Studies of party activism highlight that party activists are driven by various motivations and that these affect their level of activism. However, it remains unclear whether policy-motivated activists are more engaged in party activities than those motivated by other incentives and whether the motivation–activism link varies with party characteristics. This article investigates these questions by focusing on political actors linking parties and voters in the local community. I use a party activist survey data set collected during recent national election campaigns in three Asian young democracies: Taiwan, Korea, and Mongolia. The results demonstrate the prominence of policy motivation as an impetus for activists’ intraparty commitment. I also found that the positive effect of policy motivation is especially robust in small parties, while it is muted in large parties and that party membership increases the probability of intraparty commitment, challenging the widely held belief that formal membership is pointless in Asian parties.
AchurySScarrowSEKosiara-PedersenK, et al. (2018) The consequences of membership incentives: do greater political benefits attract different kinds of members?Party Politics26(1): 56–68.
2.
BaleTWebbPPolettiM (2019) Participating locally and nationally: explaining the offline and online activism of British party members. Political Studies67(3): 658–675.
3.
BruterMHarrisonS (2009) Tomorrow’s leaders? Understanding the involvement of young party members in six European democracies. Comparative Political Studies42: 1259–1291.
4.
BryanMLJenkinsSP (2016) Multilevel modelling of country effects: a cautionary tale. European Sociological Review32(1): 3–22.
5.
CostantiniEKingJ (1984) The motives of political activists: a factor-analytic exploration. Political Behavior6: 79–93.
6.
CroissantAVölkelP (2012) Party system types and party system institutionalization: comparing new democracies in East and Southeast Asia. Party Politics18(2): 235–265.
7.
CrossWYoungL (2008) Factors influencing the decision of the young politically engaged to join a political party. Party Politics14(3): 345–369.
8.
DaltonRJWattenbergMP (eds) (2002) Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
EldersveldSJ (1983) Motivations for party activism: multi-national uniformities and differences. International Political Science Review4(1): 57–70.
10.
FellD (2014) Should I stay or should I go? Patterns of party switching in multiparty Taiwan. Journal of East Asian Studies14(1): 31–52.
11.
GaujaAVan HauteE (2015) Conclusion: Members and activists of political parties in comparative perspective. In Van HauteEGaujaA (eds) Party Members and Activists. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.186–201.
12.
Grzymala-BusseA (2017) Hoist on their own petards? The reinvention and collapse of authoritarian successor parties. Party Politics25(4): 569–582.
13.
HeiderK (2006) Party membership and participation. In: Katz RichardSCrotty WilliamJ (eds) Handbook of Party Politics. London: Sage, pp. 301–315.
14.
HickenAMartinezKuhonta E (2011) Shadows from the past: Party system institutionalization in Asia. Comparative Political Studies44(5): 572–597.
15.
JandaKHarmelREdensC, et al. (1995) Changes in party identity: evidence from party manifestos. Party Politics1(2): 171–196.
16.
KitscheltH (1989) The internal politics of parties: the law of curvilinear disparity revisited. Political Studies37(3): 400–421.
17.
KooS (2018a) Party activists in South Korea and Mongolia: Programmatic linkages and policy motivations. Journal of East Asian Studies18(3): 367–388.
18.
KooS (2018b) Can intraparty democracy save party activism? Evidence from Korea. Party Politics26(1): 32–42.
19.
LisiMCancelaJ (2017) Types of party members and their implications: results from a survey of Portuguese party members. Party Politics25(3): 390–400.
20.
MaasCJMHoxJJ (2005) Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology1(3): 86–92.
21.
MairPVan BiezenI (2011) Party membership in twenty European democracies, 1980–2000. Party Politics7(1): 5–21.
22.
MayJD (1973) Opinion structure of political parties: the special law of curvilinear disparity. Political Studies21(2): 135–151.
23.
MichaelGListonVMarshM, et al. (2002) Explaining activism amongst Fine Gael members: a test of Seyd and Whiteley’s general incentives model. Irish Political Studies17(1): 97–113.
24.
NarudHMSkareA (1999) Are party activists the party extremists? The structure of opinion in political parties. Scandinavian Political Studies22(1): 45–65.
25.
NorrisP (1995) May’s law of curvilinear disparity revisited: leaders, officers, members and voters in British political parties. Party Politics1(1): 29–47.
26.
OlsonM (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
27.
PanebiancoA (1988) Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
PedersonKBilleLBuchR, et al. (2004) Sleeping or active partners? Danish party members at the turn of the millennium. Party Politics10(4): 367–383.
29.
SamejimaF (1969) Estimation of Latent Ability Using a Response Pattern of Graded Scores (Psychometrika, monograph supplement no. 17).
30.
ScarrowSE (2015) Beyond Party Members: Changing Approaches to Partisan Mobilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
SeydPWhiteleyP (1992) Labour’s Grassroots: The Politics of Party Membership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
Somer-TopcuZ (2009) Timely decisions: the effects of past national elections on party policy change. The Journal of Politics71(1): 238–248.
33.
Somer-TopcuZZarME (2014) European parliamentary elections and national party policy change. Comparative Political Studies47(6): 878–902.
34.
StegmuellerD (2013) How many countries do you need for multilevel modeling? A comparison of Bayesian and Frequentist approaches. American Journal of Political Science57(3): 748–761.
35.
Van BiezenI (2012) Constitutionalizing party democracy: the constitutive codification of political parties in post-war Europe. British Journal of Political Science42(1): 187–212.
36.
Van BiezenIPoguntkeT (2014) The decline of membership-based politics. Party Politics20(2): 205–216.
37.
Van HolsteynJJMDen RidderJMKooleRA (2017) From May’s laws to May’s legacy: on the opinion structure within political parties. Party Politics23(5): 471–486.
38.
WebbPPolettiMBaleT (2017) So who really does the donkey work in ‘multi-speed membership parties’? Comparing the election campaign activity of party members and party supporters. Electoral Studies46: 64–74.
39.
WeldonS (2006) Downsize my polity? The impact of size on party membership and member activism. Party Politics12(4): 467–481.
40.
WhiteleyPF (2011) Is the party over? The decline of party activism and membership across the democratic world. Party Politics17(1): 21–44.
41.
WhiteleyPFSeydPRichardsonJ, et al. (1994) Explaining party activism: the case of the British conservative party. British Journal of Political Science24(1): 79–94.
42.
WhiteleyPFSeydP (2002) High-intensity Participation: The Dynamics of Party Activism in Britain. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
43.
YoungLWilliamC (2002) Incentives to membership in Canadian political parties. Political Research Quarterly55(3): 547–569.
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.
