Incentives for the Maintenance of Grassroots Political Activism Author(s): Lewis Bowman, Dennis Ippolito, William Donaldson Reviewed

work(s): Source: Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Feb., 1969), pp. 126-139 Published by: Midwest Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110217 . Accessed: 28/10/2011 17:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Midwest Journal of Political Science.

http://www.jstor.org

LEWIS DENNIS WILLIAM

Emory University

BOWMAN IPPOLITO

of University Virgina

DONALDSON

of for Maintenance Incentives the Political Activism Grassroots

of for Thls studyrelatesincentives partywork to the mamtenance activism and m amonglocal partyofficials two Massachusetts threeNorth Carolna comClark and Wilson's systems, relatng to mcentives munities.To test hypotheses "-were operationsolidary,"" purposive,"and " material mcentve categories-" items developed by Marvick and alhzedin termsof the batteryof 'incentive of were supplemented rankings these incentives Nixon, and the partyofficials' likes and dislikesabout partywork. While some mter-state by theirexpressed differences occur in the likes and dislikesof given sub-groups, and inter-party to to theseappear to be unrelated the decisionsof officials continueor to quit thosewho plan to continue distmguish theirpartypost. Factorswhlchapparently attached partyloyalty to importance from thosewho plan to quit are the relative of and to the personalimportance the partyoffice.Those who plan to continue incentive than those who considerstrongpartyloyaltyto be a more important those who plan to quit findtheirpartypositionto plan to quit. Conversely, thando thosewho plan to cbntmue. personally be muchless important
INTRODUCrION

in RELATIVELY FEW PERSONS becomeinvolved partyorganizational of basis.' An examinatiofi theincentives workon a contnuing systems
1 At the local level,thereis no reliable estimate continuous of activism Indeed, if turnwould need some strictdefimnton we are to begin estimating continuity over at the local level In Eldersveld's study,it is reportedthat "At least half in and in party, two-fifths theRepublican mobiles the Democratic thetop precinct of party,had briefpoliticalcareers. . .. [whlle] one-third the top mobilesm for both partieshad been in the partycontinuously at least 16 years" Samuel Analysis(Chicago Rand-McNally, PoliticalParties A Behavioral J. Eldersveld, New York,a sampleof 85 executive committee1964),p 167. In Nassau County, menrevealednone who had decidedto quit theirpartypost At the committeem per cent turnover the Democraticpartyis nearlytwenty man level,however, less. What this everytwo yearsand in the Republicanpartyit is only slightly of suggestsis that measurement continuousactivismdepends on the type of the local party mobiles or non-mobiles), or activists(careerists noncareerists, level (e g., districtchairmenor precinctchairmen),the party (majorityor minonty),and the area or politicalcontextwithi which the partyis working.

126

INCENTIVES FOR MAINTENANCE

127

Whatdo this workcan helpto explain phenomenon. in involved party work; What aretheincenaboutparty like officials and dislike party does And,of course, tiveswhichtendto keeppartyofficials activeO the reflect inabiltyof the partyto in partyactivism discontinuity its (or whichit offers whichit socializes activists the deliver incentives conand personal of to expect)or is it a reflection particular hlghly prorecruitment Whiletheimtlal the within local organizationa flicts workhas little attention, scholarly to cesshasbegun receive mcreasing organization level at questions thegrassroots of party dealtwiththese organizatheparty capableof maintaining system wherean incentives from quitedifferent thatof to tionovera periodof timeis likely be If nationalor even state partyleadership.2 the local partyis to whlch are it as function an orgamzation, mustprovideincentives affiliatheir formal to workers continue party adequateto encourage periodof time. overa substantial tionwiththeparty about to to In an effort provideanswers some of thesequestions of a for work,we conducted survey Demosystems party incentives areas-three in partyofficials selected precinct craticand Republican In and Massachusetts two NorthCarolna communities." thispaper, viewson givenmcentives, the on the officials' we are reporting party
and "The Party Orgamzation On theselast two ponts, see Wllliam J Crotty, ed. Its Actvities,"m Approachesto the Study of Party Organization, William J.Crotty(Boston Allynand Bacon, 1968), pp 251-60, 293. systemsat the local level, see "For some recent analysesof the mcentives Bert E Swanson,and Eldersveld,op cit, pp 272-303,Robert S Hirschfield, Blanche D. Blank, "A Profile of Political Activistsm Manhattan,"Western Political Quarterly,15 (September,1962), pp 489-506,Dwame Marvick and in Contrasts Rival CampaignGroups,"in Political CharlesNixon, "Recruitment Decision-Makers,ed. Dwaine Marvick (New York Free Press, 1961), "The Urban Party OrganizationMember," Robert H. Salisbury, pp. 193-217, pp. 29 Public Opinion Quarterly, (Wmter, 1965-1966), 350-64,also the general analysism Frank J Sorauf,Party Politics in America (Boston Little,Brown 1968),pp 82-90. There are clear signsof changem the mcentives and Company, of the systemat the local level-in particular, importance patronageand other as is decreasing-but, Eldersveldnotes,one should materialincentives apparently and orgamareally, hierarchically, patterns m expectsome" diversity motivational zatonally (p. 302)." ,For purposesof thls study,"local party official"has been definedas the Republican and Democratic precmct chairmenm the North Carolina comward officlals Republicanand Democratic ranklang and munities as thetwo highest communites The latter choice was occasioned by the m the Massachusetts some limited and m arrangement Massachusetts, while it presents organizational " all problems m comparability, those designatedare the " grassroots party m respect. and are comparable thatimportant in officials both systems

