Effects of Party Organization on Performance during the 'Golden Age' of Parties
KENNETH JANDA and TYLER COLMAN
2. Neglect of party organization is discussed in K. Janda, 'Cross-national measures of party organizations and organizational theory', European Journal of Political Research, 11,3 (1983), p. 319: and P. Mair, 'Party Organizations from Civil Society to the State', in R. S. Katz and P. Mair (eds). How Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in Western Democracies (London. Sage, 1994). p. 1.
3. S.M. Lipset and S. Rokkan, 'Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments', in SM. Lipset and S. Rokkan (eds), Party Systems and Voter Alignments (New York, Free, 1967), pp. 1-64: H. Daalder and P. Mair (eds), West European Party Systems: Continuity and Change (London. Sage. 1983): and P. Mair and G. Smith (eds), Understanding Party System Change in Western Europe (London, Frank Cass, 1989).
4. M. Maguire, 'Is There
Still Persistence? Electoral Change in Western Europe,
1948-1979', in Daalder and Mair. West European Part)'
Systems. pp. 67-94; M. N. Pedersen, 'Changing Patterns
of Electoral Volatility in European Party Systems,
1948-1977: Explorations in Explanation', in Daalder and
Mair. pp. 29-66; and R. J. Dalton, S. C. Flanagan and P. A.
Beck (eds), Electoral
5. R. S. Katz and P. Mair (eds), Party Organizations: a Data Handhook on Party Organizations in Western Democracies, 1960-1990 (London, Sage, 1992).
6. Party models are discussed in A. Panebianco, Political Parties: Organization and Power (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998); and R. S. Katz and P. Mair 'Changing models of party organization and party democracy: the emergence of the Cartel Party', Party Politics, 1, (1995). 5-28. Comparative studies of party organization are in A. Appleton and D. S. Ward, 'Party transformation in France and the United States: the hierarchical effects of system change in comparative perspective', Comparative Politics, 26,1 (1993), 69-98; and Katz and Mair, How Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in Western Democracies. Development of party organizations in emerging democracies in former communist nations is studied in R. W. Orttung, 'The Russian right and the dilemmas of party organization', Soviet Studies. 44.3 (1992), 445-78; and P. Kopecky, 'Developing party organizations in east-central Europe: what type of party is likely to emerge?', Party Politics, 1,4 (1995), 515-34.
7. Mair, 'Party Organizations: from Civil Society to the State', p.2.
8. M. Duverger, Political Parties: their Organization and Activity in the Modern State (London, Methuen. 1959), pp.62-79.
9. A. Ware, Political Parties and Party Systems (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 65-66.
10. Mair, 'Party Organizations: from Civil Society to the State', p. 2.
11. Mair, 'Party Organizations: from Civil Society to the State', p. 5.
12. Mair. p.2. Students of US parties tend to reserve 'golden age' to describe party politics in the late 1800s, e.g., Paul Allen Beck, Party Politics in America (New York, Longman, 1996), pp.24-5.
13. K. Lawson and P. Merkl (eds), When Parties Fail (Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1988).
14. For example, see Katz and Mair, 'Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy'. In the United States, where popular opinion holds that parties have declined greatly, scholars see their resurgence. See [S. Maisel (ed.), The Parties Respond: Changes in American Parties and Campaigns, 2nd ed. (Boulder CO, Westview, 1994); and J. C. Green and D. M. Shea (eds), The State of the Parties: the Changing Role of Contemporary American Parties, 2nd ed. (Lanham MD. Rowman and Littlefield, 1996).
15. P. Selle and L. Sväsand. 'Membership in party organizations and the problem of the decline of parties'. Comparative Political Studies, 23 (1991), 459-77; L. Bille, 'Denmark, the Decline of the Membership Party? How Parties Organize', in Katz and Mair, Party Organizations, pp. 134-57; K. Heidar. 'The polymorphic nature of party membership', European Journal of Political Research, 25. 1(1994). 61-86.
16. One of the few scholars who studied the effect of party organization on the vote says, 'The lack of attention given to this particular problem area represents an anomaly in a generally abundant literature on political parties', W. J. Crotty. Party effort and its impact on the vote', American Political Science Review, 65,2 (1971), p.439. See also E. S. Wellhofer, 'The electoral effectiveness of party organization. Norway, 1945-77', Scandinavian Political Studies, 8,3 (1985), 171-96; G. M. Pomper. 'Party organization and electoral success', Polity, 23,2 (1990), 187-206; for an assessment of such research, see K. Janda, 'Comparative political parties: research and theory', in Ada W. Finifter (ed.). Political Science: the State of the Discipline II (Washington DC, American Political Science Association, 1993), p. 178.
