Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T16:09:39.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Party Activism: The Case of the British Conservative Party

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Paul F. Whiteley ,
Patrick Seyd ,
Jeremy Richardson  and
Paul Bissell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In common with most other mass democratic parties the Conservative party has a large group of active members who sustain the party over time. A model is developed to explain variations in activism within the party, which takes account of the ‘paradox of participation’. The results, based on the first national random sample survey of Conservative party members, show that activism is motivated by three classes of factors. Activism is motivated, firstly, by a variety of selective incentives, such as ambitions for elective office. It is motivated, secondly, by a desire for the party to achieve policy goals. These are ‘collective goods’, which are subject to the problem of free-riding. However, since activists can influence policy outcomes, via their contacts with party leaders, they have high levels of personal efficacy and a direct incentive to participate, which can override the paradox of participation. Finally, activism is motivated by expressive concerns, as measured by the strength of the respondent's partisanship, a motivation for involvement which lies outside a narrowly cast rational choice model of political participation.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 1994 , pp. 79 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Reif, Karlheinz, Cayrol, Roland and Niedermayer, Oskar, ‘National Political Parties' Middle Level Elites and European Integration’. European Journal of Political Research, 8 (1980), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Bulpitt, Jim, ‘The Conservative Party in Britain: A Preliminary Paradoxical Portrait’ (paper delivered to the panel on Elections, Parties and Public Opinion, PSA Annual Conference, Lancaster, 04 1991).Google Scholar

3 But see Seyd, Patrick and Whiteley, Paul, Labour's Grassroots: The Politics of Party Membership (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992).Google Scholar

4 See Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman, Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality (New York: Harper and Row, 1972)Google Scholar; Verba, Sidney, Nie, Norman and Kim, Jae-On, Participation and Political Equality: A Seven Nation Comparison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Barnes, Samual H. and Kaase, Max, Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies (Beverly Hills and London: Sage, 1979)Google Scholar; Parry, Geraint, Moyser, George and Day, Neil, Political Participation and Democracy in Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Marsh, Alan, Protest and Political Consciousness (Beverly Hills, Calif., and London: Sage, 1977)Google Scholar; Muller, Edward N., Aggressive Political Participation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Muller, Edward N. and Opp, Karl-Dieter, ‘Rational Choice and Rebellious Collective Action’, American Political Science Review, 80 (1986), 471–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Finkel, Steven E., Muller, Edward N. and Opp, Karl-Dieter, ‘Personal Influence, Collective Rationality, and Mass Political Action’, American Political Science Review, 83 (1989), 885–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Opp, Karl-Dieter, ‘Postmaterialism, Collective Action, and Political Protest’, American Journal of Political Science, 34 (1990), 212–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Muller, Edward N., Dietz, Henry A. and Finkel, Stephen E., ‘Discontent and the Expected Utility of Rebellion: The Case of Peru’, American Political Science Review, 85 (1991), 1261–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (New York: Schocken Books, 1965).Google Scholar

7 Verba, , Nie, and Kim, , Participation and Political Equality, pp. 57–62.Google Scholar

8 Parry, Geraint and Moyser, George, ‘A Map of Political Participation in Britain’, Government and Opposition, 25 (1990), 147–69, p. 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Bentley, Arthur F., The Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressure (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1908)Google Scholar; Truman, David B., The Governmental Process; Political Interests and Public Opinion (New York; Knopf, 1951).Google Scholar

10 Seyd, and Whiteley, , Labour's Grassroots, pp. 86–117.Google Scholar

11 See Barry, Brian M., Sociologists, Economists and Democracy (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1970)Google Scholar; Niemi, Richard G., ‘Costs of Voting and Non-Voting’, Public Choice, 27 (1976), 115–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Hardin, Russel, ‘Collective Action as an Agreeable N-Prisoner's Dilemma’, Behavioral Science, 16 (1971), 472–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Taylor, Michael, Anarchy and Co-operation (London: Wiley, 1976)Google Scholar; Palfrey, Thomas and Rosenthal, Howard, ‘A Strategic Calculus of Voting’, Public Choice, 41 (1983), 7–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Co-operation (New York: Basic Books, 1984).Google Scholar

14 Mueller, Denis C., Public Choice II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 362.Google Scholar

15 Margolis, Howard, Selfishness, Altruism and Rationality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982).Google Scholar

16 Muller, and Opp, , ‘Rational Choice and Rebellious Collective Action’, p. 474Google Scholar; Finkel, , Muller, and Opp, , ‘Personal Influence, Collective Rationality, and Mass Political Action’, p. 893.Google Scholar

17 Muller, Edward N. and Opp, Karl-Dieter, ‘Rebellious Collective Action Revisited’, American Political Science Review, 81 (1987), 557–64, p. 562.Google Scholar

