Nicole Bolleyer – författare

State regulation of civil society is expanding yet widely contested, often portrayed as illegitimate intrusion. Despite ongoing debates about the nature of state-voluntary relations in various disciplines, we know surprisingly little about why long-lived democracies adopt more or less constraining legal approaches in this sphere, in which state intervention is generally considered contentious.Drawing on insights from political science, sociology, comparative law as well as public administration research, this book addresses this important question, conceptually, theoretically, and empirically. It addresses the conceptual and methodological challenges related to developing systematic, comparative insights into the nature of complex legal environments affecting voluntary membership organizations, when simultaneously covering a wide range of democracies and the regulationapplicable to different types of voluntary organizations. Proposing the analytical tools to tackle those challenges, it studies in-depth the intertwining and overlapping legal environments of political parties, interest groups, and public benefit organizations across 19 long-lived democracies. After presentingan innovative interdisciplinary theoretical framework theorizing democratic states'' legal disposition towards, or their disinclination against, regulating voluntary membership organizations in a constraining or permissive fashion, this framework is empirically tested. Applying Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), the comparative analysis identifies three main ''paths'' accounting for the relative constraints in the legal environments democracies have created for organized civil society,defined by different configurations of political systems'' democratic history, their legal family, and voluntary sector traditions. Providing the foundation for a mixed-methods design, three ideal-typical representatives of each path - Sweden, the UK, and France - are selected for the in-depth study ofthese legal environments'' long-term evolution, to capture reform dynamics and their drivers that have shaped group and party regulation over many decades.

State regulation of civil society is expanding yet widely contested, often portrayed as illegitimate intrusion. Despite ongoing debates about the nature of state-voluntary relations in various disciplines, we know surprisingly little about why long-lived democracies adopt more or less constraining legal approaches in this sphere, in which state intervention is generally considered contentious.Drawing on insights from political science, sociology, comparative law as well as public administration research, this book addresses this important question, conceptually, theoretically, and empirically. It addresses the conceptual and methodological challenges related to developing systematic, comparative insights into the nature of complex legal environments affecting voluntary membership organizations, when simultaneously covering a wide range of democracies and the regulationapplicable to different types of voluntary organizations. Proposing the analytical tools to tackle those challenges, it studies in-depth the intertwining and overlapping legal environments of political parties, interest groups, and public benefit organizations across 19 long-lived democracies. After presentingan innovative interdisciplinary theoretical framework theorizing democratic states'' legal disposition towards, or their disinclination against, regulating voluntary membership organizations in a constraining or permissive fashion, this framework is empirically tested. Applying Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), the comparative analysis identifies three main ''paths'' accounting for the relative constraints in the legal environments democracies have created for organized civil society,defined by different configurations of political systems'' democratic history, their legal family, and voluntary sector traditions. Providing the foundation for a mixed-methods design, three ideal-typical representatives of each path - Sweden, the UK, and France - are selected for the in-depth study ofthese legal environments'' long-term evolution, to capture reform dynamics and their drivers that have shaped group and party regulation over many decades.

Over the past decades, governments have increasingly been confronted with problems that transcend their boundaries. A multitude of policy fields are affected, including environment, trade and security. Responding to the challenges triggered by Europeanization and globalization, governments increasingly interact across different spheres of authority. Both theoretically and empirically, the puzzle of institutional choice reflected by the variety of arrangements inwhich intergovernmental cooperation takes place inside individual countries and across their borders remains surprisingly under-explored. In an attempt to solve this puzzle, the book tackles the following questions: Why are the intergovernmental arrangements governments set up to deal withboundary-crossing problems so different? To what extent do these institutional differences affect the effectiveness of intergovernmental cooperation?To address this gap theoretically and empirically, this book adopts a deductive, rationalist approach to institution-building. It argues that internal politics, the type of executive-legislative relations within the interacting governments, explains the nature of institutions set up to channel intergovernmental processes: while power-sharing governments engage in institution-building, power-concentrating governments avoid it. It also shows that these institutional choices matter for the outputof intergovernmental cooperation. The approach is applied to Canada, Switzerland, the United States, and finally the European Union. Disaggregating individual government units, the theoretical approach reveals how intragovernmental micro-incentives drive macro-dynamics and thereby addresses theneglect of horizontal dynamics in multilevel systems. The willingness and capacity of lower-level governments to solve collective problems on their own and to oppose central encroachment are crucial to understand the power distribution in different systems and their long-term evolutions.

