Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping ideological diversity from inside parties: A principal-agent approach

  • Review Article
  • Published:
French Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

This article develops a framework to explain ideological diversity within political parties in parliamentary democracies from the positions of individual legislators. First, I review the different theories explaining the variation of ideological diversity within political parties in the field of party politics and legislative studies. Then, I propose to model the relations between legislators, their party and their constituents as a competitive delegation process building on the principal-agent theory. I draw on the literature on the distribution of power within political parties to argue that intra-party ideological diversity can best be explained by vertical bargains taking place between the different territorial layers of political parties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abélès, Marc. 1989. Jours tranquilles en 89: Ethnologie politique d’un département français. Paris: Olivier Jacob.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achin, Catherine, Anja Durovic, Éléonore Lépinard, Sandrine Lévêque, and Amy G. Mazur. 2019. Parity Sanctions and Campaign Financing. in France: Increased Numbers, Little Concrete Gender Transformation. In Gendered Electoral Financing Money, Power and Representation in Comparative Perspective, ed. Ragnhild L. Muriass, Vibeke Wang, and Rainbow Murray, 27–54. Basingstoke: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • André, Audrey, André Freire, and Zsófia Papp. 2014. Electoral Rules and Legislators’ Personal Vote-seeking. In Representing the People, ed. Kris Deschouwer and Sam Depauw, 87–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boelaert, Julien, Sébastien Michon, and Étienne Ollion. 2018. Le temps des élites. Ouverture politique et fermeture sociale à l’Assemblée nationale en 2017. Revue française de science politique 68 (5): 777–802. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfsp.685.0777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolleyer, Nicole. 2012. New Party Organization in Western Europe: Of Party Hierarchies, Stratarchies and Federations. Party Politics 18 (3): 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068810382939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botella, Joan, and Juan Rodríguez Teruel. 2010. Hommes d’État ou tribuns territoriaux? Le recrutement des présidents des Communautés autonomes en Espagne. Pôle Sud 33 (2): 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boucek, Françoise. 2003. The Structure and Dynamics of Intra-Party Politics in Europe. In Pan-European Perspectives on Party Politics, ed. Paul Lewis and Paul Webb, 55–95. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, Shaun, David M. Farrell, and Ian McAllister. 1996. Constituency Campaigning in Parliamentary Systems with Preferential Voting: Is There a Paradox? Electoral Studies 15 (4): 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-3794(96)00036-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caramani, Daniele. 2004. The Nationalization of Politics. The Formation of National Electorates and Party Systems in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, John M. 2007. Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00239.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, John M., and Matthew Soberg Shugart. 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies 14 (4): 417–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3794(94)00035-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carty, R. Kenneth. 2004. Parties as Franchise Systems: The Stratarchical Organizational Imperative. Party Politics 10 (1): 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068804039118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chibois, Jonathan. 2014. Twitter et les relations de séduction entre députés et journalistes: La salle des Quatre Colonnes à l’ère des sociabilités numériques. Réseaux 188 (6): 201–228. https://doi.org/10.3917/res.188.0201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Close, Caroline, and Sergiu Gherghina. 2019. Rethinking Intra-party Cohesion: Towards a Conceptual and Analytical Framework. Party Politics 25 (5): 652–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068819836044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, Olivier, and Éric Kerrouche. 2007. Qui sont les députés français? Enquête sur des élites inconnues. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, Edward. 1983. Consensus and Structure in Legislative Norms: Party Discipline in the House of Commons. The Journal of Politics 45 (4): 907–931. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Winter, Lieven, and Huri Türsan (eds.). 1998. Regionalist Parties in Western Europe. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duverger, Maurice. 1951. Les Partis Politiques. Paris: Armand Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ecormier-Nocca, Florence, and Charles Louis-Sidois. 2019. Fronde 2.0. Les députés français sur Twitter. Revue française de science politique 69 (3): 481–500. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfsp.693.0481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecormier-Nocca, Florence, and Nicolas Sauger. 2020. Advances in Measuring Elite-Mass Linkages: The Internet as a source. In The Handbook on Political Partisanship, ed. Henrik Oscarsson and Sören Holmberg, 141–153. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, Arthur, Dennis de Kool, and Charlotte van Ooijen. 2015. The Information Ecology of Parliamentary Monitoring Websites: Pathways Towards Strengthening Democracy. Information Polity 20 (4): 253–268. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldersveld, Samuel. 1964. Political Parties: A Behavioral Analysis. Chicago: McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esther Herrmann, Lise. 2017. Democratic Partisanship: From Theoretical Ideal to Empirical Standard. American Political Science Review 111 (4): 738–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filippov, Mikhail, Peter Ordeshook, and Olga Shvetsova. 2004. Designing Federalism. A Theory of Self-sustainable Federal Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garraud, Philippe. 1994. Les contraintes partisanes dans le métier d’élu local. Sur quelques interactions observées lors des élections municipales de 1989. Politix 7 (28): 113–126. https://doi.org/10.3406/polix.1994.1886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauja, Anika. 2012. Party Dimensions of Representation in Westminster Parliaments: Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In Parliamentary Roles in Modern Legislatures, ed. Magnus Blomgren and Olivier Rozenberg, 121–144. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, Braulio, Laura Cabez, and Sonia Alonso. 2014. Los partidos estatales ante el laberinto autonómico. In Elecciones autonómicas 2009-2012, ed. Francesc Pallarés i Porta, 75–113. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmel, Robert, and Kenneth Janda. 1982. Parties and Their Environments: Limits to Reform?. