage in allowing what some might consider to be non-parties' entry to the sample.
For example, a definition such as that Robertson and myself use
(Harmel and Robertson, this issue)-"an organization that purports
to have as one of its goals the placement of its avowed members in
no cutoff rules to narrow the pool
governmental office,"-with
further, necessitates a number of judgment calls when organizations
walk the fine line between pressure groups and parties.2 Students of
parties must inevitably grapple with the tradeoffs between generality
and certainty when defining their universe for study.
ENUMERATION
Returning now to the initial question of this section-How many
new parties are there?-it is no longer necessary to limit the answer
to a statement of the obvious, that the frequency would depend on
the definitions used. Although attempts to enumerate even all currently
existing parties have been rare, two recent studies (Janda and Gillies,
1980; Harmel and Robertson, this issue) do offer evidence on the frequency of new parties.
Janda and Gillies (1980) counted 95 new parties formed throughout
their world-wide sample of 53 countries from 1950 through 1978, including 14 new parties in the 16 "western" countries in their sample.
These counts, of course, were limited to parties qualifying for study
by Janda's 5%orule, discussed above.
Using our broader formulation, Robertson and I (Harmel and
Robertson, this issue) have identified 233 new parties formed in 19
western European and Anglo-American countries from 1960 through
1980; employing similar procedures, I have identified 139 parties
formed during the same period in existing party systems in the other
408
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
democracies throughout the world.3 The cumulative results are
presented in Table 1.
When standardized simultaneously for number of countries in the
region and the number of years that the party systems have been in
existence (i.e., system-years), the regional averages suggest that the
greatestproclivity for new party formation duringthe 1960-1980period
(or applicable portions thereof) has existed in western European and
Anglo-American countries, followed by South and Central America,
with the lowest average appearing in the African and Asian
democracies. This is true whethercounting all new parties or just those
formed "naturally" (i.e., without roots in other parties, as is the case
when parties are formed "unnaturally" through merger or split of
existing parties; see Harmel and Robertson, this issue).
Although these frequency counts unarguablyreflect the definitions
used,4 it is clear that by most definitions,
new parties are far from
being a rarity today, and they are not limited to any particular region
of the world. The juxtaposition of this evidence with the observation
that recent studies of new parties have tended to be limited to a relatively few western parties gives testament to the fact that the existing
research on new parties has been more narrowly confined than is
necessary.Detailed analyses of new partiesin individualcountries (such
as Berrington's and Rochon's in this issue) have produced not only
valuable description, but also classification schemes and theoretical
formulations that may be applied and tested in nations with different
culturesand historicalexperiences.Cross-nationalstudies of new parties
(such as Muller-Rommel's and Harmel and Robertson's in this issue)
have rarely reached beyond western democracies; further extention
could greatly enhance the richness and generalizability of existing
theory.
VARIABILITY, CLASSIFICATION,
AND DISTINCTIVENESS OF NEW PARTIES
VARIABILITY AND CLASSIFICATION
Regardless of which definitions (except the most trivial and restrictive) might be used, it is an empirical question to what extent the new
parties are "all alike" and to what extent they (or some subset) are
"different" from other parties. The articles of this issue testify to the
variability of new parties and provide only scant evidence that new
parties (or any substantial subset) are truly "distinctive."
Harmel / STUDY OF NEW PARTIES
409
TABLE 1
Frequency of New Parties by Region for 1960-1980
Regions
South and Central
Americaa
All New
Parties
69
(7.67)
70
Naturally
Formed
Only*
All per
System-Year**
Natural per
System-Year
32 (3.56)
.496
.230
(7.00)
18 (1.80)
.424
.109
Western Europe and
Anglo-AmericanC
233 (12.26)
112 (5.89)
.584
.281
Total
372
Africa and Asiab
(9.79)
162 (4.26)
a. Includes Bahamas, Barbados, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Surinam, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela; and democracies of South America,
Central America, and the Carribean. Total years of independent,
democratic party
systems: 139 for 9 countries.
b. Includes: Botswana, Fiji, India, Israel, Japan, Gambia, Malta, Papua New Guinea,
Sri Lanka, Turkey, and democracies of Africa, Asia, Middle East, and Far East. Total
years of independent, democratic party systems: 165 for 10 countries.
c. Includes: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, West Germany, United Kingdom, United States, and democracies of Western
Europe and North America, plus AustralIa and New Zealand. Total years or independent, democratic party systems: 399 for 19 countries.
