Decentralization and the Nationalization of Party Systems

Abstract

Introduction We examine the extent to which party systems are shaped by fiscal and political decentralization or the authority granted to different levels of government. More specifically, we focus on the impact of decentralization on the degree of party system nationalization. (1) The topic is relevant for many reasons. According to Alema¨n and Kellam (2008, page 193),``comparative nationalization interests scholars because it helps to distinguish party systems from one another in ways that have implications for governability and political representation.'' Party nationalization is of paramount importance for analyzing party competition from both the supply and demand sides (Kasuya and Moenius, 2008, page 126). Party nationalization should therefore distinguish among party systems with similar formats and centripetal or centrifugal directions of competition, but different levels of nationalization. As Jones and Mainwaring (2003, page 140) have written,``in case of high nationalization, electoral competition follows a roughly similar pattern across the country's sub-national units. In a case of low nationalization, the parties that fare well in some sub-national units are minor electoral competitors elsewhere.'' Accordingly, parties should develop distinctive political and, in particular, electoral strategies depending on the extent to which they are nationalizedöthat is, receiving similar voting shares across all or most districtsö or notöthat is, oscillating between being hegemonic in some districts and secondary if not irrelevant in others. Many comparative dimensions of politicsösuch as the outcomes of decentralization processes, the range of public policies, the legislative careers of representatives, the politics of coalition making in parliamentary regimes, and even the consolidation of new democracies ömight have different results in highly or low party-nationalized countries (Jones and Mainwaring, 2003, pages 143^144). The first essential step is to clarify what the nationalization of party systems entails. Through the nationalization processes, highly localized and territorialized politics are replaced with national electoral alignments and oppositions; programmes and policies become national in scope and cancel out or at least reduce the scope of local problems,

Economic crises and the nationalisation of politics

“…The path‐breaking study in this area is the work of Chhibber and Kollman (), who argue that elites’ incentives to coordinate nationally will depend on how much at stake there is at the national level, so periods of centralisation will be followed by higher levels of party aggregation, while periods of decentralisation will bring lower levels of party nationalisation. However, there is a potential reverse causation in the argument (Brancati ; Lago‐Peñas & Lago‐Peñas ; Lublin ). Decentralisation reforms may decrease nationalisation by increasing the number of competing parties.…”

“…Second, as for the role of federal institutions, the literature has not yet provided conclusive empirical evidence on the relationship between decentralised forms of governance (political or fiscal) and levels of party system nationalisation (Lago‐Peñas & Lago‐Peñas ; Morgenstern et al. ).…”

“…The growing literature on party system nationalisation has brought significant theoretical and empirical insights into the role of historical processes and institutions in explaining the origins of party systems and cross‐country variation in the levels of nationalisation (Caramani ; Morgenstern et al. ; Harbers ; Lago‐Peñas & Lago‐Peñas ; Rodden & Wibbels ; Chhibber & Kollman ; Golosov ). Yet, some issues still call for further attention, particularly the role of short‐term factors in explaining changes in levels of nationalisation.…”

“…Variation in the degree to which parties and party systems are nationalised may have important implications over various critical aspects of politics, such as the representation of social groups, the balance of power between legislature and executives or government spending (Crisp et al. ; Calvo & Leiras ; Castañeda‐Angarita ; Jurado ; Lago‐Peñas & Lago‐Peñas ; Hicken et al. ; Simmons et al.…”

Spatial effects and party nationalization: The Geography of partisan support in Mexico

“…While the cross-national literature identifies country-level variables that influence nationalization, such as the electoral system, the degree of decentralization and ethno-linguistic heterogeneity (e.g. Harbers, 2010;Lago-Peñas and Lago-Peñas, 2011;Golosov, 2014;Wahman, 2015), the earlier literature identifies variables at the subnational level that facilitate or impede the spread of parties to specific districts. Rokkan (1970), for instance, describes the challenges encountered by Norwegian parties as they sought to broaden their territorial base beyond urban centers.…”