Abstract
Analyses of the impact of intra-party conflicts on coalition bargaining have generally concluded that, when intra-party conflicts occur, the more centralized the party structure, the more effective is the party as a coalition actor. This paper argues a concrete alternative which challenges the traditional view. It suggests that, when intra-party conflicts occur, organizational decentralization allows the party to handle conflicts in a variety of manageable ways without forcing members to leave the party. As a result, the party can enter into conflict-inducing coalition negotiations with other parties without risking its hold on its own members. A centralized organization, however, lacks the mechanisms necessary to adjust to dissent among its members and is therefore at a disadvantage when it enters parliamentary negotiations. This argument is strongly supported by a comparative analysis of intra-party conflicts and coalition governments in Denmark, Norway, Italy, France and the UK.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 65-91 |
| Number of pages | 27 |
| Journal | Journal of Theoretical Politics |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 1995 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- bargaining power
- conflict manifestation
- conflict resolution
- intra-party conflicts
- legislative strategy
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Intra-Party Determinants of Coalition Bargaining'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver