School of Social Sciences and Philosophy
Department of Political Science
Senior Sophister 2016–17
PO 4740 TOPICS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
(Term 1: Political Parties)
Lecturer term 1: Michael Gallagher
(Term 2: The Military and Politics, lecturer Dr Jesse Dillon Savage)
This part of the module studies political parties, focusing primarily though not
exclusively on parties as organisations. It looks at where parties come from,
what they do, where they get their money, where power lies within them, what
sort of people join them and why, and at arguments that parties are inevitably
undemocratic organisations, finishing by considering the future prospects of
political parties.
It will look primarily at parties in western Europe, although for particular topics
evidence from other competitive party systems (such as the USA, Canada,
Japan, Israel, Australia) will also be discussed. It is designed for students who
have taken a number of political science modules and is not advised for those
with little political science background.
Module structure for first term
The first meeting will be introductory and will give an overview of the first
term. After that, the module will proceed by means of weekly discussion classes
at which all students will be required to participate actively.
Learning outcomes
By the end of the first term of this module, students will have a deeper
understanding of the roles played by political parties within contemporary
political systems and the debates around these roles, of the ways in which
parties function, and of the challenges that parties face in the twenty-first
century. They will be equipped to assess critically research into political parties.
Office
My office is Room 5.06, 1 Foster Place. Email address mgllgher @ tcd.ie
Information
Clicking on the PO4740 Topics in Political Science module page at
http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/undergraduate/module-outlines/ss/topics/
takes you to the module page, which in turn has a link to the first-term online
noticeboard, where module information will be posted (accessible from TCD
computers only). Handouts and relevant readings will also be on the module’s
Blackboard page.
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
2
Coursework
For PO4740 as a whole, the May exam counts for 60% of the final overall mark, with first
term coursework counting 20% and second term coursework counting 20%.
First term coursework consists of writing one essay, due on Thursday 8 December. For a
paper that is not submitted, or is submitted late without an extension having been granted in
advance, a mark of zero will be recorded.
Seminar discussions in term 1
After the initial introductory lecture, the module proceeds by a series of discussion seminars.
At these the class discusses a topic, as set out on the handout. Everyone is required to read a
specific item (marked with ***) and, in addition, to read one other item. The *** chapters or
articles will usually be on the online noticeboard, or on reserve in the library; articles will be
either on photocopy reserve, or on-line via the library site, or on the module on-line
noticeboard, or all three. Items will be assigned by email notification.
When doing your assigned reading for the classes, bear in mind when you talk about your
reading that the main aim is not to tell me what was in the reading but to tell the other
members of the class. The idea is that each week’s meeting has aspects of a group project,
where the work is divided up and each person can rely on the other members of the class to
find out about and report on what light their allocated reading throws on the topic under
discussion. (This also implies that any student who hasn’t done their allotted reading is not
letting down the lecturer, they’re letting down the other members of the class.)
So, when presenting this in the class, do your best to tailor what you say to other members
of the class. Make sure you present enough background and context so that they can
understand the significance of what you’ve found. On the other hand, you won’t need to
present every detail of what you’ve read, so do identify in advance the main points, the ones
relevant to the question we’ll be discussing, rather than give a blow-by-blow account of
every page of the article or chapter.
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
3
Reading
Details of reading for individual topics are given separately. There is no textbook as such, but
the following books, most on reserve in the Berkeley, will occur frequently on the reading for
specific topics and are of general relevance.
Richard S Katz and William J Crotty (eds), Handbook of Party Politics (London: Sage,
2006). Has chapters on many of the module topics, and as such the nearest thing there is
to a textbook.
Michael Gallagher, Michael Laver and Peter Mair, Representative Government in Modern
Europe, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Ch 10 (inside political parties) gives an
overview of a number of themes in the module
Alan Ware, ‘Exceptionalism, political science and the comparative analysis of political
parties’, Government and Opposition 46:4 (2011), 411–35
Alan Ware, Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996
William P Cross and Richard S Katz (eds), The Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy
(Oxford UP, 2013)
Ann-Kristin Kölln, ‘The value of political parties to representative democracy’, European
Political Science Review 7:4 (2015) 593–613.
Sheri Berman, “The life of the party”, Comparative Politics 30:1 (1997), pp. 101–22 is a
useful discussion of some broad themes.
William R Schonfeld, ‘Political parties: the functional approach and the structural
alternative’, Comparative Politics 15 (1983) 477–99. Argues that it makes sense to study
parties in terms of their organisations rather than in terms of the functions they
supposedly perform
Brief overviews of a number of relevant topics (eg campaigning, candidate selection,
canvassing, Downsian model, election finance, public aid, realigning elections) in Richard
Rose (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Elections (Washington: CQ Press, 2000)
Journals that often include relevant and up-to-date material are Party Politics, West
European Politics, to a lesser extent Electoral Studies and German Politics.
As for Internet sites, you could try:
www.partylaw.leidenuniv.nl has information about legal regulation of parties
www.ipu.org/english/parlweb.htm – links to parliaments, and thence to parties, in many
countries
http://www.politicalresources.info/ has links to sites of many parties
If you find any particularly good sites, let me know.
In readings for specific topics, some items are marked ***. These are essential reading for
everyone; other items will be assigned to individual members of the class.
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
4
Topics for term 1
1
27 Sept: Introduction. Introductory meeting giving a brief overview of the themes of
the first term of the module.
