https://ebookmass.com/product/from-party-politics-topersonalized-politics-party-change-and-politicalpersonalization-in-democracies-gideon-rahat/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
Party Politics in America 17th Edition – Ebook PDF Version
https://ebookmass.com/product/party-politics-in-america-17th-editionebook-pdf-version/
ebookmass.com
The Reshaping of West European Party Politics: AgendaSetting and Party Competition in Comparative Perspective Christoffer Green-Pedersen
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-reshaping-of-west-european-partypolitics-agenda-setting-and-party-competition-in-comparativeperspective-christoffer-green-pedersen/ ebookmass.com
Political Party Membership in New Democracies: Electoral Rules in Central and East Europe 1st ed. Edition Alison F. Smith
https://ebookmass.com/product/political-party-membership-in-newdemocracies-electoral-rules-in-central-and-east-europe-1st-ed-editionalison-f-smith/ ebookmass.com
Agathokles of Syracuse: Sicilian Tyrant and Hellenistic King Christopher De Lisle
https://ebookmass.com/product/agathokles-of-syracuse-sicilian-tyrantand-hellenistic-king-christopher-de-lisle/ ebookmass.com
Book 2: Love and Loyalty Avery North
https://ebookmass.com/product/book-2-love-and-loyalty-avery-north/
ebookmass.com
Psychotherapy Relationships That Work: Volume 2: EvidenceBased Therapist Responsiveness John C Norcross
https://ebookmass.com/product/psychotherapy-relationships-that-workvolume-2-evidence-based-therapist-responsiveness-john-c-norcross/
ebookmass.com
Unloved Bull Markets: Getting Rich the Easy Way by Riding Bull Markets Craig Callahan
https://ebookmass.com/product/unloved-bull-markets-getting-rich-theeasy-way-by-riding-bull-markets-craig-callahan/
ebookmass.com
Deadly Fangs (Life with Fangs Book 8) Catherine Lievens
https://ebookmass.com/product/deadly-fangs-life-with-fangsbook-8-catherine-lievens/
ebookmass.com
Modern Cable Television Technology: Video, Voice and Data Communications (ISSN) 2nd Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/modern-cable-television-technologyvideo-voice-and-data-communications-issn-2nd-edition-ebook-pdf/
ebookmass.com
Corrosion in Amine Treating Units Johan Van Roij
https://ebookmass.com/product/corrosion-in-amine-treating-units-johanvan-roij/
ebookmass.com
FROMPARTYPOLITICSTO PERSONALIZEDPOLITICS?
COMPARATIVEPOLITICS
ComparativePoliticsisaseriesforresearchers,teachers,andstudentsof politicalsciencethatdealswithcontemporarygovernmentandpolitics.Globalinscope, booksintheseriesarecharacterizedbyastressoncomparativeanalysisandstrong methodologicalrigour.TheseriesispublishedinassociationwiththeEuropean ConsortiumforPoliticalResearch.Formoreinformationvisit <http://www.ecprnet.eu>.
TheseriesiseditedbyEmilievanHaute,ProfessorofPoliticalScience, UniversitélibredeBruxelles;andFerdinandMüller-Rommel,DirectoroftheCenterfor theStudyofDemocracy,LeuphanaUniversity;andSusanScarrow,JohnandRebecca MooresProfessorofPoliticalScience,UniversityofHouston.
OTHERTITLESINTHISSERIES
Multi-LevelElectoralPolitics
BeyondtheSecond-OrderElectionModel
SonaN.Golder,IgnacioLago,AndréBlais,ElisabethGidengil,andThomasGschwend
OrganizingPoliticalParties
Representation,Participation,andPower
EditedbySusanE.Scarrow,PaulD.Webb,andThomasPoguntke
ReformingDemocracy
InstitutionalEngineeringinWesternEurope
CamilleBedock
PartyReform
TheCauses,Challenges,andConsequences ofOrganizationalChange AnikaGauja
HowEuropeansViewandEvaluateDemocracy
EditedbyMónicaFerrínandHanspeterKriesi
FacesontheBallot
ThePersonalizationofElectoralSystemsinEurope
AlanRenwickandJean-BenoitPilet
ThePoliticsofPartyLeadership ACross-NationalPerspective
EditedbyWilliamP.CrossandJean-BenoitPilet
BeyondPartyMembers
ChangingApproachestoPartisanMobilization
SusanE.Scarrow
InstitutionalDesignandPartyGovernmentin Post-CommunistEurope
CsabaNikolenyi
RepresentingthePeople
ASurveyamongMembersofStatewideandSub-stateParliaments
EditedbyKrisDeschouwerandSamDepauw
NewPartiesinOldPartySystems PersistenceandDeclineinSeventeenDemocracies NicoleBolleyer
FromPartyPoliticsto
PersonalizedPolitics?
PartyChangeandPolitical
PersonalizationinDemocracies
GIDEONRAHATANDOFERKENIG
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©GideonRahatandOferKenig2018
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2018
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018933076
ISBN978–0–19–880800–8 Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Acknowledgments
Thisbookmarksamilestoneonouracademicjourney,duringthecourseof whichwehavemetmanywiseandthoughtfulpeople;theinsightsthatthey sharedwithusofteninformedourwork.Toallofthemweofferthanks,and noneofthemshouldbeblamedforourfaults.
