Models explaining the rise of American-style or so-called postmodern campaigning have focused primarily on changes taking place at the systemic level. While these models help explain variance across countries where these techniques are used, they do not explain variations among individual parties. Given that not all parties adopt these tactics and techniques at the same time, the authors argue that there are party-specific variables that need to be taken into account when understanding the shift to the new campaigning era. Building on the existing literature, the authors identify the key traits of what they term professionalized campaigning and the variables that prime a party to adopt it. The article goes on to develop a causal model, based on external and internal party events or shocks, that explains why a particular party would embrace this new style of campaigning. Finally, the authors operationalize their theory and develop indicators to measure the key variables for empirical testing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Asard, Erik , and W. Lance Bennett. 1997. Democracy and the Marketplace of the Ideas: Communication and Government in Sweden and the United States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Budge, Ian , and Hans Keman. 1990. Parties and Democracy: Coalition Formation and Government Functioning in Twenty States. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
Butler, Patrick , and Neil Collins. 1994. “Political Marketing: Structure and Process.”European Journal of Marketing28(1):19-34.
4.
Dalton, R. J. 1996. “Political Cleavages, Issues, and Electoral Change.” In Comparing Democracies, ed. L. LeLuc, R. G. Niemi, and P. Norris. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Denver, David , and Gordon Hands. 2000. “ `Post-Fordism' in the Constituencies? The Continuing Development of Constituency Campaigning in Britain.” In Do Political Campaigns Matter? ed. David Farrell and Rudiger Schmitt-Beck. London: Routledge.
6.
Downs, Anthony . 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
7.
Duverger, Maurice . 1964. Political Parties. 3rd Edition. London: Methuen.
8.
Farrell, David , and Paul Webb. 2000. “Political Parties as Campaign Organizations.” In Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective, ed. Russell Dalton and Martin Wattenberg. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Franklin, Robert . 1994. Packaging Politics: Political Communication in Britain's Media Democracy. London: Edward Arnold.
10.
Harmel, Robert , and Kenneth Janda. 1994. “An Integrated Theory of Party Goals and Party Change.”Journal of Theoretical Politics6(3):289-305.
11.
Harrop, Martin . 1990. “Political Marketing.”Parliamentary Affairs43(1):277-291.
12.
Holbrook, Thomas M. 1996. Do Campaigns Matter?Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Johnson-Cartee, Karen S. , and Gary A. Copeland. 1997. Inside Political Campaigns: Theory and Practice. Westport, CN: Praeger.
14.
Katz, Richard , and Peter Mair, eds. 1992. Party Organizations: A Handbook on Party Organizations. London: Sage.
15.
Kavanagh, Dennis . 1995. Election Campaigning: The New Marketing of Politics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
16.
Kavanagh, Dennis . 1996. “New Campaign Communications: Consequences for British Political Parties.”Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics1:60-76.
17.
Kirchheimer, Otto . 1966. “The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems.” In Political Parties and Political Development, ed. Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
Klumpjan, Helmut . 1998. Die amerikanischen Parteien. Von ihren Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart [American political parties. From their origins to present day]. Opladen, Germany: Leske and Budrich.
19.
Kolodny, Robin . 1998. “Electoral Partnerships: Political Consultants and Political Parties.” Paper prepared for the conference on “The Role of Political Consultants in Elections,” at the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, American University, Washington, D.C., June.
20.
Laver, Michael , and Norman Schofield. 1990. Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
Lawson, Kay , and Peter Merkl, eds. 1988. When Parties Fail: Emerging Alternative Organizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
Mair, Peter . 1989. “The Problem of Party System Change.”Journal of Theoretical Politics1(1):256-276.
23.
Mair, Peter , Wolfgang Müller, and Fritz Plasser, eds. 1999. Parteien auf komplexen Wählermärkten. Reaktionsstrategien politischer Parteien in Westeuropa [Party responses to the erosion of voter loyalties in Western Europe]. Wien, Austria: Signum Verlag.
24.
Maisel, L. Sandy , ed. 1998. The Parties Respond: Changes in the American Party System. 3rd Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview.
25.
Negrine, Ralph , and Stylianos Papathanassopoulos. 1996. “The `Americanization' of Political Communication: A Critique.”Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics1:45-62.
26.
Newman, Bruce I. 1994. The Marketing of the President: Political Marketing as Campaign Strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Newman, Bruce I. , ed. 1999. Handbook of Political Marketing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Norris, Pippa . 2000. A Virtuous Circle. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Norris, Pippa , John Curtice, David Sanders, Margaret Scammell, and Holli A. Semetko. 1999. On Message: Communicating the Campaign. London: Sage.
30.
Panebianco, Angelo . 1988. Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Paterson, Kelly D. 1996. Political Parties and the Maintenance of Liberal Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press.
32.
Plasser, Fritz , Christian Schleucher, and Christian Senft. 1999. “Is There a European Style of Political Marketing? A Survey of Political Managers and Consultants.” In Handbook of Political Marketing, ed. Bruce I. Newman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Römmele, Andrea . 1999. Direkte Kommunikation zwischen Parteien und Wählern: Postmoderne Wahlkampfkommunikation in den USA und der BRD [Direct communication between parties and voters. Postmodern communication technologies in the USA and Germany]. Berlin, Germany: Habiliationsschrift FU.
34.
Salmore, Barbara G. , and Stephen A. Salmore. 1985. Candidates, Parties, and Campaigns: Electoral Politics in America. Washington, D.C.: C.Q. Press.
35.
Scammell, Margaret . 1995. Designer Politics: How Elections Are Won. New York: St. Martin's.
36.
Schlesinger, Joseph A.1985. “The New American Party System.”American Political Science Review79:82-115.
37.
Schmitt, Hermann , and Sören Holmberg. 1995. “Political Parties in Decline?” In Citizens and the State, ed. Hans-Dieter Klingemann and Dieter Fuchs. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38.
Strom, Kaare . 1990. “A Behavioural Theory of Competitive Political Parties.”American Journal of Political Science34:565-598.
39.
Swanson, David L. , and Paolo Mancini, eds. 1996. Politics, Media and Modern Democracy: An International Study of Innovations in Electoral Campaigning and Their Consequences. Westport, CT: Praeger.
40.
Whitely, Paul , Harold Clarke, David Sanders, and Marianne Stewart. Forthcoming. “Turnout.”Parliamentary Affairs.
41.
Wolinetz, Steven B. , ed. 1988. Parties and party systems in Liberal Democracies. London: Routledge.
42.
Wring, Dominic . 1996. “Political Marketing and Party Development in Britain: A `Secret' History.”European Journal of Marketing30(10/11):100-111.
