Core Issues in Comparative Politics (PO233) Module Director: Dr. Renske Doorenspleet Associate Professor in Comparative Politics director Centre for Studies in Democratization Department of Politics and International Studies University of Warwick, UK - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Core Issues in Comparative Politics (PO233) Module Director: Dr. Renske Doorenspleet Associate Professor in Comparative Politics director Centre for Studies in Democratization Department of Politics and International Studies University of Warwick, UK PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 6a7a8f-Njc0M



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Core Issues in Comparative Politics (PO233) Module Director: Dr. Renske Doorenspleet Associate Professor in Comparative Politics director Centre for Studies in Democratization Department of Politics and International Studies University of Warwick, UK

Description:

Core Issues in Comparative Politics (PO233) Module Director: Dr. Renske Doorenspleet Associate Professor in Comparative Politics director Centre for Studies in ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:579
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 25
Provided by: www2Warwi5
Learn more at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Core Issues in Comparative Politics (PO233) Module Director: Dr. Renske Doorenspleet Associate Professor in Comparative Politics director Centre for Studies in Democratization Department of Politics and International Studies University of Warwick, UK


1
Core Issues in Comparative Politics(PO233)Modul
e Director Dr. Renske DoorenspleetAssociate
Professor in Comparative Politicsdirector Centre
for Studies in DemocratizationDepartment of
Politics and International StudiesUniversity of
Warwick, UK
  • www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/staff/doorenspleet
    /
  • www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/csd/
  • e-mail renske.doorenspleet_at_warwick.ac.uk

2
Types of Democracies
  • Consensus versus Majoritarian Systems
  • (Lijphart 1999, see also week 11)
  • Executive-parties dimension (how easy is it for
    one party to take control of the government?)
  • concentration of executive power (week 14)
  • dominance of executive (week 14)
  • two-party vs. multiparty system (week 12)
  • majoritarian electoral rules vs. PR (week 13)
  • types of interest groups
  • Federal-unitary dimension

3
Content Lecture week 12
  • Parties and Party Systems
  • Parties
  • (read Katz 2008 Hague and Harrop 2007, Ch. 11)
  • Functions
  • Types
  • Challenges
  • B. Party Systems
  • (read Caramani 2008 Hague and Harrop 2007, Ch.
    11)
  • Formation
  • Types
  • C. Back to Lijphart (read literature week 11)
  • D. Contents of seminar week 13

4
A. Political Parties (Functions)
Different definitions by Michels (1911),
Schumpeter (1950), Downs (1957), Huckshorn
(1984), Schlesinger (1991) and Aldrich (1995).
? see Katz 2008 294-297 Functions 1.
Coordination - With government - With society -
Between government and society
5
A. Political Parties (Functions)
Functions 2. Contesting elections -
Providing candidates - Fund raising for
candidates - Formulating policy positions
6
A. Political Parties (Functions)
Functions 3. Recruitment and selection -
Integrating new citizens (e.g. party youth
movements) 4. Representation - Social
groupings - Ideological positions
7
A. Political Parties (Types)
  • Types of parties
  • Cadre or elite parties
  • The earliest of modern parties until rise of
    mass suffrage
  • Parliamentary origin
  • Highly restricted suffrage ? no need for a party
    on the ground
  • Mobilizing of personal clientele
  • Minimal and local organizational structure
  • Elites are the only members and main resource
    base

8
A. Political Parties (Types)
  • Types of parties (continued)
  • (2) Mass parties
  • 2nd half of 19th century (mass suffrage till
    1950s)
  • Extra-parliamentary origin
  • Representing a particular group or social class
  • Often built on pre-existing organizations (e.g.
    trade-unions)
  • Strategy of encapsulation
  • Extensive organization (but dominated by the
    partys elite! cf. Michels iron law of
    oligarchy)

9
A. Political Parties (Types)
  • Types of parties (continued)
  • Catch-all parties (Kirchheimer 1966)
  • Developed from transformation of mass parties
    (1950s-now) characterized by
  • - Increasing role of professionals (compared to
    members)
  • - Weaker ideological orientation
  • - Strategy to appeal across group boundaries
  • - Loosening connection between party and its
    interest organization

