Building Programmatic Linkages in the Periphery: The Case of the TRT Party in Thailand

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Society Pub Date : 2021-09-22 DOI:10.1177/00323292211039954

Illan Nam, V. Nethipo

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Did the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) Party of Thailand, the first party in the country’s history to gain parliamentary dominance in 2001, represent a departure from traditional clientelistic Thai parties or was it old wine in a new bottle? This article argues that the TRT represented a new hybrid party that successfully established programmatic linkages in rural parts of the country by systematizing its use of informal social networks in local communities. By routinizing recruitment, training, and evaluation of its parliamentary candidates and their vote-canvassing networks, the TRT imparted midlevel politicians with the incentives and ability to promote the party’s policy agenda to rural voters and to cultivate new policy-oriented linkages alongside traditional clientelistic ones. By identifying specific organizational mechanisms by which the TRT combined programmatic and clientelistic linkages with rural voters, this study contributes to literature that examines hybrid party strategies as well as informal party organization.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

在周边地区建立程序性联系:以泰国的TRT党为例

泰国泰爱泰党是该国历史上第一个在2001年获得议会主导权的政党，它代表着与传统的客户主义泰国政党的背离，还是新瓶装旧酒？这篇文章认为，TRT代表了一个新的混合政党，通过在当地社区系统化使用非正式社会网络，成功地在该国农村地区建立了方案联系。通过对议会候选人及其拉票网络进行常规化的招募、培训和评估，TRT赋予了中层政治家向农村选民宣传该党政策议程的激励和能力，并与传统的客户主义联系一起培养新的政策导向联系。通过确定TRT将方案和客户主义联系与农村选民相结合的具体组织机制，本研究有助于研究混合政党战略以及非正式政党组织的文献。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.

期刊最新文献

Bringing Household Finance Back In: House Prices and the Missing Macroeconomics of Comparative Political Economy Who Pays for Environmental Policy? Business Power and the Design of State-Level Climate Policies* Supervising Local Cadres in China: The Quest for Authoritarian Accountability Rethinking Antitrust for the Cloud Era Antitrust and Equal Liberty