party competition and party leadership attributes

Party Competition and Party Leadership AttributesAuthor(s): Richard J. Heuwinkel and Charles W. WigginsSource: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Feb., 1973), pp. 159-169Published by: Midwest Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110479 .

Accessed: 05/12/2014 19:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Journal of Political Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:48:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110479?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


RICHARD J. HEUWINKEL CHARLES W. WIGGINS

Iowa State University

Par& Competition and Party Leadership Attributes

A NOTED STUDENT OF American state politics observed over two decades ago that "the character and structure of the leadership corps (of political parties) are matters about which reliable data are scant."' In the interim, the attention of a growing number of political scientists has turned to party leaders. Numerous studies, mostly confined to state and local party levels, have examined such diverse attributes of party leaders as their demographic characteristics (especially socio-economic status), political careers, motivations, role perceptions, and opinions on issues, or ideologies.2

1 V. 0. Key, Jr., American State Politics: An Introduction (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1956), p. 255.

2 See Samuel C. Patterson, " Characteristics of Party Leaders," Western Political Quarterly, 16 (June 1963), 332-52; PhiHip Althoff and Samuel C. Patterson, " Political Activism in a Rural County," Midwest Journal of Political Science, 10 (February 1966), 39-51; Lewis Bowman and G. R. Boynton, " Activities and Role Definitions of Grassroots Party Officials," Journal of Politics, 28 (February 1966), 121-43; Lewis Bowman and G. R. Boynton, "Recruitment Patterns among Local Party Officials: A Model and Some Preliminary Findings in Selected Locales," American Political Science Review, 60 (September 1966), 667-76; Samuel J. Eldersveld, Political Parties: A Behavioral Perspective (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964); Thomas Flinn and Frederick Wirt, " Local Party Leaders: Groups of Like-Minded Men," Midwest Journal of Political Science, 9 (February 1965), 77-98; Robert S. Hirschfield, Bert E. Swanson, and Blanche D. Blank, "A Profile of Political Activists in Manhattan," Western Political Quarterly, 15 (September 1962), 489-506; Dwaine Marvick and Charles R. Nixon, "Recruitment Contrasts in Rival Campaign Groups," in Dwaine Marvick, ed., Political Decision- Makers (New York: Free Press, 1961), pp. 193-217; Gerald Pomper, "New Jersey County Chairmen," Western Political Quarterly, 18 (March 1965), 186-97; Peter H. Rossi and Phillips Cutright, "The Impact of Party Organization in an Indus- trial Setting," in Morris Janowitz, ed., Co"mnunity Political Systems (Glencoe: Free Press, 1961), pp. 81-116; Dennis S. Ippolito, " Political Perspectives of Suburban Party Leaders," Social Science Quarterly, 49 (March 1969), 800-15; William J. Crotty. "Social Attributes of Party Orgranization Activists in ai Transitional

159



160 RICHARD J. HEUWINKEL AND CHARLES W. WIGGINS

For the most part, these studies have been fairly descriptive in nature, confining themselves to a portrayal of how certain attributes are distributed across the particular group of leaders studied. To the extent that attempts are made to account for differences, or variations, in such attributes, the party affiliation of the leader has been the most frequently examined independent variable, with no consistent results; in other words, some have found significant differences between Democratic and Republican leaders on the attributes studied, while others have not.3 Only a few studies, however, have systematically explored the relation- ship between other independent variables and selected leadership traits.4

The primary purpose of this study is to analyze systematically the role played by interparty competition in leadership recruitment within party systems. In more operational terms, the key question is: to what extent is the level of party competition in Iowa counties related to the attributes of those occupying the top positions of party leadership in those counties?

