Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Party institutionalization as multilevel concept: base- versus elite-level routinization

Parteiinstitutionalisierung, ein mehrstufiges Konzept: Routinisierung von Parteibasis und Parteielite

  • Aufsätze
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article adds to the refinement of the concept of party institutionalization by focusing on its multilevel character, capturing possible variation between the institutionalization of the party elite and a party’s base. Hence, we argue that debates around party institutionalization as an analytical concept can profit from clarifying whose behavior we actually theorize when specifying and operationalizing the concept’s various dimensions. We illustrate this by focusing on different configurations of the internal property of routinization, more specifically, the presence or absence of elite-level and of base-level routinization. We hypothesize that distinct combinations influence whether and to which extent a party’s overall organization can be considered routinized or not, which, in turn, affects intra-organizational dynamics. We illustrate the usefulness of our conceptual distinctions using comparative case studies of parties characterized by either elite-level or base-level routinization—from both established and new democracies—to illustrate each dimension’s distinct implications for patterns of intra-party conflict and stability.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel trägt zur Verfeinerung des Konzepts der Parteiinstitutionalisierung bei, indem er sich auf seinen mehrstufigen Charakter konzentriert und mögliche Abweichungen zwischen der Institutionalisierung auf der Ebene der Parteielite und der Parteibasis erfasst. Wir argumentieren, dass Debatten über das Konzept der Institutionalisierung von Parteien von der Klarstellung wessen Verhalten wir eigentlich theoretisieren, wenn wir die verschiedenen Dimensionen des Konzepts spezifizieren und operationalisieren, profitieren würden. Wir veranschaulichen dies indem wir uns auf verschiedene Konfigurationen der internen Routinisierung von Parteien konzentrieren, insbesondere das Vorhandensein oder Nichtvorhandensein der Routinisierung auf der Ebene der Parteielite und der Parteibasis. Wir stellen die Hypothese auf, dass unterschiedliche Kombinationen beeinflussen, ob und inwieweit die gesamte Parteiorganisation als routinisiert betrachtet werden kann oder nicht, was wiederum die organisationsinterne Dynamik beeinflusst. Wir veranschaulichen die Nützlichkeit unserer konzeptionellen Unterscheidung anhand vergleichender Fallstudien von Parteien in neuen und etablierten Demokratien, die entweder durch die Routinisierung der Parteielite oder der Parteibasis gekennzeichnet sind, um die unterschiedlichen Auswirkungen jeder Dimension auf die Konfliktmuster und interne Stabilität der Parteien zu veranschaulichen.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A party’s autonomy from its environment, a third dimension Panebianco (1988) considered as important—which Randall and Svåsand (2002) classified as the “external dimension” of party institutionalization (see also the “extermal” or “perceptual instituionalization”, Harmel et al. 2018)—is not considered here, due to the focus on internal party dynamics (Casal Bértoa 2017).

  2. Conceptualizing party institutionalization from a multilevel perspective builds on the growing literature on multilevel party organization and party organization in multilevel systems that stress the need to distinguish and assess the relationship between different layers within a party organization that operate on different levels (e.g. Thorlakson 2009; Swenden and Toubeau 2013; Bolleyer et al. 2014).

  3. Some authors have used different types of survey data on party identification or brands to approximate this dimension of party institutionalization on the base-level (e.g. Bolleyer and Ruth 2018; Lupu 2013). Cross-regionally comparable measures on elite-level value infusion are even harder to find. Especially in new democracies this dimension of party institutionalization is still an understudied topic. Therefore, for the purpose of this study we focus on the dimension of routinization, exclusively, to introduce our multilevel conceptualization of party institutionalization, and leave the expansion of this conceptualization to the dimension of value infusion as a task for the future.

  4. Our distinction coincides to some extent with the three faces of party as specified by Katz and Mair—the party in central office, in public office and the party membership base (1993). However, this “trias” was less concerned by the “vertical” dimension of party organization. For instance, the position of regional office-holders is not explicitly specified (they are not part of the “national leadership” (central office) but they are not “members” and “activitists” either). At the same time, as the party in public and central office tend to overlap on the national level, in our conceptualization of party elite vs. party base these two units are considered as forming part of the national party elite.

  5. Some new parties such as the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands deliberately did not build up a membership base (e.g. de Lange and Art 2011), base-level routinization in such cases is, by definition, absent.

