The Internal Politics of Parties: The Law of Curvilinear Disparity Revisited
- 1 September 1989
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Political Studies
- Vol. 37 (3) , 400-421
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1989.tb00279.x
Abstract
One of the few efforts to link systemic and organizational determinants of party strategies is provided by what John May dubbed the ‘law of curvilinear disparity’. According to this law, voters, party activists and leaders have necessarily divergent political ideologies. These systematic differences are attributable to the activists' motivations and the constraints of party competition. This paper argues that the law is empirically valid only under distinctive behavioural, organizational and institutional conditions which are not specified in its general formulation. Thus, the law is only a special case in a broader theory reconstructing the interaction between constituencies, intra-party politics and party competition. This alternative theory is partially tested with survey data from party activists in the Belgian ecology parties Agalev and Ecolo.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Theory of Political Socialization: Institutional Support and Deradicalization in BritainBritish Journal of Political Science, 1986
- Attitudes and behaviour of party activists.European Journal of Political Research, 1986
- Political Parties and Political RepresentationComparative Political Studies, 1985
- On the Theory of Party OrganizationThe Journal of Politics, 1984
- A Downsian Spatial Model with Party ActivismAmerican Political Science Review, 1983
- HERBERT McCLOSKY AND FRIENDS REVISITEDAmerican Politics Quarterly, 1982
- Opinion Structure of Political Parties: The Special Law of Curvilinear DisparityPolitical Studies, 1973
- The Amateur Politician: A Problem in Construct ValidationMidwest Journal of Political Science, 1971
- Intraparty Attitude Conflict: Democratic Party Leadership in CaliforniaThe Western Political Quarterly, 1963
- Issue Conflict and Consensus among Party Leaders and FollowersAmerican Political Science Review, 1960