WearegratefultoHeleneHelboePedersen,whomadeGideon’svisittothe departmentofpoliticalscienceatAarhusUniversityinDenmarksofruitful forthisproject;herongoingencouragementandobservationswerealsomuch appreciated.Wethanktheparticipantsinatwo-dayworkshopandHelene’ s colleaguesandstudentsfortheirvaluablecomments.Ourgratitudealsogoes toKarinaPedersen,fortheopportunityshegaveustopresentourworktoher studentsandcolleaguesatCopenhagenUniversity.Wethankthosewho participatedintheworkshopsandconferenceswherewepresentedpartsof ourworkandhadtheopportunitytohearaboutotherstudiesonpartychange andpoliticalpersonalization particularlyatthe2016ECPRworkshop “InstitutionalizationandDe-InstitutionalizationofPoliticalOrganizations ” inPisa,Italy,ledbyRobertHarmelandLarsSvåsand,andattheThird AnnualBAGSSConferenceinBamberg,Germany.Ourthanksgoespecially toThomasSaalfeldandAgataMariaKrajandtothemembersofthepanelon “PartyChangeandReform” attheECPRGeneralConferenceinOslo,Norway, inSeptember2017,MatthiasDillinginparticular.Manythanksalsotothe participantsinthePoliticalScienceDepartmentseminarattheHebrew UniversityofJerusalemfortheircommentsandencouragement.
AppreciationgoestoourfriendandcolleagueBillCross,whoarrangedtwo workshopsonpoliticalpersonalization,inBanffin2016andinTorontoin 2017.Inaddition,webenefitedfromconversationswiththemanywise womenandmenwhoparticipatedinthoseeventsandfromreadingthepapers presentedthere.SpecialthankstoAnikaGauja,ourfriendandcolleague,who commentedmostappositelyontwopapersthatbecamechaptersinthisbook.
Therearemanyotherswhosecontributionallowedustocompletethis project:Gideon ’sresearchassistants,ShahafZamirandAvitalFriedman, builtthedatabasethatallowedustoexaminepersonalizationonline.Alona Dolinskyalsodeservesthanksforhelpinguswithdataanalysis.Wealso bene fitedenormouslyfromthedata-miningeffortsofourcolleaguesaround theworld:MariaBäck,StefanieBailer,AmandaBittner,RuthDassonneville, StefaanFiers,AdamGendzwill,KenHijino,LauriKarvonen,AndréKrouwel, Jean-BenoitPilet,AnttiPajala,ScottPruysers,ArjanSchakel,andDavide Vampa.AndspecialthanksareduetoElisaVolpi,whogenerouslyshared
withusheroriginaldataonpartyswitching.Apologiesifweforgotanyone,but yourcontributionisincludedinthesepages.
Inaddition,anumberofresearchersinlegislaturesaroundtheworldmade greateffortstoprovideuswithdataonthesubmissionofprivatememberbills (Appendix15).Weweremostimpressedwithyourwillingnesstohelp!The samegoesforthecountryexpertswhorespondedsoswiftlytoourrequestforthe namesofthreeprominentpoliticians fromeachparty(listinAppendix17).
IthasbeenanhonortoshareourjourneywithReuvenHazan,afellow travelertopartyland,andwithTamirSheafer,ShaulShenhav,andMeital Balmas,fellowtravelerstopersonalization-land.Inaddition,PazitBenNoon-BlumandMatanSharkanskiarealwaysasourceofwisdomforus.
ThousandsofthankstoLisaPerlmanforherwisdom,kindness,andperfect editing;andthesamefortheOxfordUniversityPresspeoplewhoskillfully handledthevariousstagesofthereviewandpublicationprocess.
Finally,ashoutouttotheIsraelInstitutethathelpedfundthedatabaseof onlinepersonalizationatitsinception.WealsothanktheAshkelonAcademic Collegeforitshelpinfundingthisproject.
4.ThePresenceandSuccessofNational-LevelPartiesinLocal andRegionalElections68
5.ACross-NationalComparisonofPartyChange91 PartII.PoliticalPersonalization
6.PoliticalPersonalization:Definition,Typology,andCauses115
7.IndicatorsofPoliticalPersonalization137
8.PartiesversusPoliticiansOnline171
10.PartyChangeandPoliticalPersonalization:ACritical OverviewoftheLiterature223 11.PartyChangeandPoliticalPersonalization:AnEmpirical Analysis243
ListofFigures
2.1AGraphicIllustrationoftheCoverageoftheIndicators ofPartynessRegardingtheParty–SocietyLinkage30
5.1ChangeinPartynessperIndicator99
5.2AverageChangeinPartynessbyCountry102
6.1PoliticalPersonalization:TypesandSubtypes118
6.2CausesofPersonalization126
7.1Selectorates:FromtheMostPersonalizedtotheMost Depersonalized151
9.1PoliticalPersonalizationperIndicator194
9.2AveragePersonalizationbyCountry(AverageofIndicators)200
9.3AveragePersonalizationbyCountry(AverageofDimensions)200
9.4PersonalizationofCountrieswithandwithoutIndicators ofOnlinePersonalization204
9.5TheRelationshipbetweentheRankingsofCountriesinTerms ofSelf-ExpressionValuesandOfflinePoliticalPersonalization209
11.1TheRelationshipbetweenChangesinPartynessandPolitical Personalization244
11.2TheRelationshipbetweenChangesinPartynessandOffline PoliticalPersonalization248
ListofTables
2.1TheSelectedDozenIndicatorsofPartyness29
3.1ChangeinthePartyBackgroundofMinisters45
3.2ChangeinthePartyBackgroundofLegislators47
3.3ChangeintheProportionofPartyMembersintheElectorate (M/Ein%)50
3.4ChangeinParty–InterestGroupRelationships52
3.5ChangeinPartyIdenti fication55