  6. Party research in long-lived democracies has particularly associated this feature with populist and charismatic right-wing parties (e.g. Harmel and Svåsand 1993; Pedahzur and Brichta 2002) but as our case studies will show, this organizational characteristic is more wide-spread.

  7. See https://www.servel.cl/estadisticas-nuevas-afiliaciones-y-ratificaciones-a-partidos-politicos/, accessed March 1, 2019.

  8. For example, the internal election of the party leader Jose Antonio Gómez in 2005 registered the participation of 9356 votes, in total, of which Gómez obtained 4424, i.e. 53% (see http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/2005/01/23/170717/jose-antonio-gomez-fue-proclamado-como-presidente-del-prsd.html, accessed March 1, 2019).

  9. See https://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=29994, accessed March 1, 2019.

  10. See https://www.df.cl/noticias/economia-y-politica/actualidad/la-desesperada-campana-del-partido-radical-para-fichar-militantes/2017-03-09/161055.html, accessed March 1, 2019.

  11. See https://www.partidoradical.cl/estatutos/, accessed March 1, 2019.

  12. See http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/2000/08/31/31238/corte-suprema-no-acoge-peticion-de-prsd.html, accessed March 1, 2019; http://www.emol.com/noticias/todas/2001/04/16/52250/consejeros-nacionales-del-prsd-denuncian-falta-de-democracia-interna.html, accessed March 1, 2019.

  13. See http://www.emol.com/noticias/todas/2001/04/11/51865/consejeros-nacionales-del-prsd-impulsan-fusion-con-ppd.html, accessed March 1, 2019.

  14. See http://www.emol.com/noticias/todas/2001/02/06/45404/dirigentes-del-prsd-revelan-crisis-al-interior-del-partido.html, accessed March 1, 2019; http://www.emol.com/noticias/todas/2001/04/17/52393/consejeros-del-prsd-califican-de-poco-seria-suspension-del-partido.html, accessed March 1, 2019.

  15. See http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/2005/12/19/205313/miembros-del-partido-radical-declaran-su-apoyo-a-sebastian-pinera.html, accessed March 1, 2019; as well as http://www.estrellaarica.cl/prontus4_nots/site/artic/20060105/pags/20060105050617.html, accessed March 1, 2019.

  16. In Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia state parties existed prior to the foundation of the national party (Miragliotta 2012).

  17. For instance, while the national constitution only recognizes individual party membership, the Victorian branch allows for organizational members as well (Miragliotta 2012).

  18. In 2010 the party allowed for the formation of a Labour minority government led by Gilard. In 2016 it supported the Conservative Turnbull government.

  19. Each state party has two representatives, except their membership exceed 2000 members is case of which the state gets one additional delegate (Miragliotta and Jackson 2015).

  20. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/27/the-emergence-of-left-renewal-is-unsurprising-but-does-it-belong-in-the-greens-party, accessed March 1, 2019; https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jan/27/greens-version-of-tony-abbott-lee-rhiannon-fends-off-bob-brown-attack, accessed March 1, 2019.

  21. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/australian-greens-national-council-says-factions-incompatible-with-its-principles-20170129-gu0y7p.html, accessed March 1, 2019; http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/first-cracks-appear-in-greens-left-renewal-faction/news-story/9352ade488e7b897fcdbe07dac37a681, accessed March 1, 2019.

  22. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/09/nsw-greens-demand-lee-rhiannon-be-fully-reinstated-to-party-room, accessed March 1, 2019.

  23. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/13/greens-allow-lee-rhiannon-to-vote-on-contentious-laws-subject-to-conditions, accessed March 1, 2019.

  24. For an in-depth and ethnographic account of the activities of both brokers and clients within the PJ see Auyero (2000).

  25. Moreover, presidents have ample gate keeping power with respect to the distribution of public funds (to buy off the support of governors) and extensive appointment powers (Scherlis 2012). A systematic analysis of the appointment practice during Néstor Kirchner’s presidential term (2003–2007) shows that a PJ party affiliation was no relevant criterion in about 55% of appointments at the highest political level (Scherlis 2012). Moreover, if party affiliation played a role in selecting appointees this was mainly to strategically forge political coalitions—a practice Carlos Menem resorted to as well to assure legislative support for extensive market reforms that even went against the core principles of Peronism (i.e. statism and party-union linkages) (see Corrales 2002; Levitsky 2003).