2
4 Oct: Why parties? Some early observers of parties felt that parties were necessarily
undemocratic. Ostrogorski was one of the first to express such views at length – indeed,
he regarded parties as essentially anti-democratic. What is the basis of his criticism? Is
it realistic?
3
11 Oct: Internal party democracy. Michels, like Ostrogorski, was an early critic of
parties; he argued that internal party democracy was impossible. Does he make a
convincing case for the Iron Law of Oligarchy?
4
18 Oct: Congruence of intra-party attitudes. How well do the opinion structures of
political parties conform to the law of curvilinear disparity? If the law is true, what are
the explanations; under what circumstances is it least valid; and what are its most
important consequences?
5
25 Oct: Candidate selection. How, and by whom, are parliamentary candidates chosen?
What, if any, are the consequences of variations in the selection procedure?
6
1 Nov: Party identification. What is meant by “party identification”? Is it true that the
concept is not useful because party identification cannot be meaningfully distinguished
from current voting intention?
– – – Week 7 (Tues 8 Nov) is reading week, no meeting – – –
7
15 Nov: Democracy and party competition. Downs argues that democracy results from
party competition and argues that parties and their policy offerings are determined
essentially by what voters want. Is his model valid?
8
22 Nov: The rationality of election campaigning. What campaigning techniques do
parties employ? How rational are they in terms of their stated aims or in other respects?
9
29 Nov: Factions. Many theorists direct attention to party sub-groups, sometimes called
factions. Is there a clear definition of ‘faction’? Why do factions exist in some
circumstances but not in others? Are factions generally dysfunctional for parties and
political systems?
10
6 Dec: Parties and members. Why do people join political parties (the ‘paradox of
participation’)? Why do political parties recruit members (the ‘paradox of enrolment’)?
Do parties need or even want members any more?
11
13 Dec: The future of political parties: is the party over? What is the future of political
parties? Is Duverger’s archetypal ‘mass party’ really the modern type? Are political
parties in decline?
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
5
Topic 2
Why parties?
Some early observers of parties felt that parties were necessarily undemocratic. Ostrogorski
was one of the first to express such views at length – indeed, he regarded parties as
essentially anti-democratic. What is the basis of his criticism? Is it realistic?
1
2
3
4
the problems that Ostrogorski identified in and with parties
the causes; why did people tolerate that state of affairs?
the remedy proposed by Ostrogorski
assessment of his predictions and remedies
Reading:
*** Austin Ranney, The Doctrine of Responsible Party Government. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1954. esp chapter 7 on Ostrogorski. Presents Ostrogorski’s views and
assesses them.
Seymour Martin Lipset, Revolution and Counter-revolution. London: Heinemann, 1969. ch
11 (Ostrogorski). NB for a hard copy version you will have to consult the counter reserve
copy – the lending copy is a reprinted and truncated edition that doesn’t include the
chapter on Ostrogorski. But it’s also on Blackboard and the on-line noticeboard
Rodney Barker and Xenia Howard-Johnston, ‘The politics and political ideas of Moisei
Ostrogorski’, Political Studies 23:4 (1975), pp. 415–29. Relatively sympathetic
discussion of Ostrogorski’s argument
Keith Sutherland, The Party’s Over (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004). Slightly over the top
argument that politics in Britain (and by extension everywhere) would work better
without parties, ie an essentially Ostrogorskian argument even though not explicitly cast
as such. Ch 2 argues that parties are ‘useless’ and ‘counterproductive’; ch 5 (esp pp. 124–
42) outlines how the party-free parliament would operate; pp. 178–87 addresses some
objections to a party-free polity
Moisei Ostrogorski, Democracy and the Organisation of Political Parties. New York:
Haskell House, 1970 (originally published 1902). Vol 2, part 6, esp pp. 607–58. Conveys
the flavour of the argument; should be looked at in order to understand Ostrogorski’s
perspective, though from your point of view not the best item of reading to start off with
Secondary reading:
Review of Ostrogorski’s book in American Journal of Sociology 72:1 (1966) by Dannhauser,
and contemporary reviews in the New York Times (online noticeboard)
Frederick C. Engelmann, ‘A critique of recent writings on political parties’, Journal of
Politics 19:3 (1957), 423–40 (includes both Ostrogorski and Michels). Coins the term
‘stasiology’ for the study of political parties
Paolo Pombeni, ‘Ending in passion: Bryce, Lowell, Ostrogorski and the problem of
democracy’, Historical Journal 37:2 (1994), 319–41. More about Bryce than
Ostrogorski, but some relevant, and mainly critical, points about the latter
Gaetano Quagliariello, Politics without Parties: Moisei Ostrogorski and the debate on
political parties on the eve of the twentieth century (Aldershot: Avebury, 1996). Places
Ostrogorski in the context of now-forgotten debates from a century ago – but you may
find some useful points in it
*** = essential reading for everyone
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
6
Topic 3
Internal party democracy
Michels, like Ostrogorski, was an early critic of parties; he argued that internal party
democracy was impossible. Does he make a convincing case for the Iron Law of Oligarchy?
1
2
3
4
5
what features of leaders make oligarchy inevitable?
what features of members and supporters facilitate oligarchy?
in practice, how effective are party attempts to democratise?
some empirical tests
is oligarchy inevitable, and if so is this necessarily a problem?