128

AND W. DONALDSON D. L. BOWMAN, IPPOLITO

work,and we are also dealing of and attractions dissatisfactionsparty or to betweendecisions continue not to continue withrelationships workand givenincentives. in party
INCENTIVES TO PARTY ORGANIZATIONAL WORK

said of A large majority the local partyofficials thattheyliked satisfactions personal withcertain them post,becauseit provided their are and suchsatisfactions rewards " self-improveAmong andrewards. mentas a citizen,""the personalcontactswhich one can make," dopesters"i t helps of affinity theinside and business," theinevitable nature the indicating differing "I like beingon the inside."Perhaps TABLE1
THEIRPOSITIONS WHAT LocAL PARTYOFFICIALSLIKEMOSTABOUT (in percentages) Responsesby Area and Party,First Responseand Total Responses Total Dem. Mass Rep N C Dem N C Rep total 1st total 1st total 1st total 1st total 70 16 1 13 100 (39) 77 6 10 7 100 (31) 62 16 11 11 100 (56) 67 19 11 3 100 (36) 54 26 16 4 100 (69) 70 18 9 3 100 (34) 69 20 10 75 12 8 62 20 11

Mass 1st satisfacPersonal non andrewards Being mfluential m thecommumty Bemg mfluential mtheparty party General activites N= 91 0 0 9 100 (22)

7 5 1 100 100 100 (61) (123) (225)

in the in of partypolitics the two states, partyofficials the Massawere somewhatmore inclinedto articulate chusetts communities than were their North Carolna reasonsof personalsatisfaction not in Democrats particular-while The Massachusetts counterparts. in fromthe othersub-groups termsof total significantly varying "What do you like mostabout being a to responses the question, personalsatisfac"-gave an imtlalanswerreflecting officialP party in or rewards overninety centof theirresponsesIt is to per tions m where few be expectedthat local partyofficials Massachusetts, withtheir associated little duties (and apparently power) aregenerally would like theirjob because of generalpartyactivities positions,

INCENTIVES FOR MAINTENANCE

129

etc (such as worklngat the polls, campaigning, ) and personalrewards ratherthan because of any inordinateparty or communityinfluence inherentin the positions If the firstresponsecan be assumed to be perceptionsby the main reason for liking the position,the different North Carolina and Massachusettsparty officialsof communityor as partyinfluence a concomitantof theirpositionsare striking None Democrats and only sixteeen of the initialresponsesof Massachusetts Republicanswere in terms cent of the responsesof Massachusetts per
TABLE 2 THEIRPoSITnoNs ABOUT LIKE LEAST OFFICIALS PARTY WHATLOCAL (m percentages) Responsesby Area and Party,First Responseand Total Responses Dem Mass Rep N C Dem N C Rep total 1st total 1st total 1st total

Mass 1st within Conflict theparty 27 organization 33 tasks Party Unduedemand 0 onume of Apathy the peopleinthe 27 community Non-organizational 13 conflict N=
100

Total 1st total

35 25 0 25
100

36 25

11

14 38

27 19

29 21 21 18
100

42 12 19 19
100

39 9 23 20
100

26 24 21 17
100

29 23 19 18
100

26
11
100

31
11
100

14
100

15

14

11

12

11

12

11

(15)

(20)

(28)

(35)

(26)

(38)

(26)

(31)

