Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-r5d9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-23T09:43:27.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PARTY ACTIVISTS IN SOUTH KOREA ANDMONGOLIA: PROGRAMMATIC LINKAGES AND POLICYMOTIVATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

Sejin Koo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Party activists are important for building party–voterlinks. This study focuses on the motivations ofthese activists and the hypothesis that economicfactors are associated with more programmatic andpolicy-driven platforms. I examine a novelcomparative survey data set of party activistscollected in multiple districts in South Korea andMongolia to determine whether national economicdevelopment, the local economy, or individual incomeshapes activist motivations. The results challengethe economic account and, instead, shed light on theimportance of party characteristics, such as size,ideology, and whether a party has its roots inauthoritarianism.

Keywords

party activistlinkage mechanismmotivationthird-wave democracySouth KoreaMongolia

Information

Type
Article
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , November 2018 , pp. 367 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aldrich, John H. 1983. “A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism.” American Political Science Review 77 (4): 974–990.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel, and Verba, Sidney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Countries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E., Verba, Sidney, and Schlozman, Kay Lehman. 1995. “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation.” American Political Science Review 89 (2): 271–294.Google Scholar
Bruter, Michael, and Harrison, Sarah. 2009. “Tomorrow's Leaders? Understanding the Involvement of Young Party Members in Six European Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 42: 1259–1291.Google Scholar
Center for Citizens’ Alliance. 2005. State of Civil Society in Mongolia (2004–2005). CIVICUS Civil Society Index Report for Mongolia. http://csi.civicus.org/index, accessed September 20, 2014.Google Scholar
Costantini, Edmond, and King, Joel. 1984. “The Motives of Political Activists: A Factor-Analytic Exploration.” Political Behavior 6: 79–93.Google Scholar
Cross, William, and Young, Lisa. 2004. “The Contours of Political Party Membership in Canada.” Party Politics 10 (4): 427–444.Google Scholar
Cross, William, and Young, Lisa. 2008. “Factors Influencing the Decision of the Young Politically Engaged to Join a Political Party.” Party Politics 14: 345–369.Google Scholar
Fish, M. Steven, and Seeberg, Michael. 2017 “The Secret Supports of Mongolian Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 28 (1): 129–143.Google Scholar
Gibbons, Robert D., Bock, Darrell R., Hedeker, Donald, Weiss, David J., Segawa, Eisuke, Bhaumik, Dulal K., Kupfer, David J., Frank, Ellen, Grochocinski, Victoria J., and Stover, Angela. 2007. “Full-information Item Bifactor Analysis of Graded Response Data.” Applied Psychological Measurement 31: 4–19.Google Scholar
Hellmann, Olli. 2014. “Outsourcing Candidate Selection: The Fight against Clientelism in East Asian Parties.” Party Politics 20 (1): 52–62.Google Scholar
Hicken, Allen, and Kuhonta, Erik M.. 2011. “Shadows from the Past: Party System Institutionalization in Asia.” Comparative Political Studies 44 (5): 572–597.Google Scholar
Kaase, Max. 1990. “Mass Participation.” In Continuities in Political Action. A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies, edited by Kent Jennings, M. and van Deth, Jan W., 23–67. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kim, Byung-Kook. 2000. “Party Politics in South Korea's Democracy: The Crisis of Success.” In Consolidating Democracy in South Korea, edited by Diamond, Larry and Kim, Byung-Kook, 53–86. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 2000. “Linkages between Citizens and Politicians in Democratic Polities.” Comparative Political Studies 33: 845–879.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, and Freeze, Kent. 2010. “Programmatic Party System Structuration: Developing and Comparing Cross-National and Cross-Party Measures with a New Global Data Set.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, and Kselman, Daniel M.. 2013. “Economic Development, Democratic Experience, and Political Parties’ Linkage Strategies.” Comparative Political Studies 46: 1453–1484.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, and Wilkinson, Steven I.. 2007. “Citizen-Politician Linkages: An Introduction.” In Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition, edited by Kitschelt, Herbert and Wilkinson, Steven I., 1–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koo, Sejin. 2018. “Can Intraparty Democracy Save Party Activism? Evidence from Korea.” Party Politics. doi:10.1177/1354068818754601.Google Scholar
