Rethinking intra-party cohesion: Towards a conceptual and analytical framework

Abstract

Intra-party cohesion (IPC) is a concept extensively used to assess institutional change and behaviour in legislative and party politics. In spite of its popularity, there is confusion about its meaning mostly derived from its multidimensional nature. This article aims to clarify the understanding of this term across three different fields of research (legislative studies, party factionalism and Hirschman’s theory applied to intra-party dynamics) and to build a conceptual framework that integrates several analytical dimensions. It uses quantitative network-based analysis of bibliographic data to provide a descriptive account of connections between these fields of the literature. Based on this, it identifies major challenges in the study of IPC and reveals the necessity to investigate it beyond ideology and legislative arena. To this end, we argue and illustrate how Hirschman’s theory applied to three levels of analysis allows us to formulate a framework suitable for the study of IPC.

Keywords

analytical framework conceptual clarity Hirschman intra-party cohesion

Introduction

Intra-party cohesion (IPC) is important in politics but has shaky theoretical foundations. Earlier studies showed that the existence of unified parties has a direct impact on government’s survival, coalition behaviour, bargaining power of the party in public office, electoral strategies and performance, parties’ representativeness and accountability to voters (Carey, 2009; Giannetti and Benoit, 2008; Kam, 2009). At the same time, even when political parties are not monolithic structures, dissent and conflicts may shape their ideological and policy stances, change organizations (e.g. splits, mergers, switching), reinvigorate the democratic debate within parties and enhance electoral performance and adaptation (DiSalvo, 2012; Gherghina, 2014; Mair, 1990).

While the relevance of IPC is well established, the concept involves multiple dimensions that have rarely been systematically theorized into one common framework. Existing research has conceptualized the term in a unidimensional manner and most studies paid extensive attention to the empirical dimensions rather than concept formation. This article seeks to critically review the way in which IPC has been defined and measured across the literature in various fields of politics and to propose a typology. In doing so, our endeavour distinguishes between three areas of research that have looked at IPC but have remained quite impermeable to each other: (1) studies about the party in public office as one of the three faces of a party organization, (2) the literature on party factionalism and (3) studies applying Hirschman‘s (1970) framework of “exit, voice and loyalty” to the study of intra-party politics. Each of these fields developed its own debates on the definition and measurement of different types of IPC and had to face various methodological challenges. These conceptual and methodological debates indicate how this concept can be used as the lowest common denominator between these fields. Moreover, a great deal of (recent) research has focused on legislative cohesion, with some punctual connections with the literature on factions, but with very few appeals to Hirschman’s framework. The central argument of this article is that social-psychological and economic theories of organizations revolving around Hirschman’s framework may prove very useful to deepen, enlarge and systematize our understanding of IPC.

The relevance of systematizing our understanding of IPC and of its multiple dimensions can be outlined at theoretical, methodological and empirical levels. Moving beyond the specificities of this political phenomenon, we construct a typology aiming to capture all situations in which IPC occurs. The important theoretical contribution resides in the accommodation of several analytical dimensions that were treated in isolation until now. The analytical complexity of the resulting typology covers a broad range of situations and can represent a solid basis for further studies. One of the immediate consequences is the possibility for a better interdisciplinary studies and exchange of ideas having the same point of reference. At methodological level, a typology that is not context, case or research area sensitive allows for comparative studies both across disciplines and across time. Furthermore, the typology presented in this article enhances straightforward operationalization of a term that had been rarely measured in a comprehensive way before. From an empirical point of view, an unequivocal understanding of IPC leads to richer interpretation of the causes and consequences, talking to a broader audience than in the current situation when analyses appear to be research field oriented.

The article uses an inductive approach and starts with a network analysis of cross-referenced scientific articles on IPC between 1925 and 2017. This identifies the fields of research in which it was used, with emphasis on the main authors and works, and maps their connections. The second section describes how IPC has been defined in the identified fields of research. It highlights the common and complementary elements brought to the term by different conceptualization. Based on these theoretical approaches, the third section suggests a general analytical framework (a typology) that includes several dimensions of IPC. The final section discusses the methodological implications and challenges that scholars might face when studying IPC.

Mapping the literature: A network-based analysis of bibliographic data

In order to visualize the most influential publications on IPC, the relationship between fields of research and their development over time, we apply a network-based analysis of cross-referenced journal articles. We complement this visualization by a review of the central debates and of the theoretical and methodological aspects of these publications. The selection of articles involved a three-step process that resulted in 533 publications and 3196 citation links. First, citations indexes were imported from the Web of Science bibliographic database. Second, we used keywords related to the study of IPC (party ‘cohesion’, ‘unity’, ‘loyalty’, ‘discipline’, ‘agreement’) and dissent (party ‘switching’, ‘defection’, ‘split’, ‘fission’, ‘division’, ‘faction’, ‘exit, voice, loyalty’). Third, we scrutinized each abstract and kept only the publications related to IPC.¹

Two different software tools (CiteNetExplorer and VOSViewer) were used to import the collected citations indexes. CiteNetExplorer displays networks of citation relations between published articles through a timeline-based visualization (van Eck and Waltman, 2014: 293). VOSViewer takes a distance-based approach and identifies the most cited works and their related publications. It can also be used to visualize keyword co-occurrence in a citation network (van Eck and Waltman, 2014). One of the main limitations of this approach is that Web of Science only includes articles (as well as a few chapters and conference proceedings referenced online), thus neglects studies published as monographs and edited volumes. This slightly biases the analysis. However, using CitNetExplorer option ‘include non-matching references’, the network still includes major books (or chapters) cited in Web of Science articles but which are not included in the database (and thus not displaying cross references). A second limitation involves that recent publications often do not appear on the graphs, as arguably their citation score is not yet high.

