POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(1), 5260

Research and Analysis

Conceptualising the Multi-Level Party:
Two Complementary Approaches
ponl_1367

52..60

David S. Moon
University of Sheffield

ivind Bratberg
University of Oslo

While party research has seen a number of conceptual developments in recent years, it has not kept
pace with parties becoming more territorial as a result of the increasing importance of sub-national
and supranational governance. This article lays down a framework for conceptualising and analysing multi-level parties (MLPs). We propose a synthesis of the formal and non-formal aspects of
power; the former highlighting party rules and procedures, the latter focusing upon the ideational
structures norms and competing ideologies/discourses within which party members operate.
For empirical research on the MLP we propose to focus on autonomy and influence to measure the
extent of (formal and non-formal) multi-levelness and to grasp better the strategies of regional
branches vis--vis the centre.

Introduction
This article sets out the contours of a revised approach to the analysis of political
parties. Our purpose is to heighten awareness of the territorial dimension by
establishing a viable framework for analysing multi-level parties (MLPs). The interplay between different territorial levels is an increasingly prevalent feature of party
politics. This is particularly evident in European Union (EU) member states going
through parallel processes of regionalisation and European integration, such as
Spain, Belgium and the UK, as well as established federations such as Germany and
Austria. While an embryonic literature on MLPs has started to gestate, it has largely
been constrained to what might be labelled the formal dimension of intra-party
power relations premised upon an analysis of rules, constitutions and positions
(Hrbek, 2004; Poguntke et al., 2007; Swenden and Maddens, 2009b).
Our aim is both to build upon and to move beyond existing approaches: first, by
suggesting a clearer focus on certain formal features of power allocation in parties;
and secondly, by including what might be labelled the non-formal dimension of
intra-party power relations. The MLP could thus be defined as a party of multiple
territorial levels, representing competing sources of formal power as well as discursively structured antagonisms between the partys centre and its constituent parts.
Acknowledging this latter aspect implies an analytical refocusing towards the effects
2010 The Authors. Journal compilation 2010 Political Studies Association

CONCEPTUALISING THE MULTI-LEVEL PARTY

53

of discourses and ideological antagonisms within parties, adding the non-formal

tissue to the formal skeleton focused upon in current analyses of MLPs.
In so doing we make a bold case for cross-fertilisation between two perspectives
rarely combined in the current party literature: the focus in the mainstream literature upon the formal aspect of intra-organisational power and the discursive institutionalist focus upon the non-formal aspect of the same. It is our firm belief that,
rather than continuing to operate in separate analytical channels, these approaches
to intra-organisational analysis can and should be fruitfully combined so as to
address better the full scope of the relationships within the MLP. Alongside this, we
make the case for the adoption of autonomy and influence as analytical signposts for
inferences about the intra-party relationships between territorial levels (Thorlakson, 2009). Significantly, these two concepts also serve to illustrate that formal and
non-formal analyses of the MLP are commensurable.
This brief article will set out its argument in three parts. The first section assesses the
state of empirical research on parties in multi-level systems. Secondly, we elaborate
the concept of the MLP through a suggested set of formal and non-formal properties
and the analytical signposts of influence and autonomy. Finally, we briefly visit
issues of operationalisation recommending the drawing of tools and insights from,
among other approaches, discourse theoretical analysis (DTA) and rhetorical political analysis (RPA) and the epistemological challenges inherent in the combined
empirical approach that we propose. Throughout the article, developments in the
British Labour party post-devolution are used to demonstrate the empirical validity
of the MLP. Labour, as both the main instigator of and effectee of British devolution (Hopkin, 2009, p. 183) represents a paradigmatic case of parties in emerging
multi-level systems.

The territorialisation of political parties in Europe

The academic literature on political parties has, over the last two decades, focused
upon a broad set of challenges, such as falling membership, declining voter loyalty
and elite detachment from party democracy (Hay, 2007; Mair and van Biezen,
2001; Poguntke and Webb, 2005). What has only recently been acknowledged in
this literature is the extent to which party politics has become territorial as a result
of the parallel processes of European integration and sub-national regionalisation
(Hepburn, 2008). The limited attention devoted to territorial change marked a
contrast to the expanding literature on multi-level governance (MLG) emerging
from the late 1990s (Bache and Flinders, 2004; Hooghe and Marks, 2001). The MLG
literature has dealt in depth with reforms of government in countries characterised
by the decentralisation and Europeanisation of government. Primarily focused on
executive politics, this literature has largely been a party-free zone (Deschouwer,
2003, p. 213). Thus, whereas MLG debates have focused on allocation of power
between and within territorial levels, research on parties has focused more on
relations between leaders, activists and voters (Dalton and Wattenberg, 2000; Katz
and Mair, 1993 and 1994). While these relationships are important to understand
power allocation in contemporary parties, they are incapable of capturing the
territorial dimension. What needs to be acknowledged is that parties are not
2010 The Authors. Journal compilation 2010 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(1)