The term party competition has been used or defined in two quite dis- tinct ways in the literature on American party leadership. Its most fre- quent usage has probably been made with reference to the majority versus minority status of individual party organizations within fairly (and somewhat ironically) noncompetitive electoral units. Thus, Patter- son alludes to the importance of this notion of competition in his study

Political System," Western Political Quarterly, 20 (September 1967), 669-81; Dennis S. Ippolito and Lewis Bowman, "Goals and Activities of Party Officials in a Suburban Community," Western Political Quarterly, 22 (September 1969), 572-80; Dennis S. Ippolito, "Motivational Reorientation and Change Among Party Activists," Journal of Politics, 31 (November 1969), 1098-1101; Charles W. Wiggins and William L. Turk, "State Party Chairmen: A Profile," Western Political Quarterly, 23 (June 1970), 321-32; and M. Margaret Conway and Frank B. Feigert, " Motivation, Incentive Systems, and the Political Party Organization," American Political Science Review, 62 (December 1968), 1159-73.

s Examples of those finding rather pronounced interparty differences are: Marvick and Nixon, op. cit., 203; Pomper, op. cit., 187; Eldersveld, op. cit., 52-53; and Bowman and Boynton, " Recruitmnent Patterns among Local Party Officials," 670-71. Those finding no significant differences include: Hirschfield, Swanson, and Blank, op. cit., 505; Flinn and Wirt, op. cit., 86; and Althoff and Patterson, op. cit., 50.

'Exceptions would possibly include: Conway and Feigert, op. cit., Pomper, op. cit., Patterson, op. cit., and Althoff and Patterson, op. cit.; even these studies, however, rely upon less powerful statistical measures of differences, or variations, than the ones employed in this study.



PARTY COMPETITION AND LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES 161

of Oklahoma county chairmen when observing that the dominant party attracts a larger percentage of higher socio-economic status elements.5 Althoff and Patterson and Conway and Feigert have also emnphasized this notion of competition in other studies."

An alternative definition, and the one used in this study, is to regard party competition as having more variable and continuous qualities; that is, party competition refers to the extent to which elections are closely contested between the two major parties within given electoral units. Defined in this manner, the importance of competition has been examined most systematically in recent years as a determinant of public policy outputs in the American states.7

Although the majority-minority status definition of party competition has been employed more often in the party leadership literature than the closeness of election outcomes definition, the literature does suggest that the latter form may be an important correlate of leadership attributes. For example, previous studies have suggested that such competition may be related significantly to the demographic characteristics of party leaders. Pomper observes that the more competitive counties in New Jersey attract leaders who are younger, of lower socio-economic origins, and from " marginal " ethnic and religious groups (except Jews); in a comparative analysis of party leadership recruitment in Northern and Southern communities, Bowman and Boynton also suggest that upwardly-mobiles are more frequently attracted to competitive situations.8

The motivations nf nnr"rv leaders fnr nraanizntionnl woucTrlr in addition

Patterson, op. cit., 352. 6Althoff and Patterson, op. cit., 51 and Conway and Feigert, op. cit., 116i.

The former find that majority-minority status is related to leader role perceptions in that the dominant party cadre is more organization-oriented and minority party cadre more election-oriented. The latter find majority-minority status to be related to motivational differences.

'For example, see Allan G. Pulsipher and James L. Weatherby, Jr., "Mal- apportionment, Party Competition, and the Functional Distribution of Govern- mental Expenditures," American Political Science Review, 62 (December 1968), 1207-19; Thomas R. Dye, "Malapportionment and Public Policy in the States," Journal of Politics, 27 (August 1965), 586-601; and Richard I. Hofferbert, "The Relation between Public Policy and Some Structural and Environmental Variables in the American States," American Political Science Review, 60 (March 1966), 73-82.

8Pomper, op. cit., 188; Bowman and Boynton, "Recruitment Patterns among Local Party Officials," op. cit., 676.




to their demographic characteristics, may vary with the level of competition between parties in the communities where they operate. Al- though not directly examined, Conway and Feigert suggest such relationships.9 The major theory underlying these relationships is that party leaders in more competitive situations will be more election- oriented and motivated more by purposive, or impersonal, considerations. On the other hand, personal (or material) and social factors are supposedly the primary motivational considerations among those in less competitive situations.

As with demographic characteristics and motivations, the viewpoints of party leaders on public policy questions may also be related to party competition. In his seminal work on state party systems, Southern Politics, Key concludes that states with a low degree of competition tend to pursue conservative policies on behalf of upper income inter- ests.'0 Lockard finds that the more competitive of the New England states are characterized by more liberal public policies, particularly in the welfare service area." Presumably, the public policy stances of persons occupying positions of leadership in party organizations and government are influenced directly by the degree of party competition in their environments, with those in more competitive milieu leaning in a more liberal direction and their counterparts in less competitive surroundings in a more conservative direction.