Figure 1 displays the full citation-network as obtained in CitNetExplorer. Only the 70 most frequently cited publications (including non-matching references cited at least 10 times) are visible, but the software allows zooming and ‘drilling down’ further into the network. The vertical axis represents time, while the horizontal axis reflects the relatedness of the publications, that is, the closer the ‘nodes’, the more related the publications. To identify specific research areas, we cluster the empirical evidence: four subgroups may be identified, which all appear connected in some way.

Figure 1.

CitNetExplorer visualization of citation network. Note: 70 most cited publications with direct citation links (N = 533 publications and 3196 citation links). Resolution parameter set at 1.00,² with minimum cluster size at 10.

On the left of Figure 1, the purple cluster mostly includes studies on the US Congress, as shown by the filiation with Fenno (1978) and Mayhew (1974). This cluster has been concerned with the evolution of American parties and with the ongoing debate about the importance and strength of parties and individual legislators in the democratic process. This debate has led to question the real impact of the party (discipline) on legislators’ behaviour, a relationship that has been tested by heavily relying on roll-call data, as introduced by Mayhew.

Directly related to and embedded into these studies, publications identified in the blue cluster also deal with IPC in a legislative context, but seek to expand American-based theories and methods – as shown by the filiation with Rice (1925, 1928) and his cohesion index – outside the US Congress. The most cited publication of the blue cluster is the foundational article on the electoral incentives for candidates to distinguish themselves from their party and co-partisans (Carey and Shugart, 1995).³ Other extensively cited works have expanded these ‘incentives’ to the broader institutional context and have tested the impact of various institutional devices on legislators’ behaviour in comparative perspective, for example, the impact of the vote of confidence as shown by the link with Huber (1996) or that of candidate selection methods as shown by the link with Gallagher and Marsh (1988). Among these comparative studies, we find the work of Carey (2007) and his ‘competing principals’ theory. As illustrated by their position further to the right of the network and by their filiation with Özbudun (1970), these studies on legislative IPC have moved from the study of presidential systems to that of (mostly Western) parliamentary systems. Furthermore, the blue cluster of research has been enriched by studies on the European Parliament about the role of institutional incentives and ‘principals’ or the methodological use of roll-call voting data.

On the left side of this blue cluster, closer to the purple group, some studies have examined legislative IPC in young democracies or transition countries: in Brazil, Russia or comparatively in Eastern Europe. As illustrated by their citation links, these studies have primarily been interested in the ‘electoral connection’ (Cain et al., 1987; Mayhew, 1974), that is, with the effect of the electoral system on legislators’ behaviours – and by extension, with the potential effect of electoral rules on political (in)stability in these new democracies.

The nature and content of the green cluster on Figure 1 does not strike at first glance: it seems to gather several foundational works entrenched in structural approaches to parties and party systems (Duverger, 1954; Panebianco, 1988; Sartori, 1976), institutional and rational approaches to (legislative) parties (Cox, 1997; Strøm, 1990), government formation (Laver and Shepsle, 1996) and coalition dynamics (Laver and Schofield, 1990; Riker, 1962). Looking beyond these highly cited works, the cluster seems to gather two subgroups. The first subgroup, positioned to the left side of the network and embedded in the blue and purple cluster, is concerned with the reasons for legislators’ switching and with the consequences of such behaviour. The second subgroup gathers the literature on factionalism with studies primarily concerned with the definition and typology of factions, with their role in dynamics of party change and splits and with their bargaining power in processes of coalition building, portfolio allocation and party policy formulation. These two subgroups stand within the same cluster given (1) their shared interest in the consequences of defection, switching and factionalism on government dynamics and party system stability; (2) their relationship with dynamics of party fission and fusion; and (3) their common case studies, especially the parties and party systems in Japan and Italy, suggesting that factionalism and switching are related phenomena.

The orange cluster in Figure 1 includes publications related to Hirschman’s framework (1970) and to the Economic Theory of Democracy (Downs, 1957) which had some influence on Hirschman’s framework. One seminal article is identified within Hirschman’s network, but is actually at the cross-roads of several research areas (Kato, 1998). This work examines legislative IPC within Japanese parties through the lenses of Hirschman’s framework and considers faction belonging as a potential factor for exit (switching) or voice (dissent). Apart from Hirschman (1970), Downs (1957) and Kato (1998), most cited articles include the logic of collective action. Relevant publications linking Hirschman’s framework to IPC includes, apart from Kato (1998), those of Langston (2002) who analyses elites’ exit voice or loyalty in the Mexican dominant (and factionalized) Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), and an analysis of party members’ exit, voice or loyalty response to the refoundation of the Italian Communist Party (PCI) in the early 1990s (Eubank et al., 1996). Other studies not identified in the orange cluster do appeal to Hirschman’s framework: some deal with party switching (Heller and Mershon, 2008) or apply labour economics and management approaches to legislative IPC (Garner and Letki, 2005).