(95) (124)

or of community party influence In North Carolina,however,thirty per of the Democrats and twenty-seven cent of the Republiper cent that their positionsput them in line to exert influence cans thought candidateselection,criticismof party in mattersof policy formation, affairs And, of course,the importanceof comor affairs, community munity and party influence relative to personal satisfactionsand strongfor North Carolina Democrats. Obvirewards is particularly ously, their perceived incentives differfrom those articulated by or partyofficials, even by theirRepublican counterparts Massachusetts in North Carolina. variationsalso occurred when the local party officials Interesting

130

L. BowMAN,D. IPPOLITOA

W. DONALDSON

" yourposition? North "Whatdo youlikeleastabout wereasked, intra-party who in CarolnaRepublicans, had beeninvolved recent and the between YoungRepublicans the olderfederal skirmishes expressed of for Republicans control the local partymachinery, one-half Nearly the conflict organization. about within party concern the natureAmong Massachusetts are responses ofthis imtial oftheir this party is where internecme confhlctnotunusual, type Democrats, per (thlrty-five centof the total also of reaction was significant dislike in varied little their groups party Sincethefour responses). were officials that party itis conflict, probable the ofnon-orgamzational local by particular generated for dislike conflict a general expressing party the among Massachusetts tasks of The situations. dislike party to related thefact was Republicans, apparently particularly officials, was madeto use the effort a in campaigns,concerted that, recent the from public.The of in chairmen thesolicitation funds precinct in officials and Carolna Massachusetts of responses North differential pertheir may tasks havemirrored differing of of terms dislike party a It position couldbe that degree of of ceptions theinfluence their tasks of party the renders performingcertain influence of perceived party studyof county In less somewhat objectionable a similar aroseoverfundthe in organizationsNassauCounty, sameproblem that however, the committeemen It campaigns. appeared, raising then solicitation didzone door-to-door against more strongly reacted officials of most these although leaders, district or leaders assembly tasks the objectionable Thus,it maybe that more funds. didsolicit meanin need performs toberationalizedpersonally the which activist or in or such terms as power influence theparty community.4 ingful their and for reasons liking disliking and The perceived expressed characterize if in that indicate variations extent, notintype, positions officials for activism party ofparty and theattractions dissatisfactions rewards the however, personal In the communities. aggregate, these in incenmost important to work ofparty appear be the andsatisfactions the less it And, all officials. while is clearly important, among tives an constitutes influence apparently or party of perception situational howdifferences, andparty situational Particular incentive. important with of in more are ever, somewhat evident terms dissatisfactions party
A and Perspectives Pary Leadership: Case Studyof NassauCounty, Political
of University Virginia: 1967). Ph.D. dissertation, Nev York (unpublished to ' This and otherreferences Nassau Countyare drawnfroma studyof party and fallof 1966. See Dennis S. Ippolito, durng the summer conducted leadership

INCENTIVES FOR MAINTENANCE

131

were tasks and intra-party work.Thus,forexample, conffict party And, than others. localorgamzations for for relevance some ofgreater predominated which dislike there forall officials, was no particular incentives. of in evidenced theranking positive to theextent indicated questions to officials open-minded of The responses party and incentives a or positive "satisfying" toward reaction a similar or negative or on community party-of ranking-depending varying responses leaders' The work. localparty aspects unsatisfactory ofparty to the relating items of to a series closed-ended reinforced similarity used was of This incentives. battery questions initially by positive ofRepubthe between motivations to and Marvick Nixon differentiate in workers Los Angeles.5 campaign volunteer licanandDemocratic wereoperating, in officials ourstudy party the Given levelat which appropriate. was items methodologically thesame administering quite the ranked incentives similarly. areas of Theparty officialsboth toward in differences the responses were significant While there therewere few by incentives the samepartyofficials, different item incentive among to inthe differences responses a given significant anyofthesub-groups. we theory, to theseincentives organizational to In order relate by suggested Clarkand to the incentives the categories assigned of broadcategories incentives out who pointed thatthree Wilson, and solidary, purposive." material, of members organizations: influence are " the to definitions, "materialincentives tangible According their The to money. transferable easily or such rewards as money, rewards result whichmainly rewards are intangible " solidary incentives " and group socializing, identification, the from actofassociating, include are " The and status, fun-seeking. " purposiveincentives member from result incentives-but generally the intangible-like "solidary" mereassociation. thanfrom rather endsof association the stated
these incentives as we these definitions categorized material Following
" Marvick and

INCENTIVES THE RATINGOF PARTICULAR

Nixon, op. cit., p. 208. The question used is "People get reasonshave been given reasons.The following involvedin politicsfor different are with whom we have talked. How important these by some partyofficials order in the " The individualitems appeared in a different reasons to you? than in Tables 3 and 9. questionnaire Q. 'Peter Clarkand Jamies Wilson,"IncentiveSystems:A Theory of Organi6 Science Quarterly, (1961), pp. 129-166. zation,"Adm7inistrative