*Number in parentheses is average per country for countries represented.
**Computed as total number of new parties divided by total number of years of
independent, democratic party systems, accumulated over all countries represented,
for 1960-1980.
Limiting his study to just one subset of new parties-ecology
parties
in western Europe-Muller-Rommel
has found that green parties vary
among themselves in activities, organizational structure, political influence, and especially program and strategy. His analysis demonstrates
that it is particularly useful to distinguish between "pure green reformist parties" and "alternative green radical parties." Rochon's analysis
of new parties in just one country-the
Netherlands-detects
and
focuses upon especially important differences among those parties on
in a distinction
program and strategy, summarized
between
"challenger" and "mobilizer" new parties. Robertson and I have
found, in our cross-national analysis, that the universe of western European and Anglo-American new parties provides substantial variance
on many important dimensions, including even their ultimate purpose;
we suggest that it may be useful to make a distinction between "contender" and "promoter" new parties, at the same time attributing full
party status to both types.
New parties are, quite clearly, not all alike. In fact, the range and
degree of their variability are more than sufficient to support interesting
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
410
and useful research into just the differences among new parties.
Rochon, Muller-Rommel,and Harmel and Robertson suggestthe kinds
of questions that might be investigated concerning different models
of development, different objectives and strategies, and different
degrees of success among new parties.
DISTINCTIVENESS
Are new parties fundamentally different from other, older parties?
Can we safely generalize to other parties from what we learn about
new parties, and vice versa? Or are they to be treated as significantly
different classes of parties? As obvious and important as this question would seem to be, there has been woefully little research aimed
at providing a direct answer.
The evidence in the articles of this issue suggests that many of the
new parties are not substantially different from older parties in most
important respects. Berrington, Rochon, and Harmel and Robertson
provide examples of new parties that do not appear to be significantly
different from older parties-motivationally, ideologically, organizationally, or in the role that they play in the party system.
However, other evidence from studies reported here and elsewhere
could be viewed as suggesting that some new parties differ in important ways from at least most of the more establishedparties. Denmark's
ProgressParty, France'sUnified Socialists, and Germany'sDie Grunen
are new " protest parties" and as such are certainly different from other
parties in their general orientation. Protest parties are parties "representing relatively diffuse protest against the present society," and they
"have no real expectation of taking or sharing power" (Powell, 1982:
94). Although it is true that this description applies to some new parties, and although their orientation certainly makes them different from
many other parties, it is also true that protest parties, as a genus, are
not new. They exist among the older as well as the newer parties (see
Powell, 1984, for examples).
Schoonmaker (1983; see also Frankland, 1983: 18) raises the
possibility that Die Grunen, in particular, might exemplify a new type
of party organization, by mixing attributes of decentralized, causeoriented movements and centralized, electorally oriented parties.
However, the experience of Die Grunen also demonstrates the problems in trying to form such a party. In Schoonmaker's view:
The attempt to shape a reasonably coherent organization with a
modicum of unity in the presence of diverse political viewpoints showed
how difficult it was to form a party of "a new type" [p. 17].
Harmel / STUDY OF NEW PARTIES
411
In fact, many of the Greens' current internal problems result from
the attempt to develop an organization that can meet goals of direct
democracy and opposition to the establishment while at the same time
winning seats in the legislature (see Frankland, 1983: 35). It is yet to
be seen whether further concessions to "normal" party organization
will be made in order to achieve a larger role in government, or whether
in the other direction, there might still develop something like a "contagion from the green" with attributes of Die Grunen copied by
other new (or even old) parties. (As of this writing, the latter certainly
seems less likely than the former.)