Reading:
*** Gordon Hands, “Roberto Michels and the study of political parties”, British Journal of
Political Science 1:2 (1971), pp. 155–72. Presents Michels’s views and assesses them.
Seymour Martin Lipset, Revolution and Counter-revolution. London: Heinemann, 1969. ch
12 (Michels). If you want to read a hard copy, you will have to consult the counter
reserve copy – the lending copy is a reprinted and truncated edition from 1988 that
doesn’t include the chapter on Michels. Anyway, it’s on the on-line noticeboard &
Blackboard.
Peter Y Medding, “A framework for the analysis of power in political parties”, Political
Studies 18:1 (1970), pp. 1–17; basically a critique of Michels.
Philip J Cook, ‘Robert Michels’s Political Parties in perspective’, Journal of Politics 33:3
(1971), pp. 773–96.
Robin T Pettitt, ‘Revisiting Michels’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy”: an examination of
membership influence in political parties’, paper presented at Political Studies
Association conference, Bath, 2007.
Alan Ware, Citizens, Parties and the State (Cambridge: Polity, 1987), ch 6. On whether
internal party democracy is achievable, in the light of Michels’s argument that it isn’t
Robert Michels, Political Parties. New York: Dover, 1959 (orig published 1915). esp pp. 49–
59, 365–92, 400–8. The core of Michels’s argument
Thomas A Koelble, “Party structures and democracy: Michels, McKenzie and Duverger
revisited via the examples of the West German Green party and the British Social
Democratic Party”, Comparative Political Studies 22:2 (1989), pp. 199–216.
Rachel Gibson and Robert Harmel, “Party families and democratic performance:
extraparliamentary vs. parliamentary group power”, pp. 211–28 in Richard Hofferbert
(ed.), Parties and Democracy: party structure and party performance in old and new
democracies (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998). Aims to test Michels’s “Iron Law” empirically
Jo Saglie and Knut Heidar, ‘Democracy within Norwegian political parties’, Party Politics
10:4 (2004) 385–405
Secondary reading:
Frederick C. Engelmann, ‘A critique of recent writings on political parties’, Journal of
Politics 19:3 (1957), 423–40 (includes both Ostrogorski and Michels)
Darcy K Leach, ‘The iron law of what again?: conceptualizing oligarchy across
organizational forms’, Sociological Theory 23:3 (2005) 312–27
Byron E. Shafer, ‘Roberto Michels, Vilfredo Pareto, and Henry Jones Ford: classical insights
and the structure of contemporary American politics’, International Political Science
Review 12:3 (1991), 185–218.
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
7
Topic 4
Congruence of intra-party attitudes
How well do the opinion structures of political parties conform to the law of curvilinear
disparity? If the law is true, what are the explanations; under what circumstances is it least
valid; and what are its most important consequences?
1
2
3
4
5
alternative models of attitudes of different strata
causes: why might activists be most ‘extreme’? And, by the same token, why according
to the model aren’t leaders more extreme still?
how accurate is May’s law in the light of his and others’ evidence?
under what circumstances is the law least likely to be accurate?
consequences if the ‘law’ is true, or even if it’s not true but is believed to be true by party
leaders, members, and/or voters
Reading:
*** John D. May, “Opinion structure of political parties”, in Steven B Wolinetz (ed.),
Political Parties (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1998), pp. 211–27. Originally published 1973;
essential reading.
Herbert Kitschelt, “The internal politics of parties: the law of curvilinear disparity revisited”,
in Steven B Wolinetz (ed.), Political Parties (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1998), pp. 229–50.
Originally published 1989
Pippa Norris, “May’s Law of Curvilinear Disparity revisited: officers, members and voters in
British political parties”, Party Politics 1:1 (1995), pp. 29–48
Ana Belchior and André Freire, ‘The law of curvilinear disparity revisited: the case of
Portuguese political parties’, Journal of Social and Political Sciences 2 (2011) 49–67
Michael Gallagher and Michael Marsh, Days of Blue Loyalty: the politics of membership of
the Fine Gael party (Dublin: PSAI Press, 2002), ch 7
Emilie van Haute and R Kenneth Carty, ‘Ideological misfits: a distinctive class of party
members’, Party Politics 18:6 (2012) 885–95
Hanne Marthe Narud and Audun Skare, “Are party activists the extremists? The structure of
opinion in political parties”, Scandinavian Political Studies 22:1 (1999), pp. 45–65.
Paul Webb and David M. Farrell, “Party members and ideological change”, pp. 44–63 in
Geoffrey Evans and Pippa Norris (eds), Critical Elections: British parties and voters in
long-term perspective (London: Sage, 1999); seeks to test May’s Law, among other
things
Roger Buch Jensen, “Opinion structures in political parties – the law of increasing
polarization?”, pp. 137–47 in Erik Beukel, Kurt Klaudi Klausen and Poul Erik Mouritzen
(eds), Elites, Parties and Democracy: festschrift for Professor Mogens N Pedersen
(Odense: Odense University Press, 1999)
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
8
Topic 5
Candidate selection
How, and by whom, are parliamentary candidates chosen? What, if any, are the
consequences of variations in the selection procedure?
