Institutional Development of Parties and the Thesis of Party Decline

Cotter, Cornelius P.; Bibby, John

doi:10.2307/2149582

Cited by 84 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As parties in the electorate and parties in government have each revived, parties as organizations have tenaciously held on in the face of a broader American decline in federated membership groups (Putnam 2000;Skocpol 2003). The national party committees have modernized their operations and supercharged their fundraising since the 1970s (Cotter and Bibby 1980;Conway 2003;Reichley 1985;Herrnson 1988). Party organizations have not, however, built meaningful connections upwards to elected officials or downwards to voters.…”

Section: Organizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Party-building in the twenty-first century requires sustained and continuous investment in state and local parties, and in our nationalized partisan era the onus falls on the national party organizations to carry that out. The fruits of sporadic twentieth-century efforts in this vein (Cotter and Bibby 1980;Klinkner 1994;Galvin 2009;Conley 2013), not to mention Howard…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Hollow Parties

Schlozman¹,

Rosenfeld²

2019

Can America Govern Itself?

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Organizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Hollow Parties

Schlozman¹,

Rosenfeld²

2019

Can America Govern Itself?

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas the national parties once consisted of loosely structured networks with little institutional presence, over the course of the twentieth century they became increasingly institutionalized, routinized, and organizationally capable. Modern "parties in service" are usually identified by the significant fundraising, data analysis, communications, research, and other campaign-oriented services they are now able to offer their candidates-"that only the Kennedys, Rockefellers, Perots, and movement leaders may otherwise posses," Aldrich writes (Aldrich 1995, 273; see also Cotter and Bibby 1980;Cotter et al 1984;Galvin 2012;Herrnson 1988Herrnson , 2002Kayden and Mahe 1985;Schlesinger 1985).…”

Section: Republican Presidents and The Emergence Of The Modern "Partymentioning

confidence: 99%

Presidents as Agents of Change

Galvin¹

2014

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presidents have long been seen as operating within a political environment that is intractable and highly resistant to change. Recent historical‐institutional research, however, has revealed presidents to be powerful agents of structural change. Building on this emergent literature, this article endeavors to demonstrate that Terry Moe's tripartite analytical framework—of structures, incentives, and resources—remains a helpful starting point for historically oriented scholars seeking to examine the relationship between presidential behavior and institutional change. It offers methodological suggestions for conducting historical research along these lines and illustrates the potential gains by reconsidering some recent research into the relationship between presidential action and party development. Each illustration shows that presidents, through their instrumental efforts to bring inherited party structures into closer alignment with their incentives, contributed to long‐term party developments. Rather than leave their structural environment undisturbed, as leading theories might predict, their actions reconfigured party arrangements and altered their trajectories, influencing the choices made by subsequent presidents and other political actors.

show abstract

“…Working from the perspective that parties now fulfill a service, or brokerage, function (Bibby, 1998; Aldrich, 1995; Frantzich, 1989; Herrnson, 1988; Kayden and Mahe, 1985), scholars have heeded the call of Cotter, Bibby, and Gibson by examining the numerous functions of state and local parties and the relationships that have developed among party (and nonparty) organizations. We now have a better understanding of the interaction between party and candidate (Monroe, 2001; Herrnson, 1998a; Aldrich, 1995; Kayden and Mahe, 1985) as well as the relationship between different levels of party organization (Dwyre and Kolodny, 2001; La Raja and Jarvis‐Shean, 2001; Morehouse, 2000; Arterton, 1982; Cotter and Bibby, 1980). We also have a better understanding of the way parties coordinate electoral activity through the sharing of resources (especially manpower) and the provision of voter/constituent services through both candidate and legislator organizations (Monroe, 2001).…”

Section: The Electoral Role Of State Political Partiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

State Parties in the 2000 Senate Elections^*

Brox

2004

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. This article examines state party activity in support of U.S. Senate candidates during the 2000 election. The literature on the service role of parties suggests that national parties will be active in support of candidates, while state parties will be inclined to provide mobilization services. However, state parties are also in a good position to provide campaign contributions and technical services usually supplied by national party organizations. Methods. Focusing on the 2000 elections, I use campaign finance data from the Federal Election Commission as well as original data derived from a survey of the state parties to investigate the relationship between state parties and U.S. Senate candidates. Results. The results indicate not only that state parties were remarkably active in support of U.S. Senate candidates, but also that Republican state parties appeared to better target their support to more deserving candidates than did Democratic state parties. Closer scrutiny, however, reveals that the Democrats, by using state party organizations as the conduit of coordinated expenditures, were more successful in providing resources to candidates who would win. Conclusions. Although much of the activity of state party organizations is explained by money transfers from national party organizations, it is the transfer of hard money that accounts for state party activity in U.S. Senate campaigns. This brings into question the impact of recent campaign finance reforms on the relationship between state parties and U.S. Senate candidates.

show abstract

Institutional Development of Parties and the Thesis of Party Decline

Cited by 84 publications

References 0 publications

The Hollow Parties

The Hollow Parties

Presidents as Agents of Change

State Parties in the 2000 Senate Elections^*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Institutional Development of Parties and the Thesis of Party Decline

Cited by 84 publications

References 0 publications

The Hollow Parties

The Hollow Parties

Presidents as Agents of Change

State Parties in the 2000 Senate Elections*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

State Parties in the 2000 Senate Elections^*