In this study, the relationships between party competition and the demographic characteristics, motivations, and policy positions of party leaders are systematically analyzed, using Iowa counties and county chairmen as principal units of empirical analysis.'2 Although party competition is the independent variable with which we are primarily con-

Conway and Feigert, op. cit., 1173. 10 V. 0. Key, Jr., Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York: Knopf,

1951), pp. 298-314. " Duane Lockard, New England State Politics (Princeton: Princeton Uni-

versity Press, 1959), pp. 320-40. 12 This empirical setting offers two methodological advantages. First, we con-

trol for possible cultural influences by looking at the attributes of a large number of leaders within a single state system, and one that is very culturally homo- geneous internally. Second, it permits the measurement of a wider range of variation on two of our independent variables-party competition and urbanism. In contrast, Pomper, op. cit., 186, acknowledges possible limitations in his data by indicating that nearly all of the 21 counties of New Jersey are quite competitive and urbanized.




cerned, we will also examine the extent to which urbanism and party affiliation are related to these leader attributes. Urbanism and affiliation have been found to be factors associated with leader attributes in several previous studies. The addition of these two factors to our research design should permit us to make an assessment of the relative importance of party competition as an independent factor associated with leader attributes.

In operationalizing our concepts, indexes representing levels of party competition and urbanism for Iowa counties were constructed. The index of party competition was based essentially upon the method suggested by Pfeiffer, using county election returns for governor, attorney general, and state representative during the 1955 to 1965 period.13 Counties were subsequently ranked in intervals and grouped into three categories representing high, moderate, and low levels of party competition for statistical treatment purposes. 1960 population census returns for Iowa counties were employed in devising an index of urbanism. This index was based upon the percent of county residents residing in communities of 2,500 or more and whether or not a city with 10,000 or more inhabitants was located in the county. The resultant index represented the grouping of counties into four categories: urban, urban-rural, moderate-rural, and rural.

The operational measures of the three dependent variables-party leader demographic, motivational, and policy position attributes-will be presented below in our discussion of research findings. The individual data on Iowa county chairmen were gathered via a mailed questionnaire sent in 1966. Out of 198 county chairmen in the state, usable completed questionnaires were returned by 69 percent (137 total representing 67 Democrats and 70 Republicans). As a check on possible sampling bias, it was determined that the questionnaire return was evenly distributed over the state.

Two types of statistical techniques were utilized during our data analysis. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were com- puted for all problems involving ordinal and interval data, while chi- square tests were used on all data. It should be emphasized that " raw " chi-square values are not presented in the tables in our presentation of research results below; instead, the more meaningful statistical level of

18David G. Pfeiffer, "The Measurement of Inter-Party Competition and Sys- temic Stability," American Political Science Review, 61 (June 1967), 457-68.




significance for each determined chi-square value is shown. For both correlation and chi-square techniques, only associations resulting in levels of significance at the standard .05 or less mark are deemed accept- able.

To what extent are the demographic characteristics of party leaders related to the level of party competition in their immediate environ-

TABLE 1

THE IMPACT OF PARTY COMPETITION ON LEADER DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS a

Party Party Demographic Competition Urbanism Affiliation b Characteristic x2 r X9 r X2

Education .30 -.085 .08 +.230 .001 Rep. Income .20 -.074 .08 +.240 .01 Rep. Occupation c .10 - .70 --- .05 Age .50 -.041 .30 -.194 .70 Dem. Length of Residence .95 -.014 .10 -.178 .05 Dem. Religion d .95 - .70 - .001 _

aAll chi-squares and correlation coefficients which are significant at the .05 or less level are underlined in the table; all chi-squares are expressed in terms of levels of significance.

bChi-square tests are only employed with regard to party affiliation because of its nominal nature. Where a significant difference occurs between the leaders of the two parties on a characteristic, the party which has more of the characteristic is indicated.

cNo statistically significant association existed between either competition or urbanism and occupation. However, there was a tendency for more chairmen from counties with less competition to be businessmen and for those from more competitive counties to be farmers, laborers, and professionals. A significantly larger proportion of Democratic chairmen were farmers and laborers, while more Republican chairmen were professionals and businessmen.

d No apparent association existed between either competition or urbanism and religion. However, a significantly larger proportion of the Democrats were Catholics and Jews.

ments? Table 1 shows that variations, or differences, in selected demographic characteristics of chairmen are not related significantly to party competition. Chairmen in counties with a low level of competition, in other words, show no marked differences in their characteristics compared with those in more competitive counties.