1
2
3
4
5
various levels in party where candidates might be chosen – examples of each
why do these cross-national variations exist?
does it affect the type of people picked – what factors help someone get selected?
does it affect behaviour of deputies, or cohesion of party?
does it display the Iron Law of Oligarchy in operation?
Reading:
*** Richard S Katz and William J Crotty (eds), Handbook of Party Politics (London: Sage,
2006), ch 10 (Hazan and Rahat) OR
***Gideon Rahat, ‘Candidate selection: the choice before the choice’, Journal of Democracy
18:1 (2007), pp. 157–70.
Reuven Y. Hazan and Gideon Rahat, Democracy within Parties: candidate selection methods and
their political consequences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), esp ch 7 on the impact
on whom is selected.
M. Gallagher and M. Marsh (eds), Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective (London,
1988): “Conclusion”; 48 pages of enjoyable reading
Yael Shomer, ‘What affects candidate selection processes? A cross-national examination’, Party
Politics 20:4 (2014), 533–46
Krister Lundell, ‘Determinants of candidate selection: the degree of centralization in comparative
perspective’, Party Politics 10:1 (2004), pp. 25–47
Jonathan Hopkin, “Bringing the members back in? Democratising candidate selection in Britain
and Spain”, Party Politics 7:3 (2001), 343–61 (special issue on cand selection)
Indridi H Indridason and Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson, ‘Primary consequences: the effects of
candidate selection through party primaries in Iceland’, Party Politics 21:4 (2015) 565–76
John Bochel and David Denver, “Candidate selection in the Labour Party: what the selectors
seek”, British Journal of Political Science 13:1 (1983), pp. 45–69
Dennis C Spies and André Kaiser, ‘Does the mode of candidate selection affect the
representativeness of parties?’, Party Politics 20:4 (2014), 576–90.
Daniel M Smith and Hidenori Tsutsumi, ‘Candidate selection methods and policy cohesion in
parties: the impact of open recruitment in Japan’, Party Politics 22:3 (2016), 339–53.
Pippa Norris and Joni Lovenduski, “ ‘If only more candidates came forward’: supply-side
explanations of candidate selection in Britain”, British Journal of Political Science 23:3
(1993), pp. 373–408. Asks how far the candidate selection process is responsible for the fact
that the backgrounds of MPs diverge from those of the population at large
Shane Mac Giollabhuí, ‘How things fall apart: candidate selection and the cohesion of dominant
parties in South Africa and Namibia’, Party Politics 19:4 (2013), 577–600.
Jo Silvester, ‘Recruiting politicians: designing competency-based selection for UK parliamentary
candidates’, pp. 21–38 in Ashley Weinberg (ed.), The Psychology of Politicians (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Anna B Mikulska and Susan E Scarrow, ‘Assessing the political impact of candidate selection
rules: Britain in the 1990s’, Journal of EPOP 20:3 (2010), 311–33.
Susan E. Scarrow, Paul Webb and David M. Farrell, “From social integration to electoral
contestation: the changing distribution of power within political parties”, pp. 129–53 in
Russell J. Dalton and Martin P. Wattenberg (eds), Parties without Partisans: political change
in advanced industrial democracies (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000).
William Cross, ‘Democratic norms and party candidate selection: taking contextual factors into
account’, Party Politics 14:5 (2008) 596–619. On when cand selection matters most
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
9
Topic 6
Party identification
What is meant by “party identification”? Is it true that the concept is not useful because
party identification cannot be meaningfully distinguished from current voting intention,
especially outside the USA?
1
2
3
4
5
6
main elements of the traditional model
how related to rational choice model?
utility in explaining US voting behaviour
utility in other countries
some problems with the model
why is it seemingly less useful in Europe than in the US?
Reading:
Aim to read both of the *** items
*** Martin Harrop and William Miller, Elections and Voters (Basingstoke: Macmillan,
1987), pp. 130–45 (and glance over the rest of the chapter) – an easy introduction
*** Richard Johnston, ‘Party identification: unmoved mover or sum of preferences?’,
Annual Review of Political Science 9 (2006), 329–51 – a more advanced assessment
Ian Budge et al (eds), Party Identification and Beyond (London: Wiley, 1976), ch 1
(gives an overview of the concept and some problems associated with it); ch 3 on UK
also useful. There is also a 2010 reprint, which is identical except for the addition of a
fresh Intro by Budge; it’s on the shelves in a different place, at 324 L6
Thomas M Carsey and Geoffrey C Layman, ‘Changing sides or changing minds? Party
identification and policy preferences in the American electorate’, American Journal
of Political Science 50:2 (2006), 464–77
Russell J Dalton, Citizen Politics: public opinion and political parties in advanced
industrial democracies, 5th ed (Washington: CQ Press, 2008), ch 9; mainly on US,
Britain and Germany
Eric W Groenendyk, Competing Motives in the Partisan Mind: how loyalty and
responsiveness shape party identification and democracy (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2013), ch 7
Harold D Clarke and Marianne C Stewart, “The decline of parties in the minds of
citizens”, Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1998) pp. 357–78. Outlines the
pattern in the US, Britain and Canada.
Mike Medeiros and Alain Noël, ‘The forgotten side of partisanship: negative party
identification in four Anglo–American democracies’, Comparative Political Studies
47:7 (2013), 1022–46.
