Political Decentralization, Electoral Change and Party Organizational Adaptation

Abstract

Electoral politics in the larger Western democracies seems to be becoming increasingly `denationalized': non-statewide political parties have grown in strength, and demands for decentralization have led to major institutional changes in large unitary states in recent years. As a result, the conventional view of party politics as essentially taking place at the national level, between national parties, over national issues, appears increasingly inadequate. This article argues that party scholars need to look more closely at what we could call the `territorial dimension' of electoral politics: the spatial and geographical aspects of party competition. This article presents a preliminary analysis of how centre-periphery tensions and institutional reforms affect the way statewide parties organize, focusing on the areas of elite recruitment, electoral programmes and campaigning, and party behaviour in public office. It hypothesizes a variety of patterns of party response, and provides some tentative evidence from Western European democracies, and in particular Britain, Italy and Spain.This analysis shows that the internal workings of statewide political parties are a key variable in understanding the relationship between institutional reform and the `denationalization' of electoral politics.

The New Sub-National Politics of the British Labour Party

“…Thus our findings do not support two major assumptions in the literature: that the national party necessarily seeks power over the regional parties (as Downs, 1998 assumes) and that the c:\documents and settings\pr7\local settings\temporary internet files\content.ie5\o9e381m3\the new subnational politics of the lp final [1].doc centre-periphery will overshadow other cleavages. Candidate selection did prove to be a contentious issue but reflected a mix of ideological, inter-generational and other issues within the two parties rather than central-periphery tensions, supporting Scarrow et al (2000) rather than Hopkin (2003). Our research does not support Downs' conclusion that national elites made 'conscious attempts to communicate instructions and influence strategy in the subnational institutions to which their respective parties gain entry' (Downs, 1998: 269).…”

“…Gallagher and Marsh (1988: 9) argue that parties in centralised unitary states tend to have centralised procedures for selecting candidates, whilst in federal (or decentralised) countries the key sub-national tier will have a greater role. Similarly, Hopkin (2003) hypothesizes that control of the selection process will emerge as the main fulcrum for centre-periphery conflict. In contrast, Scarrow, Webb and Farrell (2000: 135) posit that ideological differences will form the main cleavage irrespective of the territorial shape of a party.…”

Small Worlds in Canada and Europe: A Comparison of Regional Party Systems in Quebec, Bavaria and Scotland

“…The nationalist party is not the only one claiming to protect or advance territorial interests. Shifts in the territorial distribution of power to regions have led to the 'denationalisation' of party systems, and that parties must respond to substate challenges (Hopkin 2003). This has led to intra-party conflict as different levels of parties diverge in the areas of policy development, campaigning, and their activities in public office.…”

Faccionalismo e integración vertical en contextos multinivel. El caso del Partido Nacionalista Vasco

“…En la última década, han proliferado varias investigaciones que tratan de explicar las causas de la variación encontrada en el grado de integración vertical, a menudo relacionándolo con el grado de descentralización del sistema polí-tico (Barnea y Rahat, 2007;Deschouwer, 2003;Hopkin, 2003;Hopkin y Van Biezen, 2006;Hough y Jeffery, 2006;Laffin, Shaw y Taylor, 2007), y son también varios los trabajos que, de entre los anteriores, se centran en partidos del sistema político español (Astudillo, en prensa;Betanzo, 2006;Méndez, 2004; Méndez y Orte, en prensa; Pérez-Nievas y Ramiro-Fernández, en prensa). Es cierto, sin embargo, que escasean los trabajos que consideren partidos de ámbito no estatal, si bien investigaciones más recientes han incorporado también a este tipo de partidos en el análisis, ya sea en exclusiva (Barberà, Sallas y Terrades, 2007), ya sea conjuntamente con partidos de ámbito estatal (Gómez, 2007).…”