3.6ChangeinNetElectoralVolatility(PedersenIndex)57
3.7ChangeinElectoralTurnout59
3.8ChangeintheEffectiveNumberofPartiesamongVoters(ENPV)62
3.9ChangeinPartySystemInnovation:TotalShareofVotes(%) GiventoNewParties65
3.10SurvivalofOld(Founder/Traditional)Parties:ShareofVotes for “New” PartiesintheMostRecentElectionsupto201566
4.1PercentageofVotesorSeatsforLocalPartiesinLocal (Municipal)Elections:NationalSummaries76
4.2ChangeinthePercentageofSeatsHeldbyLocal Parties/IndependentsintheMunicipalCouncilsoftheFive LargestCities79
4.3CalculatingtheDissimilarityIndexforAustria86
4.4DissimilarityIndex:VoteintheRegionforNationalElectionsvs. VoteintheRegionforRegionalElections:AveragesbyDecade87
4.5National-LevelPartiesinLocalandRegionalElections: SummaryofFindings(PartynessIndex)88
5.1ChangesinthePartynessofLegislatorsandChangesinthe PartynessofMinisters93
5.2PairwiseComparisonsoftheTrendinPartynessforIndicators ConcerningtheMediators(NumberofCountries)94
5.3IndicatorsofParty–VotersRelationship(PartynessIndex)96
5.4PearsonCorrelationsbetweentheIndicatorsofPartyness98
5.5ChangeinPartynessperIndicatorandDimension101
5.6PartynessatStartingPointandChangeinPartyness (Countries’ Ranking)105
5.7LevelsofVarianceinPartynessatStartandEndPoints (StandardDeviationandRange)106
5.8Self-ExpressionValues,ChangeinPartyness,andPartynessat EndPointinTwenty-SixDemocracies(Countries’ Rankings)107
5.9PartySwitching1960–9and2001–10:AverageperYear (inPercentages)111
7.1IndicatorsofPoliticalPersonalization138
7.2PersonalizationandDepersonalizationoftheElectoralSystem fortheLowerHouseofParliament,1960–2015143
7.3Prime-MinisterialPowerandPresidentialization144
7.4TheAdoptionofDirectElectionsforNational,Regional, andLocalChiefExecutives147
7.5PersonalizationofLeadershipSelection,1975–2015152
7.6PersonalizationofCandidateSelection153
7.7PersonalizationinUncontrolledMediaCoverageofPolitics156
7.8PartiesandElectoralListsthatIncludedTheirLeaders’ Names inTheirName,1965–2015159
7.9ChangeinPatternsofPrivateMemberBillsSubmission162
7.10ChangeintheNumberofCoalitionMembersperMinister165
7.11TrendsinVoters’ PersonalizedBehavior169
8.1NumberofFacebookUpdatesandtheOnlinePersonalization IndexfortheUKPartiesJanuary15–February14,2015180
8.2NumberofFacebook “Likes” andtheOnlinePersonalization IndexforUKParties180
8.3Share(inPercentages)ofParties,PartyLeaders,andProminent PoliticiansWhoHadWebsites,FacebookandTwitterAccounts inFebruary2015182
8.4PartiesorPartyLeadersOnline:WhoWasThereFirst?185
8.5Facebook,Supply,andConsumption:TheOnline PersonalizationIndexofPartyLeaders/Prominent Politicians:Parties186
8.6ActorswiththeHighestNumbersofFacebook “Likes” 189
9.1PersonalizationbyIndicatorandDimension196
9.2PersonalizationbyDimension198
9.3AComparisonbetweenKarvonen’s(2010)Estimationsand OurEstimationsofPersonalizationbyCountries205
9.4PartynessatStartingPointandPersonalization (Countries’ Ranking)207
9.5Self-ExpressionValues,ChangeinPartynessandPartynessat EndPointinTwenty-SixDemocracies(Countries’ Ranking)208
9.6TrustinPoliticalPartiesandTrustinPoliticians:AComparison214
11.1LevelsofChange:PartynessbyPersonalization246
11.2LevelsofChange:PartynessbyOfflinePersonalization249
11.3PearsonCorrelationsbetweenChangeinPartyness(Average ofIndicators)andPoliticalPersonalization(Average ofDimensions)251
Introduction
The “centurythathasjuststartedwillbetheageofpersonalization,justasthe previousonewasthecenturyofmasscollectiveactors atrendthatpolitical sciencehasadutytoconsiderwithgreaterattention.” Withthesewords MusellaandWebb(2015:226)endtheirintroductorychaptertoaspecial issueof ItalianPoliticalScienceReview on “ThePersonalLeaderinContemporaryPartyPolitics.” Fromabroaderhistoricalperspective,whatwehave witnessedinrecentdecadesmaybe “thecomebackofpersonalpower” (Calise 2011:3).Alternatively,perhaps,whatwearecurrentlywitnessingisnota completechangeorcomebackbutratherasynthesisofpartisanandpersonalizedpolitics.
Thisbookwillexaminetwoofthemostprominentdevelopmentsincontemporarydemocraticpolitics:thechangeinparty–societylinkageandpoliticalpersonalization.Theformerismanifestedinmanyways:fromchanges inthepartybackgroundofpoliticianstochangesinthedensityofparty membership;andfromchangesinparty–interestgrouprelationshipsto assortedaspectsofvoterbehavior(suchaselectoralturnoutandelectoral volatility).Wewillrefertoalltheseelementsaspointingtoanincrease, decline,ornochangein partyness. 1 Thelatterdevelopment,politicalpersonalization,istheprocessbywhichtheweightofthegroup(inthisbook,the politicalparty)declinesinpolitics,whilethecentralityofindividualpoliticiansrises.Thisphenomenonismultifacetedandisreflectedinchangesin politicalinstitutions,inthewaysinwhichpoliticsispresentedandcoveredby themedia,andinthebehaviorofbothpoliticiansandvoters.
