Alan Ware – författare

This is an introduction to the study of political parties and party systems. It focuses primarily on liberal deocracies and the approach is a comparative one. The book's aim is to explain to students of politics how and why parties and party systems differ from one country to another. However, it also seeks to provide a more detailed understanding of party politics in five particular countries. Most of the chapters are divided into two sections. In the first section general themes and arguments about a topic are introduced, and examples from a large number of countries are discussed in relation to it. In the second section, particular attention is paid to five of the largest liberal democracies - Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and the United States.

This book examines the role played by the parties themselves in two-party systems. It rejects the argument that the behaviour of the parties is determined largely by social forces or by the supposed logic of the electoral market. Instead, it shows that both structure and agency can matter. It focuses on three major aspects of change in two-party systems: (i) why occasionally major parties ( such as the British Liberals) collapse; (ii) why collapsed parties sometimes survive as minor parties, and sometimes do not; and (iii) what determines why, and how, major parties will ally themselves with minor parties in order to maximize their chances of winning. With respect to the first aspect it is argued that major parties are advantaged by two factors: the resources they have accumulated already, and their occupying role similar to that called by Thomas Schelling a "focal arbiter". Consequently, party collapse is rare. When it has occurred in nation states it is the result of a major party having to fight opposition on "two separate fronts". The survival of a collapsed party depends largely on its internal structure; when a party has linked closely the ambitions of politicians at different levels of office, party elimination is more likely. The main arena in which agency is significant - that is, when leadership is possible, including the politician acting as heresthetician - is in the re-building of coalitions. This is necessary for maximizing the chances of a party winning, but, for various reasons, coalitions between major and minor parties are usually difficult to construct. Comparative Politics is a series for scholars and students of political science that deals with contemporary issues in comparative government and politics. The General Editor is David M. Farrell, Jean Monnet Chair in European Politics and Head of School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester. The series is published in association with the European Consortium for Political Research.

This book provides a thorough and engaging analysis of inequality in Britain, including its long-term development and transformation since the beginning of the 20th century.The author argues that inequality is not what it used to be – no longer can policy-makers consider it just in terms of status, wealth and income. Having resurfaced strongly as an issue after the financial crisis of 2007–2008, a truly informed discussion of inequality must now be wide ranging and take account of a variety of interacting factors. They include both a radically different role for education in the labour market and the interests of future generations. Government policies, market failures and fundamental changes in British society and economy in earlier decades have all contributed to inequality’s contemporary scope, its intensity and who it affects.Alan Ware traces and illuminates the altered nature of inequality in Britain, its consequences and especially its political implications. It offers a timely, concise and illuminating examination that will be of interest to all those concerned about inequality and, more broadly, to scholars and students of sociology, social/public policy, contemporary British history, political sociology and political theory.

This book provides a thorough and engaging analysis of inequality in Britain, including its long-term development and transformation since the beginning of the 20th century.The author argues that inequality is not what it used to be – no longer can policy-makers consider it just in terms of status, wealth and income. Having resurfaced strongly as an issue after the financial crisis of 2007–2008, a truly informed discussion of inequality must now be wide ranging and take account of a variety of interacting factors. They include both a radically different role for education in the labour market and the interests of future generations. Government policies, market failures and fundamental changes in British society and economy in earlier decades have all contributed to inequality’s contemporary scope, its intensity and who it affects.Alan Ware traces and illuminates the altered nature of inequality in Britain, its consequences and especially its political implications. It offers a timely, concise and illuminating examination that will be of interest to all those concerned about inequality and, more broadly, to scholars and students of sociology, social/public policy, contemporary British history, political sociology and political theory.

This text is designed to give students a comprehensive view of the British electoral system. Its innovative comparative and theoretical approach will provide a link between courses in British politics, comparative politics and political theory. The book looks at electoral systems in relation to democratic theory and examines the justification for modern electoral rules. It compares parliamentary elections with various other kinds of election, and it looks at the differences between British experience and that of other countries.Andrew Reeve and Alan Ware aim to inform the debate about whether our electoral system should be reformed, by raising such crucial issues as the connection between democracy and the electoral process, the significance of the territorial dimension in the British electoral system, and the role the election system plays in allocating values in a society.

This book rejects conventional accounts of how American political parties differ from those in other democracies. It focuses on the introduction of the direct primary and argues that primaries resulted from a process of party institutionalization initiated by party elites. It overturns the widely accepted view that, between 1902 and 1915, direct primaries were imposed on the parties by anti-party reformers intent on weakening them. An examination of particular northern states shows that often the direct primary was not controversial, and only occasionally did it involve confrontation between party 'regulars' and their opponents. Rather, the impetus for direct nominations came from attempts within the parties to subject informal procedures to formal rules. However, it proved impossible to reform the older caucus-convention system effectively, and party elites then turned to the direct primary - a device that already had become more common in rural counties in the late nineteenth century.

This book examines the dynamics of the American party system and explores how contemporary American politics was formed. Specifically, it asks how the Democrats could become sufficiently competitive in the American North as to be able to construct a national political majority. It rejects the conventional account, based on 'realignment theory', that between the end of Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Revolution, the base level of support for the Democratic party varied greatly from one era to another. Instead, by distinguishing between the 'building blocks' available to the Democrats in coalition formation and the aggregation of those 'blocks' into an actual coalition, the author shows that there was much less variation over time in the available 'blocks' than is usually argued. Neither the economic depression of 1893 nor the New Deal had the impact on the party system that most political scientists claim.

This book rejects conventional accounts of how American political parties differ from those in other democracies. It focuses on the introduction of the direct primary and argues that primaries resulted from a process of party institutionalization initiated by party elites. It overturns the widely accepted view that, between 1902 and 1915, direct primaries were imposed on the parties by anti-party reformers intent on weakening them. An examination of particular northern states shows that often the direct primary was not controversial, and only occasionally did it involve confrontation between party 'regulars' and their opponents. Rather, the impetus for direct nominations came from attempts within the parties to subject informal procedures to formal rules. However, it proved impossible to reform the older caucus-convention system effectively, and party elites then turned to the direct primary - a device that already had become more common in rural counties in the late nineteenth century.

This book examines the dynamics of the American party system and explores how contemporary American politics was formed. Specifically, it asks how the Democrats could become sufficiently competitive in the American North as to be able to construct a national political majority. It rejects the conventional account, based on 'realignment theory', that between the end of Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Revolution, the base level of support for the Democratic party varied greatly from one era to another. Instead, by distinguishing between the 'building blocks' available to the Democrats in coalition formation and the aggregation of those 'blocks' into an actual coalition, the author shows that there was much less variation over time in the available 'blocks' than is usually argued. Neither the economic depression of 1893 nor the New Deal had the impact on the party system that most political scientists claim.

The contributions here consider a number of themes and issues which account for the successful democratization of the United States and Canada and offer an analysis of the reasons for the absence of democratization in Mexico.

This text is designed to give students a comprehensive view of the British electoral system. Its innovative comparative and theoretical approach will provide a link between courses in British politics, comparative politics and political theory. The book looks at electoral systems in relation to democratic theory and examines the justification for modern electoral rules. It compares parliamentary elections with various other kinds of election, and it looks at the differences between British experience and that of other countries.Andrew Reeve and Alan Ware aim to inform the debate about whether our electoral system should be reformed, by raising such crucial issues as the connection between democracy and the electoral process, the significance of the territorial dimension in the British electoral system, and the role the election system plays in allocating values in a society.