Finally, among the publications that were not classified into any cluster in Figure 1, there is a small set of publications, mostly on British parties and especially on their divisions over the European integration issue. Along these works, we also find publications on ideological IPC within Canadian parties, especially among the party on the ground. The rest of the unclassified publications are barely related to the rest of the network, and a quite substantial number of them are in fact book reviews. Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of these groups. The blue cluster is by far the largest, both in terms of publications and citation links. Together with the purple cluster of works, it accounts for roughly 60% of the total number of investigated publications. This indicates the dominance of the legislative oriented approach towards IPC. The green cluster oriented towards party factionalism accounts for approximately one quarter of the number of articles. The cluster with the lowest number of articles and citations among the four is related to Hirschman’s theory. The fifth cluster gathers several topics ranging from grassroots party politics to European integration topics outside the parliamentary arena.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the clusters identified in Figure 1.

	Colour of cluster	Number of publications	Number of citation links
Group 1	Purple	92	414
Group 2	Blue	200	1277
Group 3	Green	125	505
Group 4	Orange	37	67
(Group 5)	Unclassified	79	20
Total		533	2677

Figure 2 uses VOSViewer and its clustering option to complement the data presented so far in Figure 1 and Table 1. It presents the result of a network analysis of keywords co-occurrence citation (based on articles’ title and content of the abstract). The graphical depiction strengthens the idea of a dominant research on legislative behaviour. The strong impact of the works in the blue cluster from Figure 1 is visible in (light and dark) blue in Figure 2 as shown by the keywords ‘institutions’, ‘selection’, ‘incentives’, ‘principals’ (which appears in light blue on the left of ‘party discipline’) and ‘behaviour’ (located between ‘cohesion’ and ‘institution’). A particular case is the analysis of roll-call voting data where the keyword can be observed on the upper-right corner. The group of publications about legislative discipline and general issues related to the party in the public office (specifically, in the United States) are visible on the upper-left corner, in green. The keywords associated with research about the potential effect of electoral rules on political (in)stability are visible in pink.

Figure 2.

VOSViewer visualization of keywords co-occurrences network. Items: 107 (minimum number of occurrences: 5). Clusters: 7 (resolution parameter: 1.00, minimum cluster size: 1 item). Links: 1972 (100 lines displayed). Total link strength: 3651.

The keywords related to party factionalism (the green cluster in Figure 1) appear in turquoise and red. The keywords in turquoise are for legislators’ switching, while the ones in red deal with factionalism and overlap to some extent with the legislative IPC. The density and importance of keywords encountered in studies about factionalism indicate that this has been a research area in which IPC is often encountered. The studies using Hirschman theory (orange cluster in Figure 1) are barely visible through the keywords ‘voice’ and ‘loyalty’ and seem embedded into the factionalism literature (the red keywords in Figure 2). Even the keywords used in unclassified publications (Table 1) are more prominent: in yellow the ones about British politics and European integration; or cut across two fields of research (red and green), somewhere around the keywords ‘ideology’, ‘preferences’ and ‘curvilinear disparity’.

Several conclusions can be drawn from this network analysis. The centrality of the keyword ‘cohesion’ (Figure 2) suggests that the concept of IPC could be used as the lowest common denominator between these various fields. The analysis has shown the overall dominance of legislative studies, that is, IPC in the party in public office. By contrast, it has illustrated the weakness and lack of connection with studies on IPC in the other faces of the party, although we found a few studies on (ideological) IPC in the party on the ground, and a few case studies on party splits at party congresses. Hirschman’s framework is hardly integrated in the whole picture, but more recent publications seem to have brought it back into the study of members’ relationship to their party organization in case of (dis)satisfaction (Kemp, 2002; van Haute, 2015) or in terms of ideological congruence (Kölln and Polk, 2016; van Haute and Carty, 2012). On these grounds, the following section uses IPC as a common concept that transcends these various literatures. It discusses its multiple dimensions within and across disciplines, underlines commonalities and provides a closer look at Hirschman’s approach.

Characterizing IPC and insights from ‘exit, voice and loyalty’

This section starts with a review of the definition(s) and analytical dimensions used for IPC across the fields of research identified during the network analysis. IPC is a multilayered concept. At individual level, it can be understood either as an attitude or as a behaviour. At aggregate level, IPC can describe the state of a party, for instance along a scale or a degree of cohesion, or the force pushing its members to act collectively, that is, ‘a party acting in unison’ (Hazan, 2003). While IPC as a behaviour has been examined as both a dependent and independent variable (see above), IPC as an attitude (e.g. homogeneity of preferences, loyalty) has more often been examined as an independent variable that could affect IPC as a behaviour (e.g. voting unity, switching). The conception of IPC as a state/attitude or as a force/behaviour, its status in the research design as well as the level of analysis (individual or party) at which it is observed have important consequences for its measurement.

The network analysis shows that in legislative studies IPC as a behaviour seems to have prevailed and a large body of research has been dedicated to studying its determinants. IPC as a behaviour has been equated with party unity (and sometimes also used interchangeably with party discipline) and has been used to describe the act of MPs from the same party voting in a unitary manner (Janda, 1993: 174; Olson, 2003: 164). A party appears united, when all MPs vote the same way, or disunited when some MPs vote against the party line, or in a different way than the rest of their fellows. Scholars have developed several tools to grasp the degree of voting cohesion, such as the index of cohesion (Rice, 1925) or the index of agreement (Attiná, 1990).