54

DAVID S. MOON AND IVIND BRATBERG

sheltered from the context of multi-level politics, which opens new arenas for
representation as well as contestation.
Admittedly, the literature has taken major steps to address these developments.
Effects on parties of constitutional regionalisation across Europe have been investigated conceptually and empirically (Deschouwer, 2006; Fabre, 2008; Swenden
and Maddens, 2009b); a separate research avenue has looked upon the consequences for parties of closer European integration (Ladrech, 2007; Raunio, 2002;
Poguntke et al., 2007) and a few attempts have been made at tying together
regionalisation and European integration to capture the full breadth of the MLP
(Giordano and Roller, 2002; Hepburn, 2006). These contributions share a concern
for both conceptualisation and causal propositions. Yet the MLP is too often referred
to without specification of key variables or characteristics. The next section of the
article establishes a set of properties that we believe should be considered essential
in the analysis of the MLP, discussing first the formal and then the non-formal
dimension of the concept.

Towards a conceptualisation of the MLP

With regard to the formal characteristics, the MLP could be defined as a party
organisation with multiple lines of accountability and a division of authority
between relatively autonomous party sections below and above the national level
(Bratberg, 2009). Analysing the MLP implies an awareness of changes in internal
allocation of power. Typically, such changes occur as a result of new opportunity
structures, e.g. with the establishment of regional legislatures and the strengthening
of the European Parliament (EP). Regionalisation suggests a weakening of national
hierarchies to the benefit of more flexible structures where regional elites can tailor
their organisation and messages to specific electorates (Carty, 2004); such diversification is particularly called for where the party is faced with competition from
ethno-regionalist parties (Hough and Jeffery, 2006). The resulting scope for policy
divergence may create problems for the nationwide partys claim to consistency and
governability at the national level (Laffin and Shaw, 2007), moreover encouraging
vested interests and separate career paths which may set national and regional
party branches apart (Stolz, 2003).
European integration adds yet another dimension to the MLP with Members of the
European Parliament (MEPs) operating as a separate arm of the party. Especially
when (re)selection is outside the control of the party leadership, MEPs may
strengthen their loyalties towards the regional branch as well as to their party
family in the EP. In the British case, MEPs representing Scotland and Wales are
particularly interesting: Britain is one of only five Member States using regional
constituencies for EP elections, which may enhance the multi-levelness of the
parties by adding legitimacy to Scottish and Welsh interests on the European scene
(Bratberg, 2009). These party branches may see their position in the party strengthened overall as a consequence of their link to the EP.
The balancing between centripetal and centrifugal forces can equally be analysed
with regard to the non-formal aspect of the MLP. The existing literature on parties
tends to focus only upon the formal aspect of party power, such as candidate
2010 The Authors. Journal compilation 2010 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(1)

