State formation, parties and democracy. Studies in comparative European politics Hans Daalder bron Hans Daalder, State formation, parties and democracy. Studies in comparative European politics. ECPR, Colchester 2011 Zie voor verantwoording: http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/daal024stat01_01/colofon.php © 2015 dbnl / Hans Daalder i.s.m. IV To the memory of Anneke Daalder-Neukircher, life-long companion († 2007) Hans Daalder, State formation, parties and democracy. Studies in comparative European politics VI | list of figures and tables Figures Figure 5.1: Modes of socio-economic 77 development Figure 5.2: Governing elites 85 Figure 8.1: Three possible geometric 153 representations of parties in a multidimensional space Figure 8.2: Overlapping cleavages in 154 France Figure 12.1: Distribution of 255 parliamentary seats and composition of cabinets in the Netherlands, 1946-1986. Tables Table 3.1: Different Patterns in the 45 Development of Inclusive Polyarchies Table 6.1: Number of parties and 101 average duration of cabinets (in number of months in office) in ten smaller European democracies, 1918-1969. Table 6.2: Average duration (number 101 of months in office) and number of cabinets (between brackets), by number of parties and formal parliamentary base. Table 6.3: Formal parliamentary base 102 of cabinets Table 6.4: Parties and total months in 104 office (major parties only) Table 6.5: Total number of new 108 ministerial appointees to eight ministerial offices Hans Daalder, State formation, parties and democracy. Studies in comparative European politics Table 6.6: Average duration of 111 cabinets with Socialists and without Socialists Table 7.1: The party government and 125 the party democracy model Hans Daalder, State formation, parties and democracy. Studies in comparative European politics VII | acknowledgements I am grateful to Peter Mair, who first proposed republishing a selection of my English-language writings more than two decades ago. He had a hand in the choice of chapters and the order in which they are presented, and helped earlier with the editing of some of them. He adds to the value of this book a challenging preface, in which he contrasts two different generations of scholars working in comparative politics and cross-national analysis - a gap which in his own work he has successfully bridged. I have been privileged to have Dario Castiglione as editor of the ECPR Classics series, who assisted in bringing this book about with great courtesy and wisdom. The chapters, drawn from different books and journals which appeared over close to forty years, were originally scanned by Saskia Rademaker, and copy-edited by Theofanis Exadaktylos. I have admired the professional manner in which Mark Kench and his staff at ECPR Press have worked in the preparation of this and many other books. In putting together the chapters for this collection I have been reminded of the good fortune I had, as a young scholar, to come in close contact and to collaborate with outstanding political scientists such as, in order of time, Carl Friedrich, Giovanni Sartori, Wilfrid Harrison, Val R. Lorwin, Otto Kirchheimer, S.E. Finer, Stein Rokkan, Robert A. Dahl, Edward Shils, Juan Linz, Shmuel Eisenstadt, Joseph LaPalombara, Arend Lijphart, Sidney Verba, Stanley Hoffmann and Mogens Pedersen and, not to forget, the stimulus I gained from younger scholars at Leiden and the European University Institute. I wish, finally, to thank the editors of the journals and books in which the original versions of the chapters appeared, and the publishers for granting permission to reprint them in this volume. The Hague, The Netherlands. Hans Daalder Hans Daalder, State formation, parties and democracy. Studies in comparative European politics IX preface - by Peter Mair The papers republished in this volume reflect the work of a comparative political scientist of a particular style, generation, and academic culture. The earliest paper included here dates back to 1966, and is a comparative treatment of political developments in Europe, focusing in particular on parties and their organizational and governing strategies. It has long been seen as one of the classic building blocks in the development of the discipline, and has often been reprinted. One of the most recent papers was drafted in the late 1980s, and was first published in English in 1995. It too looks at European political development, but in this case from the perspective of the growth of bureaucracies. Both papers are intellectually ambitious, far-reaching, and address very big questions, and this in particular sets them off from much of comparative political science today. It is not so much that contemporary comparative political science fails to produce papers and books that address big questions in meaningful ways - that still does happen - it's simply that this work is usually swamped by the volumes of more narrowly cast and specialised analyses that now flood the literature. These two papers were neither the first not the last that were published by Hans Daalder. There are earlier papers not included here that analyse different aspects of the politics of his own country, the Netherlands, as well as papers on Britain. For his generation, and for some time afterwards, the practice was usually to begin with analyzing the politics of a single country, often one's own, and only later, if at all, to venture further afield into genuine comparative analysis. There are also later papers, and a number of Dutch language books, some of which constitute part of the multi-volume biography of Willem Drees, the former Dutch prime minister. This can also be characteristic of this generation of comparativists, who sometimes return to a focus on themes relating to their own country in the later stages of their scholarly career or after their retirement. In the middle of this span of papers is one which tries to get beyond a simple left-right dichotomisation of party identities and to identify the parameters within which it makes sense to speak of there being an autonomous ‘centre’ in European party systems. This is one of the few papers in this collection to have originally appeared in a journal, in this case the American Political Science Review in 1984, where it was bracketed between one paper on the ‘nationalization of the American electorate’ and another on ‘the constituency service basis of the personal vote for U.S. Representatives and British Members of Parliament.’ It was also Daalder's first and so far only publication in this leading review, and in his introduction to these essays he refers somewhat ironically to being ‘congratulated on this “feat” from various quarters, not least by ambitious younger colleagues.’ Few of these younger colleagues would have done work similar to that appearing in this volume. Indeed, many of the younger comparativists of today are not comparativists in the sense that Daalder would understand the term, but are Hans Daalder, State formation, parties and democracy. Studies in comparative European politics X rather what he would have termed ‘cross-nationalists.’ That is, they are scholars who don't begin with countries, but with data; who don't look in depth, but more widely; who don't generalise, but specify; and who place greater emphasis on method than on understanding. In particular, and in sharp contrast to Daalder and to the other leading comparativists of his generation, they rarely address big questions. As Richard Snyder has noted, commenting on the work of the early US-based comparativists that he and Gerardo Munck interviewed for their fascinating volume Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007), and as is also visible in these essays, there was a passion for research that was rooted in ‘the conviction that the questions they study are normatively important and, hence, their work has implications for the “real world” of politics, policy and public opinion.’ Contemporary comparativists are also more professional than older generations. That is, they will have usually taken a basic degree in political science, and they are likely to have received extensive graduate training in one of the many graduate schools that have long flourished in the US and that are now spreading across Europe. They will probably have received further training as postdocs, including training in how to write journal articles - they must focus on one main point, have a clear introduction, outline the theory behind your approach, apply it to data, and then conclude - and how to submit them. Most young comparativists would aim to carry out analyses which are ‘replicable’ by others, in contrast to Daalder's work, which is not replicable, except with an awful lot of learning. Finally, most would likely aim at the APSR or a comparable journal right from the off, and would probably try to steer clear of book chapters. Daalder, on the other hand, as he states in his Introduction, probably speaks for many others of his generation in stating that ‘I was not used to, and still reject, the modern belief that publications in refereed journals (themselves ranked in importance), “count” more in research assessments and are regarded as more important than chapters in books, not to speak of books themselves.’ Indeed, it is from this last difference that many of the other inter-generational differences stem - or at least it is there that these other differences are typified. For example, for the contemporary generation of comparativists, it has become essential to publish in journals. Indeed, it has become essential to publish in particular journals, the ranking of which hardly differs from one country to another, or from one academic setting to another, including the APSR, World Politics, American Journal of Political Science, European Journal of Political Research, and Comparative Political Studies. This inevitably results in common styles of analysis and presentation.