What is clear is that a potentially fruitful line of research has been
largely unexplored. More systematic comparison of new and older
parties is needed before we can adequately answer the question of
whether (and if so, in what ways) new parties, or some subset of them,
are fundamentally different from older parties.
One should not conclude from this discussion, however, that the
importance of new parties as a focus of study is inextricably tied to
their being either the same as or distinct from other parties. To the
extent that new parties are found to be distinctive, they offer a rare
opportunity to observe the formation of a new type of political
organization. To the extent that they are similar to older parties, the
large number and variety of new parties offer an equally important
opportunity to learn much more than we currently know about party
formation generally. Although the study of new parties would be
valuable whether they are different or because they are simply new,
it is obviously important to adequately determine which case does
apply.
DEVELOPING AND TESTING THEORY
INVOLVING NEW PARTIES
NEW PARTIES AS DEPENDENT VARIABLES:
FORMATION AND SUCCESS
Building of theory on the formation of political parties has roots
in such pathfinding works as Duverger's classic book on the origins
of western parties (1951), and the studies in LaPalombara and Weiner's
collection on party system creation in developing nations (1966). The
bulk of the earlier work tended to focus on the development of
"original" party systems and parties. Recent years have seen a renewed
interest in building and testing theory on party development, now
412
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
focused especially on the new parties that have formed within existing
party systems.
Primary attention has been given to the description and explanation of two dependentvariables:new party formation and success (with
the latter including both electoral success and durability). Among the
most important contributions to the development of theory on new
party formation is the cross-national study of Hauss and Rayside
(1978-see also Pinard, 1975, postscript; for others, concentrating
specifically on ecology parties, see Muller-Rommel, 1982, Pilat, 1980).
Hauss and Rayside's attempt at a comprehensive approach resulted
in a model in which new parties develop to address new issue strains,
but only if the sum total of certain institutionaland political facilitators
or inhibitors is conducive to such a development. The hypothesized
institutional facilitators include proportional representation and
legislative and regional electoral foci, whereas political facilitators include the existence of a competent and popular leadership group for
the new party, a strong organizational base, the continued neglect of
new issues by the older parties, and a positive attitude among disaffected voters toward formation of the new party. Hauss and Rayside's
own analysis of 23 cases (parties or non-party groups) from western
Europe and North America found political facilitators to be very important as "institutional facilitators including the much ballyhooed
electoral law have little effect on the development of new parties"
(1978: 54). Significantly, the renunciationof a central role for the electoral system is stated quite unequivocally for formation of the new
parties but is qualified for their success (e.g., the authors, on page
43, note that "there is evidence that parties which did poorly under
pluralitysystems would do better under proportionalrepresentation").
Many of the causal or conditional variablessuggested by Hauss and
Rayside also receive attention in the articles of this issue, which collectively contribute to the development of theory on new party formation, electoral success, and durability. Rochon sees new party
development in the Netherlands as a reaction to changing social
cleavages. Burklin and Muller-Rommel both see the development of
ecology partiesas a responseto new issues left unansweredby the major
parties, and Burklin goes on to argue that continued development of
the German greens depends on another party's willingness and ability
to adapt to the new politics. Berringtonnotes that there are often alternatives to new party formation that might accomplish the same ends,
and that political and structural factors help determine whether the
new party route will be chosen. Harmel and Robertson examine the
Harmel / STUDY OF NEW PARTIES
413
relationships between new party development and several social,
political, and structural factors.
Another specific, collective contribution of these works is to
demonstrate further the theoretical importance of the distinction between the dependent variables, formation and success, the relevance
of which rings out its findings pertaining to the role of the electoral
system. Both Berrington and Harmel and Robertson conclude that a
country's electoral system (i.e., plurality/majority or proportional
representation) may play a major role in determining its new parties'
chances for success, but neither article finds evidence to suggest that
new party formation is seriously hampered by the electoral formulae.
