Abstract
This article presents an original dataset of direct public funding (DPF) of political parties across 27 post-communist regimes from the outset of transition until 2020. It represents the first systematic, and detailed account of the actual level of DPF provided to parties outside established democracies in terms of geographical and temporal coverage. The dataset has a panel format and includes information on DPF per registered voter and cast ballot separately and in aggregate for more than 800 country-year observations and more than 200 election campaigns. The analysis unveils substantial cross-national and within-country variation in the level of DPF, as well as between statutory and election financing. Despite an increasing reliance of political parties on the state, no pattern exists regarding the dynamics of access and distribution rules. It also highlights the limitations and risks entailed by the extensive use of various proxies such as dichotomous indicators, composite regulatory indexes, or perception-based measures that do not capture cross-national and within-country variation either in DPF or other dimensions of political financing regime.
Highlights
This research is driven by conceptual, operationalization and empirical challenges regarding how state funding of political parties is tackled in cross-national research
While the status-quo prevails, other cases are divided into those increasing (Bulgaria, Georgia, Russia, Serbia, and Slovakia) and decreasing (Croatia, the Czech Republic, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Slovenia) the barriers to direct public funding (DPF). This mottled picture shows that the regulation of access to DPF substantially varies across postcommunist polities, offering inconclusive evidence to support the cartelization of party politics, at least regarding the access conditions
Excessive reliance on various proxy measures typified by single indicators such as absence vs the availability of DPF, composite indexes bundling together several regulatory dimensions of political financing regime (PFR), or expert evaluations represents a risky endeavour for comparative research on party finance
Summary
This research is driven by conceptual, operationalization and empirical challenges regarding how state funding of political parties is tackled in cross-national research. Most large-N studies rely on various proxy measures epitomized by aggregate regulation-based indexes or dichotomous indicators, which, at best, only scratch the tip of the party finance iceberg Against this backdrop, this study contributes to the research on comparative party finance by partially addressing some of the existing limitations and challenges stemming from the data shortage and its operationalization into reliable measures suited for cross-national and longitudinal analysis. With some exceptions mostly limited to established democracies (Cage, 2020; CasasZamora, 2005; McMenamin, 2013; Nassmacher, 2009; van Biezen and Kopecky, 2014), hard empirical data on political funding are primarily used in case-oriented research or small-N studies, while large-N studies rely almost exclusively on various proxy measures instead of the actual figures This approach is confirmed by the prevalence of studies using regulation-based measures that rely on the IDEA political finance database (Austin and Tjernstrom, 2003; Falguera et al, 2014) or follow a similar operationalization technique. If public funding covers a large part of the parties’ financial needs, it
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
