The Party Politics of Decentralization

The Territorial Dimension in Italian Party Agendas

Linda Basile

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9783319758527
• eBook ISBN:
  9783319758534
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: European Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book addresses the process of decentralization in Italy, examined from the perspective of political parties. In particular, it assesses whether and to what extent the dynamics of party competition are likely to shape policy agenda and affect policy change. The author starts by providing a thorough account of the process and history of Italian decentralization and the policy outcomes achieved over time, before discussing how party attention to an issue triggers related policy changes (manipulation of salience). Next, the focus shifts to the concrete positions adopted by parties on decentralization to assess whether the pattern of party competition has been consensual or adversarial, and how this pattern influenced the process of reform (manipulation of position). Finally, the author examines the role of frames in party competition. This volume offers essential research that will prove useful to a variety of audiences, ranging from scholars of territorial and Italian politics to those interested in agenda-setting, policy change, and party politics.

© The Author(s) 2019

Linda BasileThe Party Politics of DecentralizationComparative Territorial Politicshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75853-4_1

Begin Abstract

1. The Party Politics of Decentralization: Theory, Definitions, Research Design, and Methods

Linda Basile¹

(1)

University of Siena, Siena, Italy

Linda Basile

End Abstract

A Study on the Party Politics of Decentralization

The need to estimate party attitudes on policy dimensions has long been a compelling research topic. This burgeoning branch of political science aims to unravel the ideological profiles of the actors who compete in the electoral arena and take part in the process of policy making. The underlying assumption is that understanding what parties think (or claim to think) will shed light on both electoral dynamics (i.e., how people vote) and legislative choices (i.e., how parties govern once they are elected) (Benoit and Laver 2006).

The multilevel organization of contemporary political systems also deserves special attention. Most western European countries are characterized today by the overlap of multiple tiers of authority, ranging from the local level to the European level (Marks et al. 2008a). Within this framework, political parties are expected to express their positions on the redistribution of competences and resources across different layers of authority, hence the territorial dimension is relevant for party competition, which is likely to significantly affect the territorial structure of the state (Hopkin and van Houten 2009; Toubeau and Wagner 2015).

At the intersection of these research agendas, there is the estimation and analysis of party strategies concerning the territorial dimension , which is the core topic of this book.

This chapter includes an introduction to the primary research questions addressed in this study, a short literature review, and a summary of terminological choices, providing the reader a sense of the background of the topic and how this research was carried out (section “Setting Up the Study”). It then describes the research design, the methodology, and the data used for the empirical analyses (section “From Concepts to Measurements: Operationalization, Data, and Research Design”). The last section of this chapter outlines the integrated theoretical model adopted in this study to analyze party strategies on decentralization (section “An Integrated Model of the Party Politics of Decentralization”).

Setting Up the Study

The Puzzle of Research

There are two arguments at the core of this study: first, that territorial issues matter in contemporary politics, and second, that they are a matter of party competition. Let’s see what these two statements actually mean.

Over the second half of the twentieth century, several centralized nation-states in Europe gradually transferred powers and competencies to subnational levels (Marks et al. 2008b). Territorial reforms are still on the top of many countries’ political agendas, concerning areas from Catalonia to Scotland through Italy’s northern regions. These processes of territorial restructuring were triggered by social, economic, and historical factors (Duchacek 1970; Schakel 2009; Hooghe et al. 2010), which were ultimately translated into concrete reforms by decision makers. Because political parties are, at least in parliamentary systems, the central political actors in policy- and decision-making processes (Green-Pedersen 2007, 274), the analysis of party strategies on territorial issues represents a valid and useful way for understanding the design and implementation of territorial reforms (Verge 2013).

It has become common to understand decentralist reforms —that is, reforms pushing the territorial organization of the state in a decentralizing direction—as a democratic way to resolve center–periphery conflicts, providing the institutional means to accommodate autonomist demands arising from the peripheries of the state. Yet this is only part of the story. Decentralist reforms are not only a matter of accommodation of peripheral claims but have to do with politically “setting the rules of the game ” (Sorens 2009, 268); they entail redistributions of competencies across different layers of authority and open government opportunities at the subnational level, thus setting up new arenas of political contest and centers of political power. In other words, changing the territorial structure of the state introduces political dynamics beyond the territorial demands of ethnic minorities and autonomist movements. The main implication of this argument is that decentralist reforms are a crucial issue of political debate and party competition in any political system. Hence, at least in parliamentary systems like the Italian one, the pattern of territorial reforms and the resulting policy outputs are deeply influenced by the dynamics of party competition, not only between statewide and autonomist parties but also among parties at the state level (Hopkin and van Houten 2009; Verge 2013).

Against this backdrop, this book contributes to the research on party politics and territorial issues by providing a systematic analysis at both the system and individual party levels. What role do parties—both statewide and autonomist—play in processes of decentralization? Do they influence the timing of reforms? Is decentralization a contested or consensual issue ? Does the pattern of party competition affect the policy output? What is the rationale behind party preferences on decentralization? How do parties frame their political discourse on it?

This book then addresses all of these questions through a theoretical framework that integrates insights from the existing literature on agenda setting , party politics , mandate theory , and issue framing , which is outlined in the last section of this chapter. Before going ahead with the core themes of this book, however, it is worthwhile to take a step back to see what has already been said on the topic and how this work can contribute to the existing literature.

What Has Been Said and Remains Unanswered

Despite the political relevance of the territorial dimension , the literature has long neglected the relationship between party politics and territorial reforms (Hopkin and van Houten 2009). The dominant accounts of political and party systems, in fact, have often been based on utter adherence to the paradigm of national integration (Keating 2008). Territorial cleavages have been treated as anachronistic “legacies of the past” (Caramani 2004, 292), relics standing in contrast to the modernity epitomized by the development of nation states and the related processes of territorial homogenization. Indeed, this bias has not completely disappeared.

Nevertheless, some scholars, inspired by Lipset and Rokkan’s pivotal 1967 essay, have managed to maintain and even grow interest in territory in political science, even when it has seemed old-fashioned and inconsistent with the contemporary world. These efforts have borne fruit in recent decades: phenomena like the surge of peripheral mobilization movements and protests and the ongoing decentralization of state structures in western Europe have increased awareness of the enduring strength and importance of territory in contemporary political systems. Within this framework, a branch of research has developed focusing on the role played by political parties in territorial politics .

One strand of the most recent literature on the topic focuses on peripheral mobilization and the growth of ethno-regionalist parties (as in Urwin 1983; De Winter and Türsan 1998; Tronconi 2009). Other areas of study concern the territorial organization of political parties and the empowerment of regional branches (Hopkin 2003, 2009; Laffin et al. 2007; Van Houten 2009; Thorlakson 2009), the patterns of voting behavior in subnational electoral arenas (Jeffery and Hough 2009),...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. The Party Politics of Decentralization: Theory, Definitions, Research Design, and Methods
• 2. Setting the Scene: The Direction and Pattern of Decentralization in Italy
• 3. Salience: Putting Decentralization on the Agenda: The Role of Political Parties
• 4. Position: Sharp Conflict or Shared Consensus?
• 5. Frames: The Art of Justifying Preferences
• Back Matter