Return to: Search Page or to: Table of Contents Vol. 4, issue 1

Steven Levitsky , "Institutionalization and Peronism: The Concept, the Case and the Case for Unpacking the Concept," Party Politics, 4 (January 1998), 77-92.

First Paragraph:
In a recent debate on the transformation of Latin American party systems, two scholars presented opposing arguments about the relationship between institutionalization and party change. Whereas one argued that the Chilean Socialist Party was able to successfully shift to the center after the late 1980s because it was well institutionalized, the other claimed that in Argentina, Peronism's recent shift to the right was facilitated by its lack of institutionalization. This difference, it turned out, was not based on opposing understandings of the relationship between institutionalization and party change, but rather on different definitions of institutionalization.

Figures and Tables:

Last Paragraph:
These different combinations underscore the need to disaggregate institutionalization into a set of more specific concepts that refer to the particular organizational phenomena that scholars are trying to capture. The use of more specific terms would be an important step toward a much-needed clarification of this important, yet ambiguous, concept. Not only would such specification permit scholars to focus more concretely on the mechanisms by which organizations or behavior patterns are reproduced, but it would also improve our analyses of the consequences of such phenomena.