  26. Although the three candidates of the PJ combined gained over 60% of the vote, the election would have resulted in a runoff between Carlos Menem (24.5%) and Néstor Kirchner (22.2%). Due to the decision of Menem to drop out of the second-round race, Néstor Kirchner finally assumed the presidency with less than a quarter of the Argentine voters behind his ticket (Levitsky and Murillo 2003).

  27. See, for instance, Casal Bértoa (2017), Diamond and Gunther (2001), Dix (1992), Freidenberg and Levitsky (2006), Huntington (1968), Payne (2006), Randall and Svåsand (2002).

References

  • Auyero, Javier. 2000. The logic of Clientelism in Argentina: an Ethnographic account. Latin American Research Review 35(3):55–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aylott, Nicholas, and Niklas Bolin. 2017. Managed intra-party democracy. Party Politics 23(1):55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolleyer, Nicole. 2009. Inside the cartel party: party Organisation in government and opposition. Political Studies 57(3):559–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolleyer, Nicole. 2013. New parties in old party systems: persistence and decline in 17 democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bolleyer, Nicole, and Saskia P. Ruth. 2018. Elite investments in party institutionalization in new democracies: a two-dimensional approach. The Journal of Politics 80(1):288–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolleyer, Nicole, Wilfried Swenden, and Nicola McEwen. 2014. A theoretical perspective on multi-level systems in Europe: Constitutional power and partisan conflict. Comparative European Politics 12(4):367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, Katrina, and Steven Levitsky. 2003. Explaining populist party adaptation in latin america. Comparative Political Studies 36(8):881–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casal Bértoa, Fernando. 2017. Political parties or party systems? Assessing the “myth” of institutionalization and democracy. West European Politics 40(2):402–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, Flemming J. 2016. The Danish people’s party: combining coopration and radical positions. In Radical right-wing populist parties in western europe. Into the mainstream?, ed. Tjitske Akkerman, Sarah L. De Lange, and Matthijs Rooduijn, 94–112. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, Flemming J. 2017. Conflict and co-operation among the Danish mainstream as a condition for adaptation to the populist radical right. In The European mainstream and the populist radical right, ed. Pontus Odmalm, Eve Hepburn, 49–70. London, New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Corrales, Javier. 2002. Presidents without parties. The politics of economic reform in Argentina and Venezuela in the 1990s. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, William, and André Blais. 2012. Who selects the party leader? Party Politics 18(2):127–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, Larry, and Richard Gunther. 2001. Introduction. In Political parties and democracy, ed. Larry Diamond, Richard Gunther, ix–xxxiv. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dix, Robert H. 1992. Democratization and the institutionalization of latin American political parties. Comparative Political Studies 24(4):488–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freidenberg, Flavia, and Steven Levitsky. 2006. Informal institutions and party organization in latin america. In Informal institutions and democracy. Lessons from latin america, ed. Gretchen Helmke, Steven Levitsky, 178–197. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gayoso, Christian. 2011. Konflikt und Kooperation in der chilenischen Concertación. Ursachen und Formen der langjährigen Stabilität des Mehrparteienbündnisses. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harmel, Robert, and Lars Svåsand. 1993. Party leadership and party institutionalisation: Three phases of development. West European Politics 16(2):67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmel, Robert, Lars Svåsand, and Hilmar Mjelde. 2018. Institutionalisation (and de-Institutionalisation) of right-wing protest parties. The progress parties in Denmark and Norway. Colchester: ECPR Press/Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazan, Reuven Y., and Gideon Rahat. 2010. Democracy within parties. Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political order in changing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Stewart. 2011. The Australian greens: from movement to electoral professional party. Sydney: University of Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janda, Kenneth. 1980. Political parties: a cross-national survey. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Richard S., and Peter Mair. 1993. The evolution of party organizations in europe: the three faces of party Organiaztion. The American Review of Politics 14:593–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Richard S., and Peter Mair. 1995. Changing models of party organization and party democracy. The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics 1(1):5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, Herbert. 1994. The transformation of European social democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, Herbert, and Daniel M. Kselman. 2010. The organizational foundations of democratic accountability: organizational form and the choice of electoral linkage strategy. Annual Meeting of the APSA, Washington, D. C., 01.–05.09.2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Lange, Sarah L., and David Art. 2011. Fortuyn versus wilders: an agency-based approach to radical right party building. West European Politics 34(6):1229–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, Steven. 