Some scholars have considered legislative IPC as a process rather than an outcome and they have accordingly pointed out the role of several endogenous mechanisms. This approach distinguishes between cohesion and unity, changes the status of cohesion from dependent to independent variable (Andeweg and Thomassen, 2011) and examines how unity is reached at the level of the individual legislator. Voting unity would result mainly from three sequential mechanisms (van Vonno et al., 2014) that could be described as dimensions of IPC – and each of which are regularly conceptually equated with IPC. First, MPs’ homogeneity of preferences, also referred to as shared policy preferences (Hazan, 2003; Kam, 2001) or party agreement (van Vonno et al., 2014) – although (Close and Núñez, 2017) argue that homogeneity of preferences and party agreement should be considered as two different dimensions of IPC. Second, the MPs’ internalization of the norm of party solidarity (Hazan, 2003) or MPs’ sense of party loyalty (Andeweg and Thomassen, 2011; van Vonno et al., 2014) has been analysed as a psycho-sociological attachment to the party, related to a form of social identity or party identification (Raymond and Overby, 2016; Raymond and Worth, 2017). Third, party discipline, which can take the form of positive incentives, such as promises of career advancement, or can involve threat of sanction (e.g. demotion) if the MP does not conform to the party line. Party discipline would be enforced by the party leaders as an ‘ultimum remedium’ (Andeweg and Thomassen, 2011) when neither agreement nor loyalty is effective. While agreement and loyalty are attitudes, and can be conceived as the ‘voluntary pathway’ to IPC, discipline is rather an institutional or organizational constraint, or ‘compulsory pathway’ to IPC (Andeweg and Thomassen, 2011; van Vonno et al., 2014).

The literature review and network analysis also indicate that studies of IPC in the party in public office looked at legislators ‘exiting’ their party, either to join another party, form a new political organization or sit as independent in the parliament (Heller and Mershon, 2009). Party switching has been described as ‘the ultimate lack of cohesion’ (Nielsen et al., 2019) or as an extreme form of partisan disloyalty (O’Brien and Shomer, 2013). Again, this literature has examined how various dimensions of IPC relate to each other, often by looking at the extent to which IPC as a behaviour (dependent variable, e.g. staying in the party) results from IPC as an attitude (independent variable, e.g. homogeneous attitudes). Ideologically cohesive parties would experience less switching and legislators whose preferences are closer to that of their party would be less likely to switch (Desposato, 2006; Heller and Mershon, 2008; O’Brien and Shomer, 2013). Also, legislators would be more likely to switch to parties that are ideologically close to their preferences (Desposato, 2006; Mainwaring and Perez-Linan, 1997). Interestingly, party switching may also be a reaction to party discipline: Legislators would switch to escape strong party discipline (Heller and Mershon, 2008).

The network analysis suggests a certain overlap of switching and factionalism studies. Arguably, collective defections in the party in public office often relate to the existence of intra-party factions (Cox and Rosenbluth, 1995; Kato, 1998); although usually factions are not limited to the parliamentary arena. Central publications on factionalism have been concerned with the definition and classification of factions, thus, with what factions are (state). As shown below, other relevant publications have adopted a more dynamic approach, and have asked what factions do (force), and what are their functional roles within the larger party organization. The most mentioned definition is that a faction is ‘any intraparty combination, clique, or grouping whose members share a sense of common identity and common purpose and are organized to act collectively –as a distinct bloc within the party – to achieve their goals’ (Zariski, 1960).⁴ IPC in the form of faction varies along several dimensions. Three dimensions have been discussed in the literature: (1) strength where they may vary from ephemeral or loosely organized to more institutionalized groups (Belloni and Beller, 1978; Bettcher, 2005; Hine, 1982; Panebianco, 1988) such as those found in some Italian, Japanese and Australian parties (Bettcher, 2005; Boucek, 2012; Kohno, 1992; McAllister, 1991); (2) motivations or ‘purpose’ with some factions of an ideological or ‘principle’ nature (Bettcher, 2005; Rose, 1964), while others would be built around shared interests, or as ‘leader-follower’ groups (Key, 1949), although these types often overlap and (3) geographical scope with factions that can occur within one of the faces of the party, transcend these faces or constitute one of the faces (e.g. the parliamentary Fraktion), can occur within one or across levels (local, central, provincial) or branches of the party or reflect regional diversity within the party (Stern et al., 1971).

Depending on their characteristics, factions can fulfil several functions. If well-organized, they can offer a greater ‘voicing’ power than individualized forms of dissent. If they rely on ideological motivations, they can be used to express policy disagreement and operate when the policy orientation of the party is at stake, for example, within the party in public office or when defining the party platform during congresses and so on. If they are more of an interest-based nature, they are more likely to express dissatisfaction with material incentives provided by the organization and will try to impact the distribution of resources (allocation of seats, ministerial portfolios, allocation of resources to specific branches, etc.). If built on a leader–follower incentive, they will be mostly active in intra-party contests of leader and candidate selection. These voicing processes may occur at different or all levels or arenas of the party organization. For example, disagreement or dissatisfaction expressed at party congresses may conduct to altering the platform (Ceron, 2012), changing the leadership, and, when voice is expressed collectively through organized factions, can result in reversing the balance of power between competing groups. Adopting a dynamic approach, Boucek (2009) investigates factionalism as a process, occurring through three sequences or forms of factionalism: cooperative (different groups are recognized within the party), competitive (diffusion strategies allowing for ‘voice’ between intra-groups) and degenerative (when factions become too numerous and self-seeking). While the other forms of factionalism may be constructive for the organization – ideological debates, leadership renewal, and so on – degenerative factionalism has detrimental consequences, which are expressed through ‘exit’ in the forms of party split or collapse.