Richard Rose and William Mishler, “Negative and positive identification in postcommunist societies”, Electoral Studies 17:2 (1998), pp. 217–34
David Sanders, Jonathan Burton and Jack Kneeshaw, ‘Identifying the true party identifiers: a question wording experiment’, Party Politics 8:2 (2002), pp. 193–205
Michael Laver, The Theory and Practice of Party Competition: Ulster 1973–75 (London:
Sage, 1976), pp. 8–9, 15–20 AND
Michael Laver, “Issues, attitudes and party policy”, pp. 113–26 in Michael Laver et al
(eds), How Ireland Voted 1987 (Swords: Poolbeg, 1987)
Bradley Richardson, “Constituency candidates versus parties in Japanese voting
behaviour”, APSR 82:3 (1988), pp. 695–718
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
10
Topic 7
Democracy and party competition
Downs argues that democracy results from party competition and argues that parties and their
policy offerings are determined essentially by what voters want. Is his model valid?
1
2
3
4
5
Downs’s assumptions about (a) voters, (b) parties. NB these are assumptions in the sense
of ‘let’s assume for the sake of argument’, not ‘I firmly believe that these all hold true in
the real world’
where do unconstrained parties place themselves on the spectrum? By what factors are
parties in practice constrained?
heuristic devices employed by voters
is voting the paradox that ate rational choice theory?
the assumptions on which the model rests – are they questionable? If so, how far does
this undermine the whole model, bearing in mind that it’s a deductive model?
Reading (read any one of the *** items):
*** Michael Laver, Private Desires, Political Action: an invitation to the politics of rational
choice (London: Sage, 1997), chs 5 (Voting) and 6 (Party competition). A gentle and very
readable introduction to the idea of spatial competition
*** Jocelyn A J Evans, Voters and Voting: an introduction (London: Sage, 2004), ch 4 on
‘Rational choice theories of voting’
*** Alan Ware, Political Parties and Party Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1996), pp. 18–21, 317–30. Outlines Downs’s model together with a few criticisms of it
Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957), esp ch 8
(and glance over ch 7). This chapter doesn’t present the entire model, but it does deal with that
aspect of it that has had most influence on subsequent researchers
Bernard Grofman (ed.), Information, Participation and Choice: “An Economic Theory of
Democracy” in perspective (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995). Ch 12 (“Toward an
institution-rich theory of political competition with a supply-side component” – Grofman on how
Downs’s model needs to be modified to match the real world better). Also look over the first few
pages of the Intro (Grofman), and over 16 (short chapter by Lijphart). The book contains
contributions by Grofman’s shadowy collaborator A Wuffle.
Bernard Grofman, ‘Downs and two-party convergence’, Annual Review of Political Science 7 (2004)
25–46. Argues that Downs was right, if only we read him correctly
Ian Budge et al, Organizing Democratic Choice: party representation over time (Oxford: Oxford UP,
2012), ch 3
Brian Barry, Sociologists, Economists and Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978),
ch 5, on Downs. Subjects Downs’s model and assumptions to rigorous but non-technical analysis
Donald E Stokes, “Spatial theories of party competition”, 161–79, ch 9 in Angus Campbell, Philip E
Converse, Warren E Miller, Donald E Stokes, Elections and the Political Order. NY and London:
John Wiley, 1966. Presents Downs’s model and then criticises it in the light of empirical evidence
Pippa Norris and Joni Lovenduski, ‘Why parties fail to learn: electoral defeat, selective perception
and British party politics’, Party Politics 10:1 (2004) 85–104
D Sanders et al, ‘Downs, Stokes and the dynamics of electoral choice’, BJPS 41 (2011) 287–314.
Secondary reading:
Robert G. Boatright, ‘The median voter: fact or fiction? The history of a theoretical concept’, paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of Western Political Science Association, March 25-27, 1999
Donald P Green and Ian Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: a critique of applications in
political science (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1994), ch 4 on how Downs-inspired rational
choice theory tries to deal with ‘the paradox of voter turnout’
Giovanni Sartori, Parties and Party Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. ch 10.
Sympathetic discussion of, and attempt to extend, Downs’s model
Donald Wittman, ‘Candidate motivation: a synthesis of alternative theories’, APSR 77:1 (1983), 142–57.
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
11
Topic 8
The rationality of election campaigning
What campaigning techniques do parties employ? How rational are they in terms of their
stated aims or in other respects?
1
2
3
4
5
6
campaigning techniques employed in various countries
why do parties campaign – what assumptions are they making about voters?
what would rational campaigning entail? Obstacles to rationality
how much impact does campaigning have on voters? Some say little, others think
great impact
under what circumstances could it have most impact?
what other useful functions does campaigning serve, quite apart from any possible
impact on maximising seats in parliament?
Reading:
*** Richard Rose, Influencing Voters (London: Faber, 1967), pp. 23–32, chs 8–9, pp.
195–214; essential, as it poses the questions, even though the details are dated
On specific countries:
Thomas M Holbrook, Do Campaigns Matter? Sage, 1996. Chs 1, 7. On USA
Paul A Beck and Erik D Heidemann, ‘Changing strategies in grassroots canvassing:
1956–2012’, Party Politics 20:2 (2014), 261–74. On the USA
Richard W Jenkins, ‘How campaigns matter in Canada: priming and learning as
explanations for the Reform Party’s 1993 campaign success’, Canadian Journal of
Political Science 35:2 (2002), pp. 383–40
Gideon Doron and Uri On, “A rational choice model of campaign strategy”, pp. 213–31
in A. Arian (ed.), The Elections in Israel 1981 (Tel Aviv: Ramot, 1983)
Adam F Simon, The Winning Message: candidate behavior, campaign discourse and
democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002), ch 5, Conclusion. Analysis of an
archetypal example of an apparently irrational campaign.
