This article uses a representative sample of elections held in 80 countries (1992–2012) for a statistical analysis of societal and institutional factors of party system nationalization. The analysis demonstrates that high degrees of political decentralization, such as in federations and devolved states, exert a strong negative effect on party system nationalization. However, in the long-term federalism can accommodate highly nationalized party systems. Another factor that strongly contributes to party system nationalization is a high quality of democracy. The degrees to which different varieties of electoral rules support party system nationalization are associated with a lack of incentives for cultivating the personal vote. Countries with large populations and societies divided along linguistic and/or religious lines tend to have party systems that are less nationalized, but these factors are not as important as institutional determinants. The impact of some of the factors is mitigated by party system fragmentation.
AlesinaAlbertoDevleeschauwerArnaudWacziargRomainKurlatSergioEasterlyWilliam (2003) Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth8(2): 155–194.
2.
Amorim NetoOctavioCoxGary W (1997) Electoral institutions, cleavage structures, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science41(1): 149–174.
3.
BirnirJóhanna Kristín (2004) Stabilizing party systems and excluding segments of society? The effects of formation costs on new party foundation in Latin America. Studies in Comparative International Development39(3): 3–27.
4.
BochslerDaniel (2010a) Measuring party nationalization: A new Gini-based indicator that corrects for the number of units. Electoral Studies29(1): 155–168.
5.
BochslerDaniel (2010b) The nationalisation of post-communist party systems. Europe-Asia Studies62(5): 807–827.
6.
BohrerRobert E (2005) The devolved party systems of the United Kingdom: Sub-national variations from the national model. Party Politics11(6): 654–673.
7.
BrancatiDawn (2005) Pawns take queen: The destabilizing effects of regional parties in Europe. Constitutional Political Economy16(2), 143–159.
8.
BrancatiDawn (2008) The origins and strength of regional parties. British Journal of Political Science38(1): 135–159.
9.
CainBruceFerejohnJohnFiorinaMorris P (1987) The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
CaramaniDaniele (2004) The Nationalization of Politics: The Formation of National Electorates and Party Systems in Western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CareyJohnShugartMatthew S (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies14(4): 417–439.
12.
Castañeda-AngaritaNestor (2013) Party system nationalization, presidential coalitions, and government spending. Electoral Studies32(4): 783–794.
13.
ChhibberPradeep KKollmanKen (2004) The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
ColomerJosep M (2005) It’s parties that choose electoral systems (or, Duverger’s Laws upside down). Political Studies53(1): 1–21.
15.
CoxGary W (1991) SNTV and d’Hondt are ‘equivalent’. Electoral Studies10(2): 118–132.
16.
CrispBrian FOlivellaSantiagoPotterJoshua D (2013) Party-system nationalization and the scope of public policy: The importance of cross-district constituency similarity. Comparative Political Studies46(4): 431–456.
17.
DahlRobert ATufteEdward R (1973) Size and Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
ErssonSvanteJandaKennethLaneJan-Erik (1985) Ecology of party strength in Western Europe: A regional analysis. Comparative Political Studies18(2): 170–205.
19.
FeldScott LGrofmanBernard (2007) The Laakso-Taagepera index in a mean and variance framework. Journal of Theoretical Politics19(1): 101–106.
20.
FerraraFederico (2006) Two in one: Party competition in the Italian single ballot mixed system. Electoral Studies25(2): 329–350.
21.
GibsonEdward LSuarez-CaoJulieta (2010) Federalized party systems and subnational party competition: Theory and an empirical application to Argentina. Comparative Politics43(1): 21–39.
22.
GolosovGrigorii V (2010) The effective number of parties: A new approach. Party Politics16(2): 171–192.
23.
GolosovGrigorii V (2013) Authoritarian party systems: Patterns of emergence, sustainability and survival. Comparative Sociology12(5): 617–644.
24.
GolosovGrigorii V (2014a) The idiosyncratic dynamics of party system nationalization in Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs, pre-published electronically as DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2014.882106.
25.
GolosovGrigorii V (2014b) Party system nationalization: The problems of measurement with an application to federal states. Party Politics, pre-published electronically as DOI: 10.1177/1354068814549342.
26.
GolosovGrigorii VPonarinEdward (1999) Regional bases of party politics: A measure and its implications for the study of party system consolidation in new democracies. Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies Working Paper, 99/25. Florence, Italy: European University Institute.
27.
GordinJorge P (2004) Testing Riker’s party-based theory of federalism: The Argentine case. Publius34 (1): 21–34.
28.
HarbersImke (2010) Decentralization and the development of nationalized party systems in new democracies: Evidence from Latin America. Comparative Political Studies43(5): 606–627.
29.