Laakso, Markku, and Taagepera, Rein. 1979. “Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12: 3–27.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1975. “The Comparable-Cases Strategy in Comparative Research.” Comparative Political Studies 8: 158–177.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1991. “Constitutional Choices for New Democracies.” Journal of Democracy 2 (1): 72–84.Google Scholar
Marsh, Alan, and Kaase, Max. 1979. “Background of Political Action.” In Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies, edited by Barnes, Samuel H. and Kaase, Max, 97–136. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
May, John D. 1973. “Opinion Structure of Political Parties: The Special Law of Curvilinear Disparity.” Political Studies 21 (2): 135–151.Google Scholar
Michels, Robert. 1962 [1911]. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracies. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Moon, Woojin. 2004. “Party Activists, Campaign Resources and Candidate Position Taking: Theory, Tests and Applications.” British Journal of Political Science 34: 611–633.Google Scholar
Panebianco, Angelo. 1988. Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pederson, Karina, Bille, Lars, Buch, Roger, Elklit, Jørgen, Hansen, Bernhard, and Nielsen, Hans Jørgen. 2004. “Sleeping or Active Partners? Danish Party Members at the Turn of the Millennium.” Party Politics 10: 367–383.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Teune, Henry. 1970. The Logic of Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Ramiro, Luis, and Morales, Laura. 2014. “Examining the ‘Demand’ Side of the Market for Political Activism: Party and Civil Society Grassroots Activists in Spain.” Party Politics 20 (4): 506–520Google Scholar
Samejima, Fumiko. 1997. “The Graded Response Model.” In Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory, edited by van der Linden, Wim J. and Hambleton, Ronald K., 85–100. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Scarrow, Susan E. 1996. Parties and Their Members. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scarrow, Susan E., and Gezgor, Burcu. 2010. “Declining Memberships, Changing Members? European Political Party Members in a New Era.” Party Politics 16 (6): 823–843.Google Scholar
Scheiner, Ethan. 2007. “Clientelism in Japan: The Importance and Limits of Institutional Explanations.” In Patrons, Clients and Policies, edited by Kitschelt, Herbert and Wilkinson, Steven I., 276–297. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seyd, Patrick, and Whiteley, Paul. 1992. Labour's Grassroots: The Politics of Party Membership. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan C., Dunning, Thad, Nazareno, Marcelo, and Brusco, Valeria. 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szwarcberg, Mariela. 2015. Mobilizing Poor Voters: Machine Politics, Clientelism, and Social Networks in Argentina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Haute, Emilie, and Kenneth Carty, R.. 2012. “Ideological Misfits: A Distinctive Class of Party Members.” Party Politics 18 (6): 885–895.Google Scholar
Wang, Yi-Ting. 2012. “A Case Study of Parties’ Programmatic and Clientelistic Electoral Appeals in South Korea.” In Research and Dialogue on Programmatic Parties and Party Systems: Case Study Reports, edited by Kitschelt, Herbert and Wang, Yi-Ting, 158–191. IDEA Project –PO 134–01/2401. https://sites.duke.edu/democracylinkage/files/2014/12/3.2.case_.pdf, accessed March 1, 2016.Google Scholar
Wantchekon, Leonard. 2003. “Clientelism and Voting Behavior: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Benin.” World Politics 55 (3): 399–422.Google Scholar
Watts, Roderick J., Williams, Nat Chioke, and Jagers, Robert J.. 2003. “Sociopolitical Development.” American Journal of Community Psychology 31: 185–194.Google Scholar
Whiteley, Paul F., and Seyd, Patrick. 2002. High-intensity Participation: The Dynamics of Party Activism in Britain. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Whiteley, Paul F., Seyd, Patrick, Richardson, Jeremy, and Bissell, Paul. 1994. “Explaining Party Activism: The Case of the British Conservative Party.” British Journal of Political Science 24: 79–94.Google Scholar
Wong, Joseph. 2014. “South Korea's Weakly Institutionalized Party System.” In Party System Institutionalization in Asia: Democracies, Autocracies, and the Shadows of the Past, edited by Hicken, Allen and Kuhonta, Erik M., 260–279. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Koo supplementary material

Appendix

Download Koo supplementary material(File)
File 20.2 KB