Party Integration and Party Organizational Strength

Southern Political Science Association Party Integration and Party Organizational Strength Author(s): Robert J. Huckshorn, James L. Gibson, Cornelius P. Cotter, John F. Bibby Source: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Nov., 1986), pp. 976-991 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2131008 . Accessed: 25/03/2011 02:54 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Cambridge University Press and Southern Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Politics. http://www.jstor.org Party Integration and Party Organizational Strength Robert J. Huckshorn Florida Atlantic University James L. Gibson University of Houston Cornelius P. Cotter John F. Bibby University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee In this article, we consider the relationship of party organizational strength and state- national party integration. Specifically, we examine the thesis that national party organizations have made an important contribution to the strengthening of state party organizations. We test the hypothesis that state party organizational strength is a function of national party organization building efforts. Finally, we conclude by speculating on the implications of different developmental patterns for the performance of traditional party functions and the maintenance of the existing party system. 'Ihe thesis of party decay in the United States has been commonly accepted by political scientists. Yet it has some telling flaws. One such flaw is the underlying assumption that the various dimensions of party- commonly distinguished as party-in-the-electorate, party-in-government, and party organizations-are changing in the same direction and at the same rate. Hence, perceptions of declining partisanship in the electorate have led to inferences of equivalent change in parties as organizations. Perhaps most unsettling for the thesis is the persistence and growth of 'This article is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SOC 77-27020. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of NSF. For assistance in compiling data series, coding, and research administration we are indebted to Robert W. Biersack, Patricia C. Haeuser, Mary E. LeBlanc, Joan A. Wells, Larry Holt, Michael Logan, Paul Michels, and Maureen Rolfs. The referees for the Journal of Politics also made helpful and diligent comments, for which we are grateful. We appreciate the assistance of Visual Design Services at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in producing figures 1 and 2. PARTY INTEGRATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRENGTH 977 strong party organizations at the national (see Cotter and Bibby, 1980; and Kayden and Mahe, 1985), state (see Gibson et al., 1983) and local (see Gibson et al., 1985) levels. That party organizations would flourish in an era of electoral departisanization seems paradoxical. But there are many reasons for expecting party organizations to move against the tide of popular support. For instance, perceptions of declining public support and apprehension over a party-threatening realignment may stimulate parties to enhance their organizational strength (Cotter et al., 1984, ch. 8). And stronger national parties might logically attempt to achieve closer relations with their state affiliates with the objective of exerting party-strengthening influence. In recent years, scholars have recognized just such a pattern of national- state party relations and have written about the process of party nationalization. For the Democrats, the continuing national convention delegate reforms, the efforts to open the party to greater grass-roots participation, and the substantial structural changes that attended the adoption of the 1974 Charter are commonly cited as evidence of nationalization. The Republican emphasis, in contrast, has been upon programs to strengthen state party organizations, and direct intervention in recruitment, funding, and provision of campaign services to candidates. Thus it is reasonable to hypothesize that the national parties have had some impact on the strength of their state party organizations. The varied nationalizing emphases of the two parties imply much greater levels of integration of national and state parties than is typically assumed. As the national party organizations have become an increasingly active force in state party politics, the description of political parties as "stratarchies" (Eldersveld, 1964, 1982, p. 99) has become less appropriate. To the extent that party organizations have gotten stronger and better integrated, a major countervailing force to party dealignment and a major new actor in realigning processes may have emerged on the American political scene. In this article, we consider the relationships of party organizational strength and state-national party integration. Specifically, we examine the thesis that national party organizations have made an important contribution to the strengthening of state party organizations. We test the hypothesis that state party organizational strength is a function of national party organization building efforts. Finally, we conclude by speculating on the implications of different developmental patterns for the performance of traditional party functions and the maintenance of the existing party system. We begin this investigation by explicating our measures of organizational strength and state-national party integration. 