CONCEPTUALISING THE MULTI-LEVEL PARTY

55

and leadership selection, manifestos and finances. It thus ignores the different
ideational structures, norms and competing ideologies/discourses, always in flux,
within which party members operate.1 This analytical omission is important
since the formal aspect of the party the constitution, rules and positions, etc.
will be mediated by party actors via this non-formal one. It is the meanings that
actors attach to institutions, objects and actions that are primary since actors have,
as Colin Hay (2002, p. 209, emphasis in original) describes, to interpret the world
in which they find themselves in order to orient themselves strategically towards
it.
Thus, the formal aspect of parties is conceptualised here in a manner different to
that commonly understood within the literature: parties formal structures ultimately exist, i.e. have meaning for actors only as discursive constructs; however,
being viewed by common sense as interminably useful and enduring they can be
understood, for analytical purposes, as nominally real (Hacking, 1983, pp. 6364).
The formal can accordingly be treated in Hays terms as as-if-real (Hay, 2005).
Formal structures do not define action; rather, as an effective element, they are a
constraining influence upon the norms, ideas and interpretations that play out
within and shape them. The non-formal aspect thus has causal implications for
policy outcomes which analyses of the formal aspect alone miss out.
As noted above, the multiple formal levels of the MLP offer numerous possibilities
for intra-party tensions and conflict which will affect how party actors comprehend
the partys formal aspect. Understanding political parties and their internal dynamics thus necessitates recognition of the differential and conflictual aspect of identity
creation: the role that different ideas and importantly disagreements and conflicts
over ideas play in intra-party relations.
Of particular importance, MLPs contain multiple, non-formal, intra-party tendencies (for want of a better label), antagonistically related to one another. These
tendencies are based upon more or less coherent ideological position[s], relating to
a stable set of attitudes, not a stable set of politicians (Webb, 2000, p. 173) and in
comparison to formal structures are highly mutable, their stability liquid. It is
through such systems of political thinking these ultimately ideological formations
that party members and groups construct an understanding of politics and the
politics of the party, and then act upon that understanding, seeking through an
intra-party war of position to make their particular ideology hegemonic within the
party (cf. Laclau and Mouffe, 2000).
These conflicts and their results define, delimit and shape the process by which the
formal structures are applied. It is therefore essential that analyses of MLPs move
beyond considering parties formal relations to consider also their non-formal
(specifically, conflictual) ones. For this reason, it is useful, when modelling the MLP,
to conceptualise the party in terms of a bi-aspect polity constituted by iteratively
linked formal and non-formal aspects, where neither aspect can exist without the
other. Affecting one will affect the other and vice versa. To return to the metaphor
utilised earlier, if the MLP is a body, the formal aspect comprises the skeleton and
the non-formal the encompassing tissue.2
2010 The Authors. Journal compilation 2010 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(1)

56

DAVID S. MOON AND IVIND BRATBERG

Autonomy and influence: two analytical signposts

How then should we measure and compare the extent of multi-levelness in the
MLP? Klaus Detterbeck and Eve Hepburn (2009) establish a continuum from
centrist parties, via federalist and modernist to autonomist parties, whereas Wilfried
Swenden and Bart Maddens (2009a, pp. 1112) draw an axis from split parties, via
confederal, federal and regionalised to unitary parties. Such typologies are a step
forward from a crude centralismdecentralism distinction. However, the difficult
task remains of interpreting the different strategies for empowerment entertained
by regional branches. Lori Thorlaksons (2009) emphasis of regional influence on
nationwide decision-making and autonomy from central intervention is helpful to
this purpose.3 However, in failing to acknowledge the non-formal aspect, Thorlakson, like Swenden and Maddens (2009a), is unable to capture how autonomy and
influence are shaped by the understandings of and subsequent applications by the
party actors involved.4
From a formal perspective, autonomy should assess the extent to which regional
party branches are organisationally and financially distinct from the nationwide
party (separate executive, financial control, etc.). Autonomy is distinctive from
latent organisational or financial independence, focusing more upon an ability to
deviate from the centre, for example in choice of candidates and policy content in
manifestos. Moreover, indicators such as the selection of regional leaders and
parliamentary candidates, the formulation of regional election manifestos as well as
the control over ongoing policy processes can help determine the autonomy
enjoyed by the regional party branches. Influence would point to the impact by the
regional level on the political processes of the centre: ex officio representation in the
nationwide party executive would be one manifestation; other indicators could be
the significance of regional leaders in nationwide policy formulation or the control
over financial contributions from regional branches to the centre.5
Relations in the British Labour party may shed light on these formal indicators of
multi-levelness. Consider, for example, the separate policymaking processes for
manifesto formulation in Scotland and Wales as well as their separate verification
of parliamentary candidates. These are clear reflections of the autonomy obtained
by these party branches, in contrast with the financial autonomy where both
branches score much lower due to their dependency on London. With regard to
influence, there is the issue of the ex officio representation of the leader of Labours
MEPs in the partys National Executive Committee (NEC), a position that is not
matched by similar privileges for the Scottish or Welsh party branches. Meanwhile,
other forms of influence on the centre from the regional or European level are
minor: a good example is the formulation of general election manifestos, where
both regional branches and MEPs play marginal roles (Carter and Ladrech, 2007).
But questions of influence and autonomy need not relate, as in Thorlakson (2009)
and Swenden and Maddens (2009a), solely to formal indicators but can also relate
to non-formal, discursive, qua ideological, factors. For example, while regional
party branches may have formal influence (in rules and posts), there is always the
possibility that, non-formally (in respect and tradition), they may not; and the same
goes for autonomy. Hence, when evaluating the autonomy of the regional level of
an MLP, one non-formal important signpost is the ability of the regional branch to
2010 The Authors. Journal compilation 2010 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(1)

CONCEPTUALISING THE MULTI-LEVEL PARTY

57

articulate a political discourse of its choosing free from interference from the central
level of the party. Similarly, with influence, the extent to which the regional branch
may impact on decisions made at the national level need not be confined, in terms
of interest, to formal powers. Instead, analysts should also bear in mind the
influence that the discourses propagated, amid conflicts, within the sub-national
level of the party have upon thinking within the national level of the MLP.
Thus, to return to the Labour party example, while Welsh Labour has had the
autonomy within which to articulate a notably different discourse from the party in
Westminster e.g. linking policies together in a rhetoric of clear red water (Davies
and Williams, 2009) there is little evidence, thus far, that this has influenced the
ideology of the Labour party outside Wales. Taken together, this may be seen as
leading to greater differentiation within the MLP between its compositional levels
(and possibly, ultimately, a weakening of normative bonds/identifications (Moon,
2009)), as well as to different governing practices.
In sum, just as the parties and MLG literatures provide tools for mapping formal
power structures within an MLP, so too the emergent discursive institutionalist
approach (Srensen and Torfing, 2008, pp. 3841) provides a means of analysing
the hegemonic power struggles and attempts at dislocating and (re)constructing
dominant discourses within and between the multiple formal levels of the MLP.
Such analyses would focus upon the operationalisation of ideas occurring through
the mechanism of communication (Finlayson, 2005, p. 22) with party actors
rhetoric providing the empirical data.
Several different but complementary theoretical approaches, including, as noted,
DTA (Glynos and Howarth, 2007) and RPA (Finlayson, 2007 and 2008), provide
viable analytical tools for such rhetorical analyses. The aim with such analyses is to
draw inferences regarding intra-party power relations from tendential signposts
evincible in the manner in which articulations are constructed (cf. Laclau, 2007,
p. 78): for example their key elements (the centrality of concepts such as nation,
freedom or solidarity) and the exclusionary boundaries they draw (e.g. between
countries, personalities or ideologies). Analytical purchase is gained here by focusing on the relations established through such practices as metaphorical rhetoric
(Welsh Labours red water, for instance, divides its position from those across the
water on the basis of socialism (red) and/or nation (the draig coch)), attempts at
framing (the point of controversy sought to be fixed) and their structuring in turn
via appeals such as to logic, ethos or pathos (Finlayson, 2007).
From the analysis of such non-formal aspects implications may be posited regarding
the meanings attached to formal structures and their consequential effects. For
analysts querying why and how MLPs with similar formal structures might display
different patterns of internal autonomy and influence, such analyses would offer
constructive insights.

Conclusion: the epistemological predicament

The approach proffered here unsurprisingly raises important epistemological issues.
For some, combining elements of the existing party and discursive literatures will
raise complaints of incommensurability. It is the argument of this article that they
2010 The Authors. Journal compilation 2010 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(1)

58

DAVID S. MOON AND IVIND BRATBERG

are in fact complementary. Opportunity structures, a focus of the former literature,

must be coupled with identities and ideational choices, a focus of the latter. The role
of ideas in generating institutional change is a renowned feature of political analysis
(Blyth, 1997). Likewise, conceptualising ideas as vehicles of transformation
ideological or organisational is not a new interest in the party literature (Hay,
2003; Panebianco, 1988). Nor is a bi-aspect view of institutions as polities totally
alien; Joel Migdal (2001, pp. 1516), for example, distinguishes between the states
institutional mechanisms the actual practices and its coherent image. From
this perspective, therefore, conceiving of parties in their formal and non-formal
iteratively linked aspects makes possible a new, more holistic form of analysis.
The MLP here put forward as a concept to be adopted forthwith, but also as a
causal proposition subscribes to an emerging territorial turn in the party literature
but aims to go beyond the stereotypical emphasis on formal properties. Parties of
multiple territorial levels offer opportunity structures for actors with ideas on how
these structures should be exploited, thus enabling different forms of political
choice. The formal/non-formal approach based around questions of autonomy and
influence allows a clearer picture of how these choices are made, and of the
discursively structured interaction that results.

