Traditionally, decentralization has been linked with the stability of the party system because it helps parties to succeed in national elections. Yet, previous research has frequently obviated the intertwined nature of multilevel party competition. This research takes a closer look at parties’ subnational electoral trajectories while arguing that decentralization increases the risk of new party demise by making subnational elections more attractive for all kinds of parties to compete in. The argument is tested applying survival analysis to the electoral trajectories of 1235 regional branches of political parties in 12 European countries. Results show that contrary to what has been stated previously on the literature, decentralization increases the risk of parties disappearing. This effect fades away the older and more consolidated the party becomes, and it is of particular relevance for regionalist parties. These findings have important implications for the literature on second-order elections and multilevel party competition.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowL, et al. (2006) Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and the elctoral consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 513–529.
2.
AlonsoS (2012) Challenging the State: Devolution and the Battle for Partisan Credibility. A Comparison of Belgium, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AndersonCJWardDS (1996) Barometer elections in comparative perspective. Electoral Studies15(4): 447–460.
4.
BäckHDebusMMüllerJ, et al. (2013) Regional government formation in varying multilevel contexts: a comparison of eight European countries. Regional Studies47(3): 368–387.
5.
BednarJ (2011). Nudging federalism towards productive experimentation. Regional & Federal Studies21(4–5): 503–521.
6.
BolleyerNBytzekE (2013) Origins of party formation and new party success in advanced democracies. European Journal of Political Research52(6): 773–796.
7.
BolleyerNBytzekE (2016) New party performance after breakthrough party origin, building and leadership. Party Politics23(6): 772–782. DOI: 10.1177/1354068815626604
8.
BolleyerNIbenskasRKeithD (2016) The survival and termination of party mergers in Europe. European Journal of Political Research55(3): 642–659.
9.
Box-SteffensmeierJMDe BoefSJoyceKA (2007) Event dependence and heterogeneity in duration models: the conditional frailty model. Political Analysis15(3): 237–256.
10.
Box-SteffensmeierJMLinnSSmidtCD (2014) Analyzing the robustness of semi-parametric duration models for the study of repeated events. Political Analysis22(2): 183–204.
11.
BrancatiD (2006) Decentralization: fueling the fire or dampening the flames of ethnic conflict and secessionism?International Organization60(03): 651–685.
12.
BrancatiD (2008) The origins and strengths of regional parties. British Journal of Political Science38(01): 135–159.
13.
BrzinskiJB (1999) Changing forms of federalism and party electoral strategies: Belgium and the European Union. Publius: The Journal of Federalism29(1): 45–70.
14.
BurgSLChernyhaLT (2013) Asymmetric devolution and ethnoregionalism in Spain: mass preferences and the microfoundations of instability. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics19(3): 255–286.
15.
CampbellA (1960) Surge and decline: a study of electoral change. Public Opinion Quarterly24(3): 397–418.
16.
CaramaniD (2004) The Nationalization of Politics: The Formation of National Electorates and Party Systems in Western Europe. Oxford, UK:Cambridge University Press.
17.
ChhibberPKollmanK (2004) The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
CoxD (1972) Regression models and life-tables. Journal of Royal Statistical Society34(2): 187–220.
19.
CutlerF (2008) One voter, two first-order elections?Electoral Studies27(3): 492–504.
20.
DeschouwerK (2003) Political parties in multi-layered systems. European Urban and Regional Studies10(3): 213–226.
21.
DeschouwerK (2009) The rise and fall of the Belgian regionalist parties. Regional and Federal Studies19(4–5): 559–577.
22.
DetterbeckK (2012) Multi-Level Party Politics in Western Europe, Vol. 2. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
DinasERieraP (2015) Staying in the first league: parliamentary representation and the electoral success of small parties. Political Sciecne Research and Methods3(2):187–204.
24.
Ennser-JedenastikLMüllerWC (2015) Intra-party democracy, political performance and the survival of party leaders Austria, 1945–2011. Party Politics21(6): 930–943.
25.
EriksonRSFilippovMG (2001) Electoral balancing in federal and sub-national elections: the case of Canada. Constitutional Political Economy12(4): 313–331.
26.
EzrowLDe VriesCSteenbergenM, et al. (2011) Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?Party Politics17(3): 275–301.
27.
EzrowLTavitsMHomolaJ (2014) Voter polarization, strength of partisanship, and support for extremist parties. Comparative Political Studies47(11): 1558–1583.
28.
FabreESwendenW (2013) Territorial politics and the statewide party. Regional Studies47(3): 342–355.
29.
Falcó-GimenoA (2013) Portfolio allocation under decentralization. Publius: The Journal of Federalism44(1): 205–225.
30.
FarrerB (2015) Connecting niche party vote change in first- and second-order elections. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties25(4):1–22.
31.
FiorinaMP (1981) Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
GolderM (2003) Explaining variation in the success of extreme right parties in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies36(4): 432–466.
33.
GoldsteinS (2002) Party leaders, power and change. Party Politics8(3): 327–348.
34.
GonzalezLI (2007) Political power, fiscal crises, and decentralization in Latin America: federal countries in comparative perspective (and some contrasts with unitary cases). Publius: The Journal of Federalism38(2): 211–247.