978 THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 48,1986 NATIONAL PARTY-STATE PARTY INTEGRATION Integration involves a two-way pattern of interaction between the national and state party organizations. Integration implies interdepend- ence in the sense that neither level of party is necessarily subordinate to the other. Thus, conceptually, integration must be measured both in terms of state party involvement in national party affairs and national party involvement in state party affairs. While national committee members certainly play a role in communications between the two levels of party (and under the rules of some state parties are ex officio state officers), the state party chair is the principal link between the state and national parties. Therefore, in measuring the level of state party involvement in national committee affairs, we have developed indicators based upon the chairs' reports on the level and nature of their interactions with the national committees.' The degree of involvement in national committee affairs (membership or leadership roles on major committees are the most frequent activity references) and the frequency and range of chairs' dealings with the I The data reported in this article are drawn from a larger study of party transformation (see Cotter et al., 1984). The project involved the collection of information on three levels of party organization for varying time periods. At the national level, data were gathered for the 1979-1980 period for both parties. The research design at the state level was more complex. For a sample of 54 state parties (27 states), data for the late 1970s were gathered by means of interviews with major party leaders. The 27 sample states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Interviews were conducted with the state chairs of 53 of the 54 state parties; the executive directors of all 49 of the state parties employing an executive director (and "surrogates" in four of the five remaining states); two governors and a principal representative of the governor in 20 other states; and one national committee member each for 50 of these parties. A variety of data was also collected during site visits to party headquarters and from other archival sources. Mailed questionnaires were used to collect similar information on the 46 non-sample state parties and on all state parties for the period 1960 to 1978. After extended effort, a list of addresses of over 560 former state chairs was compiled and questionnaires were mailed. A response rate exceeding 61% was achieved through mail and telephone follow-ups. Of the 46 contemporary state chairs surveyed by mail, usable replies have been received from 18, for a rate of 39%. In a portion of the analysis that follows, change in party organizational attributes is considered by referring to the responses of the former state chairs. Instead of treating the responses as indicative of the condition of the party at a specific point in time, we have classified each chair and party in half-decade time periods. On the basis of the last year the respondent served as chair, four time periods were constructed: 1960-1964; 1965-1969; 1970-1974; and 1975-1980. More than one response from a particular state party may be included in any given time period, and the contemporary sample and nonsample state chairs are included in the 1975-1980 period. PARTY INTEGRATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRENGTH 979 national committee on state party matters were ranked on a trichotomous scale (see table ).2 A majority of state parties (60%) ranked "low" on this 2 The indicator was constructed from the state chairs' responses to the following three questions: Q15... As a member of the National Committee, what are the principal activities that you get involved in? Q16. On what types of state party matters do you deal with the National Committee? (Probe for activity, frequency.) Q17. Are there programs or activities within your state that have been implemented because of National Committee recommendations or financial support? The measure of state party involvement in national party affairs was constructed from a subjective evaluation of the totality of the responses to these three questions. Cotter and Bibby coded the variable and reached agreement in every instance on appropriate coding of each state party. By way of a reliability check, a separate variable was separately coded that indicates frequency of attendance at national committee meeting. Of those rated as highly involved in national party affairs, 100% reported attending most national committee meetings. The comparable attendance figures for those scored as having medium and low involvement in national committee affairs are 89% and 68%, respectively. Thus, the gamma between involvement and attendance is -.82, providing some confidence in the reliability of the coding. The scoring of the individual state parties is as follows: Level of Involvement in National Party Affairs Low Medium High CT-D MA-R IN-D VT-R MI-D CT-R MA-D RI-R FL-D NY-R OH-D IL-R RI-D OH-R LA-D FL-R WI-D IN-R VT-D WI-R MS-R MN-D MI-R NY-D IA-R SC-R SC-D MN-R IA-D KS-R ID-R TX-D CA-R VA-D VA-R MS-D LA-R TN-D TX-R WV-D TN-R CO-D WV-R ID-D CO-R UT-D UT-R WY-D WY-R CA-D OR-R OR-D Data are unavailable for IL-D and KS-D. Some additional evidence on the reliability of this measure can be provided by examining the responses of the former state chairs. That is, our research design involved intensive interviews with party leaders in 54 state parties. Beyond these party leaders, we surveyed by mail all individuals who served as chair of a state party between 1960 and 1980. Though there are certain perils involved in trying to use the responses of the former state chairs to validate the responses of the current state chairs, the evidence, with qualifications, is elucidating. 