Thesetwophenomenaappeartoberelated:whenpartiesdecline,itwould bereasonabletoexpectthattheweightofindividualpoliticiansinpoliticswill increase.Upuntilnow,theanalysisoftheserelationshipswaslimitedeitherto
1 Weborrowedtheterm “partyness” fromDaltonandWattenberg(2000b),thoughtheywere notthe firsttouseit(see,forexample,Katz1987).Theterm “partisanship” wasrejectedbecauseit isusedintheresearchliteratureeithertodenotetheattachmentofvoters’ sentimentstopartiesor specificallyinrelationtopartyidentity(see,forexample,Dalton2000;DaltonandWeldon2007). Partynessisawiderconceptthatcanbeappliedtovotersandalsotootherelements,suchas ministers’ andMPs’ partybackgrounds,linksofpartieswithinterestgroups,andthestatusof nationalpartiesatthelocalandregionallevels.
specificaspectsofthesephenomena(RenwickandPilet2016)ortosinglecountrystudies(Wattenberg1994).Nostudyhasempiricallyexamined,ina comprehensivemanner,therelationshipbetweenthesetwodevelopments fromacross-nationalcomparativeperspective.Moreover,whiledeclinein theparty–societylinkmaybeanecessaryconditionforpersonalization, personalizationisnotanecessaryoutcomeofpartychange,becauseactors otherthanindividualpoliticians(e.g.,themedia,interestgroups,courts)may takeoversomeofthefunctionspreviouslyassumedbypoliticalparties.In addition,itisplausibletosuggestthatinsomecasespersonalizationwillbe channeledinwaysthatmaynothurtthepartyormayevenstrengthenit.
THEGOALSOFTHEBOOK
Inthesepagesweendeavortotakethecross-nationalcomparativestudyofparty change,ofpoliticalpersonalization,andoftherelationshipbetweenthemastep forward.Withregardtopartychange,nostudy,tothebestofourknowledge, offersacomparativecross-nationalestimationof variance inthelevelsand patternsofpartychangeamongcountries.2 Theliteratureonpartychangehas thusfaracknowledgedthedifferencesbetweencountriesbuthastendedto overlookthem,sacrificingthemtothe “partydecline” versus “partyadaptation” debate,asitisusuallyframed(Dalton,Farrell,andMcAllister2011andMair 2013areamongthemostprominentrecentworksonthesubject).
Ouraimisnotmerelytoexamineandintegratetheexistingdatabutto injectfreshcross-nationalcomparativedataintothestudy.Thisadditionis particularlypertinenttothealmostneglectedaspectofthepresenceand successofnationalpartiesatlocalandregionallevels.Beyondsomesinglecasestudies(ÅbergandAhlberger2015;Brichta1998),thereareseveral comparativestudiesthatthrowlightonthisaspect(DandoyandSchakel 2013;Detterbeck2012;ReiserandHoltmann2008a),but,todate,ithasnot featuredinthegeneralstudyofpartychange.
Asforpoliticalpersonalization,thebookpresentsamorecomprehensive cross-nationalanalysisthanotherstudies,intermsofbothnumberofcountries andindicators(DowneyandStanyer2010;Karvonen2010).Theliterature offerssomegoodtheoreticalreasonsforexpectingpoliticalpersonalization. Thedeclineintheparty–societylinkage,themediatizationofpolitics(especially throughtelevision,withitsvisualemphasis)andtheoverallculturalprocessof individualizationallsuggestthatwemight findclearevidenceofageneraltrend
2 Krouwel(2012)issomethingofanexception,althoughhetakesadifferentdirection,as elaboratedinChapter2, “AVariance-BasedApproach.”
towardpoliticalpersonalization.Yetmoststudiesuntilnowdidnotdetectsuch evidence(AdamandMaier2010;Karvonen2010).Byemphasizingvariance amongcountries,thisbookwilltakethe firststeptowardbridgingthegap betweentheverygoodtheoreticalreasonswehavetoexpectpoliticalpersonalizationandthegenerallyweakempirical findings.Inaddition,itwilloutlinethe mostexpansivecross-nationalcomparisonofonlinepersonalizationtodate. Thisareahasbeenresearched,butnotinacomprehensivemanner,which directlycomparestheactivityofpartiesandpoliticiansandhowonlinepersonalizationisconsumedintwenty-fivecountries,aswillbedonehere.
Finally,regardingtherelationshipbetweenthedeclineoftheparty–society linkageandpoliticalpersonalization,manystudiesclaim,logically,thatparty changebreedspoliticalpersonalization(Karvonen2010;McAllister2007; Webb,Poguntke,andKolodny2012).However,exceptforWattenberg’ s (1994)studyofAmericanpolitics,noworkhasempiricallyexaminedthese relationships.Havingcompletedthetwopreliminarytasksofmeasuringthe levelsofpartychangeandmeasuringthelevelsofpoliticalpersonalization (eachoneimportantinitsownright),thebookisthenabletosystematically analyzetherelationshipbetweenthetwophenomena.
Thethreemainresearchquestionsthatguidedusareasfollows.First,are theresigni ficantdifferencesinthelevelsandpatternsofpartychangeamong democracies?Ifthereare,howcanweexplainthem?Second,aretheresigni ficantdifferencesinthelevelsandpatternsofpoliticalpersonalizationamong democracies?Again,ifthereare,howcanweexplainthesedifferences?Third, whatistherelationshipbetweenpartychangeandpoliticalpersonalization?
Theemphasisonvarianceacrossstatesandonthedevelopmentofthe numerousaspectsanddimensionsofpartychangeandpoliticalpersonalizationexposesdifferencesandleadstoaricherandbetterinformeddiscussion. Inthecaseofpartychange,itoffersananalyticalframeworkthatextends beyondthedichotomousdebateofpartydeclineversuspartyadaptation. Inthematterofpoliticalpersonalization,asnoted,theemphasisonvariance helpsinbridgingbetweenthehightheoreticalexpectationsandthedisappointingempirical findings.Asforthetheoreticallysoundlinkagebetween thetwophenomena,thisvolumenotonlyisthe firsttosubmitittoa comprehensivecross-nationalexamination,butitalsoproposesamore nuancedunderstandingofthisrelationship.