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazan, Reuven Y. 2003. Introduction. Does Cohesion Equal Discipline? Towards a Conceptual Delineation. The Journal of Legislative Studies 9 (4): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357233042000306227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazan, Reuven Y., and Gideon Gideon Rahat. 2010. Democracy within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and their Political Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heitshusen, Valerie, Garry Young, and David M. Wood. 2005. Electoral Context and MP Constituency Focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00108.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janda, Kenneth. 1980. Political Parties: A Cross-national Survey. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kam, Christopher. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Karol, David. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Richard. 1986. Intrapreference Party Voting. In Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences, ed. Bernard Grofman and Arend Lijphart, 85–103. New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Richard, and Peter Mair. 1995. Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party. Party Politics 1 (1): 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068895001001001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelm, Ole, Marco Dohle, and Uli Bernhard. 2019. Politicians’ Self-Reported Social Media Activities and Perceptions: Results From Four Surveys Among German Parliamentarians. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119837679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiewiet, D.Roderick, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1991. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchheimer, Otto. 1966. The Transformation of Western European Party Systems. In Political Parties and Political Development, ed. Joseph La Palombara and Myron Weiner, 177–200. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornberg, Allan. 1967. Canadian Legislative Behavior: A Study of the 25th Parliament. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, Annie, and Christian-Marie Wallon-Leducq. 1998. Les candidats aux élections législatives de 1997 sélection et dissidence. In Le vote surprise. Les élections législatives du 25 mai et 1er juin 1997, ed. Colette Ysmal and Pascal Perrineau, 138–199. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, Seymour, and Stein Rokkan (eds.). 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, Arthur, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1994. Learning From Oversight: Fire Alarms and Police Patrols Reconstructed. Journal of Law Economics and Organization 10 (1): 96–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/10.1.96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, Arthur, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2000. Representation or Abdication? How Citizens Use Institutions to Help Delegation Succeed. European Journal of Political Research 37 (3): 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masclet, Jean Claude. 1982. Un député, pour quoi faire?. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress. The Electoral Connection. New Have: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Paul. 2000. Voters and Their Representatives: Electoral Institutions and Delegation in Parliamentary Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37 (3): 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Wolfgang C., and Kaare Strøm (eds.). 1999. Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, John E. 2003. Part 1: Cohesion. Explaining Party Cohesion and Discipline in Democratic Legislatures. The Journal of Legislative Studies 9 (4): 12–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357233042000306236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozbudun, Ergun. 1970. Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panebianco, Angelo. 1982. Modelli di partito: organizzazione e potere nei partiti politici. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogorelis, Robertas, Bart Maddens, Wilfried Swenden, and Élodie Fabre. 2005. Issue Salience in Regional and National Party Manifestos in the UK. West European Politics 28 (5): 992–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380500310667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovny, Jan. 2012. Who Emphasizes and Who Blurs? Party Strategies in Multidimensional Competition. European Union Politics 13 (2): 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116511435822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauger, Nicolas. 2009. Party Discipline and Coalition Management in the French Parliament. West European Politics 32 (2): 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380802670602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searing, Donald D. 1994. Westminster’s World: Understanding Political Roles. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Squarcioni, Laure. 2017. Devenir candidat en France: règles et pratiques de sélection au PS et à l’UMP pour les élections législatives. Politique et sociétés 36 (2): 13–38. https://doi.org/10.7202/1040411ar.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, Kaare. 2000. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37 (3): 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, Kaare. 2012. Roles as Strategies. Towards a Logic of Legislative Behavior. In Parliamentary Roles in Modern Legislatures, ed. Magnus Blomgren and Olivier Rozenberg, 85–100. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlke, John, Heinz Eulau, and William Buchanan. 1962. The Legislative System: Explorations in Legislative Behavior. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteley, Paul, and Patrick Seyd. 1999. Discipline in the British Conservative Party: The Attitudes of Party Activists toward the Role of their Members of Parliament. In Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government, ed. Shaun Bowler, David Farrell, and Richard Katz, 53–71. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolinetz, Steven B. 2015. Franchising the Franchise Party. How Far Can a New Concept Travel? In Parties and Party Systems: Structure and Context, ed. Richard Johnston and Campbell Sharman, 72–91. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Isabelle Guinaudeau for her helpful comments and suggestions. This review draws on the author’s dissertation on ideological diversity within political parties.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre d’Études Européennes et de Politique Comparée, Sciences Po, 27 rue Saint-Guillaume, 75337, Paris Cedex 07, France

    Florence Ecormier-Nocca

Authors
  1. Florence Ecormier-Nocca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florence Ecormier-Nocca.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ecormier-Nocca, F. Mapping ideological diversity from inside parties: A principal-agent approach. Fr Polit 18, 433–449 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-020-00132-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-020-00132-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation