Partisan Dealignment in Germany: A Rejoinder to Russell Dalton

Abstract

The work of Russell Dalton has played a seminal role in the study of the relation between political sophistication and partisan dealignment. It has to be acknowledged furthermore that there is a consensus on the occurrence of a decline of partisanship in Germany. Using panel data as well as pooled cross-sectional observations, however, it is clear that generational replacement is not the sole driving force of partisan dealignment, but that period effects should also be taken into account. While on an aggregate level rising levels of political sophistication have occurred simultaneously with decreasing partisanship, individual-level analysis suggests clearly that the least sophisticated are most likely to feel alienated from the party system. The article closes with some very specific suggestions on how to address the democratic consequences of declining levels of partisanship.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Ruth Dassonneville is a Research Fellow of the Research Foundation Flanders (Belgium) at the Centre for Citizenship and Democracy of the University of Leuven. She is currently preparing a PhD on the topic of electoral volatility. Previously, her work has been published in, amongst others, Electoral Studies, European Journal of Political Research, Party Politics and Political Science Research and Methods.

Marc Hooghe is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Leuven. He has published mainly on social capital, political participation and social cohesion. He holds an ERC Advanced Grant to investigate the democratic linkage between citizens and the state in Western Europe. His work has been published in various international journals, including the British Journal of Political Science, Electoral Studies, Party Politics, International Political Science Review, European Journal of Political Research and Political Behavior.

Bram Vanhoutte is a Research Associate at the University of Manchester, where he works on the Frailty, Resilience and Inequality in Later Life (FRAILL) project.

Notes

1. R. Dassonneville, M. Hooghe and B. Vanhoutte, ‘Age, Period and Cohort Effects in the Decline of Party Identification in Germany: An Analysis of a Two Decade Panel Study in Germany (1992–2009)’, German Politics 21/2 (2012), pp. 209–27.

2. P. Mair, ‘Myths of Electoral Change and the Survival of Traditional Parties’, European Journal of Political Research 24/2 (1993), pp. 121–33.

3. R.J. Dalton and M.P. Wattenberg (eds.), Parties without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); M.N. Franklin, T. Mackie and H. Valen (eds.), Electoral Change. Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries (Colchester, ECPR Press, 2009); P. Mair Democracy Beyond Parties (Irvine: Center for the Study of Democracy, 2005).

4. J.J. Albright, ‘Does Political Knowledge Erode Party Attachments? A Review of the Cognitive Mobilization Thesis’, Electoral Studies 28/2 (2009), pp. 248–60; S. Marthaler, ‘The Paradox of the Politically Sophisticated Partisan: The French Case’, West European Politics 31/5 (2008), pp. 937–59.

5. H. Clarke and M. Stewart, ‘The Decline of Parties in the Minds of Citizens’, Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1998), pp. 357–78; I. Crewe, B. Särlvik and J. Alt, ‘Partisan Dealignment in Britain 1964–1974', British Journal of Political Science 7/2 (1977), pp. 129–90; M. Pedersen, ‘The Dynamics of European Party Systems: Changing Patterns of Electoral Volatility’, European Journal of Political Research 2/1 (1979), pp. 1–26.

6. R.J. Dalton, ‘Cognitive Mobilization and Partisan Dealignment in Advanced Industrial Democracies’, Journal of Politics 46/1 (1984), pp. 264–84.

7. See for example: N.D. Glenn, Cohort Analysis (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1977); D. Knoke and M. Hout, ‘Reply to Glenn’, American Sociological Review 41/5 (1976), pp. 905–8; K.O. Mason, W.M. Mason, H.H. Winsborough and K.W. Poole, ‘Some Methodological Issues in Cohort analysis of Archival Data’, American Sociological Review 38/2 (1973), pp. 242–58; R. O'Brien, ‘The Age–Period–Cohort Conundrum as Two Fundamental Problems’, Quality and Quantity 45/6 (2011), pp. 1429–44; W.I. Rodgers, ‘Estimable Functions of Age, Period, and Cohort Effects’, American Sociological Review 47/6 (1982), pp. 774–87.

8. P.A. Beck, ‘A Socialization Theory of Partisan Realignment’, in R. Niemi et al. (eds.), The Politics of Future Citizens (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1974); Dalton, ‘Cognitive Mobilization and Partisan Dealignment in Advanced Industrial Democracies’; J.R. Tilley, ‘Party Identification in Britain: Does Length of Time in the Electorate Affect Strength of Partisanship?’, British Journal of Political Science 33/2 (2003), pp. 332–44.

9. M. Franklin, Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 216.

10. Generations here are understood as defined by Mannheim: a birth cohort or group of cohorts that lived through the same events and is therefore influenced by these events. See K. Mannheim, ‘Das Problem der Generationen’, Kölner Vierteljahrshefte fur Soziologie 7/2 (1923), pp. 157–85, 309–30.

11. Following Dalton, we pooled the data from the 1972 German Election Study (S0635), the 1976 German Election Study (S0823), the 1980 German Election Study (S1053) and Politbarometer surveys for elections from 1983 to 2009. Further following Dalton, for the Politbarometer data we included surveys for the election month, the month before the election and the month after the election.

12. P.R. Abramson, ‘Generational Change and the Decline of Party Identification in America, 1952–1974', American Political Science Review 70 (1976), pp. 469–78; W. van der Brug and S. Kritzinger, ‘Generational Differences in Electoral Behavior’, Electoral Studies 31/2 (2012), pp. 245–9.

13. Rodgers, ‘Estimable Functions of Age, Period, and Cohort Effects’.

14. R.J. Dalton, ‘Interpreting Partisan Dealignment in Germany’, German Politics, doi:10.1080/09644008.2013.853040.

15. No information on political interest was available for the selected data of 1990 and 2005, these elections are therefore not included in the pooled dataset.

16. Given that age is measured in broad categories in the Politbarometer surveys, the lower bounds of these categories are included in the analyses.

17. Distinguishing the less well educated (without a degree or only a Hauptschule degree), the moderately well educated (Mittlere Reife) and highly educated (Abitur and above).

18. Distinguishing Catholic respondents, Protestant respondents and respondents with another or no religious denomination.

19. Information on trade union membership is not included in this pooled dataset.

20. Using the categories little interest, some interest and strong interest employed by Dalton as well.

21. Both on a 0–2 scale, subsequently summed. Those who score 3 or 4 on this combined index are considered highly cognitively mobilised.