Return to: Search Page or to: Table of Contents Vol. 20, Issue 5

Scott Morgenstern, John Polga-Hecimovich, and Peter M Siavelis, "Ni Chicha ni Limoná: Party Nationalization in Pre- and Post-Authoritarian Chile," Party Politics, 20 (September, 2014), 751-766. [Available at http://ppq.sagepub.com/content/vol20/issue5/ ]

First paragraph:
While regional analyzes of parties and party systems highlight contrasts between Latin America and Europe, broad comparisons mask distinctive patterns for particular countries. For example, while Mainwaring and Scully (1995) categorize the Chilean party system as 'institutionalized' like those in Europe, Montes et al. (2000: 796) argue that 'in terms of high electoral volatility, rapid changes in party labels and episodic outbursts of personalism, Chile is closer to most Latin American party systems'. In this article we focus on how Chile's parties also stand out in terms of another prominent trait: party nationalization (and by extension, party system nationalization).

Figure 1. Scatter plot of static nationalization starting points and growth rates over time for 33 countries.
Figure 2. Pre-World War II Dynamic Nationalization in Latin America and Europe.
Figure 3. Post-World War II Dynamic Nationalization in Latin America and Europe (Chilean parties denoted in white; coalitions in black).
Figure 4. Legislative, Municipal, and Presidential Static Nationalization over time in Chile.
Figure 5. Post-Pinochet Comparison of Static Nationalization.
Figure 6. Comparison of municipal election static nationalization (2004-2008).
Figure 7. Evolution of Dynamic Nationalization in Chile (1891-2009).
Figure 8. Dynamic Nationalization Scores (XTMixed) (Districts in which party competed in successive years).
Figure 9. Vote Share for Parties Outside of Two Main Coalitions (1989-2009).
Table 1. Number of districts with Concertación or right-wing candidates from small parties or independents.

Last Paragraph:
Moving forward, a challenge in the study of political parties is to examine the roots, trends and consequences of party nationalization. Scholars must be careful not to conflate the two dimensions of party nationalization because, as Chile shows, this mistake could severely bias conclusions. More research is needed, but the oddities of the Chilean case can properly illustrate the caution that must be taken in simply interpreting nationalization numbers and the consequences of party nationalization for the quality of political representation.

Last updated November 2014