Integrating Hirschman’s approach

This review of IPC definitions and measurements across these fields of research indicates the usefulness of Hirschman’s framework to grasp the processes of IPC. Hirschman’s original framework (1970) was developed in the field of economics and attempted to frame how a consumer react to a product quality decline: exit (leave the firm, stop buying the product), voice (express discontent) or remain loyal. Loyalty has been viewed as an attitudinal factor affecting the choice between two behaviours, voice and exit. The framework has been successfully applied in other fields but considerably less to politics.⁵

Studies applying Hirschman’s framework to the study of IPC brought useful amendments to the original theory. The first concerns the perception of quality decline: while the original model takes for granted that all members recognize the quality decline in the organization at the same time, within a party, individuals might have conflicting preferences towards what should be a ‘satisfying’ or a high-quality product (Barry, 1974; Dowding et al., 2000). Thus, in a context of party crisis or rupture, be it an organizational or ideological (both often occurring simultaneously), some discontented members might voice in order to push for change, while others might voice in order to resist change and their opinion might differ towards the kind of change that is being proposed (Salucci, 2008).

A second amendment involves that voice and exit are not mutually exclusive categories, but rather positively correlate (Kato, 1998) and the same applies for different types of voice (Amjahad, 2011; Close, 2011). Research highlights a dynamic relationship between these behaviours. Party members would adopt silence, voice and exit successively – through a kind of sequential ‘voicing’ process – through time, but also throughout different arenas: first, voicing in a small committee, then in a larger party meeting, then outside the party, for instance in the media. Besides, voice can create exit as much as exit may encourage voice: credible exit by those who have previously voiced might encourage other members of the organization to put pressure on it by voicing from within (Kato, 1998).

A third amendment refers to the concept of loyalty, which has been mainly conceived as a social-psychological variable affecting the choice between different types of response behaviours. Again, the sequential aspect of the framework can be highlighted: members can feel dissatisfied, but in case of dissatisfaction, they will voice or exit, constructively or destructively, their dissatisfaction depending on how ‘committed’ (Saunders et al., 1992) or ‘attached’ (Cannings, 1992) they feel to their organization. Party loyalty would refrain grassroots members to exit (Amjahad, 2011; Close, 2011), but the effect on voice is more uncertain: loyalty can either encourage silence or voice.⁶ This uncertainty seems to result from potential conflicting loyalties: loyalty to the party organization or loyalty to the ideology embodied by the party (Salucci, 2008); loyalty to the party or to one or another leader; loyalty to the central party organization or to the local branch of the party (Close, 2011) or to any other subgroup (faction) within the party. In order to remain loyal to an ideology, members may consider exiting an organization that deviates from this ideology (Salucci, 2008). In a similar vein, feeling more loyal to a sub-branch or subgroup of the party may increase members’ likelihood of voicing their disagreement or dissatisfaction with the central party organization. Besides, as factions involve ‘a sense of common identity’ (Zariski, 1960), they may create conflicting loyalties for their members that can impact on exit: while party loyalty may refrain members from exiting the organization, factional loyalty may have the exact opposite effect.

A conceptual framework and its applicability

Hirschman’s framework and its subsequent amendments form the basis of the analytical framework we suggest further on. This is meant to provide a common framework for the study of IPC as a dynamic phenomenon, its causes and consequences and cuts across the three faces of the party. Figure 3 proposes a typology that seeks to systematize the understanding of the concept, clarify the research design, and will allow identifying the appropriate methodological tools to measure the different types of IPC. It accounts for two dimensions: the responses that are mutually exclusive and logically exhaustive within the party and the existence of several layers where such responses occur. The responses included in the typology are in the form of Hirschman’s framework available at three layers that transcend the faces of the party: micro (individual), meso (party groups or units) and macro (party level). Since the typology focuses on IPC, the macro level is the political party and it differs from the meso level in the sense that the latter deals with various groups of members in the party. The typology is a parsimonious analytical tool that distinguishes between IPC as attitudinal and behavioural understandings of IPC (a common problem of many studies), as a static or dynamic process and the faces of the party where effects can be observed. The typology also combines descriptive and analytical issues, and the means through which IPC can be reached either through voluntary or compulsory pathways (e.g. socialization vs. disciplinary incentives) and bottom-up or top-down processes (e.g. discipline imposed to grassroots from the central office; or grassroots pushing the party leaders or parliamentary caucus to act cohesively).

Figure 3.

A typology of IPC. IPC: intra-party cohesion.

The cells of the typology are populated with illustrative cases of IPC to provide an indication about its broad applicability. To start with the micro level, party switching is one of the most common form and it is measured at the level of the party in the public office (MP defection), within the party in central office (party elite departures) or at the level of the party on the ground (membership loss). All these are instances of exit in which party members at all levels leave as a reaction to various decisions within their party (i.e. ideological, socio-psychological, etc.). At the same time, the decision to defect may be caused by poor organization of the party or by strategic incentives such as seeking for re-election under the label of a party that is doing better in the polls (Gherghina, 2016). Examples of voice include all those instances in which (dis)agreement (or sometimes dissatisfaction) between members and their party is calculated at the individual level. Two such instances are the MPs’ distance from the mean or median party position or the MPs’ subjective distance (measured as the difference between the MPs’ self-positioning and the perceived position of the party) to their party (Kam, 2001).