18 Klosko, George, ‘The Rationality of Collective Action’, American Political Science Review, 81 (1987), 557–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Panebianco, Angelo, Political Parties: Organization and Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 22–3.Google Scholar

20 Norton, Philip and Aughey, Andrew, Conservatives and Conservatism (London: Temple Smith, 1981), pp. 275–6Google Scholar; Kelly, Robert, Conservative Party Conferences (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989), pp. 181–2.Google Scholar

21 Olson, , The Logic of Collective Action, p. 133.Google Scholar

22 Salisbury, Robert H., ‘An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups’, Midwest Journal of Political Science, 13 (1969), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Tullock, Gordon, ‘The Paradox of Revolution’, Public Choice, 11 (1971), 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Opp, , ‘Postmaterialism, Collective Action, and Political Protest’, p. 217.Google Scholar

25 May, John D., ‘Opinion Structure of Political Parties: The Special Law of Curvilinear Disparity’, Political Studies, 21 (1973), 135–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kitschelt, Herbert, ‘The Internal Politics of Parties: The Law of Curvilinear Disparity Revisited’, Political Studies, 37 (1989), 400–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Elster, Jon, The Cement of Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 97–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Riker, William and Ordeshook, Peter, ‘A Theory of the Calculus of Voting’, American Political Science Review, 62 (1968), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Kahneman, Daniel, Knetsch, Jack L. and Thaler, Richard, ‘Fairness as a Constraint on Profit-Seeking’, American Economic Review, 76 (1986), 728–41.Google Scholar

29 Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip. E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960).Google Scholar

30 Conover, Pamela Johnson and Feldman, Stanley, ‘Emotional Reactions to the Economy: I'm Mad as Hell and I'm Not Going to Take it Anymore’, American Journal of Political Science, 30 (1986), 50–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Marcus, George E., ‘The Structure of Emotional Response: 1984 Presidential Candidates’, American Political Science Review, 82 (1988), 737–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Brennan, Geoffrey and Buchanan, James, ‘Voter Choice: Evaluating Political Alternatives’, American Behavioral Scientist, 28 (1984), 185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carter, John R. and Guerette, Stephen D., ‘An Experimental Study of Voting’, Public Choice, 73 (1992), 251–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Muller, and Opp, , ‘Rational Choice and Rebellious Collective Action’, p. 474.Google Scholar

34 Amartya Sen, in what has become a classic work, made this point clear when he wrote, ‘It is, of course possible to take the view that society is an entity that is independent of the individuals in it, and that social preference need not be based on the preferences of the members of the society… Anyone who finds his fulfilment in this assumption is entirely welcome to it, and this book must bore him’; Collective and Social Welfare (Cambridge and London: Holden-Day, 1970).Google Scholar

35 The F test in this case is used to evaluate the statistical significance of the reduction in the residual sum of squares achieved by adding the extra variables to the model. If F is significant, it implies that the current model encompasses the previous one, i.e. explains significantly more variance than its predecessor. For a discussion of this, see Granger, C. W. J., Modelling Economic Series (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 319–20.Google Scholar

38 See Seyd, and Whiteley, , Labour's Grassroots, pp. 86–117.Google Scholar The Labour party model differed from the present model with respect to some of the indicators used, and it also did not contain a separate measure of altruistic concerns.

37 In the Labour survey approximately 50 per cent of party members devoted at least some time to party activities in the average month (see Seyd, and Whiteley, , Labour's Grassroots, p. 88Google Scholar). In the Conservative survey this was true of only about 22 per cent of the members.

38 Whiteley, Paul F., Seyd, Patrick and Richardson, Jeremy, True Blues: The Politics of Conservative Party Membership (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994 forthcoming).Google Scholar

39 See Heath, Anthony, Curtice, John, Jowell, Roger, Evans, Geoff, Field, Julia and Witherspoon, Sharon, Understanding Political Change (London: Pergamon, 1991), pp. 269, 272 and 275.Google Scholar All appear in the election study, apart from ‘cut income tax’.

40 Individuals who thought that the government definitely should encourage private education and private medicine, and should reduce government spending, introduce stricter regulations on trade unions and cut income tax, scored five for each response. Individuals who thought that the government should definitely not spend more money on poverty, nor give workers more say in the workplace and should not spend less on defence, also scored five for each response. Individuals with the opposite profile of responses scored one for each response. Not all statements precisely accord or conflict with Conservative party policies, but these codings are broadly in line with party positions on these issues.

41 Pilot work on the questionnaire demonstrated that direct questions about personal ambitions for elective office did not work very well, since individuals were reluctant to discuss these. Accordingly, this indirect approach to measuring political ambition was adopted.