Romain Lachat and Pascal Sciarini, ‘When do election campaigns matter, and to whom?
Results from the 1999 Swiss election panel study’, pp. 41–57 in David M Farrell and
Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck (eds), Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign effects in
elections and referendums (London: Routledge, 2002)
Pippa Norris et al, On Message: communicating the campaign (London: Sage 1999), ch
11; on whether the UK 1997 election campaign had any impact
Gary C Jacobsen, ‘How do campaigns matter?’, Annual Review of Political Science 18
(2015) 31–47; focused entirely on USA
Annemarie S Walter, ‘Choosing the enemy: attack behaviour in a multiparty system’,
Party Politics 20:3 (2014), 311–23
Richard R Lau and Gerald M Pomper, ‘Effectiveness of negative campaigning in US
Senate elections’, American Journal of Political Science 46:1 (2002), pp. 47–66.
Richard R Lau and Ivy Brown Rovner, ‘Negative campaigning’, Annual Review of
Political Science 12 (2009) 285–306
David Denver and Gordon Hands, “Challengers, incumbents and the impact of
constituency campaigning in Britain”, Electoral Studies 16:2 (1997), pp. 175–93
Further reading:
Richard S Katz and William J Crotty (eds), Handbook of Party Politics (London: Sage,
2006), chs 11 (Farrell on the general picture) and 13 (Brox and Shaw on USA)
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
12
Topic 9
Factions
Many theorists direct attention to party sub-groups, sometimes called factions. What
exactly are factions – is there a clear definition of ‘faction’? Why do factions exist within
some parties but not in others? Are factions inevitably pernicious and dysfunctional in
their consequences for parties and political systems?
1
2
3
4
5
definition: how to distinguish them from ‘tendencies’ etc?
different types of faction
examples from Japan, France, Italy, Uruguay
causes of factions
consequences: negative ones, positive ones
Reading:
*** Françoise Boucek, ‘Rethinking factionalism: typologies, intra-party dynamics and
three faces of factionalism’, Party Politics 15:4 (2009) 455–85
Frank P Belloni and Dennis C Beller (eds), Faction Politics: political parties and factions
in comparative perspective. Santa Barbara: ABC Clio, 1978. Still the only booklength study of factions. Chs 1 (overview, posing the questions, by Beller and
Belloni), 2 (some empirical findings, by Zariski), 17 (conclusion on basis of book,
producing the answers, by Beller and Belloni). There’s quite a lot of overlap between
these three chapters; ch 17 is probably the most useful, but look at the others as well
David Hine, “Factionalism in west European parties: a framework for analysis”, in
Steven B Wolinetz (ed.), Political Parties (Dartmouth: Ashgate, 1998), pp. 251–68.
Originally published 1982. General article, looks at factors that might give rise to or
facilitate development of factions
Gregory Koger, Seth Masket & Hans Noel, ‘Cooperative party factions in American
politics’, American Politics Research 38:1 (2010) 33–53
Eric C Browne and Sunwoong Kim, ‘Factional rivals and electoral competition in a
dominant party: inside Japan’s Liberal Democratic party, 1958–1990’, European
Journal of Political Research 42:1 (2003), pp. 107–34
Ellis S Krauss and Robert J Pekkanen, The Rise and Fall of Japan’s LDP: political party
organizations as historical institutions (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2011), chs 4 & 5 –
concentrate on the broad issues rather than the details of who headed which faction
Ronald J Hrebenar (ed.), Japan’s New Party System. Boulder: Westview, 2000. pp. 106–
29 and 144–5; examination of nature, causes and consequences of factionalism in the
LDP, Japan’s usual ruling party and one of the most factionalised parties in the world.
Concentrate on the broad issues rather than the details of who headed which faction
Kim Eric Bettcher, ‘Factions of interest in Japan and Italy: the organisational and
motivational dimensions of factionalism’, Party Politics 11:3 (2005), 339–58
Patrick Köllner, ‘Factionalism in Japanese parties revisited, or how do factions in the
LDP and the DPJ differ?’, Japan Forum 16:1 (2004), 87–109
Paul Webb, The Modern British Party System (London: Sage, 2000), ch 6
Scott Morgenstern, “Organised factions and disorganised parties: electoral incentives in
Uruguay”, Party Politics 7:2 (2001), pp. 235–56
Ian McAllister, ‘Party adaptation and factionalism within the Australian party system’,
American Journal of Political Science 35:1 (1991), 206–27
Alistair M Cole, “Factionalism, the French Socialist Party and the Fifth Republic: an
explanation of intra-party divisions”, European Journal of Political Research 17:1
(1989), pp. 77–94. Detailed study of one party that also produces general propositions
about the possible causes and consequences of factions
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
13
Topic 10
Parties and members
Why do people join political parties (the ‘paradox of participation’)? Why do political parties
recruit members (the ‘paradox of enrolment’)? Do parties need or even want members any
more?
A participation (‘supply-side’ factors)
1 Clark and Wilson incentives
2 empirical evidence as to why members join parties
3 what’s happening to the incentives as time goes by?