This ideological IPC measured at the level of MPs’ attitudes was related to their actual IPC behaviour. Disagreement can be associated to voice and may vary in strength and frequency – with usually a few of the MPs or party members expressing publicly their disagreement, except in times of party crisis. Survey methods have been used to measure ideological IPC in the party on the ground and to identify potential ‘misfits’ (Kölln and Polk, 2016; van Haute and Carty, 2012), that is, members having preferences quite distant from those of their party or party fellows. In the party in the central office, ideological IPC amongst activists and officials has been grasped through text analysis of speeches and internal debates held during party congresses (Ceron, 2015a; Greene and Haber, 2016). A third dimension of IPC measured at the individual level is loyalty, which has been used to describe either a behaviour (legislator toeing the party line) or a social-psychological attitude affecting (the choice between) voice or exit.⁷ Similar to agreement, party membership surveys asked members to express a degree of attachment to their party, to the leader of the party or to different regional branches of that party (Amjahad, 2011; Close, 2011; van Haute, 2011). Candidate or MP surveys tend to grasp loyalty as an intended behaviour, with typical questions asking respondents to state if, in case of disagreement with their party, they ought to vote along their party line or to follow their own opinion. Legislative voting data measure actual loyal behaviour.

The meso level deals with groups of members and is well illustrated by the literature examining the structure of opinion within political parties (Holsteyn et al., 2015; Narud and Skare, 1999; Norris, 1995). This body of research used attitudinal surveys to assess the degree of ideological IPC between intra-party groups (leaders, MPs, middle-level elites, activists, grassroots and voters). As such, this approach sought to identify more or less ‘radical’ groups within the party, with potential links with the existence of factions. Collective party switching refers to situations in which either groups of MPs or territorial branches leave the party due to various reasons. In terms of collective voice, several methods and tools have been used to measure ideological IPC at the aggregate parliamentary group level – degree of party agreement, homogeneity, dispersion (Warwick, 2006) or polarization (Van der Eijk, 2001) of preferences. Among the ‘means’ used to reach IPC, a good example is the ‘caucus meeting’ where, when a party is in government, the members of the parliamentary party and the members of government can meet, express their positions, voice their disagreement behind closed doors and try to reach consensus on the government’s policies (Thomas, 1996; Wilson, 2015). As such, by allowing the expression of voice, these caucuses work as a means to increase IPC between the two branches of the party in the public office. Along with this mechanism, other positive or negative incentives can be used to increase the loyalty of legislators (party discipline). Collective voice in the form of factions has been measured by analysing the roll-call voting behaviour of institutionalized factions (Spirling and Quinn, 2010). Legislative data have also been used to assess factions’ size and bargaining power (Boucek, 2012), which affect their decision to remain loyal or exit the party organization. Outside the party in public office, some attempts have been made to grasp factions within the party on the ground and network analysis seems to offer promising tools to understand their voice and loyalty (Paulis, 2017). When presented by institutionalized factions, congress motions have served to locate factions in an ideological space (Ceron, 2015a; Giannetti and Laver, 2009).

Finally, at the macro level, Hirschman’s concepts do well apply. Party splits usually occur after a group of party elites and members decide to collectively exit the party; often following a party Congress where these members have voiced their discontent (Ceron, 2015b; Salucci, 2008). Like other types of IPC, party splits or fissions are part of the life of a party (Mair, 1990). Often, these cases of splits occur in factionalized parties (Cox and Rosenbluth, 1995; Harmel et al., 1995), that is, in parties where ‘voice’ is collectively organized and sometimes even institutionalized in the party statutes. Splits and factions may be specific to one face of the party, but more generally transcend the three faces of the party organization. Ultimately, a high degree of loyalty to the party organization could prevent these splits, even in factionalized party, and keep the party united. Party unity can be reached even when the party includes discontent members and/or various ideological currents, through several mechanisms (loyalty, discipline or organizational arrangements that allow and contain internal voice).

Conclusions

This article provided a typology for the understanding of IPC building on an extensive literature review of the concept. The network-based analysis has allowed visualizing the connection between different fields of research that have grasped this concept. The analysis has illustrated that legislative studies dominated the conceptualization with some theoretical and empirical connections with the literature on factionalism beyond the parliamentary arena. Some connections have been found with Hirschman’s framework of exit, voice and loyalty, but the framework has been only modestly applied to the study of IPC. This is somewhat surprising since the Hirschman’s framework provides conceptual tools that could easily fit within the study of IPC, especially when conceived as a multidimensional and dynamic process.

The typology combined these bodies of literature to capture different dimensions and aspects encompassed in the concept of IPC. It may provide some guidance to researchers dealing with IPC and bear several important implications. At theoretical level, the types indicate the necessity to draw attention to what occurs within each face of the party organization, beyond the legislative arena, but also between these faces. The party in central office and party on the ground are crucial arenas for participation and decision-making processes that affect the broader democratic and representative process. At the methodological level, this conceptualization makes measurement easier, enhances the comparative study of IPC and helps developing empirical tools to grasp its dynamism. The application of this typology makes the study of IPC and of its multiple dimensions more systematic, increasing its comparability across various settings. At the empirical level, with this typology one could, for example, question and examine the (causal) relationship between several dimensions of IPC in and between the different faces of the party, their common or diverging causes, and their potential consequences for the party organization and its ability to perform its democratic functions.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sergiu Gherghina

Notes

References

Amjahad

(2011) Adhérents « acquis » vs. Adhérents « conquis ». Analyse de la « déviance » au sein du parti socialiste en Belgique. In: ST11. Etre partisan. Loyauté, prise de parole et défection dans les partis politiques. Bruxelles.

Andeweg

Thomassen

(2011) Pathways to party unity: sanctions, loyalty, homogeneity and division of labour in the Dutch parliament. Party Politics 17(5): 655–672.

Attiná

(1990) The voting behaviour of the European Parliament members and the problem of the Europarties. European Journal of Political Research 18(5): 557–579.

