Return to: Search Page or to: Table of Contents Vol. 18, Issue 3

Nicole Bolleyer, "New party organization in Western Europe: Of party hierarchies, stratarchies and federations" Party Politics, 18 (May, 2012), 315-336. [Available at http://ppq.sagepub.com/content/vol18/issue3/ ]

First paragraph:
Parties are not monolithic structures. Following works of Eldersveld (1964) and Katz and Mair (1995), one of the most inspiring attempts to capture the internal life of contemporary party organization stems from Carty (2004). Stratarchy as a template for party organization is based on the notion that power in a party 'cannot be located in one single place'. It is characterized by the interplay of organizational units that act, to varying extents, autonomously, but in the end remain interdependent. The central party needs the local units because voters have to be mobilized on the ground, while the central party ensures the overall integration of the organization (Eldersveld, 1964: 9) and advertises the party's national programme (Carty, 2004: 5).

Figures and Tables:
Table 1. Three models of party organization
Table 2. New parties in eight countries: hierarchies, stratarchies and federations
Table 3. Organizational characteristics of ten durable, new parties in eight countries

Last Paragraph:
This leads us to a fundamental question that is rarely addressed in the literature: whether new and old parties need to be treated as qualitatively different types of structure when it comes to theorizing or explaining organizational choice and change (for a related discussion, see Biezen (2005))? Some conceptual reasons for keeping them separate have just been mentioned. To solve the question empirically, however, requires a study much broader in scope than is probably possible in a single article. Such a study needs to focus on differences between old and (durable) new parties in most different contexts. It needs to categorize these parties along the different types to assess whether old and new parties distribute differently across them and whether the two distributions follow the same patterns. The typology developed here could form a systematic foundation for such an analysis. It can help us to move from description towards explanation revealing the logic along which organizational characteristics combine - combinations that might be complex but are by no means arbitrary.

Last updated August 2012