UNIT 7: PARTY GOALSPOLICY/IDEOLOGY
Readings: Ware CH 1 and Mueller and Strom pgs. 89-111
Guiding Questions




How do we classify political parties?
What are party families (familles spirituelles)?
How do party families compare on social and
economic issues?
Can we use the concept of party families outside
the European context?
Classifying Parties: Familles Spirituelles

A party’s ideology bases strongly shapes their policy positions.



Party “type” is often linked to a party’s stated ideology.
von Beyme 1985




Regardless of whether or not parties view policy goals strategically or
sincerely.
Examines ideological roots of parties rather than position along the
ideological spectrum.
Identifies party groups in order of their ideological emergence.
Identifies nine party families (familles spirituelles) in the European
context.
Laver and Hunt 1992


Measures ideology on two scales: stance on public ownership (left-right)
and stance on social issues.
Allows for comparison within and across party families.
Liberal/Radical Parties






Developed in the late 19th century.
Formed by bourgeoisie to protect interests against landowners who controlled the state.
Wanted to remove state restrictions on means of production and promote a separation
of state and society.
Often favored extension of the franchise (especially Radical parties).
Center-left on social issues (7.9), right on economics (15.3).
Electoral appeal: middle classes, business owners
Conservative Parties






Opposed extension of the franchise in response to Liberal/Radical parties.
Historically opposed to social change.
Focus on national honor; paternalistic view of society.
Right on economics (15.8), right on social policies (12.2).
New Right issues have changed some of these appeals particularly in terms of the market.
 Many modern conservative parties take a very free market approach to the economy.
Electoral appeal: middle and upper classes.
Socialist/Social Democratic Parties


Formed as working classes organized.
Sought the extension of the franchise and public ownership of the means of production.






Modern variants accept the free market.
Seek a social safety net to protect those affected by globalization
Movement split after WW1 as communist parties formed.
Affirmed support for liberal democratic institutions following WWII.
Ideological placement: Economic 8.2, Social 6.3
Electoral appeals: Working and lower middle classes
Christian Democratic Parties


Formed by Catholic groups in response to secularism.
Organized to compete against socialist parties.


Right of center on social issues (15.5), more centrist on economics (13.9)



Gained momentum after WWII.
Favors a more active role for government in the economy than conservative parties.
Shift towards the right in recent years on economic issues.
Electoral appeal: Catholic workers, middle classes
Communist Parties

Took direction from Moscow until the collapse of the USSR.

Collapse of the USSR has resulted in a change in name and ideology of many of these parties.




Favored public ownership (3.1) and permissive social policy (4.8).
 But also accepted democratic institutions both during and after the Cold War.
Many have transformed into credible social democratic parties
 Example: PDS in Germany, PCI in Italy
Other movements associated with the far left are shifting towards anti-capitalist appeals
 Example: NPA in France
Electoral appeal: youth, unemployed, working classes.
Agrarian Parties





Small farming and peasant based parties formed in response to industrialization.
Mainly formed in Scandinavia and Eastern European countries.
Generally right of center on both economic and social issues, but usually absorbed by
other parties of the right.
Changes in political orientation make it difficult to classify them as a group.
Electoral appeals: agricultural interests, middle classes.
Regional/Ethnic Parties




Represent regional or ethnic minority groups within societies.
 A presence since the 1960’s where movements are not absorbed by larger
parties.
Many merge nationalism (generally associated with the right), with center left
stances on economic and social policy.
Difficult to classify on the left-right spectrum.
Electoral appeals: nationalists.
Extreme Right Parties



Generally associated with anti-immigrant, extreme nationalist, anti-government and anti-tax philosophies.
(Economic 18.5, Social 19)
Right of center placement on both social and economic policies.
Many have roots in fascism (authoritarian state to protect national ideals).


Anti-Islamic appeals have boosted their vote totals in recent elections.



Although modern far right parties are generally not anti system parties (change from the interwar era);
Stance typically means they are not invited to join coalitions.
Example: PVV in the Netherlands
Electoral appeals: working classes
Ecological/Green Parties





Newest party family.
Associated with post-materialist concerns (e.g. environment and quality of life issues).
Favor government intervention and international cooperation on ecological issues
placing it on the left in terms of economic policy.
Center left on economic issues (8.0) and the most permissive on social issues (4.2).
Electoral appeals: youth, gay/lesbian voters, middle and upper middle classes
Party Family Positions Compared
ECONOMIC POLICY







Communists 3.1
Greens 8.0
Socialists 8.2
Christian Dem 13.9
Liberals 15.3
Conservatives 15.8
Extreme Right 18.5
SOCIAL POLICY







Greens 4.2
Communists 4.8
Socialists 6.3
Liberals 7.9
Conservatives 12.2
Christian Dem 15.5
Extreme Right 19.0
Applicability outside of Europe:
The Strange Case of the United States?

Aspects of both parties make classification difficult.


Generally classified as liberal parties although they emphasize different strands
of liberalism.



Broad tent rather than explicitly ideological parties.
The terms “conservative” and “liberal” have taken on a different meaning in the US context.
US Democrats slightly outside the mainstream of European center left parties on
economic issues.
US Republicans outside the mainstream of European liberal parties on social issues.
Conclusions:
Other Developed Democracies
Ware 1996
von Beyme works in
some cases and not
applicable in others.
MIXED RESULTS:
Ireland, Canada, Israel,
Japan
STRONG PATTERNS:
Australia, New Zealand
Case Study: Spain

Examine:
 The
Socialists (PSOE) transformation from a policyseeking to an office-seeking party
 What
variables are used to explain the shift?
 How did the PSOE’s internal politics facilitate this process?
 What tradeoffs were made to move away from a more
policy-seeking model towards an office-seeking model?
Next Unit

Theme: Coalition Formation
 Readings
 Reserves:


Lijphart and Laver and Schofield
 Dalton and Wattenberg CH 9
 Case Studies:
 Mueller and Strom pgs 36-62 OR 63-88
Game: Coalections
Game: Coalections with Portfolios