• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
  • Social Development
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
Home»GSDRC Publications»Dominant party systems and development programming

Dominant party systems and development programming

Helpdesk Report
  • Edward Laws
October 2016

Question

Review recent literature on dominant party political systems in developing countries, drawing lessons for development programming and the risks and challenges with such systems of political governance. Where available, include information on encouraging core state institutional reforms, enhancing accountability, and dealing with private sector development.

Summary

There is a lack of applied thinking or rigorous empirical investigation into how donors and the international community can work with dominant party systems to promote more responsive state-society relations, or other forms of development progress. Frequently cited examples of existing research are not based on recent, systematic comparative research and focus mainly on established democracies. The risks that dominant party systems pose, such as corroding lines of accountability, are illustrated primarily through narrative case studies. Some recent work on political settlements includes recommendations for how development programming should be adapted to fit with dominant party systems. This is at an early, primarily conceptual, stage and more in-depth empirical support is required.

A dominant party system refers to a category of parties or political organisations that have successively secured election victories and whose defeat is unlikely for the foreseeable future. Examples include: the right-wing Guomindang in Taiwan; the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa; the Social Democrats in Sweden; the Liberal Democrats in Japan; the Christian Democrats in Italy; and the Indian National Congress in India.

Key messages include the following:

  • There is empirical evidence to suggest that the exploitation of state resources is of central importance to dominant parties maintaining power.
  • Recent work on political settlements analysis suggests that adopting a piecemeal approach to reform, rather than trying to initiate sweeping top-down changes, can enable progress on development objectives.
  • While dominant party systems create political stability and can consolidate democratic institutions, they can also blur state-party lines, inhibit the development of effective opposition, accumulate power and disrupt lines of accountability.
  • One-party dominance has been identified as a common characteristic of a number of African countries that have recently experienced strong economic growth.
  • The presence of an autonomous meritocratic bureaucracy, alongside strong corporatist relations, seems to be an important determinant of economic performance in dominant party states.
file type icon See Full Report [PDF - 234 KB]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Suggested citation

Laws, E. (2016). Dominant party systems and development programming (GSDRC K4D Report Number 4). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.

Related Content

Who are the Elite Groups in Iraq and How do they Exercise Power
Helpdesk Report
2018
Factors supporting the emergence of democracies
Helpdesk Report
2016
Political economy of conflicts in Kyrgyzstan since the 2000s
Helpdesk Report
2016
Political systems
Topic Guide
2014
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022