132

ANDW. DONALDSON D. L. BOWMAN, IPPOLITO

ampolitical people,""furthering "being close to influential items* ", contacts solidaryitemsIncluded bition,"and " maklngbusinness "politicsas partof a way of life,""making "strongpartyloyalty," of "the funand excitement campaigns," and socialcontacts friends," concern items-" ", of friend a candldate theremaining and " personal TABLE3
To OF THE IMPORTANcE INCENTIVES THE LoCAL PARTY OFmcIALS (in percentages)

Item 1. Concernwith publicissues 2. Sense of comobligation munity 3. Strong party loyalty 4. Politcs part ofwayof life socialcon5. Making and tacts friends 6 Fun and excitement campaign of friend 7. Personal ofcandidate 8. Beingcloseto influential people political 9. Futhering ambition business 10. Making contacts N-=(23)

Total NorthCarolna Massachusetts Dem. Rep. Total Dem. Rep. Total Dem. Rep. Total 87 70 74 56 39 26 26 17 13 9 88 85 58 42 30 25 15 15 5 5 (40) 88 78 66 48 35 26 21 16 9 7 (63) 95 83 46 51 39 29 29 27 10 12 (41) 91 85 56 44 56 35 24 20 3 3 (34) 93 84 51 48 48 32 27 24 7 8 (75) 92 78 56 53 39 28 28 23 11 11 (64) 89 85 49 46 42 30 19 18 4 91 82 53 49 41 29 24 21 8

8 4 (74) (138)

was " very important." of In percentages thoseto whom the mcentive

"-were " obligation with public issues and " sense of community as classified purposive. the As Table 4 indicates differences partyand area in the imby were quite small. In each case, the of categories portance incentive was the same. Further, of categories ranking the incentive relative in of whichoccurred the ranlkng each incentive the smallvariations Of to by category area and partyappeared be idiosyncratic. course, in rankedthe incentive categories the factthatall foursub-groups

INCENTIVES

FOR MAINTENANCE

133

"solidary"' mostimportant, the same order-"purposive"incentives least "material"incentnves important next incentives mostimportant, It -may be instructive. could be that,at thispartylevel,activists community aboutpublicissues, by motivated concerns aremorehighly gains. by than material and loyalty socialcontacts andparty obligatnon, incentives of abouttheavallablity material as much indicate Thismight and loyalty, conviviality at thelocal levelas it doesabouttheidealism, of ordering the but of grass roots activists, the ratherconsistent
TABLE 4
INCENTIVES AND MATERIAL PURPOSIVE, OF Tm IMPORTANGE SOLIDARY,
BY AREA AND PARTY

of Categories Incentives MeanScore)* (Grand PurposiveSolidary Matenal Republicans NorthCarolina Democrats NorthCarolina Republicans Massachusetts Democrats Massachusetts Total 1.17 110 121 143 118 2 14 196 2 15 187 2 01 315 2 85 3 39 308 312

"; important ", important(2) " somewhat are ratmgs (1) " very The possible at ", (3) "not veryimportantand (4) "not important all" Thus,the hlgher m category importance. the the mean, lower incentive thegrand

such an intersuggests strongly among the sub-groups responses pretation. between areas the the then, differences withincentives, In dealing " minor Only in thecase of " dislkes wererelatively and the parties locale of workdo the influences partyand specific to relating party of Thus, the perceptions party appearto be of some importance. relating of a indicate degree commonality to relating incentives officials at the local level. generally to activism
THE DECISION TO CONTINUE IN THE PARTY PosTr

twowho approximately Of thoseofficials had reacheda decision, question, to contnuein their posts The essential party thirds planned to or to the is then, whether decision continue to quit is related the abouttheposition. and dislikes or of categories incentives to likes to the relating partyactivism, In examining "positive" incentives

134

L. BowMAN,D. IPPOLITO AND W. DONALDSON

TABLE 5
EXPECTED CONINUIITYOF LocAL PARTr OmcuIAIs

(m percentages)

Total Carolna North Massachusetts Dem. Rep. Total Dem. Rep. Total Dem. Rep. Total Plan to contmue Planto qut N= 89 11 63 37 71 29 65 35 59 41 62 38 73 27 59 41 66 34

100

(19)

(32)

100

100

(51)

100

(37)

100

(34)

100

(71)

