Political Demands, Political Opportunities: Explaining the Differential Success of Left-Libertarian Parties

Using qualitative comparative analysis, we examine why left-libertarian parties, associated with environmental and other "new social movements," have been relatively successful in some western democracies but not others. We conceptualize the parties as products of new citizen demands on the one hand, and ofpolitical opportunity structures, which govern party supply, on the other. We show that supply-side factors, such as a strong left and the existence ofproportional representation, tend to work together to facilitate party innovation. A strong left appears more likely to downplay left-libertarian issues and push new-left activists to form separate parties, while proportional representation eases entry into the party system. Demand-side factors play a significant but lesser role. The theoretical and methodological strategies employed here have the potential to help political sociologists explain the variable success of other types ofparty

[1]  R. Inglehart.  The Silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among western publics , 1977 .

[2]  M. Franklin,et al.  On the Durability of Green Politics , 1995 .

[3]  Sven Steinmo,et al.  Structuring politics : historical institutionalism in comparative analysis , 1992 .

[4]  T. Skocpol.  Protecting Soldiers And Mothers , 1992 .

[5]  Ferdinand Müller-rommel.  Social Movements and the Greens: New Internal Politics in Germany* , 1985 .

[6]  D. Jahn.  The rise and decline of new politics and the Greens in Sweden and Germany , 1993 .

[7]  M. Duverger.  Political Parties Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State , 1964 .

[8]  John D. Robertson,et al.  Formation and Success of New Parties , 1985 .

[9]  W. Bürklin.  Governing left parties frustrating the radical non-established Left: the rise and inevitable decline of the Greens , 1987 .

[10]  J. D. McCarthy,et al.  Comparative perspectives on social movements : political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings , 1996 .

[11]  J. Markoff.  Waves of democracy : social movements and political change , 1998 .

[12]  G. Sartori.  From the Sociology of Politics to Political Sociology , 1969, Government and Opposition.

[13]  John D. Sprague,et al.  Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism , 1986 .

[14]  Thomas Poguntke.  Between ideology and empirical research , 1992 .

[15]  R. Rohrschneider.  New Party versus Old Left Realignments: Environmental Attitudes, Party Policies, and Partisan Affiliations in Four West European Countries , 1993, The Journal of Politics.

[16]  S. Tarrow,et al.  Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics , 1994 .

[17]  Herbert P. Kitschelt.  Left-Libertarian Parties: Explaining Innovation in Competitive Party Systems , 1988, World Politics.

[18]  Jae-on Kim,et al.  A Theory of Minor-Party Persistence: Election Rules, Social Cleavage, and the Number of Political Parties , 1992 .

[19]  Terry Boswell,et al.  Strikebreaking or Solidarity in the Great Steel Strike of 1919: A Split Labor Market, Game-Theoretic, and QCA Analysis , 1995, American Journal of Sociology.

[20]  Gary T. Marx,et al.  The Rebellious Century 1830-1930. , 1976 .

[21]  Craig Jenkins,et al.  The Political Opportunity Structure of New Social Movements: Its Impact on Their Mobilization , 1995 .

[22]  H. Johnston,et al.  Identities, grievances, and new social movements. , 1994 .

[23]  N. D. Pidgen,et al.  The Comparative Method , 1987 .

[24]  R. Inglehart.  Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society , 1991 .

[25]  Anthony Oberschall,et al.  Social Movements , 2017 .

[26]  Alexander Hicks,et al.  The programmatic emergence of the social security state , 1995 .

[27]  P. Lowe,et al.  The Withered ‘Greening’ of British Politics: A Study of the Ecology Party , 1986 .