|
Richard Gunther and Larry Diamond, "Species of Political
Parties: A New Typology," Party Politics, 9 (March
2003), 167-199.
First Paragraph:
For nearly a century, political scientists have developed
typologies and models of political parties in an effort to
capture the essential features of the partisan organizations
that were the objects of their analysis. The end result is
that the literature today is rich with various categories of
party types, some of which have acquired the status of
'classics' and have been used by scholars for decades (e.g.
Duverger, 1954; Kirchheimer, 1966; Neumann, 1956). We
believe, however, that the existing models of political
parties do not adequately capture the full range of
variation in party types found in the world today, and that
the various typologies of parties, based on a wide variety
of definitional criteria, have not been conducive to
cumulative theorybuilding. This article, therefore, is an
attempt to re-evaluate the prevailing typologies of
political parties, retaining widely used concepts and
terminology wherever possible, consolidating and clarifying
party models in some cases, and defining new party types in
others. This is for several reasons.
Figures and Tables:
Figure 1: Extent of organization
Last Paragraph:
Political parties have not emerged or evolved in a
continuous, unilinear manner, and neither have they
converged on a single model of party. Instead, we believe
that changes in the organizational forms, electoral
strategies, programmatic objectives and ideological
orientations of parties are the products of multiple causal
processes -- some of them related to broadet long-term
processes of social or technological change, others
involving the less predictable innovative behaviour of
political and social elites. If this is true, then it would
be a mistake to rely on an excessively restricted number of
party types. This would lead scholars to attempt to cram new
parties into inappropriate models, or to abort the
theory-building process by concluding in frustration that
existing theories and models simply do not fit with
established party types. Accordingly, we believe that the
typology presented here -- less parsimonious but more fully
reflective of the real variation in party types around the
world -- should facilitate the testing of numerous
hypotheses about the origins, functions and evolutionary
trajectories of political parties in widely varying social,
political, technological and cultural contexts.
|