New Parties in Old Party Systems addresses a pertinent yet neglected issue in comparative party research: why are some new parties that enter national parliament able to defend a niche on the national level, while other fail to do so? Unlike most existing studies, which strongly focus on electoral (short-term) success or particular party families, this book examines the conditions for the organizational persistence and electoral sustainability of the 140,organizationally new parties that entered their national parliaments in seventeen democracies from 1968 to 2011. The book presents a new theoretical perspective on party institutionalization, which considers the role of both structural and agential factors driving party evolution. It thereby fills someimportant lacunae in current cross-national research. First, it theorizes the interplay between structural (pre)conditions for party building and the choices of party founders and leaders, whose interplay shapes parties'' institutionalization patterns crucial for their evolution, before and after entering national parliament. Second, this approach is substantiated empirically by advanced statistical methods assessing the role of party origin for new party persistence and sustainability. Theseanalyses are combined with a wide range of in-depth case studies capturing how intra-organizational dynamics shape party success and failure. By accounting for new parties'' longer-term performance, the study sheds light on the conditions under which the spectacular rise of new parties in advanceddemocracies is likely to substantively change old party systems.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.

State regulation of civil society is expanding yet widely contested, often portrayed as illegitimate intrusion. Despite ongoing debates about the nature of state-voluntary relations in various disciplines, we know surprisingly little about why long-lived democracies adopt more or less constraining legal approaches in this sphere, in which state intervention is generally considered contentious. Drawing on insights from political science, sociology, comparative law as well as public administration research, this book addresses this important question, conceptually, theoretically, and empirically. It addresses the conceptual and methodological challenges related to developing systematic, comparative insights into the nature of complex legal environments affecting voluntary membership organizations, when simultaneously covering a wide range of democracies and the regulation applicable to different types of voluntary organizations. Proposing the analytical tools to tackle those challenges, it studies in-depth the intertwining and overlapping legal environments of political parties, interest groups, and public benefit organizations across 19 long-lived democracies. After presenting an innovative interdisciplinary theoretical framework theorizing democratic states' legal disposition towards, or their disinclination against, regulating voluntary membership organizations in a constraining or permissive fashion, this framework is empirically tested. Applying Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), the comparative analysis identifies three main 'paths' accounting for the relative constraints in the legal environments democracies have created for organized civil society, defined by different configurations of political systems' democratic history, their legal family, and voluntary sector traditions. Providing the foundation for a mixed-methods design, three ideal-typical representatives of each path - Sweden, the UK, and France - are selected for the in-depth study of these legal environments' long-term evolution, to capture reform dynamics and their drivers that have shaped group and party regulation over many decades.

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. It is free to read on the Oxford Academic platform and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations.In Civil Society's Democratic Potential, Nicole Bolleyer explores which civil society organizations (CSOs) contribute to democracy, how, and why.Organized civil society, including interest groups, political parties, and service-oriented associations, is traditionally considered a cornerstone of democracy. Constituting the organizational fabric between government and society, these organizations encompass a wide diversity of entities thought to fundamentally contribute to both democratic participation and representation. However, CSOs' readiness and ability to serve as venues for participation, vehicles of democratic representation, or indeed both at the same time, are increasingly questioned in political science, sociology, and voluntary sector research alike. Bringing those fields together, the author argues that two contrasting organizational templates - the 'voluntary association' and the 'professionalized voluntary organization' - allow theorizing fundamental trade-offs shaping CSOs' 'performance' on three dimensions accounting for their varying democratic contributions: participation, representation, and societal responsiveness. The study's innovative theoretical framework is examined using a mixed-methods design. The latter combines the analysis of survey data covering over 3000 CSOs across four European democracies with qualitative case studies of the evolution of three CSOs - a political party, an interest group, and a service-orientated organization - over several decades.