By contrast, however, urbanism and party affiliation appear to be distinctly related to several of these characteristics. County chairmen from urban counties tend to have significantly higher educational attain- ment and income levels than their counterparts in more rural communities. In addition, they tend to be younger and more mobile. Like urbanism, the party affiliation of the chairmen also appears to have an impact upon their demographic traits. The Republican cadre tends to be of significantly higher socio-economic status in terms of education, income, and occupation (e.g., professional and business) and is more mobile than the Democratic chairmen. Democrats, on the other hand, have been more successful in attracting minority religious group mem- bers (e.g., Catholics and Jews) to their leadership ranks.

Thus, our data indicate that party competition appears to have little or no bearing upon the demographic traits of party leaders. Urbanism and party affiliation are much more efficacious factors which can be used to account for, or explain, differences in the demographic traits of individuals leading party organizations.

What effect does party competition have upon the motivations of leaders for becoming involved in party work? Do our data indicate, for example, that leaders in more competitive situations are motivated more by purposive considerations than by incentives which might be regarded as more social or personal in nature?

In our questionnaire, we asked each respondent how important (e.g., very important, somewhat important, or not very important) eleven specific factors were in their original decision to enter party work.14 Although interesting methodological questions can be raised about the reliability of recall with regard to these items, we will assume that they are accurate. In addition, we will not be concerned about whether the original importance of each factor is equivalent to its present importance.

Table 2 shows the relationships between party competition and the eleven motivational factors. These factors have been grouped in the table into three general types-social, personal, and purposive-along lines suggested by Conway and Feigert.15 The table reveals that competition has no significant independent effect upon any motive for party work. Thus, persons recruited to or occupying party leadership posi-

14These factors, or items, were first used by Eldersveld, op. cit., p. 132, and have been borrowed by several other students of party leadership.

15 Conway and Feigert, op. cit., 1165-66.




TABLE 2

THE IMPACT OF PARTY COMPETITION ON LEADER MOTIVATIONS a

Party Party Competition Urbanism Affiliation

Motivation b X2 r x2 r X2 Party

Social Personal friendship with

candidate .01 -.004 .20 +.039 .20 Deni. Enjoy friendships and

social contacts .50 +.099 .80 +.042 .01 Dem. Like fun & excitement

of campaigns .90 -.039 .20 +.193 .02 Dem. Feeling of being close to

important people .08 -.121 .80 +.068 .10 Dem. Feeling of recognition

in community .70 -.071 .05 C +.018 .20 Dem-.

Personal Attempting to build

a personal following .50 +.038 .20 -.139 .70 Dem. Making business contacts .80 +.050 .98 ?.075 .30 Dem. Part of way of life .80 -.074 .20 +.007 .30 Dem.

Purposive Influencing policies of

government .30 -.034 .80 +.041 .20 Rep. Sense of community

obligation .70 -.037 .30 +.038 .70 Rep. Attachment to party .70 -.109 .90 +.068 .30 Rep.

a See footnote a in Table 1. b The possible responses to the motivational items were: "very important,"

"somewhat important," and "not very important." cThis figure is more than likely due to small "N's" in a fewN cells and should

be viewed with skepticism.




tions in noncompetitive surroundings appear not to be markedly more motivated by the expectation of such rewards as social interaction or community recognition than those in more competitive situations. In addition, highly personal motivations, such as building a personal following or making business contacts, do not appear to play a more prominent role in noncompetitive than competitive situations, as present theory suggests. On the other hand, leaders in competitive environments are not motivated significantly more by expectations of having an impact upon public policy-making than those where competition is more limited.