Barry

(1974) ‘Exit, voice, and loyalty’. British Journal of Political Science 4(1): 79–107.

Bartolini

(2005) Restructuring Europe: Centre Formation, System Building, and Political Structuring between the Nation State and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Belloni

Beller

(eds) (1978) Faction Politics: Political Parties and Factionalism in Comparative Perspective. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio.

Bettcher

(2005) Factions of interest in Japan and Italy: the organizational and motivational dimensions of factionalism. Party Politics 11(3): 339–358.

Boucek

(2009) Rethinking factionalism typologies, intra-party dynamics and three faces of factionalism. Party Politics 15(4): 455–485.

Boucek

(2012) Factional Politics: How Dominant Parties Implode or Stabilize. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

10.

Cain

Ferejohn

Fiorina

(1987) The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Cannings

(1992) The voice of the loyal manager: distinguishing attachment from commitment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 5(3): 261–272.

12.

Carey

(2007) Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 92–107.

13.

Carey

(2009) Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Carey

Shugart

(1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies 14(4): 417–439.

15.

Ceron

(2012) Bounded oligarchy: how and when factions constrain leaders in party position-taking. Electoral Studies 31(4): 689–701.

16.

Ceron

(2015a) Brave rebels stay home: assessing the effect of intra-party ideological heterogeneity and party whip on roll-call votes. Party Politics 21(2): 246–258.

17.

Ceron

(2015b) The politics of fission: an analysis of faction breakaways among Italian parties (1946–2011). British Journal of Political Science 45(1): 121–139.

18.

Clark

Golder

(2017) An Exit, Voice and Loyalty Model of Politics. British Journal of Political Science 47(4): 719–748.

19.

(2011) Le factionnalisme partisan: imbrication ou concurrence des loyautés ? In: ST11. Etre partisan. Loyauté, prise de parole et défection dans les partis politiques. Bruxelles: Université libre de Bruxelles, pp. 1–30.

20.

Núñez

(2017) Preferences and agreement in legislative parties: testing the causal chain. The Journal of Legislative Studies 23(1): 31–43.

21.

Cox

(1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in Worlds Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Cox

Rosenbluth

(1995) Anatomy of a split: the liberal democrats of Japan. Electoral Studies 14(4): 355–376.

23.

Desposato

(2006) Parties for rent? Ambition, ideology, and party switching in Brazil’s chamber of deputies. American Journal of Political Science 50(1): 62–80.

24.

DiSalvo

(2012) Engines of Change: Party Factions in American Politics, 1868-2010. New York: Oxford University Press.

25.

Dowding

John

Mergoupis

, et al. (2000) Exit, voice and loyalty: analytic and empirical developments. European Journal of Political Research 37(4): 469–495.

26.

Downs

(1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

27.

Duverger

(1954) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Lowe and Brydone.

28.

Eubank

Gangopadahay

Weinberg

(1996) Italian communism in crisis a study in exit, voice and loyalty. Party Politics 2(1): 55–75.

29.

Fenno

(1978) Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Harlow: Longman.

30.

Gallagher

Marsh

(eds) (1988) Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics. London: Sage.

31.

Garner

Letki

(2005) Party structure and backbench dissent in the Canadian and British parliaments. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 38(2): 463–482.

32.

Gherghina

(2014) Party Organization and Electoral Volatility in Central and Eastern Europe: Enhancing Voter Loyalty. London: Routledge.

33.

Gherghina

(2016) Rewarding the “traitors”? Legislative defection and re-election in Romania. Party Politics 22(4): 490–500.

34.

Giannetti

Benoit

(eds) (2008) Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments. London: Routledge.

35.

Giannetti

Laver

(2009) Party cohesion, party discipline and party faction in Italy. In: Giannetti

Benoit

(eds), Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Goverments. Didcot: Taylor and Francis, pp. 146–168.

36.

Greene

Haber

(2016) Leadership competition and disagreement at party national congresses. British Journal of Political Science 46(3): 611–632.

37.

Harmel

Heo

Ten

, et al. (1995) Performance, leadership, factions and party change: an empirical analysis. West European Politics 18(1): 1–33.

38.

Hazan

(2003) Does cohesion equal discipline? Towards a conceptual delineation. The Journal of Legislative Studies 9(4): 1–11.

39.

Heller

Mershon

(2008) Dealing in discipline: party switching and legislative voting in the Italian chamber of deputies, 1988-2000. American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 910–925.

40.

Heller

Mershon

(2009) Introduction: legislative party switching, parties and party systems. In: Heller

Mershon

(eds), Political Parties and Party Switching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–28.

41.

Hine

(1982) Factionalism in west European parties: a framework for analysis. West European Politics 5(1): 36–53.

42.

Hirschman

(1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

43.

Huber

(1996) The vote of confidence in parliamentary democracies. The American Political Science Review 90(2): 269–282.

44.

Janda

(1993) Comparative political parties: research and theory. In: Finifter

(ed.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. Washington: American Political Science Association, pp. 163–191.

45.

John

Dowding

(2016) Spanning exit and voice: Albert Hirschman’s contribution to political science. In: Fiorito

Scheall

Suprinyak

(eds), Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, Volume 34B. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 175–196.

46.

Kam

(2001) Do ideological preferences explain parliamentary behaviour? Evidence from great Britain and Canada. The Journal of Legislative Studies 7(4): 89–126.

47.

Kam

(2009) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

48.

Kato

(1998) When the party breaks up: exit and voice among Japanese legislators. The American Political Science Review 92(4): 857–870.

49.