HearlDerek JBudgeIanPearsonBernard (1996) Distinctiveness of regional voting: A comparative analysis across the European community (1979–1993). Electoral Studies15(2): 167–182.
30.
HerronErik SNishikawaMisa (2001) Contamination effects and the number of parties in mixed-superposition electoral systems. Electoral Studies20(1): 63–86.
31.
HickenAllenStollHeather (2011) Presidents and parties: How presidential elections shape coordination in legislative elections. Comparative Political Studies44(7): 854–883.
32.
HopkinJonathan (2003) Political decentralization, electoral change and party organizational adaptation: A framework for analysis. European Urban and Regional Studies10(3): 227–237.
33.
HopkinJonathan (2009) Party matters: Devolution and party politics in Britain and Spain. Party Politics15(2): 179–198.
34.
JandaKenneth (1993) Comparative political parties: Research and theory. In FinifterAda W (ed) Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association, 163–191.
35.
JonesMark PMainwaringScott (2003) The nationalization of parties and party systems: An empirical measure and an application to the Americas. Party Politics9(2): 139–166.
36.
KeatingMichael (1998) Reforging the Union: Devolution and constitutional change in the United Kingdom. Publius28(1): 217–234.
37.
KingGaryRobertsMargaret E. (2012) How robust standard errors expose methodological problems they do not fix. Paper presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology, Duke University. Updated version is available at http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/robust.pdf
38.
KjaerUlrikElklitJørgen (2010) Local party system nationalisation: Does municipal size matter?Local Government Studies36(3): 425–444.
39.
Lago-PeñasIgnacioLago-PeñasSantiago (2011) Decentralization and the nationalization of party systems. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy29(2): 244–263.
40.
LijphartArend (1984) Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Press
41.
LoweryDavidOtjesSimonGherghinaSergiuVan WitteloostuijnArjenPeliGaborBrasherHolly (2010) Unpacking LogM: Toward a more general theory of party system density. American Journal of Political Science54(4): 921–935.
42.
MagaloniBeatrizKricheliRuth (2010) Political order and one-party rule. Annual Review of Political Science13: 123–143.
43.
MassicotteLouisBlaisAndre (1999) Mixed electoral systems: A conceptual and empirical survey. Electoral Studies18(3): 341–366.
44.
MorgensternScottSwindleStephen MCastagnolaAndrea (2009) Party nationalization and institutions. Journal of Politics71(4): 1322–1341.
45.
MorgensternScottPolga-HecimovichJohnSiavelisPeter M (2014) Seven imperatives for improving the measurement of party nationalization with evidence from Chile. Electoral Studies33(1): 186–199.
46.
OrdeshookPeter CShvetsovaOlga V (1994) Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science38(1): 100–123.
47.
PanebiancoAngelo (1988) Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
PotterJoshua D (2014) Demographic diversity and district-level party systems. Comparative Political Studies, pre-published electronically as DOI: 10.1177/0010414013516918.
49.
RaeDouglas W (1967) The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
50.
RikerWilliam H (1964) Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.
51.
RoddenJonathanWibbelsErik (2011) Dual accountability and the nationalization of party competition: Evidence from four federations. Party Politics17(5): 629–653.
52.
RoseRichardUrwinDerek W (1975) Regional differentiation and political unity in Western nations. Sage Professional Papers in Contemporary Political Sociology, Ser. No. 06–007. London, UK and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
SchakelArjan H (2013) Nationalisation of multilevel party systems: A conceptual and empirical analysis. European Journal of Political Research52(2): 212–36.
54.
ShugartMatthew SCareyJohn M (1992) Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
55.
StokesDonald E (1967) Parties and the nationalization of electoral forces. In ChambersWilliam NBurnhamWalter D (eds) The American Party Systems: States of Political Development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 182–202.
56.
TaageperaReinShugartMatthew S (1989) Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
57.
ThorlaksonLori (2007) An institutional explanation of party system congruence: Evidence from six federations. European Journal of Political Research46(1): 69–95.
58.
TiemannGuido (2012) The nationalization of political parties and party systems in post-communist Eastern Europe. Communist and Post-Communist Studies45(1–2): 77–89.
59.
TrantidisAris (2013) Clientelism and the classification of dominant party systems. Democratization, pre-published electronically as DOI:10.1080/13510347.2013.825608.
60.
Van BiezenIngridHopkinJonathan (2006) Party organization in multi-level contexts. In HoughDanJefferyCharlie (eds) Devolution and Electoral Politics. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 14–36.
61.
Van HoutenPieter (2009) Multi-level relations in political parties: A delegation approach. Party Politics15(2): 137–156.
62.
VertzLaura LFrendreisJohn PGibsonJames L (1987) Nationalization of the electorate in the United States. American Political Science Review81(2): 961–966.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
