Suchergebnisse

This article aims to make a three-fold contribution to the study of Euroscepticism in the wider Europe. First, it presents a two-dimensional conceptualization of party positions on European integration in general, and of Euroscepticism in particular, distinguishing between diffuse and specific support for European integration (i.e. `support for the ideas of European integration' and `support for the EU'). Second, it analyses the location, type, and electoral strength of party-based Euroscepticism in the four candidate countries of East Central Europe - the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Third, it contributes to the ideology vs. strategy debate, showing that ideology is the dominant explanation for both types of support, although strategy at times plays a role in explaining specific support.

Abstract. The relationship between Eastern Europe and democratisation studies so far has been highly asymmetric. In contrast to the vast contribution, both in data and theory, of Eastern Europe to the democratisation literature, the latter has been of only modest use to the understanding of the democratisation processes in post–communist Europe. Despite the growing number of empirically grounded assessments, most notably of degrees of democratic consolidation within East–Central Europe, there is still very little agreement on what exactly is democratic transition and consolidation or on what explains the seemingly widening gap between East–Central Europe on the one hand and the Balkans and post–Soviet republics on the other hand. We believe that at least part of the answer lies in two underdeveloped topics of the democratisation literature: state and nation–building (the 'third' transition) and the international dimension. Moreover, to uncover the answers democratisation studies would greatly profit from expanding its disciplinary and geographical constraints, i.e., by integrating research from, most notably, nationalism studies, international relations as well as democratization studies of the lsquo;first wave'.

The relationship between Eastern Europe and democratisation studies so far has been highly asymmetric. In contrast to the vast contribution, both in data and theory, of Eastern Europe to the democratisation literature, the latter has been only modest use to the understanding of the democratisation processes in post-communist Europe. Despite the growing number of empirically grounded assessments, most notably of degrees of democratic consolidation within East-Central Europe, there is still very little agreement on what exactly is democratic transition and consolidation or on what explains the seemingly widening gap between East-Central Europe on the one hand and the Balkans and post-Soviet republics on the other hand. We believe that at least part of the answer lies in two underdeveloped topics of the democratisation literature: state and nation-building (the 'third' transition) and the international dimension. Moreover, to uncover the answers democratisation studies would greatly profit from expanding its disciplinary and geographical constraints, i.e., by integrating research from, most notably, nationalism studies, international relations as well as democratisation studies of the 'first wave'. (European Journal of Political Research / FUB)

This article focuses on the nature and strength of the relationship between political parties and the state. Expanding on the analytical framework we developed earlier (van Biezen and Kopecký, 2007), we identify three different dimensions of the party–state linkage: the dependence of parties on the state, the management of parties by the state, and the capture of the state by parties. We provide an updated cross-national empirical analysis of the relationship between political parties and the state in contemporary European democracies, building on two recently developed datasets on party regulation and party patronage. Our analysis underscores the considerable importance of the state for political parties in general, but also highlights important differences between the older democracies, and the more recently established democracies that emerged in the third wave of democratization. We show that the different dimensions of the party–state linkage do not necessarily work in the same direction, which suggests that the assumption of a close relationship between parties and the state ultimately undermining the democratic legitimacy of political parties requires some qualification.

This article focuses on the relationship between political parties and the state. We propose an analytical framework distinguishing between three different dimensions of the party-state linkage: the dependence of parties on the state, the management of parties by the state and the control of the state by parties. We provide a cross-national empirical analysis of the relationship between parties and the state in contemporary liberal democracies. Our analysis underscores the considerable importance of the state for political parties in general. It also highlights important differences between old and new democracies, as well as important regional differences in terms of the nature of the relationship between parties and the state in the recently established democracies. We argue that these different types of linkages are highly relevant for party system development and the nature of democracy.

Existing research on intra-party unity and conflict has mostly focused on (dis)unity within the legislative branch of the party at the national level, while neglecting conflict between the different faces or at different levels of the party. Intra-party unity and conflict have also been routinely defined and operationalized through ideological homogeneity or distance, although intra-party conflicts are multidimensional and dynamic phenomena. The articles included in this special issue seek to address these shortcomings in the literature. Their contributions are threefold: (1) they theorize intra-party conflict as a dynamic and multifaceted concept; (2) they explore conflicts across and between several party faces, and among different intra-party actors; (3) they investigate the determinants and management of conflict at several party levels.

The contemporary literature on political parties has identified their gradual but consistent shift away from civil society and towards the state. As parties are becoming ever increasingly dependent on state resources and exclusively interested in governing, as Mair (Ruling the void: The hollowing of western democracy [Verso Books, 2013]) suggested, and patronage is a fundamental to that relationship, the degree and modes of party patronage becomes pivotal to understanding their performance, and the ways they organize and govern. In this paper we argue that party patronage is likely to be structured by the nature of political competition and explore the effects of political polarization, which is a feature of political competition relatively independent from the precise format of a party system, on patronage practices. We advance a theoretical argument which systematically links different types of political polarization with different patterns of party patronage, arguing that extreme polarization incentivizes political parties to develop heavily partisan strategies of party patronage which, in turn, further fuel political polarization. Thus, we also contribute to burgeoning literature on political polarization and its negative effects on the functioning of both political parties and overall political systems.