1998. Institutionalization and Peronism: the case, the concept, and the case for unpacking the concept. Party Politics 4(1):77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, Steven. 2001. An “Organised Disorganisation”: informal Organisation and the persistence of local party structures in Argentine Peronism. Journal of Latin American Studies 33(1):29–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, Steven. 2003. Transforming labor-based parties in latin america: Argentine Peronism in comparative perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, Steven, and María Victoria Murillo. 2003. Argentina weathers the storm. Journal of Democracy 14(4):152–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, Steven, James Loxton, and Brandon Van Dyck. 2016. Introduction: challenges of party-building in latin america. In Challenges of party-building in latin america, ed. Steven Levitsky, James Loxton, Brandon Van Dyck, and Jorge I. Domínguez, 1–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, Seymour Martin, Martin Trow, and James S. Coleman. 1956. Union democracy: the internal politics of the international typographical union. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Luca, Miguel. 2008. Political recruitment and candidate selection in Argentina: presidents and governors, 1983 to 2006. In Pathways to power. Political recruitment and candidate selection in latin america, ed. Peter Siavelis, Scott Morgenstern, 189–217. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Luca, Miguel, Mark P. Jones, and María Inés Tula. 2002. Back rooms or ballot boxes? Comparative Political Studies 35(4):413–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luna, Juan Pablo. 2014. Party system institutionalization: do we need a new concept? Studies in Comparative International Development 49(4):403–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luna, Juan Pablo, and David Altman. 2011. Uprooted but stable: Chilean parties and the concept of party system institutionalization. Latin American Politics and Society 53(2):1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupu, Noam. 2013. Party brands and partisanship: theory with evidence from a survey experiment in Argentina. American Journal of Political Science 57(1):49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupu, Noam. 2015. Nacionalización e institutcionalización de partidos en la Argentina del siglo XX. In Sistemas de partidos en América Latina: causas y consequencias de su equilibrio inestable, ed. Mariano Torcal, 183–202. Buenos Aires: Anthropos/SigloXXI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainwaring, Scott, and Timothy R. Scully. 1995. Building democratic institutions. Party systems in latin america. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malamud, Andrés. 2005. Winning elections versus governing: a two-tier approach to party adaptation in Argentina, 1983–2003. XI Encuentro de Latinoamericanistas Espanoles (CEEIB), Tordesillas, Spain, 26.–28.05.2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, James W. 1997. Peronism without Perón. Unions, parties, and democracy in Argentina. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meret, Susi. 2010. The Danish people’s party, the Italian northern league and the Austrian freedom party in a comparative perspective: party ideology and electoral support. Ph. D. Series, Vol. 25. Aalborg: SPIRIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meret, Susi, Birte Siim, and Etienne Pingaud. 2017. Men’s parties with women leaders: A comparative study of the rightwing populist leaders Pia Kjærsgaard, Marine Le Pen and Siv Jensen. In Understanding the Populist shift. Othering in a Europe in Crisis, ed. Gabriella Lazaridis, Giovanna Campani, 122–149. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michels, Robert. 1962. Political parties: a sociological study of the Oligarchial tendencies of modern democracy. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miragliotta, Narelle. 2012. Federalism, party organization and Australia’s green parties. Journal of Politics and History 52(1):97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miragliotta, Narelle, and Stewart Jackson. 2015. Green parties in federal systems: resistant or compliant to centralizing pressures? Government and Opposition 50(4):549–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Gonzalo. 2008. Democracia interna y selección de autoridades. In Reforma de los partidos políticos en Chile, ed. Arturo Fontaine, Cristián Larroulet, Jorge Navarrete, and Ignacio Walker, 413–428. Santiago de Chile: Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustillo, Thomas J. 2009. Modeling new party performance: a conceptual and methodological approach for volatile party systems. Political Analysis 17(3):311–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navia, Patricio. 2008. Legislative candidate selection in Chile. In Pathways to power. Political recruitment and candidate selection in latin america, ed. Peter Siavelis, Scott Morgenstern, 92–118. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panebianco, Angelo. 1988. Political parties: organization and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. Mark. 2006. Sistemas de partidos y gobernabilidad democrática. In La política importa. Democracia y desarrollo en América Latina, ed. J. Mark Payne, Daniel Zovatto G., and Mercedes Mateo Díaz, 165–196. Washington, D. C.: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedahzur, Ami, and Avraham Brichta. 2002. The institutionalization of extreme right-wing charismatic parties: a paradox? Party Politics 8(1):31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, Karina. 