This article introduces the first findings of the Political Party Database (PPDB) project, a major survey of party organizations in parliamentary and semi-presidential democracies. The project's first round of data covers 122 parties in 19 countries. In this paper we describe the scope of the database, then investigate what it tells us about contemporary party organization in these countries, focussing on parties' resources, structures and internal decision-making. We examine party-family and within country organizational patterns, and where possible we make temporal comparisons with older datasets. Our analyses suggest a remarkable coexistence of uniformity and diversity. In terms of the major organizational resources on which parties can draw, such as members, staff and finance, the new evidence largely confirms the continuation of trends identified in previous research: i.e., declining membership, but enhanced financial resources and 2 more paid staff. We also find remarkable uniformity regarding the core architecture of party organizations. At the same time, however, we find substantial variation between countries and party families in terms of their internal processes, with particular regard to how internally democratic they are, and in the forms that this democratization takes.3

Abstract.  This article examines the institutional arrangements between Social Democratic parties and trade unions in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. First, the authors show how these relations have weakened at a varying pace. Party–union ties are now quite distant in Denmark, but remain relatively close in Norway and, especially, Sweden. Second, the authors explore this variation using a simple model of political exchange. The finding is that the intensity of the relationship is correlated with the resources that each side can derive from the other, which in turn reflects national differences. Yet it is also clear that the degree of change is related to the formative phase of the institutional arrangement itself: the weaker the ties were from the beginning, the more easily they unravel in response to environmental changes.

No abstract

According to a widespread assumption, party–interest group links are significantly weaker than they used to be. Both sets of organizations, it is said, now prefer autonomy over the constraints implied by close relationships, especially in supposedly ‘cartelized’ established party systems but also in new democracies. In this article, we briefly review existing literature on party–group links and argue that the common wisdom – and this particular aspect of Katz and Mair’s cartel thesis – may need to be qualified. First, we have to define more precisely what we mean when we talk about the relationships in question, not least because they may assume myriad forms. Second, the little empirical research that has been done hints at a good deal of variety, both over time and between polities and parties. Third, we must further explore possible explanations for such differences in party–group relations, including the motives of the actors involved. The substantive articles in this special issue throw new light on all three issues.

Relationships between political parties and interest groups form structures that enable and constrain political action. Yet there is a lack of consensus on what ‘party-group relationships’ means. We propose a conceptualization focusing on ties as means for structured interaction, which is different from sharing or transfer of resources and ideological kinship. Our conceptual discussion suggests that organizational ties form a single yet hierarchical scale of strength: groups that have many formal ties with particular parties would also have weaker ties with these parties, but not vice versa. To validate our conceptual map, we furthermore check whether the distinction between organizational ties, resource sharing/provision and ideological kinship holds empirically. We explore our expectations by means of novel interest group survey data from seven mature democracies. The results of our scaling analysis provide support for our predictions and have multiple implications for future research on the causes and effects of party-group relationships.