THESCOPEANDLEVELOFTHEANALYSIS
Currentcomparativepoliticsliterat urepointstoanarrayofrecentdevelopmentsinthe fi eld,forexampleonthedeclineinpartisanship(Daltonand
Wattenberg2000a;Mair2013),theexpansionofpoliticalopportunities beyondpartypolitics(Cain,Dalton,andScarrow2003),thepresidentializationofpolitics(PoguntkeandWebb2005a;Webb,Poguntke,andKolodny 2012),thegrowthofpowerofindependentlistsinlocalpolitics(Reiserand Holtmann2008a),changesinpartymembership(VanHauteandGauja 2015;Scarrow2015),institutionalreforms(Bedock2017),electoralreforms (RenwickandPilet2016),partyreforms(Gauja2017b),theopeningupof leadershipandcandidateselectionmethods(CrossandBlais2012;Cross andPilet2015;HazanandRahat2010),andthechangingrelationsof center-leftpartieswithtradeunions (AllernandBale2017).Thisbookcan beseenasanambitiousattempttopresentanintegratedanalysisofallthese developmentsasfacetsoftwosuperdev elopments:partychangeandpoliticalpersonalization.
Partychangeandpoliticalpersonalizationcanbeanalyzedatvarious levels:thecountrylevel,thepartylevel,and,inthecaseofpersonalization, theindividuallevel.Thisstudywillfocusonvarianceatthecountrylevel.Itis basedonthepremisethatinmodernrepresentativedemocraciespolitical partiesoperatemainlyinrelationtootherpartieswithintheirspeci ficparty system.Thatis,partiescompeteandcooperatewithotherpartiesatthe nationallevelandaredeeplyinfluencedbytheseinteractions.Evenina globalizedworld,eachcountryhasitsspeci ficpolitical,social,institutional, andeconomicorder,whichjustifiesitsbeingtreatedasanautonomouspoliticalunit.Itisnotonlythecasethatcountriesdifferwhencomparisonisatthe countrylevel(e.g.,theirnationalelectoralsystems);studiesalsorecognize signi ficantsimilaritiesbetweensubsystems(regions,municipalities,parties) withinagivencountryandsigni ficantdifferencesbetweenthesesubsystems andtheircounterpartsinothercountries.Thesewithin-countrysimilarities stemfromthefactthatthesubunitsarenestedwithinthenationalorder. Indeed,inhisconcludingoverviewtothecollection OrganizingPolitical Parties,Katz(2017:326)observes:
Oneimportantresultcommontomostofthechaptersinthisvolumeisto highlighttheimportanceofnationaldifferences,whichvirtuallyalways overwhelmeverythingelse.Thisiscertainlyevidentinthevariouscomparisonsofnationversuspartyfamilyasadistinguishingcharacteristic, butitcanalsobeevidentwheneithersystem-levelvariablesorcountry dummiesareincludedinexplanatorymodels.
Havingsaidthat,itisofcoursealsopossibletostudythephenomenabothat thepartylevelandattheindividuallevel,andeventoaccountfortheinfluence ofthecountrybyincludingitasacontrolvariableintheanalysis.Kölln(2015a) hasmadeaconvincingstudyofpartychangeatthepartylevelandidentified differencesamongpartyfamilies.Whenstudyingpoliticalpersonalization,one mayargue,forexample,thatradicalandextremeright-wingpartiestypically
arehighlypersonalizedbycomparisontopartiesfromotherfamilies.Yet,in viewofthetaskwesetourselveshere oflookingatbothphenomenafromthe broadestpossibleperspective andinviewofthelimitationsoftheavailable data,wewillfocusonthecountrylevel.
THERESEARCHPOPULATION:COUNTRIES DURINGASPECIFICPERIOD
Ourstartingpointistheearly1960s.Thisdecadeisrelevanttobothphenomenaunderinvestigation.Itcanbeseenasrepresentinga “goldenage,” the heydayofthemasspoliticalparty,whenpartieswere the centralpolitical actors.Theearly1960scanalsobeseenasthebeginningofthenewageof mass-politicalcommunication(markedbythefamousNixon–KennedyteleviseddebateintheUnitedStates),whichischaracterizedbytheriseof televisionanditspersonalizinginfluence(BlumlerandKavanagh1999). Ourendpointisthemostrecentonewecouldmanage:2015.Unfortunately, manypiecesofdatathatwerecollectedfailtocovertheentirespanofabout fiftyyears,butthe1960sistheinitialreferencepointandtheaspirationwasto coverasmanyyearsaspossible.
Ourgroupofdemocracies,twenty-sixintotal,includesacoreofveteran andestablisheddemocracies.Afterall,wearedealingwithprocesseswhose startingpointisinthe1960s;thus first-andsecond-wavedemocraciesshould beourmainfocus.ThisgroupofcountriescontainslongtimeEuropean democracies(Austria,Belgium,Denmark,Finland,France,Germany,Iceland, Ireland,Italy,Luxembourg,Netherlands,Norway,Sweden,Switzerland,the UnitedKingdom)andveterandemocracieselsewhereintheworld(Australia, Canada,Israel,Japan,NewZealand).Wealsoexaminehereearlythird-wave (Greece,Portugal,Spain)andlatethird-wavedemocracies(CzechRepublic, Hungary,Poland).