Author Contact Details

David S. Moon, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, Elmfield, Northumberland Road,
Sheffield S10 2TU, UK. E-mail: d.s.moon@sheffield.ac.uk
ivind Bratberg, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, PO Box 1097 Blindern, N-0317
Oslo, Norway. E-mail: oivind.bratberg@stv.uio.no

Notes
The authors would like to thank Colin Hay for his very helpful comments and suggestions, as well as two
anonymous referees.
1 Van Houtens (2009) principaldelegate approach also offers a means of analysing parties power
structures that extends beyond sole consideration of the formal aspect. However, his focus on goal
maximising and terms of exchange between the central and regional party branches implies a different
ontology from the discursive institutionalist perspective entertained here.
2 These labels are useful also in that in their wider meanings they might have an illustrative resonance:
as structures, tissue, in its other linguistic uses, brings with it notions of being covering, web-like and
interwoven (a tissue of lies) and lacking materiality (tissue thin), while linguistically, skeleton
brings with it notions of being altogether more manifest, concrete (corpo-real, so to speak), possibly
rigid and as an outline (the skeleton of the plot) requiring meat (tissue).
3 Thorlakson (2009) investigates the relationship between territorial structure and vertical integration,
influence and autonomy within 27 parties in different multi-level states.
4 Although she does mention that parties values might play an effective role vis--vis issues of
autonomy and influence (Thorlakson, 2009, p. 165), the thrust of her argument is that the latter
should mainly be approached in relation to formal power structures (ibid., pp. 162163).
5 It may be instructive here to reflect upon confederal polities such as the EU, where the influence of
constituent Member States (and Member States parties) is dominant to the extent that EU policy is
governed by the Member States.

References
Bache, I. and M. Flinders (eds.) (2004), Multi-Level Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blyth, M. (1997), Review: Any More Bright Ideas? The Ideational Turn in Comparative Political
Economy, Comparative Politics 29(2), pp. 229250.
2010 The Authors. Journal compilation 2010 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(1)

CONCEPTUALISING THE MULTI-LEVEL PARTY

59

Bratberg, . (2009), The Multi-Level Party in Process: Scottish and Welsh MEPs and Their Home Parties,
Paper presented at the Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, 26 February.
Carter, E. and R. Ladrech (2007), Government Change, Organizational Continuity: The Limited Europeanization of British Political Parties in T. Poguntke, N. Aylott, E. Carter, R. Ladrech and K. Luther
(eds.), The Europeanization of National Political Parties: Power and Organizational Adaptation, London:
Routledge, pp. 5785.
Carty, R.K. (2004), Parties as Franchise Systems: The Stratarchical Organizational Imperative, Party
Politics 10(1), pp. 524.
Dalton, R.J. and M. Wattenberg (eds.) (2000), Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial
Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davies, N. and D. Williams (2009), Clear Red Water: Welsh Devolution and Socialist Politics, London: Francis
Boutle Publishers.
Deschouwer, K. (2003), Political Parties in Multi-layered Systems, European Urban and Regional Studies
10(3), pp. 213226.
Deschouwer, K. (2006), Political Parties as Multi-Level Organizations in R. Katz and W. Crotty (eds.),
Handbook of Party Politics, London: Sage, pp. 291300.
Detterbeck, K. and E. Hepburn (2009), Party Politics in Multi-Level Systems: Party Responses to New
Challenges in European Democracies in W. Swenden and J. Erk (eds.), New Directions in Federalism
Research, London: Routledge.
Fabre, E. (2008), Party Organization in a Multi-Level System: Party Organizational Change in Spain and
the UK, Regional and Federal Studies 18(4), pp. 309329.
Finlayson, A. (2005), Making Sense of New Labour, London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Finlayson, A. (2007), From Belief to Arguments: Interpretive Methodology and Rhetorical Political
Analysis, British Journal of Politics & International Relations 9(4), pp. 545563.
Finlayson, A. (2008), It Aint What You Say...: British Politics and the Analysis of Speech and Rhetoric,
British Politics 3(4), pp. 445464.
Giordano, B. and E. Roller (2002), Catalonia and the Idea of Europe: Competing Strategies and
Discourses within Catalan Party Politics, European Urban and Regional Studies 9(2), pp. 99113.
Glynos, J. and D. Howarth (2007), Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory, London:
Routledge.
Hacking, I. (1983), Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hay, C. (2002), Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hay, C. (2003), How to Study the Labour Party: Contextual, Analytical and Theoretical Issues in J.
Callaghan, S. Fielding and S. Ludlam (eds.), Interpreting the Labour Party: Approaches to Labour Politics and
History, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 182196.
Hay, C. (2005), Making Hay ... or Clutching at Ontological Straws? Notes on Realism, As-If-Realism and
Actualism, Politics 25(1), pp. 951957.
Hay, C. (2007), Why We Hate Politics, London: Politicos.
Hepburn, E. (2006), Scottish Autonomy and European Integration: The Response of Scotlands Political
Parties in J. McGarry and M. Keating (eds.), European Integration and the Nationalities Question, London:
Routledge, pp. 225238.
Hepburn, E. (2008), The Rise and Fall of a Europe of the Regions, Regional and Federal Studies 18(5),
pp. 537555.
Hooghe, L. and G. Marks (2001), Multi-Level Governance and European Integration, London: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Hopkin, J. (2009), Party Matters: Devolution and Party Politics in Britain and Spain, Party Politics
15(2), pp. 179198.
Hough, D. and C. Jeffery (2006), An Introduction to Multi-Level Electoral Competition in D. Hough
and C. Jeffery (eds.), Devolution and Electoral Politics, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp.
213.
Hrbek, R. (ed.) (2004), Political Parties and Federalism: An International Comparison, Baden-Baden:
Nomos.
Katz, R.S. and P. Mair (1993), The Evolution of Party Organizations in Europe: Three Faces of Party
Organization, The American Review of Politics 14, pp. 593617.
2010 The Authors. Journal compilation 2010 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(1)