980 THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 48, 1986 measure, while nearly one-fourth were scored as highly involved. Party differencs in levels of involvement are minimal. The obverse to state chair involvement in national committee affairs is the national party's efforts to influence the organization and processes of the state parties. While there are many subtle forms of such influence, the national committees have the greatest opportunity for influence through the provision of services to the state parties. As shown in table 2, the state party leaders reported receiving six types of service from the national committees, and the Democrats cited a seventh-rule enforcement. For 25 of the current state chairs, questionnaire responses were received from an individual who served as state chair within the preceding four years. The current state chair responses were thus paired with the responses of a previous chair serving within four years prior to the current state chair. The former state chair responses can provide some evidence of levels of state-national integration at time t-1. However, we did not explore in depth state-national relations in the former state chair questionnaire, instead asking only a limited number of questions. One question asked the chairs to report the frequency of dealings with the National Committee on various matters. The following table reports the frequency of interaction reported by the former state chair in relation to the degree of state party involvement in national party affairs, as reported by the current state chair. To be clear, we do not expect that the relationship between the reports of the current and former state chairs will be too strong because of the differing format of the question and due to the time lag involved. Nonetheless, the data are instructive. Despite the small number of cases, there is clear evidence of a relationship between the indicators of state involvement in national party affairs at the two points in time. In every instance, the state parties scored as having a high degree of integration at time t interacted the most frequently with the national committee at t-1. The relationships are not always strong but they do provide at least some support for the reliability of the measure of state involvement in national party affairs. State Party Involvement in Percent Interacting National Party Affairs "Regularly" on Low Medium High Federal appointments & patronage 18.8 20.0 50.0 Speakers 25.0 40.0 50.0 Candidate assistance 18.8 40.0 50.0 Fundraising 25.0 20.0 50.0 National convention activities 43.8 40.0 75.0 Implementing National Com- mittee Programs 12.5 20.0 25.0 Finally, a certain amount of measurement error is introduced through reliance on the state party leaders as informants on state party-national party interactions. In that we are trying to characterize each state party on the degree to which it is integrated with the national party, there are few alternatives to this approach. It should also be noted that the analysis which follows is based upon the responses of the state chairs in the 54 sample state parties, not the universe of 100 state parties. PARTY INTEGRATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRENGTH 981 TABLE 1 STATE PARTY INVOLVEMENT IN NATIONAL COMMITTEE AFFAIRS LEVEL OF REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS INVOLVEMENT N % N % High 6 22.2 6 24.0 Medium 6 22.2 3 12.0 Low 15 55.6 16 64.0 Total 27 100.0 25 100.0 The service most frequently received by Republican state party organizations was assistance with campaign seminars, an RNC program that has been offered for over twenty-five years. The Democrats are most likely to relate to the national committee on matters of rule enforcement. Generally, the RNC is much more active than the DNC in supporting its state parties. For instance, the RNC was reported to have provided staff- reflecting a quite high level of integration-to nearly two-thirds of the state party organizations, while only a single Democratic organization reported receiving such support. Moreover, distinctive patterns of support are observed, with the RNC emphasizing service relations and the DNC emphasizing rule enforcement. TABLE 2 NATIONAL COMMITTEES' SERVICES TO STATE PARTY ORGANIZATIONS PERCENT RECEIVING SERVICE SERVICE REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS Staff 63.0 3.8* Polls & Research 44.4 7.7@ Voter Identification 22.2 19.2 Campaign Seminars 88.9 40.7 Rule Enforcement 0.0 53.8* Technical Assistance 22.2 22.2 Cash Transfers 51.9 7.4* 'Difference between parties is statistically significant at p < .05. 982 THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL. 48, 1986 These modes of interaction have been combined in a summary index of national party involvement in state party affairs. Because staff, money, and rule enforcement reflect greater interaction between the national and state parties, these items have been weighted twice as heavily as the other forms of interaction Not surprisingly, Republican state party organizations score substantially higher on the index, with an average of 4.1 services (of the 6) being received, compared to the Democratic average of 2.2. Distinct party differences are observed in the relationship between the indicators of these two aspects of integration-state involvement in national party affairs and national party involvement in state party affairs. For Republican organizations, the relationship is effectively zero (r = .11; N = 27), suggesting that participation in national committee affairs is not a prerequisite to receipt of national party services. For Democratic organizations, a moderate, positive relationship exists (r = .38; N = 26); greater state involvement in national party affairs is associated with greater national party involvement in state party affairs. We will have more to say about these party differences below. These two indicators of integration are the major independent variables in the following analysis. PARTY ORGANIZATIONAL STRENGTH The strength of the state party organizations can be indicated by the concept "party organizational strength." We define strong parties as those which have an enduring headquarters operation and which engage in a I This decision to assign additional weight to these two variables in constructing the measure of national party involvement in state party affairs reflects our judgment that these activities represent a markedly higher level of national party involvement than the other indicators. Providing staff involves a direct and on-the-scene contact between the national party and state party. It also involves a substantial financial commitment by the national party, whether the staff is national party personnel or paid by the national party while serving on state party staff. Cash transfers involve substantial expenditures to the states and require a major commitment by the national party. Cash transfers thus promote interdependenc