Wedidnotincludepresidentialdemocraciesinourstudy,becauseparties playasubstantiallydifferentroleinsuchsystemsofgovernment(Samuelsand Shugart2010)andbecausetheinherentlypersonalizednatureofsucharegime wouldhaveoverburdenedthestudy.Mostofthecountriesarepurelyparliamentarian,whileafewbelong,accordingtothevariousdefinitionsofscholars, inaninterimcategory.3 Thisimpliesthat,bycomparisontopresidentialized
3 FollowingSamuelsandShugart(2010:32 –3),seventeenofthecountriesinourgroupwere parliamentary(includingIsrael,exceptfortheperiod1996–2003), fi vewerepremier-presidential (prominentamongthemisFrance),andone,Austria,waspresident-parliamentary.Themost presidentialcountry,accordingtotheseauthors’ categorization,isAustria,which,inits
systems,andespeciallytothepresidentialregimetypes,partiesshouldbe relativelycentralactorsintheirpolitics,whilelevelsofpersonalizationcan beexpectedtobelower(SamuelsandShugart2010).Yetitemergesthatthese countriesdifferinmanyaspects,fromtheirgeneralinstitutionalorder(consensusversusmajoritarian,federalversusunitary)andelectoralsystemtotheir politicalcultures(Lijphart2012).Overall,ourgroupcoversalmostallcasesof nonpresidentialveterandemocracies,togetherwithcasesofyoungerdemocracies.Thisvarianceinthepotentialindependentvariablesallowsusafair chancetoexplainthevaryinglevelsofpartychangeandpersonalization.
IMPORTANTNOTE:LET’SNOTFORGETTHAT WEARESTUDYINGPROCESSES
Theaimofthisbookistostudyprocesses,developmentsovertime,andnota staticconditionsuchasthepolities’ levelofpartynessorofpersonalized politics.Itishighlylikelythatthereisvarianceamongcountriesregarding thestartingpoints.Insomecountries,partieswerethedominantactorsin politicsinthe1960s,whileinotherstheywere “just” centralactors;similarly, somecountrieshadamorepersonalizedpoliticsthanothers.Thismeans,for example,thatsomecountriesthatstartedfrom “higher” partynesspointsmay havewitnessedhighlevelsofpartydeclineandyetcameup(attheendpoint) withahigherlevelofpartynessthancountriesthatexperiencedsmaller changes.Forexample,14.3percentoftheDanishelectoratearound1960 werepartymembers,bycomparisonto4.1percentaround2008,whileonly 2.7percentoftheGermanelectoratein1960werepartymembers,bycomparisonto2.3percentaround2008.ThusDenmarkexperiencedamuch steeperdecline(inabsoluteandrelativeterms),yetretainedamuchhigher levelofpartymembershipthanGermany,whichsawamuchsmallerdecline. Weshouldnotonlykeepthisinmind,butrelatetoitinouranalysisofchange.4
parliamentarydefactodynamic,isanoutlierintheirgroup.Switzerland,Iceland,and Luxembourgarenotincludedintheircategorization.Luxembourgcanclearlybeclaimedto belongintheparliamentarygroup,whileIcelandismoreparliamentarythanpresidential.The exception,forallthetypes,isSwitzerland,anditsinclusionisbene fi cial,asdemonstratedinthe analysis,owingtoitsdifferentfeatures.Itcanthusbeclaimedthatourgroupisabout parliamentarydemocraciesandadditionalregimetypesthattendtobeparliamentarymore thanpresidential.
4 Forexample,atleastonthebasisoftheselimitedpiecesofinformation,wemayarguethat partydeclineisaboutconvergence(however,inChapter5, “PartyChange:AComparison betweenDemocracies,” wewillseethatthisnotthecase).
THEMETHODOLOGICALPATH
Duetolackofcomprehensivedata,man ystudiesinpolitic alscience(includingsomeofourown)focustheireffortsonthelimitedareawherethelamp postshinesitslight.Scholarsunderstandablyprefertoprobethosecases theyaremorefamiliarwithandoftenlimitthemselvestotheuseofexisting ormorereadilyaccessibledata.Toacer taindegree,thisisaninevitable resultofreallimitationsofknowledgeandresources.Yetareviewofthe literaturerevealsthattherearestu diesthatmayberelevanttoawider approachtothephenomenonofpartychangeandpoliticalpersonalization. Forexample,studiesofpoliticalrecrui tmentandregionalandlocalpolitics canalsocontributetothestudyofpar tychange,whilestudiesofinstitutionalreformsatthestateandpartylevelsmaybene fi tthestudyofpolitical personalization.
Indeed,thestrategyadoptedhereisonethatappliesthebroadestpossible perspectiveintermsofindicatorsofbothphenomena.Thatis,insteadofthe fewindicatorsofrelativelyhighqualityandspeci ficpropertiesthatallowfor somesophisticatedanalysis,thisstudylooksatawidersetofindicators.These covermuchmoregroundbutarenecessarilyofalowerqualityandcompel ustoprocessthedatainamannerthatwilltaketheirweaknessesinto consideration.
Ourdatacomefromvarioussources: first,extensivedataminingfrom worksofotherscholars;second,analysesbasedonavailablecross-national (e.g.,Eurobarometer,EuropeanSocialSurvey,WorldValueSurvey)and nationalpoliticalsurveys(e.g.,nationalelectionsstudies);third,analyses basedonnewlyavailabledatabasesconcerningaspectsofpartychange(e.g., MembersandActivistsofPoliticalParties,MAPP);and,fourth,analysesof originalmaterialthatinclude,whereneeded,updatingthedata,making additionstothem,andalsocollectingandcodingnewdataonourown, fromscratch.
Therewereseveralchallengestoourambitiousaimtocoverasmuch groundaspossibleintermsofdatagathering,coding,andanalysis.First, the availability ofdata.Forsomecountries,almostalldataareavailable,ata rathersatisfactoryqualityandwithcoverageofalmostalltheperiodin question,butforothersthisisnotthecase.Wearestudyinghereprocesses thatdevelopedovermorethanhalfacentury.Somedatafromthepastcanno longerbegathered,whetherornottheyeverexisted.Questionsthatwerenot askedinsurveysdecadesagoareaclearcaseinpoint.Theothersideofthe coinisthattoday’strendofestablishingonlinedatasetsandournewfound abilitytoconductonlinesearchesforstatsthatarehidinginbooksandarticles meanthatwearemuchricherindatabycomparisontopreviousgenerations ofscholars,andeventoourselvesjustadecadeago.