Kemp

(2002) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Behaviour of Dissatisfied Labour Party Members. Oxford: University of Oxford.

50.

Key

(1949) Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: A.A. Knopf.

51.

Kohno

(1992) Rational foundations for the organization of the liberal democratic party in Japan. World Politics 44(3): 369–397.

52.

Kölln

Polk

(2016) Emancipated party members: examining ideological incongruence within political parties. Party Politics 23(1): 18–29. DOI: 10.1177/1354068816655566.

53.

Langston

(2002) Breaking out is hard to do: exit, voice, and loyalty in Mexico’s one-party hegemonic regime. Latin American Politics and Society 44(3): 61–88.

54.

Laver

Schofield

(1990) Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

55.

Laver

Shepsle

(1996) Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

56.

Mainwaring

Perez-Linan

(1997) Party discipline in the Brazilian constitutional congress. Lua Nova Revista de Cultura e Política 22(44): 107–136.

57.

Mair

(1990) The electoral payoffs of fission and fusion. British Journal of Political Science 20(1): 131–142.

58.

Mayhew

(1974) The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.

59.

McAllister

(1991) Party adaptation and factionalism within the Australian party system. American Journal of Political Science 35(1): 206–227.

60.

Narud

Skare

(1999) Are party activists the party extremists? The structure of opinion in political parties. Scandinavian Political Studies 22(1): 45–65.

61.

Nielsen

Andersen

Pedersen

(2019) Balancing costs of legislative party switching in the danish parliament 1953–2015. Parliamentary Affairs 72(1): 42–58.

62.

Norris

(1995) May’s law of curvilinear disparity revisited leaders, officers, members and voters in British political parties. Party Politics 1(1): 29–47.

63.

O’Brien

Shomer

(2013) A cross-national analysis of party switching. Legislative Studies Quarterly 38(1): 111–141.

64.

Olson

(2003) Cohesion and discipline revisited: contingent unity in the parliamentary party group. The Journal of Legislative Studies 9(4): 164–178.

65.

Özbudun

(1970) Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

66.

Panebianco

(1988) Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

67.

Paulis

(2017) Exploring party cohesion among the party on the ground: the impact of party activists’ social networks on the cohesion of their local party branch. In: Rethinking Intra-Party Cohesion in Times of Party Transformation. Nottingham.

68.

Raymond

Overby

(2016) What’s in a (Party) name? Examining preferences, discipline, and social identity in a parliamentary free vote. Party Politics 22(3): 313–324.

69.

Raymond

Worth

(2017) Explaining voting behaviour on free votes: solely a matter of preference? British Politics 12(4): 555–564.

70.

Rice

(1925) The behavior of legislative groups: a method of measurement. Political Science Quarterly 40(1): 60–72.

71.

Rice

(1928) Quantitative Methods in Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf.

72.

Riker

(1962) The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press.

73.

Rose

(1964) Parties, factions and tendencies in Britain. Political Studies 12(1): 33–46.

74.

Salucci

(2008) Left no more: exit, voice and loyalty in the dissolution of a party. Annual Meeting of the APSA in Boston.

75.

Sartori

(1976) Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

76.

Saunders

Sheppard

Knight

, et al. (1992) Employee voice to supervisors. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 5(3): 241–259.

77.

Spirling

Quinn

(2010) Identifying intraparty voting blocs in the U.K. House of commons. Journal of the American Statistical Association 105(490): 447–457.

78.

Stern

Tarrow

Williams

(1971) Factions and opinion groups in European mass parties: some evidence from a study of Italian socialist activists. Comparative Politics 3(4): 529–559.

79.

Strøm

(1990) A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science 34(2): 565–598.

80.

Šubelj

Eck

NJV

Waltman

(2016) Clustering Scientific Publications Based on Citation Relations: A Systematic Comparison of Different Methods. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154404.

81.

Thomas

(1996) Parties in parliament: the role of party caucuses. In: Tanguay

Gagnon

(eds), Canadian Parties in Transition. Toronto: Nelson Canada, pp. 252–279.

82.

van Eck

Waltman

(2014) Visualizing bibliometric networks. In: Ding

Rousseau

Wolfram

(eds), Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice. Basel: Springer, pp. 285–320.

83.

Van der Eijk

(2001) Measuring agreement in ordered rating scales. Quality and Quantity 35(3): 325–341.

84.

van Haute

(2011) Party Membership in Europe: Exploration into the Anthills of Party Politics. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

85.

van Haute

(2015) Joining isn’t everything: Exit, voice, and loyalty in party organizations. In: Johnston

Sharman

(eds), Parties and Party Systems. Structure and Context. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, pp. 184–201.

86.

van Haute

Carty

(2012) Ideological misfits: a distinctive class of party members. Party Politics 18(6): 885–895.

87.

Van Holsteyn

Ridder

JMD

Koole

(2015) From May’s laws to May’s legacy on the opinion structure within political parties. Party Politics 23(5): 471–486. DOI: 10.1177/1354068815603242.

88.

van Vonno

CMC

Reut

Sam

, et al. (2014) Agreement, loyalty and discipline: a sequential approach to party unity. In: Deschouwer

Depauw

(eds), Representing the People. A Survey Among Members of Statewide and Substate Parliaments. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 110–136.

89.

Warwick

(2006) Policy Horizons and Parliamentary Government. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

90.

Wilson

(2015) Minister’s caucus advisory committees under the harper government. Canadian Public Administration 58(2): 227–248.

91.

Zariski

(1960) Party factions and comparative politics: some preliminary observations. Midwest Journal of Political Science 4(1): 27–51.