35.
HepburnE (2009a) Explaining failure: the highs and lows of Sardinian nationalism. Regional and Federal Studies19(4–5): 595–618.
36.
HepburnE (2009b) Introduction: re-conceptualizing sub-state mobilization. Regional and Federal Studies19(4–5): 477–499.
37.
HombradoA (2011) Learning to catch the wave? Regional demands for constitutional change in contexts of asymmetrical arrangements. Regional and Federal Studies21(4–5): 479–501.
38.
HoogheLMarksGSchakelAH, et al. (2016) Measuring Regional Authority. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
HopkinJ (2009) Party matters: devolution and party politics in Britain and Spain. Party Politics15(2): 179–198.
40.
HugS (2001) Altering Party Systems: Strategic Behaviour and the Emergence of New Political Parties in Western Democracies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
41.
JefferyCHoughD (2009) Understanding post-devolution elections in Scotland and Wales in comparative perspective. Party Politics15(2): 219–240.
42.
JefferyCSchakelA (2013) Are regional elections really second-order. Regional Studies47: 323–341.
43.
JenneE (2004) A bargaining theory of minority demands: explaining the dog that did not bite in 1990s Yugoslavia. International Studies Quarterly48(4): 729–754.
44.
LagoIMartinezF (2011) Why new parties?Party Politics17(1): 3–20.
45.
LijphartA (1990) The Southern European examples of democratization: six lessons for Latin America. Government and Opposition25(1): 68–84.
46.
LipsetSMRokkanS (Eds) (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments (Vol. 7). Free press.
47.
LoweryDWitteloostuijnAPeliG, et al. (2011) Policy agendas and births and deaths of political parties. Party Politics19(3): 381–407.
48.
Lutz KernHHainmuellerJ (2006) Electoral balancing, divided government and midterm loss in German elections. The Journal of Legislative Studies12(2): 127–149.
49.
MarshM (2009) Vote switching in European parliament elections: evidence from June 2004. European Integration31(5): 627–644.
50.
MarshMMikhaylovS (2010) European parliament elections and EU governance. Living Reviews in European Governance5(4): 5–30.
51.
MassettiESchakelAH (2013) Between autonomy and secession: decentralization and regionalist party ideological radicalism. Party Politics22(1): 59–79.
52.
MeguidBM (2005) Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review99(03): 347–359.
53.
MeguidBM (2008) Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
54.
MillsM (2011) Introducing Survival and Event History Analysis. London: Sage Publications.
55.
MorenoL (2002) Decentralization in Spain. Regional Studies36(4): 399–408.
56.
MorgensternSSwindleSMCastagnolaA (2009) Party nationalization and institutions. The journal of Politics71(04): 1322–1341.
57.
NetoOACoxGW (1997) Electoral institutions, cleavage structures, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science41(1): 149–174.
58.
NorrisP (1997) Choosing electoral systems: proportional, majoritarian and mixed systems. International Political Science Review18(3): 297–312.
59.
PotterJD (2014) Demographic diversity and district-level party systems. Comparative Political Studies47(13): 1801–1829.
60.
ReifKSchmittH (1980) Nine second-order national elections–a conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research8(1):3–44.
61.
RikerWH (1982) The two-party system and Duverger’s law: an essay on the history of political science. American Political Science Review76(04): 753–766.
62.
RoddenJ (2004) Comparative federalism and decentralization: on meaning and measurement. Comparative Politics36(4): 481–500.
63.
RüdigW (2006) Is government good for Greens? Comparing the electoral effects of government participation in Western and East-Central Europe. European Journal of Political Research45(s1): S127–S154.
64.
SchakelAH (2011) Congruence between regional and national elections. Comparative Political Studies46(5): 631–662.
65.
SchakelAH (2013) Nationalisation of multilevel party systems: a conceptual and empirical analysis. European Journal of Political Research52(2): 212–236.
66.
SchakelAHJefferyC (2012) Are regional elections really second-order elections?Regional Studies1–19.
67.
SpoonJJ (2011) Political Survival of Small Parties in Europe. An Harbor: University of Michigan Press.
68.
SpoonJJWestKJ (2015) Bottoms up: how subnational elections predict parties’ decisions to run in presidential elections in Europe and Latin America. Research and Politics2(3): 1–8.
69.
StrømKSwindleSM (2002) Strategic parliamentary dissolution. American Political Science Review96(03): 575–591.
70.
TavitsM (2006) Party system change: testing a model of new party entry. Party Politics12(1): 99–119.
71.
ThorlaksonL (2007) An institutional explanation of party system congruence: evidence from six federations. European Journal of Political Research46(1): 69–95.
72.
TonnissonKWilsonJ (2007) Best value in transitional countries? Some evidence from Estonia. Public Management Review9(1): 87–106.
73.
TreismanD (2007) The Architecture of Government: Rethinking Political Decentralization, Vol. 87. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
74.
VolkensALacewellOLehmannP, et al. (2012) The manifesto document collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
75.
WagnerM (2012) Defining and measuring niche parties. Party Politics18(6): 845–864.
76.
ZonsG (2015) The influence of programmatic diversity on the formation of new political parties. Party Politics21(6): 919–929.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