Asecondchallengeregardsthe quality ofthedata.Someindicatorsare basedondatadrawnfromelectoralrecords(e.g.,electoralvolatility,turnout) thatareofhighquality.Othersarebasedonsurveys,andthussuffertoa greaterorlesserdegreefromtheproblemsthatarisewhensurveyingcitizens, fromensuringtherepresentativenessofthesampletophrasingquestionsinan optimalmanner.Andthesearerelativelyeasytohandlebycomparisonto casesinwhichonehastobasethecodingofthevariousaspectsofthe phenomenaonscholars’ analysesofcasestudies.
The reliability ofthedatawasathirdchallenge.Arelevantexampleisthe Pedersen(1979)indexthatisusedtomeasurenetelectoralvolatilityand servesasapossiblesignofpartychange.Thatis,whenvolatilityincreases, itisasignofdeclineinpartyloyaltyandoneoftheindicatorsofdealignment. Thismeasureseemstobestraightforward.Allonehastodoinorderto computeitistodetractthepercentageofvoteseachpartywoninelection tfromthepercentageofvoteitwoninelectiont-1,addupalltheproducts, anddividethesumbytwo.Yettheproblemisthatthiscomputationrequires ustofacethecomplexrealityofsplitsandmergersandingeneralthe complicatedissueofdefiningwhatconstitutesanewparty(Barneaand Rahat2011).Andthendifferentscholarsofferdifferentanswerstothis question,iftheyaddressitatall.
Afourthchallengethatisespeciallyrelevanttothisstudyis comparability. Manyofthecodingsofindicatorsarebasedonsingle-casestudiesorcomparisonsofseveralcases.Thesehavetobe “translated” andintegratedinto onedatabase.Evenwhenthereareseeminglycomparabledata,forexample ofpartymembership,theirnaturemaydifferacrosscountriesandevenwithin countries,inwaysthataffectthenumbers(amountpaid,obligations,etc.;see Scarrow2015).Insomecases,dataaresimplynotcomparable.Forexample, partymembershipinIcelandcouldnotbeincludedbecausepartiesseemto accumulatemembers onceapersonjoins,sheisamemberforlife,without anyobligations(IndriðasonandKristinsson2015).
Wemustcopewiththesechallenges,becauseouraimistolookatthe phenomenafromawideangleratherthanusingthebestavailabledataasa “ proxy ” forthestudy.Wethuslookedforawaytoincludethelessthan perfectandmuchlessthanperfectdatawegatheredaswell.Thisledusto searchforaremedyinthe fieldofqualitativecomparativeanalysis,which proposesdealingwithsuchdifficultiesbycalibratingthedata(Downeyand Stanyer2010).Thatis,wetranslatedeachindicatorofpartychangeor politicalpersonalizationintoa five-pointscale( 2, 1,0,1,2).Inthisway welimitedouranalysistotwolevelsofchangeforeachdirection(highor moderateincreaseordecrease)andtoonelevelofnotrend.Inaddition,we investedmucheffortinbeingtransparentwithourdata,asisevidentfromthe numberandrichnessofourtwenty-oneappendices.Wealsocameupwith variousothersolutionstotheseproblems,aswillbeelaboratedinthesections
“CopingwiththeChallengesofMeasuringVarianceinPartyChange” in Chapter2and “OntheProcessingoftheData” inChapter3,andinthe discussionofeachindicatorinChapters3,4,7,and8.
BOOKPLAN
Thelogicofthestructureofthebookisveryplain.PartIfocusesonparty change.Itstartswithachapterthatlaysouttheconceptualandtheoretical foundationsforthelaterchapters,whichofferanempiricalanalysisofthe phenomena.Theendproductisabroadcross-nationalanalysisofparty changethatallowsustoidentifyboththegeneraltrendandthevariance amongcountries.PartIIfollowsthesamepath,thistimeforpoliticalpersonalization.PartIIIexaminesthelinksbetweenthesetwophenomena.Itstarts withacriticalreviewoftheliteratureandendswithanempiricalanalysisthat usesthetwodatasetspresentedinthepreviouschaptersinordertoexamine therelationshipbetweenpartychangeandpersonalization.
PartI,then,examinespartychange.Its firstchapter,Chapter2,setsthe theoreticalandconceptualbasisfortheattemptmadeinthesubsequentthree chapterstoanalyzepartychangefromacross-nationalcomparativeperspective.Herewearguethat,whiletheliteratureframesthestudyofpartychange around(1)abroadagreementconcerningtheveryexistenceofachangeand (2)adebatethatrevolvesaroundthedepthandmeaningofthischange (declineoradaptation),ittendstooverlookcross-countryvariance.Inorder tomapvariance,adozenviableindicatorsofpartychangeareidentified.The chapteralsodescribesthemethodologicalbarriersforconductingresearchon longitudinalcross-countryvarianceandthewaysinwhichtheywere addressed.Inaddition,itdiscussesotherindicatorsthatwerenotincluded intheanalysis,explainingwhytheywereleftout,andassessesthecostoftheir exclusion.
Chapter3startswithabriefexplanationofdataprocessingandthenturns toexaminenineofthetwelveindicatorsofpartychange.Theseincludewidely usedones(e.g.,partymembership,electoralvolatility,electoralturnout)as wellasseveralthathavebeenproposedandexaminedbyonlyafewscholars (partynessofministersandmembersofparliament,party–unionsrelationships,continuityofparties).Alltheseindicatorsexaminethedirectand indirectlinksofpartieswithsociety.Theindirect,mediatedlinksincludethe relationshipbetweentheextra-parliamentaryorganizationandthe “partyin government, ” thepartyanditsmembers,andthepartyandinterestgroups. Thedirectlinkswithvotersincludevoterattitudestowardparties,aswellas patternsofvoterbehaviorandtheresultingpartysystem.Thesigni ficanceof
eachindicatorisexplained,itsadvantagesandlimitationsareexamined,and thetrendsovertimeforeachindicatorarediscussed.
