Additional Information
Book Details
Abstract
It is often suggested that political parties are becoming increasingly alike, and that party politics has turned into an elite affair where political professionals collude to further their self-interest rather than work to represent the interests of their constituents. In recent decades this diagnosis has been famously associated with Richard Katz and Peter Mair’s cartel party theory. Yet so far this controversial thesis has not been subjected to systematic empirical scrutiny, nor has its conceptual and normative underpinnings been properly considered. In this volume a group of political scientists with different specialisations take on this task, focusing empirically on the Swedish party system, which the originators of the cartel party theory have suggested is especially conducive to the formation of party cartels. Collecting new and unique qualitative and quantitative data, the volume casts serious doubt on the validity of the cartel party theory as an explanation for party system change.
The cartel thesis has been remarkably influential. In over two decades, reference to it has been almost obligatory in published research on party politics. Enroth and Hagevi's excellent anthology unpacks the thesis and subjects it to thorough and rare empirical tests. The admirably clear conclusions about representative democracy in a crucial case – Sweden – leave party scholars with much to ponder.
Nicholas Aylott, Södertörn University
A forceful attack on the cartel party theory. The authors make efficient use of their Swedish case study for questioning many of the core assumptions and normative judgements of the most influential account in contemporary party research.
Klaus Detterbeck, Political Scientist, University of Göttingen, Germany
Henrik Enroth is Associate Professor at Linnaeus University, with a broad interest in social and political theory. Recently his work has appeared in journals such as Party Politics, Contemporary Political Theory, Governance, European Journal of Social Theory, and Transnational Legal Theory.
Magnus Hagevi is Associate Professor in political science and the leader of Surveyinstitutet at Linnaeus University, Sweden,
Table of Contents
Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
---|---|---|---|
Cover | Cover | ||
Cartelisation,Convergence or Increasing Similarities? | i | ||
Cartelisation,Convergence or Increasing Similarities? Lessons from Parties in Parliament | iii | ||
Contents | v | ||
Acknowledgements | vii | ||
Parties and Abbreviations | ix | ||
Cartels and Competition: An Introduction | 1 | ||
Notes | 13 | ||
Chapter 1 | 15 | ||
Cartelisation in Sweden? | 15 | ||
The Swedish Case | 17 | ||
Contents of This Book | 21 | ||
Notes | 26 | ||
Chapter 2 | 27 | ||
On the Concept of a Cartel Party | 27 | ||
Cartelisation and Collusion | 29 | ||
Co-operation, Convergence and Depoliticisation | 32 | ||
The Political Economy of the Cartel Party | 34 | ||
The Cartel Concept Revisited: Conceptual Analysis Versus Conceptual History | 37 | ||
Notes | 41 | ||
Chapter 3 | 43 | ||
Are the Predictions of the Cartel Party Thesis Supported in the Swedish Case? | 43 | ||
If the Cartel Party Thesis is Correct, What is to be Expected? | 44 | ||
Testing the Four Hypotheses | 46 | ||
Conclusion | 66 | ||
Notes | 69 | ||
Chapter 4 | 71 | ||
Professional Politicians as Representatives | 71 | ||
Concept and Hypotheses | 74 | ||
Data | 80 | ||
The Extra-parliamentary Pool of Professional Politicians | 81 | ||
The Pool of Party Members | 83 | ||
Recruitment From the Pool of Professional Politicians | 87 | ||
A Homogenous Swedish Parliament? | 88 | ||
Conclusion | 92 | ||
Appendix | 94 | ||
Notes | 96 | ||
Chapter 5 | 97 | ||
Cartelisation and Europeanisation? | 97 | ||
The Concepts of Politicisation/Depoliticisation and the Cartel Party Theory | 98 | ||
Data and Measures | 101 | ||
Operationalising and Testing the Hypotheses | 102 | ||
Findings | 105 | ||
Conclusion | 113 | ||
Appendix: Interviews with Swedish Members of Parliament | 116 | ||
Notes | 117 | ||
Chapter 6 | 119 | ||
Homogenisation or Fragmentation? | 119 | ||
Mediatisation and Party Change: A Force for Homogenisation or Fragmentation? | 121 | ||
Adaptation of Foreign Policy Content to Media Logic: Homogenisation or Fragmentation? | 128 | ||
Adaptation of Foreign Policy Form to Media Logic: Homogenisation or Fragmentation? | 132 | ||
Elite-level or Mid-level Adaptation by Parties: Homogenisation or Fragmentation? | 135 | ||
Conclusion | 137 | ||
Appendix 1. Interviews with Members of Parliament | 139 | ||
Appendix 2. Interview questions | 139 | ||
Notes | 140 | ||
Chapter 7 | 143 | ||
Party Cartelisation or Gender Politicisation? | 143 | ||
Previous Research | 144 | ||
Theory | 146 | ||
Empirical section | 147 | ||
Conclusion | 155 | ||
APPENDIX | 156 | ||
Notes | 157 | ||
Chapter 8 | 159 | ||
Party Culture and Cartelisation | 159 | ||
Theoretical Considerations | 161 | ||
Analytical Framework | 164 | ||
Materials and methods | 166 | ||
Party Organisational Cultures, 1998–2002 | 168 | ||
Party Organisational Cultures, 2012–2013 | 170 | ||
Conclusion | 183 | ||
Appendix: Interviews and Interviewees | 185 | ||
Notes | 187 | ||
Chapter 9 | 189 | ||
Democracy and the Cartel Party | 189 | ||
The ‘Party Government’ and ‘Consensus’ Models | 191 | ||
The Cartel Party and Models of Democracy | 195 | ||
Is Elite Co-operation a Bad Thing? | 199 | ||
Note | 203 | ||
Chapter 10 | 205 | ||
Conclusions | 205 | ||
Absence of Causal Relationships | 206 | ||
Alternative Explanations | 208 | ||
Policy Polarisation and Conflict | 213 | ||
Note | 214 | ||
References | 215 | ||
Index | 237 | ||
About the Contributors | 245 |