Changing party models
Katz and Mair (1995) argued that party organization has changed over time. The nineteenth century saw cadre parties built around small groups of notables, and the early twentieth century mass parties rooted in large memberships such as workers. Kirchheimer (1966) described how postwar parties became catch-all parties appealing to all voters rather than particular classes. Katz and Mair proposed a further stage: as membership and dues declined, parties came to depend on state resources such as subsidies and access to public broadcasting, producing the cartel party. In the process parties moved from being brokers between society and the state toward the state itself.
Features and background of cartelization
In a cartel system, competition among parties is restrained and all receive guaranteed resources and status whether they win or lose. Parties can jointly design subsidy regimes and electoral rules that make entry harder for newcomers. Blyth and Katz (2005) argued that globalization, independent central banks and European integration narrowed economic policy choices, making major parties' programs more similar and encouraging cartelization. Detterbeck (2005) compared several West European countries and found that the degree of cartelization varies across them.
Critiques and significance
Koole (1996) objected that competition among parties remains intense and that state funding does not necessarily mean collusion. Critics also noted that if cartels existed, new parties should struggle, yet new parties have won seats in many countries. Katz and Mair (2009) responded by restating that cartelization breeds public resentment and thus provides fertile ground for populist parties. Mair (2013) diagnosed the growing void between parties and citizens as a crisis of democracy. The theory helps explain both declining party identification and changes in cleavage politics.
FAQ
- What is a cartel party in simple terms?
- Established parties lean on state money and rules, appear to compete but in fact share positions among themselves, and make it hard for new parties to break in.
- How are cartel parties related to populism?
- Katz and Mair argue that when established parties become alike and distant from citizens, populist parties can grow by gathering voters who resent them.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Kirchheimer, O. (1966). The transformation of the Western European party systems. In J. LaPalombara & M. Weiner (Eds.), Political Parties and Political Development (pp. 177–200). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. The classic statement of the catch-all party.
- Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (1995). Changing models of party organization and party democracy: The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics, 1(1), 5–28. The founding article on the cartel party.
- Koole, R. (1996). Cadre, catch-all or cartel? A comment on the notion of the cartel party. Party Politics, 2(4), 507–523. An early critique of the cartel party concept.
- Blyth, M., & Katz, R. S. (2005). From catch-all politics to cartelisation: The political economy of the cartel party. West European Politics, 28(1), 33–60. Links cartelization to globalization and policy convergence.
- Detterbeck, K. (2005). Cartel parties in Western Europe? Party Politics, 11(2), 173–191. Tests cartelization empirically in four West European countries.
- Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (2009). The cartel party thesis: A restatement. Perspectives on Politics, 7(4), 753–766. The authors' restatement in response to critics.
- Mair, P. (2013). Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy. London: Verso. On the hollowing of party democracy.