These articles join Hauss and Rayside's in providing cumulative support for the importance of carefully maintaining the distinction between formation and success in generating and testing theory involving
new parties.
It remains for other studies to investigate the true empirical relationships among the variables that I have so far casually lumped together
as "success." Theory to explain variation in new party success will
be enhanced and strengthened to the extent that distinctions are carefully maintained among electoral success, durability, and what some
may see as the ultimate measure of success-the effectiveness or impact of the party. Success on any one of these dimensions need not
imply success on the others. Clearly, electoral success (as treated here
in Muller-Rommel, Rochon, Burklin, and Harmel and Robertson) need
not be equated with durability(treated here in Berringtonand Rochon),
and neither of them is necessarily redundant with having policy impact.5 Recognition of this fact is extremely important so that faulty
inferences about impact are not derived from studies of electoral success or durability. Although literature on the latter two variables is
accumulating, there is a critical need for systematic, empirical study
of the ultimate impact of new parties.
NEW PARTIES AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:
THE IMPACT OF NEW PARTIES
One obvious but important difference between impact and the other
types of new party success is the level at which the analysis is focused.
Electoral success and durability can be observed for each party alone,
but impact involves both an actor and a target and must be measured
at the level of the target. In the case of new parties, the primary targets
are generally at the system level. What is the impact of the new party
on the party system, on the political system, or on policy?
414
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
Isolating, let alone quantifying, specific impacts is a difficult (purists
might say impossible) task, and that may be one explanation for the
scarcityof empiricalresearchon this ultimate dependent variable. Still,
the extant literature does include many references to presumed, or at
least potential, effects of new parties. Some have focused on the impact of a particular party or type of party. Frankland (1983: 36ff),
for instance, has inventoried the possible consequences of the development of the greens in West Germany. After summarizing a list of effects posited by others, running the gamut from undermining
democracy to further democratizing the party system, Frankland
himself concludes that if Die Grunen can solve its own internal problems, its presence could "contribute directly and indirectly to the reinvigorationof the West Germanyparty system." Schoonmaker(1983:
30) views the same party as "part of a generational mission to shape
a new political culture and to reshape old political structures."
Although the ambitions of other new parties may not be so far
reaching, they too may have important systemic impact. Dalton,
Flanagan, and Beck (1984b: especially 467-468) suggest that recently
formed new parties not only pose a direct challenge to the idea that
western party systems are frozen, but in fact should be seen as both
a resultof and potential contributorto the process of realignmentwhere
it is occurring. Indeed, new parties may be seen as part of a solution
to what has generally been viewed as a decline in the importance of
parties.
Although none of the articles of this issue is primarily a study of
new party impact, the authors do put themselves on record as seeing
much potential for important consequences from new party development.6 First, although it is generally agreed among the authors
that impacts are not adequately reflected in vote and seat counts alone,
evidenceis provided(especiallyin Rochon's analysis in the Netherlands)
that some new parties can and do win sufficient representation to
potentially affect outcomes in government. Short of that, MullerRommel notes that new parties may, by raising and promoting particular issues, alter the agenda for more established parties. (Implicit
in Burklin's argument is that Die Grunen has played this role in West
Germany.) Berrington also suggests that some new and very small
parties may take advantage of their nuisance value to affect the actions of alliance partners.Finallyand perhapsmost important, Rochon,
Muller-Rommel,and Berringtonall see potential effects of new parties
on future political alignments.
Harmel / STUDY OF NEW PARTIES
415
But for all that has been suggested concerning new party impact,
there has been very little systematic, empirical analysis. Unfortunately,
but perhaps understandably, most that has been written thus far (in
this issue and elsewhere) about the effects or consequences or impact
of new parties has been highly speculative. Little empirical research
has focused on the ways or the extent to which new parties actually
change their systems. Perhaps this is due to the general difficulty of
measuring and attributing impact; and perhaps it is because it is still
too early to fully gauge the impact of parties that have been formed
only recently.
