IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v102y2021i4p1602-1614.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Amateur hour: The dominance of purposive benefits among local political party chairs

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas D. Roscoe
  • Shannon Jenkins

Abstract

Objective Prevailing theories posit some party activists are amateurs, driven primarily by purposive benefits, while other activists are professionals, motivated mostly by material benefits. The decline of patronage and the rise of polarization suggest re‐examining the relevancy of this distinction. Methods The study uses data from a 2019 survey of 1,060 local party chairs in the United States, covering 49 states. Results Most respondents are motivated by purposive benefits, while career motivations are relatively rare. Those who do derive material benefits are only slightly more centrist than their peers and are no more pragmatic and no less likely to derive purposive benefits. A substantial segment of local chairs are interested in seeking elective office, but the motivations of these individuals with ambitions connected to party activism are dominated by purposive benefits as much as those of the unambitious. Conclusion The study demonstrates the professional–amateur typology no longer accurately characterizes local party activists.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas D. Roscoe & Shannon Jenkins, 2021. "Amateur hour: The dominance of purposive benefits among local political party chairs," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1602-1614, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:4:p:1602-1614
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13029
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13029?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shanto Iyengar & Sean J. Westwood, 2015. "Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 690-707, July.
    2. Burden, Barry C., 2004. "Candidate Positioning in US Congressional Elections," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 211-227, April.
    3. Jamie L. Carson & Ryan D. Williamson, 2018. "Candidate ideology and electoral success in congressional elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 175-192, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Geoffrey Layman & Frances Lee & Christina Wolbrecht, 2023. "Political Parties and Loser’s Consent in American Politics," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 164-183, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Danielle Joesten Martin, 2022. "Ideological and partisan biases in ratings of candidate quality in U.S. House elections," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(3), pages 622-634, May.
    2. Lane, Tom & Miller, Luis & Rodriguez, Isabel, 2024. "The normative permissiveness of political partyism," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    3. Mazen Hassan & Sarah Mansour & Stefan Voigt & May Gadallah, 2022. "When Syria was in Egypt’s land: Egyptians cooperate with Syrians, but less with each other," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(3), pages 337-362, June.
    4. Fabian Gouret & Guillaume Hollard & Stéphane Rossignol, 2011. "An empirical analysis of valence in electoral competition," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(2), pages 309-340, July.
    5. Lilla V. Orr & Gregory A. Huber, 2020. "The Policy Basis of Measured Partisan Animosity in the United States," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 569-586, July.
    6. Chonnakan Rittinon & Boontida Sa-ngimnet & Suparit Suwanik & Tanisa Tawichsri & Thiti Tosborvorn, 2022. "Misunderstood Differences: Media, Perception, and Out-Group Animosity in Thailand," PIER Discussion Papers 194, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, revised Sep 2024.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:373-380 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Luca Henkel & Philipp Sprengholz & Lars Korn & Cornelia Betsch & Robert Böhm, 2023. "The association between vaccination status identification and societal polarization," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(2), pages 231-239, February.
    9. Stone, Daniel, 2018. ""Unmotivated Bias" and Partisan Hostility: Empirical Evidence," SocArXiv hr5ba, Center for Open Science.
    10. Alan Abramowitz & Jennifer McCoy, 2019. "United States: Racial Resentment, Negative Partisanship, and Polarization in Trump’s America," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 681(1), pages 137-156, January.
    11. Joshua Conrad Jackson & Marieke van Egmond & Virginia K Choi & Carol R Ember & Jamin Halberstadt & Jovana Balanovic & Inger N Basker & Klaus Boehnke & Noemi Buki & Ronald Fischer & Marta Fulop & Ashle, 2019. "Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, September.
    12. Sgroi, Daniel & Yeo, Jonathan & Zhuo, Shi, 2021. "Ingroup Bias with Multiple Identities: The Case of Religion and Attitudes Towards Government Size," IZA Discussion Papers 14714, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Fabian Gouret, 2021. "Empirical foundation of valence using Aldrich–McKelvey scaling," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 25(3), pages 177-226, September.
    14. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2022. "News coverage and mass shootings in the US," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    15. Eitan Hersh & Yair Ghitza, 2018. "Mixed partisan households and electoral participation in the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, October.
    16. Abel, Martin & Robbett, Andrea & Stone, Daniel F., 2024. "Partisan Discrimination in Hiring," IZA Discussion Papers 17540, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Abhishek Samantray & Paolo Pin, 2019. "Credibility of climate change denial in social media," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    18. Niels Boissonnet & Alexis Ghersengorin & Simon Gleyze, 2022. "Revealed Deliberate Preference Change," Working Papers hal-03672734, HAL.
    19. William G. Nomikos & Dahjin Kim & Gechun Lin, 2025. "American social media users have ideological differences of opinion about the War in Ukraine," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-7, December.
    20. Michael Thaler, 2024. "The Fake News Effect: Experimentally Identifying Motivated Reasoning Using Trust in News," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 1-38, May.
    21. Sanjit Dhami & Emma Manifold & Ali al‐Nowaihi, 2021. "Identity and Redistribution: Theory and Evidence," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(350), pages 499-531, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:4:p:1602-1614. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.