Political parties and interest groups

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.

Explaining Interest Group Interactions with Party Group Members in the European Parliament: Dominant Party Groups and Coalition Formation

“…In contrast Allern's (2010) in-depth study of the Norwegian case illustrates that parties have links to a diverse set of societal actors rather than a chosen few. This finding corresponds to the observation that through the process of cartelization, the established relationships between political parties and civil society organizations have diminished (Katz and Mair, 1995) and arguably better approximate to the informal and fluid pattern of lobbying that occurs within the EP (Bouwen, 2004).…”

Interest Groups and the Election

“…As regards the nature of the ties between political parties and interest groups, various relationships are foreshadowed in the literature (Allern and Bale 2012;Thomas 2001). A dominant perspective emphasises financial dependencies, mapping the regular or systematic flow of funds between them-for instance, through the provision of donations.…”

Language ideologies and literacy achievement: six multilingual countries and two international assessments

“…Nynorsk is used by relatively fewer citizens who generally live in the provincial regions of the country (Egeland, Landrø, Tjemsland, & Walbaekken, 2006). The push for Nynorsk as an official mode of communication has been characterised as a political move to reaffirm a 'purely' Norwegian identity (Allern, 2010;BuckenKnapp, 2003;Calvet, 2006). Bokmål (adopted as an official writing system in 1907) is a distant variant of Danish, and thus a lingering reminder of Danish occupation of Norway from the 1500s to the early 1800s (Bucken-Knapp, 2003;Ciobanu, 2013;Haugen, 1966;Pedersen, 2010).…”