The difficult problems of operationalizingand assigning impact have
been at least adequately solved in other areas of political research,
however, and concentrated effort may yield the same benefits here.
And though it may be impossible to assess fully the impact of recently
formed parties, articles in this issue demonstrate that it is not necessary
to limit the study of "new" parties to "recently formed" parties. Berrington's and Rochon's articles effectively incorporate historical new
parties, for many of which it should be possible to assess consequences
over a long period of time. If planned with eventual comparison in
mind, similarlydetailed, historical analyses in individual countries could
produce sufficient comparable, judgmental data on the impacts of
historical new parties to make systematic, cross-national analysis possible. What have been the consequences, historically, of adding new
parties (or particular types of new parties) to existing party systems?
We do not yet have an adequate answer, but research aimed at answering that question could contribute greatly to our ability to identify and anticipate consequences of new parties being formed today.
THE STUDY OF NEW PARTIES:
AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Although the formation of new parties is hardly a new phenomenon, and in fact has been accurately described as a continuous
process (LaPalombara and Weiner, 1966: 7), new parties are a relatively
new focus for systematic, empirical research. Although important,
ground-breaking work has recently been done on some areas of new
party development, others require more work and some remain virtually untouched.
Research on new parties has tended to be confined to western party
systems; more study of new parties elsewhere would both enrich
416
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
and extend the generality of theory on party development. Although
there is little question that new parties vary substantially among
themselves, additional work is needed to assess more fully the distinctiveness of any of the new parties from their older counterparts;
especiallylacking are comparativestudies of the organizationalfeatures
of new and old parties. Research reported in this issue and elsewhere
has demonstrated the importance of treating formation and success
of new parties as separate variables, but it remains for others to explore fully the empiricalrelationshipsamong different types of success.
The articles of this issue have moved us further in our understanding and ability to explain new parties as dependent variables, but we
have not yet moved significantly beyond speculation concerning the
effects of new parties as causal or conditional variables. New parties
may be interesting and theoretically useful in their own right as newly
formed or still forming political organizations, but they are practically
importantto the extent that they have the capacity to change something
else. The impacts of new parties demand further attention from
political scientists as well as political historians. Indeed, the full importance of research on new parties cannot be realized until it ceases
to be just an area of study unto itself, and instead is fully integrated
into broader studies of systems and system change.7
NOTES
1. Studies reported in LaPalombara and Weiner (1966) provide examples of the
fruits of this focus.
2. Our definition is adapted from Janda (1980) and differs only in our addition
of "purports to." See Harmel and Robertson (this issue, note 3).
3. Sources of data for other than western European and Anglo-American countries include Alexander (1982), Europa Yearbook (various years), Delury (1983), and
Day and Degenhardt (1980, 1984). See Harmel and Robertson (this issue) for a complete discussion of the coding process and for sources of information on the other
countries.
4. Janda and Gillies (1980: 164) report a distribution of new parties across 10
geocultural regions. Their results are not directly comparable to those presented here,
however, because their sample of countries includes non-democraticsystems and because
Janda's 5%7rule excludes many new parties included here. For those wishing to make
a comparison, however, I should note that the correspondence of Janda's regions to
my three regions, collapsed for simplification of presentation, is as follows: My "South
and Central America" corresponds to Janda's South America, Central America and
Caribbean; my "Africa and Asia" includes Janda's "Asia and Far East, Middle East
and North Africa, and Central and East Africa"; my "Western Europe and Anglo-
Harmel / STUDY OF NEW PARTIES
417
American" corresponds to Janda's West Central Europe, Scandinavia and Benelux,
and Anglo-American culture area. The exception to the above is India, which Janda
included in the Anglo-American countries and I include in the Africa and Asia category.
5. That electoral success and durability are not inextricably linked is forcefully
demonstrated by the experience of "flash" parties, which, by definition, begin with
a spurt of electoral success but then decline and often disappear, all within a brief
period of time (Converse and Dupeux, 1962).
