Who Has the Body? Party Institutionalization and Theories of Party Organization

Abstract

<jats:p>This analysis seeks to codify and elucidate an emerging consensus among party scholars concerning the phenomenon and significance of the institutionalized party. More than the mere bureaucratization of party organizations, by adapting to environmental challenge an evolving “web of party” has sprouted new linkages between elites and non-elites, as well as among national and subnational executives and legislatures. Party scholarship, dominated until recently by non-institutional perspectives such as progressivism, behavioralism, and pluralism, needs to examine party institutionalization in a broader institutional context, i.e., as compared with Congress, the Presidency, and other prime political institutions, for which the advent of the institutionalized party has far-reaching implications.</jats:p>

The Impact of Party and Ideology on Roll‐Call Voting in State Legislatures

“…On the other hand, numerous studies attempt to counteract this claim, with some researchers arguing politicians may support their party because parties make it easier to achieve their policy goals (Aldrich and Rohde 1997;Cooper and Brady 1981), while others argue politicians support their party because they desire to be reelected and their electoral fate may be tied to the brand name of the party (Aldrich 1995;Cox and McCubbins 1993;Smith 2000). Finally, some scholars argue that elected officials may support their party out of a sense of commitment to and belongingness in the party organization (Baer 1993;March and Olsen 1989). Whatever the mechanism for party influence, many researchers refute the claim that parties do not matter in legislatures.…”

Intimate Connections: Political Interests and Group Activity in State and Local Parties

“…These researches suggest that new interests have mobilized and traditional interests have countermobilized on a grassroots as well as a national level. This increases the potential o f an expanded scope of conflict to also trans form parties in ways consistent with party government theory (Baer and Bositis 1993;Baer 1993).…”

“…There were two key issues for Schatt schneider: first, there be must be diversity o f interests so that large interests cannot always dominate and collude to shut out less powerful interests; second, these interests competed openly on a national level, rather than privately on a local level (the "privatization o f conflict"). Thus, Schatt schneider's conflict theory of party government would predict an intimate relationship between strong interests and strong parties (Baer 1993).…”

“…Some scholars (e.g., Cigler and Loomis 1991, 20) even have gone so far as to argue that the decline of parties has resulted in increased interest group strength. The presumption that parties at the state and local level or the national level are now weak or weaker than they were in 1960 has been refuted by various researchers (Baer 1993;Eldersveld 1986;Cotter, Gibson, Bibby and Huckshorn 1984;Crotty 1986;Herrnson 1990). If so, we are left with a paradox: interest group "theory" tells us that strong parties and strong interests cannot co-exist.…”

The Lay of the Land: Battlegrounds and Terrain in Party Scholarship

“…A final approach has recently been advanced by Baer (1993) and might well be termed the "institutionalization" model. This notion complements much of the earlier work on party structure, as well as some functionalist concerns.…”