Why do only some people who support parties actually join them? Evidence from Britain

What makes people join a political party is one of the most commonly studied questions in research on party members. Nearly all this research, however, is based on talking to people who have actually joined parties. This article simultaneously analyses surveys of members of political parties in Britain and surveys of non-member supporters of those same parties. This uniquely enables us to model the decision to join parties. The results suggest that most of the elements that constitute the influential ‘General Incentives Model’ are significant. But it also reveals that, while party supporters imagine that selective benefits, social norms and opposing rival parties’ policies are key factors in members’ decisions to join a party, those who actually do so are more likely to say they are motivated by attachments to their party’s values, policies and leaders, as well as by an altruistic desire to support democracy more generally.     

Book reviews

Ephraim Maisel, The Foreign Office and Foreign Policy 1991-1926 (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press 1994), £35. ISBN 1-898723-04-4.

Timothy P. Maga, The World of Jimmy Carter: U.S. Foreign Policy 1977-1981 (West Haven, CT: University of New Haven Press, 1994). 189 pp. ISBN 0-936385-23-0.

Michael Leifer, Dictionary of the Modern Politics of South-East Asia (London and New York: Routledge, 1995), xii + 271pp. £45. ISBN 0-415-04219-4.

Christopher C. Harmon and David Tucker (eds.), Statecraft and Power: Essays in Honor of Harold W. Rood (Lanham and London: University Press of America with the National Institute for Public Policy, 1994), 284pp ISBN 0-8191-8718-6.     

Political Science, Public Administration and the Danish Civil Service Profession

The history of Danish political science is young, and public administration has from the beginning been part of the training of political scientists. This background reflects a double strategy: first, in order to ensure political scientists a position in the labour market, they were launched as a new kind of generalist, competing with lawyers and economists. Second, public administration has from the very beginning been seen as a subfield of political science. Even if the institutions engaging in PA research and training have varying profiles, the integration of the discipline in political science is still dominant. So far it has been a success, whether measured at the level of political science graduates in the civil service or the level of PA research. However, the paper argues that in a tougher labour market, generalists with a broad political science background face severe competition from lawyers and economists, and that this must have implications for the direction of research and training in public administration.     

The Greater Yellowstone policy debate: What is the policy problem?

Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding mountainous region comprise the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), a 19 million acre area that is one of the few relatively intact ecosystems in the lower 48 states. Conservationists believe that continuation of present land management practices in the region will disrupt the ecological integrity of the GYE. Many authors have identified and described these threats, but as yet there has been no sustained effort to make sense of these threats in the context of the ongoing dynamic policy debate. We develop the foundation for such understanding by examining the implicit problem definitions that have emerged from this debate. They fall into three general categories: 1) a scientific definition, 2) an economic definition, and 3) a bureaucratic definition. This process produces an exploratory definition of the policy problem, which suggests a strategy for better understanding and policy design. We propose several intervention points at which substantive, one-the-ground improvements in the management of the GYE are possible.