6. When speaking of the impacts of new parties, I obviously do not mean to imply
that all new parties have similar consequences. Ample evidence is provided in this
issue that many new parties are stillborn, and their impacts, for instance, would certainly be of a different type and degree than is the case for many other, longer-lasting
new parties.
7. Perhaps the best example of this to date is found in Dalton, Flanagan, and
Beck (1984b). Although the central focus of the chapter is not new parties, their development and role are placed in a broader context of party system change.
REFERENCES
ALEXANDER, R. J. [ed.] (1982) Political Parties of the Americas: Canada, Latin
America and the West Indies. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
CONVERSE, P. E. and G. DUPEUX (1962) "Politicization of the electorate in France
and the United States." Public Opinion Q. 26: 1-23.
CROZIER, M., S. HUNTINGTON, and J. WATANUKI (1975) The Crisis of
Democracy. New York: New York Univ. Press.
DALTON, R. J., S. C. FLANAGAN, and P. A. BECK [eds.] (1984a) Electoral Change
in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment? Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press.
(1984b) "Political forces and partisan change," pp. 451-476 in Electoral Change
in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment? Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press.
DAY, A. J. and H. W. DEGENHARDT [eds.] (1980, 1984) Political Parties of the
World. (1st, 2nd eds.) Detroit: Gale Research.
DELURY, G. E. [ed.] (1983) World Encyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties.
New York: Facts on File.
DUVERGER, M. (1951) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the
Modern State. Paris: Armond Colin.
EPSTEIN, L. D. (1980) Political Parties in Western Democracies. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Books.
Europa Publications (various years) The Europa Yearbook. London: Europa
Publications.
FLANAGAN, S. C. and R. J. DALTON (1984) "Parties under stress." West European Politics 7: 7-23.
FRANKLAND, E. G. (1983) "Interpreting the 'Green' phenomenon in West German
politics, 1977-1983." Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political
Science Association, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, April 29-May 2.
418
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
HAUSS, C. and D. RAYSIDE (1978) "The development of new parties in western
democracies since 1945," pp. 31-57 in L. Maisel and J. Cooper [eds.] Political
Parties: Development and Decay. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
HODGKIN, T. (1961) African Political Parties. London: Penguin.
JANDA, K. (1980) Political Parties: A Cross-National Survey. New York: Free Press.
--and R. GILLIES (1980) "Continuity and change," pp. 162-169 in K. Janda,
Political Parties: A Cross-National Survey. New York: Free Press.
LaPALOMBARA, J. and M. WEINER [eds.] (1966) Political Parties and Political
Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
LAWSON, K. (1976) The Comparative Study of Political Parties. New York: St.
Martin's Press.
MULLER-ROMMEL, F. (1982) "Ecology parties in Western Europe." West European Politics 4: 68-74.
PILAT, J. F. (1980) Ecology Politics: The Rise of the Green Movement. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
PINARD, M. (1975) "A postscript: an elaboration of the theory of one-party
dominance," pp. 277-297 in M. Pinard, The Rise of a Third Party (enlarged ed.).
Montreal: McGill-Queen's Univ. Press.
POWELL G. B., Jr. (1982) Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and
Violence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
(1984) "Extremistpolitical parties, electoral polarization, and political turmoil."
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association. Washington DC, September 1-4.
RIGGS, F. (1968) "Comparative politics and political parties," in W. Crotty [ed.] Approaches to the Study of Party Organization. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
SARTORI, G. (1976) Parties and Party Systems. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
SCHOONMAKER, D. (1983) "The 'greens' in West Germany: between movement
and party." Paper presentedat the annual meetingsof the American Political Science
Association, Chicago, Il. September 1-4.
Robert Harmel is Associate Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University.
He is coauthor of Parties and their Environments: Limits to Reform?, editor of
Presidents and their Parties, and author or coauthor of numerous articles on political
parties and legislative behavior.