Political parties need public support to exist. To gain public support, political parties have to operate in ways that align with their ambitions.
Anthony Downs claimed that politic parties essentially work like glorified businesses. In this case, the voting public is assumed to be the consumer base. The parties act as the producers of political information, which includes policy and, on a larger extent, the shaping of political culture, as Heywood would propose.
There have been a number of criticisms on Downs' model, but it is important to shed light on the seemingly similar characteristics between political parties and businesses.
Profit maximising for a political party would then entail a scenario in which the concerned party gains access to a monopoly on votes.
However, it would be wise to be vary of the implication of political parties being treated as a vote seeking enterprise.
As a voter, it would make sense to consider the attached connotations of anything being referred to as a business.
In a largely capitalistic world, a business would be assumed to work on the principles of profit maximisation and self-interest. This may not always be the case but it does the job for our intents and purposes.
If the principles of a regular business model were to apply to political parties, it would be interesting to apply the concepts of marketing to the equation.
Do politicians merely market their products and their party in a certain way to gain electoral success or is there any semblance of morality or idealogical ambitions behind their efforts?
This link of thinking would again coincide with what Downs has to say. Being a proponent of politics based on rational choice, which simply implies that all individuals decisions are based on a propensity to serve ones self-interests, Downs would agree to an existence of an ever changing and fluid political behaviour exercised by the politicians in question.
In Heywood's typology, this economic model of understand would find traction with what he terms as 'parties of representation'. These parties thrive on public support, and are focused to attract the masses to their folds regardless of idealogical considerations.
In the majority of cases, parties are almost always commandeered by a handful of powerful politicians.
The interests of these individuals, whether good or bad, end up defining the political outlook of a party.
Inter-party politics could then be thought of as a market working on the capitalistic principles of self-interest and profit maximisation. Then, would it be logical to think of different parties in the same political system as just a collection of separate businesses with different, sometimes conflicting, interests?
It really is interesting, if not necessary, to view this side of party politics through an economic lens. Being aware of the constraints its constraints, it is still beneficial to keep an eye at the insight this model provides in the understanding of certain political processes.
Anthony Downs claimed that politic parties essentially work like glorified businesses. In this case, the voting public is assumed to be the consumer base. The parties act as the producers of political information, which includes policy and, on a larger extent, the shaping of political culture, as Heywood would propose.
There have been a number of criticisms on Downs' model, but it is important to shed light on the seemingly similar characteristics between political parties and businesses.
Profit maximising for a political party would then entail a scenario in which the concerned party gains access to a monopoly on votes.
However, it would be wise to be vary of the implication of political parties being treated as a vote seeking enterprise.
As a voter, it would make sense to consider the attached connotations of anything being referred to as a business.
In a largely capitalistic world, a business would be assumed to work on the principles of profit maximisation and self-interest. This may not always be the case but it does the job for our intents and purposes.
If the principles of a regular business model were to apply to political parties, it would be interesting to apply the concepts of marketing to the equation.
Do politicians merely market their products and their party in a certain way to gain electoral success or is there any semblance of morality or idealogical ambitions behind their efforts?
This link of thinking would again coincide with what Downs has to say. Being a proponent of politics based on rational choice, which simply implies that all individuals decisions are based on a propensity to serve ones self-interests, Downs would agree to an existence of an ever changing and fluid political behaviour exercised by the politicians in question.
In Heywood's typology, this economic model of understand would find traction with what he terms as 'parties of representation'. These parties thrive on public support, and are focused to attract the masses to their folds regardless of idealogical considerations.
In the majority of cases, parties are almost always commandeered by a handful of powerful politicians.
The interests of these individuals, whether good or bad, end up defining the political outlook of a party.
Inter-party politics could then be thought of as a market working on the capitalistic principles of self-interest and profit maximisation. Then, would it be logical to think of different parties in the same political system as just a collection of separate businesses with different, sometimes conflicting, interests?
It really is interesting, if not necessary, to view this side of party politics through an economic lens. Being aware of the constraints its constraints, it is still beneficial to keep an eye at the insight this model provides in the understanding of certain political processes.
No comments:
Post a Comment