10
A. Political Parties (Types)
Types of parties (continued) 4. Cartel parties
(Katz and Mair 1995) Pressure on the catch-all
model (1970s-now) led to four major changes
compared to catch-all parties - Agencies of the
state rather than of society - Disempowering
party activists - Further privileging
professional expertise - Parties form a cartel to
protect themselves from electoral risk and to
get subventions from the state
11
A. Political Parties (Types)
Types of parties (continued) (5) Anti-cartel
parties Frustration with mainstream
parties Organized around an idea rather than a
social grouping left-libertarian-, new right- or
movement parties (6) Business-firm parties Forza
Italia as model for future parties? (7) Parties
in the US Share many features of cadre parties
but candidate selection is run by state regulated
primary elections (8) and what about parties in
new democracies???!!!
12
A. Political Parties (Challenges)
  • Challenges of parties
  • Increasing complexity of problems makes them less
    tractable
  • Declining party membership
  • More dependent from contributions of special
    interest groups
  • Problems and debates around financing political
    parties
  • Increasing role of competing interest
    organizations

13
B. Party Systems (Formation)
A party system sets of parties that interact,
compete and cooperate with the aim to increase
their power ( maximisation of votes) in
controlling government Three factors determine
this interaction Which parties exist? How
many parties exist? How do parties behave?
14
B. Party Systems (Formation)
Two factors National Revolution (early 19th
century restricted electorates) Industrial
Revolution (late 19th century suffrage
extension) (See Chapter 13 Caramani) Revolutions
? socio-economic and cultural conflicts Lipset
and Rokkan (1967) - Concept of cleavages -
Cleavages ? party families
15
B. Party Systems (Formation)
  • Lipset and Rokkan (1967) distinguish four main
    cleavages.
  • National Revolution induced two cleavages
  • Centre-periphery cleavage
  • ? regionalist parties
  • (e.g. Scottish National Party, the Swedish Party
    in Finland)

16
B. Party Systems (Formation)
  • Cleavages of the National Revolution (continued)
  • 2) State-church cleavage
  • ? conservative and religious parties
  • (e.g. Christian Democratic Union, Swiss Catholic
    Party)

17
B. Party Systems (Formation)
  • The Industrial revolution induced two further
    cleavages
  • Rural-urban cleavage
  • ? agrarian and peasant parties
  • (e.g. Australian County Party)

18
B. Party Systems (Formation)
  • Cleavages of the industrial revolution
    (continued)
  • (4) Workers-employers cleavage
  • ? workers and social-democratic parties
  • (e.g. British Labour Party).
  • (most important cleavage, characterizing the
    left-right alignment)

19
B. Party Systems (Formation)
The Post industrial Revolution created two more
recent cleavages (5) Materialism-post-materialis
m cleavage (1960s/1970s) ? social movements,
and Green-Parties (6) The globalization
cleavage ? neo-populist protest
parties right-winged and xenophobic (e.g. Front
National in France) left-winged in Latin America
20
B. Party Systems (Formation)
  • Some important notes
  • Not all cleavages exist in all countries!
  • - Homogenous (Britain) versus heterogeneous (e.g.
    Canada, Switzerland) constellations
  • Freezing-hypothesis (Lipset and Rokkan
    1967) But realignment (see previous slide)

21
B. Party Systems (Types)
Types of democratic party systems (1) Dominant-p
arty systems One party holds majority, no
alternation of power, one-party government. E.g.
India till 1974, Japan 1955-1993, Mexico till
2000, SAF since 1994, Sweden (2) Two-party
systems Two parties are sharing about 80 of
votes, alternation of power, one-party
government. E.g. Britain, New Zealand till 1998,
USA
22
B. Party Systems (Types)
  • Types of democratic party systems
  • Multi-party systems
  • Several parties, different sizes, coalitions
    after elections, alternation through coalition
    changes, coalition government. E.g. Germany till
    1989, Italy before 1994, the Netherlands,
    Switzerland etc.
  • (3.1) Moderate multi-party systems
  • (3.2) Polarized multi-party systems
  • (4) Bipolar systems
  • Two large coalitions, balanced, electoral
    alliances, alternation between coalitions,
    coalition government. E.g. Germany since 1990 and
    Italy since 1994

23
C. Back to Lijphart
Lijpharts executive-parties dimension (how easy
is it for one party to take control of the
government?) Third element two-party vs.
multiparty system So not political parties,
but party systems Problem of dichotomy Problem
of new democracies Link with types of electoral
systems (Week 13)
24
D. Contents of Seminar week 13
  • Homework seminar week 13
  • read the required literature of week 12
  • 2) Choose one country and describe the following
  • Types of Political Parties (and describe the
    challenges)
  • Types of Party Systems (and describe link
    between cleavage structure and party system)
  • See www.electionworld.org/ and www.ipu.org/ and
    https//www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world
    -factbook/ and links in module outline
  • Prepare a presentation (around 5 minutes)
About PowerShow.com