17. The project was supported by grants GS-1418 and GS-2533 from the US National Science Foundation. The code book for the original raw data file is available as K. Janda, Comparative Political Parties Data, 1950-1962 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, 1979). The data are distributed by the ICPSR as Study 7534. For methodological discussions, summary statistics, and how specific parties were coded, see K. Janda, Political Parties: a Cross-National Survey (New York, Macmillan and Free, 1980).
18. Panebianco, Political Parties. p. 50.
19. For studies that have integrated aspects of party organization to performance, see G. Evans and S. Whitefield, 'Economic ideology and political success: communist successor parties in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary compared', Party Politics, 1,3 (1995), 565-78.
20. For a review of this lack of linkages, see K. Janda, 'Cross-National Measures of Party Organization and Organizational Theory'. For a recent but rare attempt to utilize organizational theory in parties research, see T. A. Koelble, 'Economic theories of organization and the polities of institutional design in political parties', Party Politics, 2,2 (1996), 251-63.
21. J. B. Barney and W. Hesterly, 'Organizational Economics: Understanding the Relationship between Organizations and Economic Analysis, in Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy and Walter R. Nord (eds). Handbook of Organizational Studies (London, Sage, 1996), pp.115-47.
22. Barney and Hesterly, 'Organizational Economics', p. 133.
23. J. A. Schlesinger, 'On the theory of party organization', Journal of Politics, 46 (1984), p.381.
24. Schlesinger. 'On the theory of party organization', p.381.
25. C. Cotter, J. Gibson, J.F. Bibby and R.J. Huckshorn, Party Organizations in American Politics (New York. Praeger, 1989); Pomper, 'Party Organization and Electoral Success'; N. Aylott, 'Back to the future; the 1994 Swedish election', Party Politics, 1,3 (1995), 419-29; R. J. Johnston and C. J. Pattie. 'The impact of spending on party constituency campaigns at recent British general elections'. Party Politics, 1.2 (1995), 261-73; J. A. Schlesinger and M. S. Schlesinger, 'French parties and the legislative elections of 1993'. Party Politics, 1,3 (1995), 369-80.
26. R. Harmel and K. Janda, 'An integrated theory of party goals and party change', Journal of Theoretical Politics. 6.3 (1994), 259-87.
27. For a recent cross-national study of how parties affect government policy, see H. Klingemann, R. I. Hofferbert. and I. Budge, Parties, Policies, and Democracy (Boulder, Westview, 1994).
28. The data also contain indicators of 'Government Leadership' and 'Legislative Strength'. The conceptual discussions, operational definitions, and summary statistics for all variables and all parties in the ICPP dataset are given in K. Janda, Political Parties. These three variables are discussed on pp.33-8. Note that 1957-1962 corresponds to the subfile 'Second' in the tables published in Political Parties.
29. The average party in our study also held one-quarter of the seats annually, and led the government nearly 30% of the time. Parties demonstrated more variation in governmental leadership than in electoral and legislative strength. Of course, votes won is a major cause of legislative seats won. In parliamentary systems (i.e., 21 countries and 71 parties in the study), the number of seats won directly affects the party's chances for heading the government. If the causal path were truly electoral strength->legislative strength->government leadership, the correlation between electoral strength and government leadership would equal the product of the intervening correlations, or 0.81 x 0.81 = 0.66. This is nearly identical to the observed correlation, 0.64. The causal chain presumably runs: votes->seats->leadership, which is consistent with the observed correlations: r 0.81 for votes with seats, r = 0.81 for seats with leadership and r = 0.64 for votes with leadership.
30. H. A. Scarrow, 'The function of political parties: a critique of the literature and the approach', Journal of Politics, 29 (1967). 770-90.
31. R. K. Scott and R. J. Hrebenar. Parties in Crisis (New York, Wiley, 1979), provide a list of eleven functions. p.2; Wattenberg, the Decline of American Parties 1952-1994, cites twelve. pp. 1-2; and Beck subsumes most of these functions under three party activities (acting as electors, propagandizers. and governors) and the 'indirect' consequences of these activities, pp. 14-16.
32. These two dimensions, which were strongly related (r=0.5l). and their indicators are described in Janda. Political Parties. pp.84-89 and 150-151.
33. J. Blondel. Political Parties (London. Wildwood House. 1978), p. 138; and E. Ozbudun. Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis (Beverly Hills, Sage Professional Papers in Comparative Politics. 1970). p. 303.
34. The Rice Index of Cohesion and the process of coding parties on legislative cohesion are described in Janda. Political Parties, pp. 118-19.
35. Janda. Political Parties. pp.98-107.
36. Janda, Political Parties. p. 152. All reliability coefficients reported are Cronbach's alpha. All scales were formed after the items were standardization into z-scores and summed.
37. Janda, Political Parties, pp. 108-17.
38. Janda. Political Parties, p. 153.
39. Note that complexity and centralization are quite different concepts, and the two scales are virtually unrelated (r = -0.10) for our set of parties.