4 trends in party membership
B enrolment (‘demand-side’ factors)
1 reasons why parties might want members
2 the costs of members
3 the ‘exchange model’ – Strøm, Ware
4 empirical evidence: do parties want members, and, if so, for what purpose?
Reading: (read one of the *** items, plus one item from the other section)
Why do people join parties?
*** Alan Ware, Political Parties and Party Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996),
pp. 63–78. Straightforward discussion of the reasons why people might join parties
Ingrid van Biezen, Peter Mair and Thomas Poguntke, ‘Going, going, ……gone? The decline of party membership
in contemporary Europe’, European Journal of Political Research 51:1 (2012), 24–56
Ingrid van Biezen and Thomas Poguntke, ‘The decline of membership-based politics’, Party Politics 20:2 (2014)
205–16.
William P Cross and Richard S Katz (eds), The Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy (Oxford UP, 2013), ch 4,
Katz on whether intra-party democracy would arrest party decline
Michael Bruter and Sarah Harrison, ‘Tomorrow's leaders?: Understanding the involvement of young party
members in six European democracies’, Comparative Political Studies 42:10 (2009), pp. 1259–91.
Paul F Whiteley, ‘Is the party over? The decline of party activism and membership across the democratic world’,
Party Politics 17:1 (2011) 21–44.
William Cross and Lisa Young, ‘Factors influencing the decision of the young politically engaged to join a
political party: an investigation of the Canadian case’, Party Politics 14:3 (2008), 345–69
Do parties want or need members any more?
*** Susan Scarrow, “The ‘paradox of enrolment’: assessing the costs and benefits of party
memberships”, in Steven B Wolinetz (ed.), Political Parties (Dartmouth: Ashgate, 1998),
pp. 163–82. Originally published EJPR 1994. Tries to draw up a balance sheet from the
perspective of parties
Richard Katz, “Party as linkage: a vestigial function?”, European Journal of Political Research 18:1 (1990), pp.
143–61. Questions whether parties need members
Alan Ware, “Activist–leader relations and the structure of political parties: ‘exchange models’ and vote-seeking
behaviour in parties”, in Steven B Wolinetz (ed.), Political Parties (Dartmouth: Ashgate, 1998), pp. 499–520.
Originally published BJPS 1992. Suggests that members are of benefit to parties
William Cross and Anika Gauja, ‘Evolving membership strategies in Australian political parties’, Australian
Journal of Political Science 49:4 (2014) 611–25.
Susan E. Scarrow, “Parties without members? Party organization in a changing electoral environment”, pp. 79–
101 in Russell J. Dalton and Martin P. Wattenberg (eds), Parties without Partisans: political change in
advanced industrial democracies (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000).
Marc Hooghe and Ruth Dassonneville, ‘Party members as an electoral linking mechanism: an election forecasting
model for political parties in Belgium, 1981–2010’, Party Politics 20:3 (2014), 368–80
Alan Martin and Philip Cowley, “Ambassadors in the community? Labour Party members in society”, Politics
19:2 (1999), pp. 89–96
Further reading:
Anika Gauja, ‘The construction of party membership’, European Journal of Political Research 54 (2015) 232–48.
William P Cross and Richard S Katz (eds), The Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy (Oxford UP, 2013), ch 5,
Young on ‘Party members and intra-party democracy’
Mark Low, ‘The changing nature of activist engagement within the Conservative party: a review of Susan
Scarrow’s task-oriented approach to party membership’, British Politics 9:1 (2014) 93-119
Patrick Seyd and Paul Whiteley, ‘British party members: an overview’, Party Politics 10:4 (2004), pp. 355–66.
On the consequences of declining membership and activism levels. This issue of the journal is all about party
members
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
14
Topic 11
The future of political parties: is the party over?
What is the future of political parties? Is Duverger’s archetypal ‘mass party’ really the
modern type? Are political parties in decline?
1
2
3
4
5
6
Duverger and the mass party; features of the mass party
Reasons why the mass party was in trouble from c 1960:
changes in society and social structure
increased role of mass media, especially TV
Kirchheimer and the catch-all party thesis
cartel party model: what it says about party system, and about individual parties
criticisms of the cartel party model: Koole, Kitschelt, the issue of ‘stratarchy’
are parties in decline? Legitimacy; the roles they perform; their organisation at
various levels
Reading:
*** Duverger, Political Parties, pp. 422–27. Won’t take long to read—outlines his view
that the mass party is the modern form
*** Richard S Katz and William J Crotty (eds), Handbook of Party Politics (London: Sage,
2006), ch 21 (Krouwel)
Richard Katz and Peter Mair, “Changing models of party organization and party democracy: the emergence
of the cartel party”, in Steven B Wolinetz (ed.), Political Parties (Dartmouth: Ashgate, 1998), pp. 473–
96. Originally published 1995
Ruud Koole, “Cadre, catch-all or cartel? A comment on the notion of the cartel party”, Party Politics 2:4
(1996), pp. 507–24 (plus Katz and Mair’s rejoinder pp. 525–34)
Herbert Kitschelt, ‘Citizens, politicians and party cartellization: political representation and state failure in
post-industrial democracies’, European Journal of Political Research 37:2 (2000), pp. 149–79. Like
Koole, offers various criticisms of the ‘cartel party’ idea
Richard S. Katz and Peter Mair, “The cartel party thesis: a restatement”, Perspectives on Politics 7:4
(2009), pp. 753–66.