2006. Driving a populist party: the Danish people’s party. Copenhagen: Institute for Statskundskab University of Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, Mogens N. 1982. Towards a new typology of party Lifespans and minor parties. Scandinavian Political Studies 5(1):1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, Karina, and Jens Ringsmose. 2004. From the progress party to the Danish people’s party—from protest party to government supporting party. ECPR Joint Session of Workshops, Uppsala, 13.–18.04.2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponce, Aldo F., and Susan E. Scarrow. 2016. Which members? Using cross-national surveys to study party membership. Party Politics 22(6):679–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, Vicky, and Lars Svåsand. 2002. Party institutionalization in new democracies. Party Politics 8(1):5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribera Neumann, Teodoro. 2008. Estatuto jurídico de los partidos políticos en Chile. Veinte años de la ley Orgánica Constitutcional de los Partidos Políticos. In Reforma de los partidos políticos en Chile, ed. Arturo Fontaine, Cristián Larroulet, Jorge Navarrete, and Ignacio Walker, 127–158. Santiago de Chile: Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Richard, and Thomas T. Mackie. 1988. Do parties persist or fail? The big trade-off facing organizations. In When parties fail: emerging alternative organizations, ed. Kay Lawson, Peter H. Merkl, 533–578. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, David. 2004. From socialism to social democracy: party organization and the transformation of the workers’ party in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies 37(9):999–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, Giovanni. 1973. What is “politics”. Political Theory 1(1):5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarrow, Susan E., and Burcu Gezgor. 2010. Declining memberships, changing members? European political party members in a new era. Party Politics 16(6):823–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarrow, Susan E., Paul Webb, and David Farrell. 2001. From social integration to electoral contestation: the changing distribution of power within political parties. In Parteis without partisans: political change in advanced industrial democracies, ed. Russell Dalton, Martin P. Wattenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherlis, Gerardo. 2012. Designaciones y organización partidaria: el partido de redes gubernamentales en el Peronismo Kirchnerista. América Latina Hoy 62:47–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siavelis, Peter, and Bonnie N. Field. 2015. The Presidentialization of parties in Chile. In The Presidentialization of political parties. Organizations, institutions and leaders, ed. Gianluca Passarelli, 26–48. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Swenden, Wilfried, and Simon Toubeau. 2013. Mainstream Parteis and territorial dynamics in the UK, Spain and India. In Federal dynamics. Continuity, change and the varieties of federalism, ed. Arthur Benz, Jörg Broschek, 249–276. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tavits, Margit. 2012. Organizing for success: party organizational strength and electoral performance in Postcommunist europe. The Journal of Politics 74(01):83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavits, Margit. 2013. Post-communist democracies and party organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thorlakson, Lori. 2009. Patterns of party integration, influence and autonomy in seven federations. Party Politics 15(2):157–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wills-Otero, Laura. 2009. From party systems to party organizations: the adaptation of latin American parties to changing environments. Journal of Politics in Latin America 1(1):123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wills-Otero, Laura. 2016. The electoral performance of latin American traditional parties, 1978–2006: does the internal structure matter? Party Politics 22(6):758–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zalewski, Frédéric. 2005. La professionalisation des partis “populistes” en Europé: une comparaison entre le mouvement polonais Samoobrona et le Dansk Folkeparti. Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée 12(4):487–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the editors of this special issue, the referees of the journal as well as the participants of the Workshop “Different Worlds of Party Development” at the University Duisburg-Essen for their helpful input on earlier versions of this paper.

Funding

Funding

This research has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–13/ERC grant agreement 335890 STATORG). This support is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics, University of Exeter, Rennes Drive, Amory Building, EX44RJ, Exeter, UK

    Nicole Bolleyer

  2. Institute of Latin American Studies, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Neuer Jungfernstieg 21, 20354, Hamburg, Germany

    Saskia P. Ruth-Lovell

Authors
  1. Nicole Bolleyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saskia P. Ruth-Lovell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Bolleyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bolleyer, N., Ruth-Lovell, S.P. Party institutionalization as multilevel concept: base- versus elite-level routinization. Z Vgl Polit Wiss 13, 175–198 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-019-00419-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-019-00419-3

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation