Catalogue

COVID-19: Updates on library services and operations.

Challenging the state [electronic resource] : devolution and the battle for partisan credibility : a comparison of Belgium, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom /
Sonia Alonso.
edition
1st ed.
imprint
Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2012.
description
xiv, 262 p. : ill. ; 25 cm.
ISBN
0199691576 (hardback), 9780199691579 (hardback)
format(s)
Book
More Details
series title
imprint
Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2012.
isbn
0199691576 (hardback)
9780199691579 (hardback)
restrictions
Licensed for access by U. of T. users.
contents note
The centre-periphery conflict and two paradoxes -- Centre-periphery party competition -- Political devolution and credibility constraints -- Parties and voters in two dimensions: a first examination of the landscape -- The emergence of a peripheral party threat -- Devolution: making electoral moves credible -- State parties' electoral strategies after devolution -- Peripheral parties' electoral strategies after devolution -- Conclusions.
general note
"ECPR."
catalogue key
8593241
 
Includes bibliographical references and index.
A Look Inside
Full Text Reviews
Appeared in Choice on 2013-09-01:
European countries such as Belgium, Italy, Spain, and the UK have significantly devolved political power from the central state to subcentral authorities. Their party systems also include culturally inspired peripheral parties such as the Basque Nationalist Party, Catalonia's Convergence and Union, the Scottish National Party, Wales's Plaid Cymru, various Flemish and Wallonian parties, and the South Tyrolean People's Party. Two contradictory assumptions are generally made about these two related phenomena. First, peripheral parties' success causes them to lose policy relevance as their agenda is implemented. Second, devolution, often inspired by the peripheral parties' electoral successes, creates incentives for them to push separatism even harder. Alonso (Social Science Research Centre, Berlin) convincingly resolves this contradiction about center-periphery conflict and its related party competition. She assumes that peripheral parties are not just champions of peripheral cultures but vote maximizers, in a manner similar to that of most statewide parties. Alonso argues that strategic behavior in electoral competition among state and peripheral parties leads some state parties to advance devolution as an electoral strategy into order to undercut peripheral parties' agendas and to protect their own electoral advantages. In turn, peripheral parties respond to this occupation of electoral space by diversifying their issue orientation and radicalizing their agenda. Summing Up: Recommended. Upper-division undergraduates and above. T. D. Lancaster Emory University
Reviews
This item was reviewed in:
Choice, September 2013
To find out how to look for other reviews, please see our guides to finding book reviews in the Sciences or Social Sciences and Humanities.
Summaries
Long Description
How do state parties react to the challenge of peripheral parties demanding political power to be devolved to their culturally distinct territories? Is devolution the best response to these demands? Why do national governments implement devolution given the high risk that devolution will encourage peripheral parties to demand ever more devolved powers? The aim of this book is to answer these questions through a comparative analysis of devolution in four European countries: Belgium,Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The author argues that electoral competition between state and peripheral parties pushes some state parties to prefer devolution at some particular point in time. Devolution is an electoral strategy adopted in order to make it more difficult in the long term forperipheral parties to increase their electoral support by claiming the monopoly of representation of the peripheral territory and the people in it. The strategy of devolution is preferred over short-term tactics of convergence towards the peripheral programmatic agenda because the pro-periphery tactics of state parties in unitary centralised states are not credible in the eyes of voters. The price that state parties pay for making their electoral tactics credible is the 'entrenchment' of thedevolution programmatic agenda in the electoral arena. The final implication of this argument is that in democratic systems devolution is not a decision to protect the state from the secessionist threat. It is, instead, a decision by state parties to protect their needed electoral majorities.Comparative Politics is a series for students, teachers, and researchers of political science that deals with contemporary government and politics. Global in scope, books in the series are characterised by a stress on comparative analysis and strong methodological rigour. The series is published in association with the European Consortium for Political Research. For more information visit: www.ecprnet.eu. The Comparative Politics series is edited by Professor David M.Farrell, School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin, Kenneth Carty, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia, and Professor Dirk Berg-Schlosser, Institute of Political Science, Philipps University, Marburg.
Main Description
How do state parties react to the challenge of peripheral parties demanding political power to be devolved to their culturally distinct territories? Is devolution the best response to these demands? Why do national governments implement devolution given the high risk that devolution will encourage peripheral parties to demand ever more devolved powers? The aim of this book is to answer these questions through a comparative analysis of devolution in four European countries: Belgium, Italy,Spain, and the United Kingdom. The author argues that electoral competition between state and peripheral parties pushes some state parties to prefer devolution at some particular point in time. Devolution is an electoral strategy adopted in order to make it more difficult in the long term for peripheral parties to increase their electoral support by claiming the monopoly of representation of the peripheral territory and the people in it. The strategy of devolution is preferred over short-term tactics of convergence towards the peripheral programmatic agenda because the pro-periphery tactics of state parties in unitary centralised states are not credible in the eyes of voters. The price that state parties pay for making their electoral tactics credible is the 'entrenchment' of the devolution programmatic agenda in the electoral arena. The final implication of this argument is that in democratic systems devolution is not a decision to protect the state from the secessionist threat. It is, instead, a decision by state parties to protect their needed electoral majorities. Comparative Politics is a series for students, teachers, and researchers of political science that deals with contemporary government and politics. Global in scope, books in the series are characterised by a stress on comparative analysis and strong methodological rigour. The series is published in association with the European Consortium for Political Research. For more information visit: www.ecprnet.eu. The Comparative Politics series is edited by Professor David M. Farrell, School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin, Kenneth Carty, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia, and Professor Dirk Berg-Schlosser, Institute of Political Science, Philipps University, Marburg.
Main Description
How do state parties react to the challenge of peripheral parties demanding political power to be devolved to their culturally distinct territories? Is devolution the best response to these demands? Why do national governments implement devolution given the high risk that devolution willencourage peripheral parties to demand ever more devolved powers? The aim of this book is to answer these questions through a comparative analysis of devolution in four European countries: Belgium, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The author argues that electoral competition between state and peripheral parties pushes some state parties to prefer devolution at some particular point in time. Devolution is an electoral strategy adopted in order to make it more difficult in the long term for peripheral parties to increase theirelectoral support by claiming the monopoly of representation of the peripheral territory and the people in it. The strategy of devolution is preferred over short-term tactics of convergence towards the peripheral programmatic agenda because the pro-periphery tactics of state parties in unitarycentralised states are not credible in the eyes of voters. The price that state parties pay for making their electoral tactics credible is the 'entrenchment' of the devolution programmatic agenda in the electoral arena. The final implication of this argument is that in democratic systems devolutionis not a decision to protect the state from the secessionist threat. It is, instead, a decision by state parties to protect their needed electoral majorities.Comparative Politics is a series for students, teachers, and researchers of political science that deals with contemporary government and politics. Global in scope, books in the series are characterised by a stress on comparative analysis and strong methodological rigour. The series is published inassociation with the European Consortium for Political Research. For more information visit: www.ecprnet.eu. The Comparative Politics series is edited by Professor David M. Farrell, School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin, Kenneth Carty, Professor of PoliticalScience, University of British Columbia, and Professor Dirk Berg-Schlosser, Institute of Political Science, Philipps University, Marburg.
Table of Contents
The Centre-Periphery Conflict and Two Paradoxes
Centre-periphery Party Competition
Political Devolution and Credibility Constraints
Parties and Voters in Two Dimensions: A First Examination of the Landscape
The Emergence of the Peripheral Party Threat
Devolution: Making Electoral Moves Credible
State Parties' Electoral Strategies after Devolution
Peripheral Parties' Electoral Strategies after Devolution
Conclusions
Table of Contents provided by Publisher. All Rights Reserved.

This information is provided by a service that aggregates data from review sources and other sources that are often consulted by libraries, and readers. The University does not edit this information and merely includes it as a convenience for users. It does not warrant that reviews are accurate. As with any review users should approach reviews critically and where deemed necessary should consult multiple review sources. Any concerns or questions about particular reviews should be directed to the reviewer and/or publisher.

  link to old catalogue

Report a problem