Chapter4detectspatternsofstabilityandchangeinthestrengthofnational partiesatthelocalandregionallevels.Itstartsbyexplainingwhythepresence ofnationalpartiesatsubnationallevelsshouldberegardedasanimportant indicatorofpartyness.Itcontinuesbyjustifyingtheexpectationsforthe declineofnationalpartiesattheselevels.Itthenturnstoanalyzetheperformanceofthenationalparties.Thisisdoneusingthreedifferentmeasurements:theproportionoflocal-levelparties’ votesorseatsinlocalelections; theproportionoftheirseatsinthecouncilsofthe fivelargestcitiesineach country;andtheirproportioninholdingthemayor’sposition.Intheregional arena,theindicatorusedisthechangeinthelevelofdissimilaritybetween votinginregionalandinnationalelections.
Chapter5,whichconcludesPartI,givesanintegrativeviewofthedozen indicatorsofpartychange.Thisincludes, first,aseparateexaminationofthe relationshipbetweenindicatorswithinthethreemaintypesoflinks:through socialization(partybackground),throughmediators(partymembership, interestgroups,localandregionalgovernment)anddirectly(voterstands andbehaviors).Secondcomesananalysisofthe findingsperindicatorand dimension.Ananalysisbycountrycomesnext.Finally,welookatthe availabledataonthedevelopmentofpartyswitchingovertheyears,in ordertodeterminewhetherpartiesinsomecountriesalreadyceasedtoexist andbecamejustformalandnominalentities.
PartIIexaminespoliticalpersonalization.Theopeningchapterlaysdown theconceptualandtheoreticalbasisfortheanalysisofpoliticalpersonalizationfromacross-nationalperspective.Itproposesade finitionofpolitical personalizationandcloselyexaminesitscoremeaning,itsbroadness,andthe implicationsofperceivingpersonalizationasaprocess.Atypologyofpersonalizationsispresented,differentiatingbetweeninstitutional,media,and behavioraltypesandbetweensubtypeswithineachcategory.Inaddition, thechapterexamineswhattheresearchliteraturehastosayaboutthegeneral causesofpoliticalpersonalizationandabouttherelationshipsbetweenits differenttypes.
Chapter7identifiestenviableindicatorsthatcoveralltypesandsubtypesof offlinepoliticalpersonalization:institutionalpersonalizationofbothgovernmentalinstitutions(theelectoralsystemandtheexecutives)andnongovernmentalinstitutions(politicalparties);mediapersonalization,bothuncontrolled (newscoverageofpolitics)andcontrolled(thewayspartiesandpoliticians presentthemselves);andpersonalizationinthebehaviorofpoliticians(legislativebehavior)andofvoters.Thelogicandsignificanceofeachindicatoris explained,itsadvantagesandlimitationsareexamined,andtrendsovertime arediscussed.Foreachtypeofpersonalization,otherpotentialindicatorsare mentionedandexaminedandtheirexclusionisexplained.
Next,Chapter8looksatonlinepoliticalpersonalization.Afterreviewing thestudyofpoliticalpersonalizationonlineanditsclaimsaboutthein fluence ofonlineplatformsonpoliticalpersonalization,itpresentstheresultsofan originalresearchthatcomparesparties,partyleaders,andprominentpoliticiansfromtwenty- fivedemocracies.Thestudylooksatboththeproduction side(presenceandpublicationofFacebookposts)andtheconsumptionside (Facebooklikes).
Chapter9,whichclosesthispart,presentsanintegrativeanalysisofthe dozenindicatorsofpoliticalpersonalization(tenofflineandtwoonline).It looksatpersonalizationperindicatorandattherelationshipbetweenthe threetypes institutional,media,andbehavior.Italsocomparesthelevelsof personalizationbycountryandattemptstoexplainthembylookingat institutionalandpoliticalculturalexplanations.Finally,thechapterexamines theclaimsthatareraisedintheliteratureabouttheconsequencesofpolitical personalization.
PartIIIlinkspartychangeandpoliticalpersonalization.Itopenswitha theoreticaldiscussioninChapter10thatlooksattheirrelationshipfrom theperspectiveofthestudyofpoliticalpartiesandfromthatofthestudyof politicalpersonalization.Italsoexaminestheintegratedperspectiveexpressed inWattenberg’sworks(1991,1994) theonlycaseinwhichbothphenomena weregivenequalweight,withoutoneovershadowingtheother.Itthen turnstoexaminethechallengesthatwereposedtothecommonwisdom ofazero-sumrelationshipbetweenpa rtychangeandpoliticalpersonalizationandtotheissueofthedirectiono fthecausalrelati onshipbetweenthe twophenomena.
Chapter11presentsanempiricalanalysisoftherelationshipbetweenthe twoprocessesofpartychangeandpoliticalpersonalization:isthisindeeda negativerelationship?Isitalwaysazero-sumrelationship?Itdoessousingthe analysisofthetwophenomenathatwasappliedintheprevioustwopartsand integratedinChapters5and9.Italsoexaminesthequestionofthedirection ofthisrelationship:doespartychangecausepersonalization,orisittheother wayaround?
The final,concludingchaptercomprisesanoverviewofthemain findings presentedinthebook.Italsoproposesdirectionsforfutureresearchinthe threesubjectareascovered:partychange,politicalpersonalization,andthe relationshipbetweenthem.Its finalsectionisdedicatedtotheclaimthat personalizationshouldbeseenasathreattothequalityofdemocracy,indeed toitsveryexistence,andalsosuggestswaystoredirectpersonalizedenergies tothebene fitofpoliticalpartiesanddemocracy.