The impact of urbanism and party affiliation upon leader motivations is also presented in Table 2. Unlike demographic characteristics, leader motivations are influenced only to a limited extent by both factors. The only significant associations were found between urbanism and the campaign fund and excitement motive and between affiliation and two social motives-enjoying friendships and social contacts, plus campaign fund and excitement. Generally, therefore, the data suggest that the impact of urbanism and affiliation is restricted to a limited number of mainly social incentives.

Finally, what does our research suggest with regard to the relation- ship between competition and the positions taken by party leaders on public policy questions? The extent of this association is suggested by the data in Table 3 with reference to a somewhat limited range of selected issues. The only policy position directly linked to competition, and in an inverse direction, was a more parochial question dealing with the merger of county governments. Presumably, chairmen in less competitive situations view themselves as having less to fear by such consolidations than those currently facing more highly contested elections. It should also be noted that the survey item which comes closest to approximating the particular policy direction which most often has been suggested as being associated with party competition-"more government welfare, like housing, is needed,"-is not significantly related to such competition. In other words, leaders in less competitive situations are not distinctly less welfare-oriented than those facing higher levels of competition.

Statistical inferences also lead us to conclude that both urbanism and affiliation are significantly related to several of the policy positions taken by chairmen. Urban chairmen, for example, are much more favorably disposed to county government reform than their rural



168 RICHARD) J. HEUWINKEL AND CHARLES W. WIGGINS

TABLE 3

THE IMPACr OF PARTY COMPETITION ON LEADER POLICY POSInONS a

Party Party Competition Urbanism Affiliation

Policy b X2 r XX r X2 Party

Merging of offices within a county is a good idea .30 -.065 .01 +.315 .80 Dem.

Some presently elected county officers should be appointed .90 -.053 .001 +.387 .07 Dem.

The number of county governments in Iowa should be reduced .50 -.172 .001 +.402 .08 Dem.

The merging of certain county offices across county lines is a good idea .30 -.124 .01 +.272 .80 Dem.

The Supreme Court's " one man-one vote " ruling should be the basis of legislative representation .50 -.089 .001 +.250 .001 Dem.

More government welfare, like housing, is needed .20 +.073 .70 -.100 .01 Dem.

The Taft-Hartley Law is unfair to the working man .50 -.005 .95 +.108 .001 Dem.

Anti-religion speeches should be allowed in your area .50 +.007 .80 +.082 .02 Rep.

Democrats are too easy on Communists in America .30 -.033 .98 -.087 .01 Rep.

a See footnote a in Table 1. b Responses to the policies were on an agree-disagree continuum.




counterparts. This is probably because urban leaders do not expect their county governments to be radically affected by such reform since they already have large populations. The propensity of urban chairmen to endorse U.S. Supreme Court " one man-one vote " rulings more than rural chairmen is probably related to enhanced legislative and con- gressional representation for their counties as a result of such rulings. Significantly related to policy questions of more nation-wide importance was party affiliation. In addition to the "one man-one vote " ruling, Democratic chairmen were considerably more welfare-oriented and opposed to the Taft-Hartley Act than Republican leaders, while the latter were more supportive of liberties, except possibly those of Communists.

Based upon our analysis of the data presented above, the following general conclusions can be drawn:

1. The level of party competition in political environments-defined in terms of closeness of contested elections-has no discernible impact upon the attributes of persons recruited to or occupying positions of party leadership in those environments. In other words, party competition has no direct independent effect upon the demographic characteristics, motivations, or public policy positions of party leaders.

2. The level of urbanism in leaders' environments appears to have some effect upon their attributes. Urbanism is especially important in accounting for differences among leaders in demographic characteristics and policy positions. Although the range of policy questions examined in this study was somewhat limited, our analysis suggests that urbanism may be more significantly related to questions which are local as opposed to national in scope.

3. Undoubtedly the most salient factor directly associated with leader attributes is party affiliation. Our data provide convincing evidence in support of this conclusion, especially with regard to demographic characterisdics (e.g., socio-economic status, mobility, and religion) and policy positions. The conventional wisdom that partisanship plays a more important role in divisions on national as opposed to local policy questions is also supported by our data.

4. We conclude with the often ignored call for replication studies in other party systems and for explorations into the effects of other independent variables upon leadership attributes. For the time being, the hypothesis that party competition is significantly related to party leadership attributes is found wanting.



party competition and party leadership attributes

Documents