William P Cross and Richard S Katz (eds), The Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy (Oxford UP, 2013),
ch 2, Carty on ‘Are political parties meant to be internally democratic?’
Peter Mair, Ruling the Void: the hollowing of western democracy (London: Verso, 2013), Intro & Ch 1
Peter Mair, Party System Change: approaches and interpretations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Ch 6,
“Popular legitimacy and public privileges: party organisations in civil society and the state”, 120–54.
Russell J Dalton, David M Farrell, Ian McAllister, Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: how parties
organize democracy (Oxford: Oxford Univ Press, 2011), ch 9. Optimistic about the future of parties
Ingrid van Biezen, ‘The end of party democracy as we know it? A tribute to Peter Mair’, Irish Political
Studies 29:2 (2014), 177–93.
Paul Webb, “Political parties in Britain: secular decline or adaptive resilience?’, pp. 16–45 in Paul Webb,
David M. Farrell and Ian Holliday (eds), Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Klaus Detterbeck, ‘Cartel parties in western Europe?’, Party Politics 11:2 (2005), 173–91
Klaus Detterbeck, ‘Party cartel and cartel parties in Germany’, German Politics 17:1 (2008) 27–40
Peter Mair, ‘Polity-Scepticism, Party Failings, and the Challenge to European Democracy’, Wassenaar:
NIAS, 2006. Pessimistic about the future of parties
Further reading:
Party Politics 20:2 (2014) has a number of articles on aspects of the cartel party thesis
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
POLITICAL PARTIES
15
2016–17
Examination – counts 60% of final overall mark for module in PO4740
The exam will take place in April–May 2017. It will have two sections,
corresponding to the material covered in the two terms. Students will be asked to
answer 3 of those questions, at least one question from each section, in the allotted 3
hours. The style and format of the exam as regards the material covered in the first
term will be the same as that of the exam paper for PO4740 last year and of the exam
papers for PO4670 Political Parties in recent years. Your own notes of the class
discussions should be very useful in tackling the exam, and these should be
supplemented by reading. While it may be impossible for you to read every item on
every topic, you should aim to cover as many as you can. You should do this as the
module proceeds rather than postponing it until teaching finishes at the end of the
second term. Be aware that there are disagreements within the political science
literature, and that you are expected to know about these.
Assessment and assignment: term 1
The assignment should be about 2,000 words in length (if it’s 2,001 or even 2,010
that’s not a concern, but don’t award yourself a ’margin’ over and above the
stipulated length) – this figure includes any footnotes, but not the list of references.
Writing essays tests your ability to identify the central issues of the topic and stick to
them, among other things, so essays that go significantly above this limit will be
marked down accordingly; your essay should state the number of words it is.
Essays must be submitted both via turnitin.com and in hard copy. The hard copies
must be typed, on one side of the paper only. Please leave a reasonable margin,
indicate the source of material, including the page number(s)—preferably by
references embedded in the text, such as (Koole, 2005, p. 517)—and append a list of
works consulted. Hand them in without plastic folders, binders etc, ensure that the
cover sheet has been attached and correctly filled in, and make sure you’ve
numbered the pages of your essay. Put your name on the cover sheet, ie the School
assignment submission form, but nowhere else on the essay.
All coursework needs to be submitted via the plagiarism detector Turnitin; see
www.turnitin.com. Class ID number is 13638854, class name is PO4740PolP, class
enrolment password is Topics1 (all of these are case sensitive). To be sure that you
are not inadvertently plagiarising, see the department’s undergraduate handbook at:
www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/undergraduate/module-outlines/UndergradHandbook.pdf
This also gives guidelines about how to write and plan an essay, what the markers
are looking for, what qualities a good essay possesses, and what factors can result in
low marks. Of course, ‘self-plagiarism’ is not acceptable, ie it would not be
acceptable to recycle essays that you have submitted for another module.
Please note that because the marks for the first-term assignment constitutes 20%
of the overall mark for the module, the external examiner has discretion to alter the
mark awarded, either upwards or downwards, so the mark given by the internal
examiner is not necessarily final.
All late work, unless excused in advance by the module lecturer, or justified by
medical certificate or tutor’s note, will be penalised at a rate of 5 marks per day. Under
no circumstances will work be accepted after the set work has been marked and
handed back to other students, or after the end of Trinity lecture term.
PO4740 Topics (term 1: Political Parties) 2016–17
16
Assignment 1 (counts 20% of final overall mark for module in PO4740)
1.
Have attempts to test May’s ‘law of curvilinear disparity’ been able to reach
a definite conclusion regarding its validity? Should the idea of the ‘law’ be
seen as having sufficient power that it is analytically useful and politically
influential regardless of whether or not it is empirically always accurate?
2.
Does the concept of party identification still have a significant role to play in
explaining voting behaviour?
3.
What would rational campaigning entail, and do parties always campaign
rationally? If not, why not?
Reading: as appropriate from the module topics, plus other relevant items that you can
find.
Essays to be submitted via turnitin.com, and in hard copy to Room 5.06, by 12 noon on
Thursday 8 December 2016 (week 11 of term 1). Scheduled return date: the module
meeting with Dr Dillon Savage on Monday 16 January.