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. It is free to read on the Oxford Academic platform and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations.In Civil Society''s Democratic Potential, Nicole Bolleyer explores which civil society organizations (CSOs) contribute to democracy, how, and why.Organized civil society, including interest groups, political parties, and service-oriented associations, is traditionally considered a cornerstone of democracy. Constituting the organizational fabric between government and society, these organizations encompass a wide diversity of entities thought to fundamentally contribute to both democratic participation and representation. However, CSOs'' readiness and ability to serve as venues for participation, vehicles of democratic representation, or indeed both at the same time, are increasingly questioned in political science, sociology, and voluntary sector research alike. Bringing those fields together, the author argues that two contrasting organizational templates - the ''voluntary association'' and the ''professionalized voluntary organization'' - allow theorizing fundamental trade-offs shaping CSOs'' ''performance'' on three dimensions accounting for their varying democratic contributions: participation, representation, and societal responsiveness. The study''s innovative theoretical framework is examined using a mixed-methods design. The latter combines the analysis of survey data covering over 3000 CSOs across four European democracies with qualitative case studies of the evolution of three CSOs - a political party, an interest group, and a service-orientated organization - over several decades.

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International licence. It is free to read on the Oxford Academic platform and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations.In Civil Society''s Democratic Potential, Nicole Bolleyer explores which civil society organizations (CSOs) contribute to democracy, how, and why.Organized civil society, including interest groups, political parties, and service-oriented associations, is traditionally considered a cornerstone of democracy. Constituting the organizational fabric between government and society, these organizations encompass a wide diversity of entities thought to fundamentally contribute to both democratic participation and representation. However, CSOs'' readiness and ability to serve as venues for participation, vehicles of democratic representation, or indeed both at the same time, are increasingly questioned in political science, sociology, and voluntary sector research alike. Bringing those fields together, the author argues that two contrasting organizational templates - the ''voluntary association'' and the ''professionalized voluntary organization'' - allow theorizing fundamental trade-offs shaping CSOs'' ''performance'' on three dimensions accounting for their varying democratic contributions: participation, representation, and societal responsiveness. The study''s innovative theoretical framework is examined using a mixed-methods design. The latter combines the analysis of survey data covering over 3000 CSOs across four European democracies with qualitative case studies of the evolution of three CSOs - a political party, an interest group, and a service-orientated organization - over several decades.

Over the past decades, governments have increasingly been confronted with problems that transcend their boundaries. A multitude of policy fields are affected, including environment, trade and security. Responding to the challenges triggered by Europeanization and globalization, governments increasingly interact across different spheres of authority. Both theoretically and empirically, the puzzle of institutional choice reflected by the variety of arrangements in which intergovernmental cooperation takes place inside individual countries and across their borders remains surprisingly under-explored. In an attempt to solve this puzzle, the book tackles the following questions: Why are the intergovernmental arrangements governments set up to deal with boundary-crossing problems so different? To what extent do these institutional differences affect the effectiveness of intergovernmental cooperation? To address this gap theoretically and empirically, this book adopts a deductive, rationalist approach to institution-building. It argues that internal politics, the type of executive-legislative relations within the interacting governments, explains the nature of institutions set up to channel intergovernmental processes: while power-sharing governments engage in institution-building, power-concentrating governments avoid it. It also shows that these institutional choices matter for the output of intergovernmental cooperation. The approach is applied to Canada, Switzerland, the United States, and finally the European Union. Disaggregating individual government units, the theoretical approach reveals how intragovernmental micro-incentives drive macro-dynamics and thereby addresses the neglect of horizontal dynamics in multilevel systems. The willingness and capacity of lower-level governments to solve collective problems on their own and to oppose central encroachment are crucial to understand the power distribution in different systems and their long-term evolutions.