60

DAVID S. MOON AND IVIND BRATBERG

Katz, R.S. and P. Mair (eds.) (1994), How Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in
Western Democracies, London: Sage.
Laclau, E. (2007), On Populist Reason, London: Verso.
Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe (2000), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics,
London: Verso.
Ladrech, R. (2007), National Political Parties and European Governance: The Consequences of
Missing in Action, West European Politics 30(5), pp. 946960.
Laffin, M. and E. Shaw (2007), British Devolution and the Labour Party: How a National Party Adapts to
Devolution, British Journal of Politics & International Relations 9(1), pp. 5572.
Mair, P. and I. van Biezen (2001), Party Membership in Twenty European Democracies, 19802000,
Party Politics 7(1), pp. 521.
Migdal, J.S. (2001), State in Society: Studying How States and Societies Transform and Constitute One Another,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moon, D.S. (2009), Welsh Labour and the Problem of Bounded Rhetoric, British Politics Review 4(2), p. 9.
Panebianco, A. (1988), Political Parties: Organization and Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Poguntke, T. and P. Webb (eds.) (2005), The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern
Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poguntke, T., N. Aylott, E. Carter, R. Ladrech and K. Luther (eds.) (2007) The Europeanization of National
Political Parties: Power and Organizational Adaptation, London: Routledge.
Raunio, T. (2002), Why European Integration Increases Leadership within Political Parties, Party Politics
8(4), pp. 405422.
Srensen, E. and J. Torfing (2008), Theoretical Approaches to Governance Network Dynamics
in E. Srensen and J. Torfing (eds.), Theories of Democratic Network Governance, Houndmills: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Stolz, K. (2003), Moving Up, Moving Down: Political Careers across Territorial Levels, European Journal
of Political Research 42(2), pp. 223248.
Swenden, W. and B. Maddens (2009a), Introduction: Territorial Party Politics in Western Europe: A
Framework for Analysis in W. Swenden and B. Maddens (eds.), Territorial Party Politics in Western
Europe, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 130.
Swenden, W. and B. Maddens (eds.) (2009b), Territorial Party Politics in Western Europe, Houndmills:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Thorlakson, L. (2009), Patterns of Party Integration, Influence and Autonomy in Seven Federations,
Party Politics 15(2), pp. 157177.
Van Houten, P. (2009), Multi-Level Relations in Political Parties: A Delegation Approach, Party Politics
15(2), pp. 137156.
Webb, P. (2000), The Modern British Party System, London: Sage.

2010 The Authors. Journal compilation 2010 Political Studies Association

POLITICS: 2010 VOL 30(1)