40. Janda. Political Parties. pp. 126-32.
41. Janda. Political Parties, p. 154.
42. See Janda, Political Parties, pp. 109-23, for a discussion of these indicators. Note that this four-item factionalism scale differs from the five-item coherence scale discussed on page 154.
43. As Pomper says, 'organization must be regarded as the independent variable and electoral success as the dependent variable', in 'Party Organization and Electoral Success', p. 190.
44. In more formal terms, our explanatory model of electoral success is incompletely specified. See M. S. Lewis-Beck, Applied Regression: an Introduction (Beverly Hills, Sage Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 22. 1980), pp. 26-7, for a brief, straightforward explanation of specification error.
45. Duverger. Political Parties, p. 25.
46. L. D. Epstein, Political Parties in Western Democracies (New York, Praeger, 1967), p. 258.
47. R. J. Huckshorn, Party Leadership in the States (Cambridge, University of Massachusetts Press. 1976). p. 265.
48. Agranoff. The New Style in Election Campaigns. 2nd ed. (Boston, Holbrook, 1976); A. R. Gitelson, M. M. Conway, and F. B. Feigert, American Political Parties: Stability and Change (Boston. Houghton Muffin, 1984); 5. E. Frantzich, Political Parties in the Technological Age (White Plains, New York, Longman, 1989); and M. P. Wattenberg, The Decline of American Political Parties 1952-1994 (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1996).
49. But for a different argument, see A. A. Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (New York, Free, 1975), pp. 8-9.
50. O. Kirchheimer, 'The Transformation of the Western European Party System', in J. Lapolombara and M. Weiner (eds), Political Parties and Political Development (Princeton, New Jersey. Princeton University Press, 1966), p. 190.
51. R.S. Katz and P. Mair. 'The Evolution of Party Organizations in Europe: Three Faces of Party Organization, in W. J. Crotty (ed.), Political Parties in a Changing Age, special issue of the American Review of Politics, 14 (1994), 593-617.
52. Duverger. Political Parties, p. 124.
53. S. Neumann, 'Towards a Comparative Study of Political Parties', in S. Neumann (ed.), Modern Political Parties (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1966), pp.404-5.
54. Blondel, Political Parties, p. 22.
55. Ozbudun, Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: a Causal Analysis, pp. 325, 339 and 340.
56. D. MacRae. Jr., Parliament, Parties, and Society in France, 1946-1958 (New York, St. Martin's Press. 1967), pp.41-55; F. P. Belloni, 'Factionalism, the Party System, and Italian Politics', in F. P. Belloni and D. C. BelIer (eds), Faction Politics (Santa Barbara, California, ABC-Clio, 1978), pp. 101-3; and Mi. Aronoff, 'Fission and Fusion: the Politics of Factionalism in the Israel Labor Parties', in Belloni and BelIer, Faction Politics, p. 136.
57. A. Kornberg, 'Caucus and cohesion in Canadian parliamentary parties', American Political Science Review, 60 (1966), 83-92; Ozbudun, Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: a Causal Analysis, p.380.
58. A.F. Banks and RB. Textor, A Cross-Polity Survey (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1963) defined a 'fully effective legislature' as one that 'performs normal legislative function as reasonably "coequal" branch of national government', p. 110. Their list of legislatures that did not qualify included Greece. Ecuador, Venezuela. Guatemala, Burma, Lebanon, Turkey, Dahomey, Kenya, and Uganda. p. 174. See R. Harmel and K. Janda, Parties and Their Environments: Limits to Reform? (New York, Longman. 1982), footnote 10, p.94. for more explanation.
59. W. E. Wright (ed.). A Comparative Study of Party Organization (Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. 1971), pp. 31-54. See also E. S. Wellhofer and T. Hennessey, 'Models of political party organization and strategy: some analytical approaches to oligarchy, British Political Sociology Yearbook. 1(1974). pp.279-316. Wright's original distinction is still employed in analysing party organizations, witness B. D. Graham, Representation and Party Politics: a Comparative Perspective (Oxford. Blackwell, 1993), pp. 57-62.
60. For a lucid discussion of canonical analysis, see M. S. Levine, Canonical Analysis and Factor Comparison (Beverly Hills. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. 07-001, 1977).
61. This analysis was conducted using the 'cancorr macro' for SPSS 6.1. See M.J. Norusis. SPSS Adranced Statistics 6.1 (Chicago, SPSS, 1995). Appendix A. The terminology comes from that source.
62. Except that centralization significantly increased, rather than decreased, electoral performance.
63. Pomper, 'Party Organization and Electoral Success', reviews studies that fail to demonstrate much relationship between measures of organization and measures of electoral success, pp.190-1.
64. Epstein. Political Parties in Western Democracies, p. 7.
65. See also K. Janda and D. King. 'Formalizing and testing Duvergers theories on political parties', Comparative Political Studies, 18,2 (1985), pp. 139-69.