Both of the books under review make interesting and insightful contributions to the party literature. While both examine questions broadly related to the role played by parties in contemporary society, and also share some methodological features (including the extensive use of interviews), they differ in terms of both their core subject matter and their scope.

In Election Promises, Party Behaviour, and Voter Perceptions, Elin Naurin examines the differing views of scholars and the electorate (in this case, the Swedish electorate) with regard to whether parties keep their election promises or “pledges.” The puzzle Naurin addresses is why scholars, using different approaches, consistently find that parties generally keep their election promises, while electorates in a broad range of countries overwhelmingly disagree with such a view. This is an intriguing issue, and one that perhaps should receive more attention from academics and practitioners alike. After all, what does it matter if scholars can favorably make the case for parties’ efforts to do what they said they would do if the public sees things entirely differently?

Naurin systematically tackles some of the pressing concerns emerging from extant research, for example, whether scholars’ findings are potentially sensitive to the ways in which we count whether parties have met, or attempted to fulfil, their election promises, as well as whether different survey questions lead to different conclusions regarding the public’s views in this debate. Her overview of current research suggests that regardless of the counting methods employed, or the survey questions used, a large discrepancy remains between scholarly conclusions and public perceptions on the fulfillment of election promises. Additionally, Naurin also tackles the potential concern that survey questions designed to tap whether respondents “think parties keep their election promises” are simply capturing respondents’ “general distrust” with politics. Through analysis of different waves of the Swedish election study project, she examines respondents’ answers to questions on general distrust and election promises, and finds that the two questions do indeed tap different constructs. In other words, responding to a question about whether parties keep their promises does not simply reflect apathy toward the political system in general but something more specific. This sort of theoretical and empirical thoroughness helps to convince the reader that there is indeed an engaging question at the heart of Naurin’s research.

The juicier part of the puzzle, however, is why the public tends to think that parties do not keep their election promises. While the author leverages Swedish election survey data, since it is one of the only surveys where specific items pertaining to election promises have been included, the most prominent feature of her examination is the use of in-depth interviews with a number of respondents who were willing to answer more open-ended questions. On the basis of those interviews, Naurin presents what she sees as the recurring themes found throughout the comments of her interviewees. Interestingly, she finds that respondents often shun available information that would allow them to keep score with regard to whether parties have kept their promises, and instead they often refer to what she terms a “narrative” of the promise-breaking politician. She argues that this narrative holds sway even when the evidence suggests that respondents’ priorities and concerns have been addressed by the ruling party.

Naurin’s findings in this respect should be noted by scholars who employ party manifesto data in their research since the interviews suggest that respondents do not pay close attention to party manifesto content, despite their utility in reminding voters what parties have pledged to do. It is worth noting, however, that the number of interviewees is limited and certainly not a representative sample—points made by the author herself (pp. 102–4). Indeed, while she notes that her interview approach was inspired, in part, by the work of Richard Fenno in Homestyle (1978), Naurin acknowledges the pros and cons of both her research design and methodology with a refreshing honesty, and does so throughout. As fellow scholars will also recognize, the conclusiveness of her findings is limited by the constraints of the available data. Sweden, apparently, is one of the only countries to conduct national election studies that ask respondents about parties’ promise-keeping tendencies, and so a more comparative examination of the research question is certainly trickier. Ultimately, Naurin’s findings lay the groundwork for more expansive research beyond the Swedish context. In particular, the questions concerning where the narrative of the promise-breaking politician emerges from and why it appears to be so central to voters’ evaluations of parties’ actions are not addressed in detail here. But it is likely that these questions are relevant elsewhere too.

As with Naurin’s research, Petr Kopecky, Peter Mair, and Maria Spirova’s edited volume, Party Patronage and Party Government in European Democracies, focuses on what parties can deliver—but in this case, what they can deliver is a question of the degree of party patronage. While patronage studies typically examine parties’ or politicians’ abilities to “buy” support from various individuals or groups, Kopecky, Mair, and Spirova take a somewhat different perspective and argue that a party’s ability to shape the policymaking process can also be examined via its ability to fill influential positions in key institutions with party supporters. In this respect, patronage is not simply a tool to help achieve electoral success or reward those who aid parties (an electoral resource), but a way in which parties can institutionally embed themselves and penetrate the policymaking process so that favorable outcomes are more likely to be delivered (an organizational resource). Each country-specific chapter on patronage addresses several common questions including the level of party patronage in the political system, the parties’ motivations behind patronage appointments, the role of parties in making such appointments, and the extent to which patronage appointments are shared among the mainstream parties.

To find meaningful answers to these questions, Kopecky, Mair, and Spirova’s methodological approach utilizes structured interviews. In contrast to Naurin’s study, which relies on interviews with the general public (17 total), the focus here is very much on expert opinion—641 respondents from 15 countries. In this instance, “experts” refers to academics, journalists, nongovernmental organization experts, civil servants, and party officials. The editors thoroughly describe their questionnaire, the way in which the expert interviews were carried out, the data collected, and the three key indicators of patronage employed in each country-specific chapter—these being an index of party patronage, the dominant motivations for patronage appointments, and the characteristics of people receiving patronage appointments. Kopecky, Mair, and Spirova are keen to point out the advantages of relying on structured expert interviews, particularly when compared with approaches currently employed in the extant literature, but they are less forthcoming in discussing the weaknesses. In fairness, however, this comparative undertaking deserves credit for its expansiveness, and for its effort to generate meaningful comparative data. The editors develop an approach that can be usefully applied in other countries.

As with many cross-national comparative studies, the countries included in this study are not a representative sample, but, according to the editors, have historically differed in the degree to which patronage has been employed by parties to achieve certain goals. Each country-specific chapter is written by a scholar familiar with patronage in that country. Cases examined range from the usual European suspects, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, to less-often studied cases, such as the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Hungary. Facilitating comparisons across such a range of countries is a great strength of the volume. To gauge the extent of party patronage, the editors have developed a “map of the state”—nine common policy areas in which patronage appointments can occur, such as the judiciary, finance, and health care. By focusing attention on party appointments in various policy areas, the editors also provide a link between the public administration and party organization literatures.

As one might expect with 15 country-specific chapters, a variety of findings emerge regarding the extent to which parties employ patronage, the purposes for which they do so, and the kinds of people who are appointed. A number of macrofindings are also revealed by the structured expert surveys. Most notable is the general finding that parties are more likely to use appointments as an organizational resource—that is, to help achieve greater influence over the policymaking process, as well as over the institutions of government and the state more broadly, rather than as a way to reward supporters. In other words, even in formerly clientelistic systems, patronage is not used primarily to help seal election victories but to strengthen parties’ abilities to control the levers of state and shape policy. Another major finding is that parties are becoming increasingly marginalized in terms of patronage appointments. The editors comment early on that the term “party patronage” is somewhat crude since it can be difficult to ascertain whether parties or specific individuals (acting with varying degrees of autonomy from the party) are responsible for patronage appointments.

Nonetheless, the balance of the evidence drawn from the 15 countries suggests a decline in parties’ abilities to influence patronage appointments, with the editors concluding that party cohesiveness has eroded, leading to both vertical and horizontal fragmentation. The latter finding will be of particular interest to scholars of party organization, since some evidence suggests an increasing professionalization and centralization of European parties, not fragmentation (e.g., Kurt Luther and Ferdinand Muller-Rommel’s edited volume, Political Parties in the New Europe (2005)). Although not specifically addressed by the editors, the decline in parties’ ability to control patronage appointments also raises the questions of the degree to which they have lost control over the policymaking process, and with what consequences. With regard to the motivations driving patronage appointments, the editors argue, the evidence shows that appointments are more an organizational resource and effort to control policy than to reward specific individuals. It is worth noting here, however, the difficulties inherent in ascertaining what motivations drive appointments, even for experts. To be fair, the editors discuss this when considering the high percentage of appointments that experts categorized as both “policy” and “reward” appointments, but readers will likely want to consider whether this methodological issue poses concerns for the conclusions reached (p. 363). Nonetheless, the volume represents an impressive piece of comparative research, and anyone interested in party organization and/or party influence (and how it is achieved) should take note.

In sum, both books offer valuable insights to scholars of political parties—broadly conceived. Naurin’s study shows, at least in the Swedish context, that regardless of whether parties actually do what they say they will do, they will be viewed by many as breaking promises and failing to deliver the electoral goods. Similarly, Kopecky, Mair, and Spirova’s edited volume shows that the processes by which parties might assure that they deliver on electoral promises have moved further beyond their control. While much ink has been spilled discussing the relevance of parties and party decline, these two studies ultimately give reason for further concern.