100

(56)

100

(66) (122)

100

to whether seek decided who officials haddefintely of Basedon theanswers all party official. term a party as another

amongareasor among either occurred variation thatlittle it appeared the when we contrast perceived emerges finding parties.A similar in of mcentives thosewho said theywere goingto continue party theydiffer slightly, who planto quit. As aggregates withthose office at all. if
TABLE 6
TO ARE WHO DEFINITELY GOING CoNrNuEOR WHATTHOSEPARTY OFFIcIALs ANDPARTY THEPOsmON, AREA BY To Quff LiKE MosT ABOUT

(m percentages)

PlantoContnue N. C. Mass. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. satisfaction Personal and rewards in mfluential Bemg thecommunity m influential Bemg the party General party actvites N= 88 0 0
100

to Plan Quit N. C. Mass. Dem." Rep. Dem. Rep. 100 0 0

100

69 16 15
100

71 17 12
100

75 25 0
100

84 0 0
100

45 33 11
100

65 7 21
100

12

16

11 (9)

(17)

(13)

(24)

(20)

(2)

(12)

(14)

who of respondents madea are * The percentages basedon theanswers those in to a and response answer thequestion, defimte choice, whoexpressedcodable " official aboutbemga party "What do youlikemost for * This number casesis too smallto be meamngful is included but of completeness.

INCENTIVES FOR MAINTENANCE

135

differthereare few substantial moreover, In terms "dislikes," of ences. Amongthosewho plan to quit, "undue demandon time" thanamongthosewho plan burden a constitutes greater apparently which is at least intuitively conflict, to continue.Yet intra-party is at factor, leastas faras theaggregates suggestive,nota discrimnating are concerned.
TABLE 7
WHO PLAN TO QUIT DisLIxz ABOUT Tm PosrnoN, WHAT LOCALPARTYOmEIcaALS BY AREA AND PARTY (m percentages)

Massachusetts Rep. Dem.

Likes Least Conflict within Cont. QUit Cont.

NorthCarolina Rep Dem.

Cont. Quit

QUit Cont. Qult

Party tasks Undue demandon time

Apathy of people

organzation party

27
36

28
0

100 0
0

50 8
8

17

33 56
11

19 38
12

19

57
14
0

44
14
14

42
8 25 25

14

14

Non-organizantonal
conflict

N=

9 (11)

0 (1)

17 (12)

0 (9)

12 (16)

14 (7)

14 (14)

0 (12)

suchobviousonesas age and of including factors, A number other and as tenurein office, well as type of recruitment natureof first here yet were also examined, the differences again for contest office, of pattern and therewas no evidenceof a consistent were slight, the between groups. differentiation betweenthose who plan to Indeed,one of the few differences to of and continue thosewho planto quitrelates theassessment their of the importance their When askedto assess personal position. party who plan to of number activists greater partypost,a substantially (twentywho per quit (fifty-four cent)thanactivists planto continue as " their sixpercent) characterized position " ummportantMoreover, withineach betweenthe two groupsare consistent the differences and party areasub-groups. of the by of This evaluation partypositionis reinforced the differing incentives thetwo groups. by as of loyalty important evaluations party items in of There are onlytwo casesin the directbattery incentive is of of variation shown. One is the importance whichsomedegree

136

AND W. DONALDSON L. BowMAN,D. IPPOLITO

more is for whlch somewhat important friendship a candidate, personal whoplanto for whoplanto quitthan those for as anincentive those loyalty. party of And Ls continue. thesecond theassessment strong
ratedthls incentive activiltsts per Fifty-eight cent of the continuing

per to as as veryimportant opposed onlyforty-five centof those are twofactors that who activists planto quit.It is probable these may for friendshlp a candidate provide Personal related. somewhat continuing to activism, it isnotlikely promote but to animpetus party by and a in somecaseswithout reinforcement reorientation activism but of And sincenotonlytheimportance party to party. loyalty
TABLE8
OF IMPORTANCE PARTYPosT TO THE RELATIONOF THEIR VIEws oF THE PERSONAL OFFICIALS'PLANS TO CONTINUEIN OFFICE, BY AREA AND PARTY PAMtry (m percentages) Rep Mass. N. Carolma Rep. Dem. Totals

Dem

R sayspostis
Important Unimportant N=

Cont. Quit * Cont. Quit Cont. Quit Cont. Quit Cont. Quit All 82 18 (17) 50 50 (2) 75 57 74 63 30 46 62 46 79 54 37 26 43 25 70 38 54 21 (19) (13) (24) (13) (20) (14) (80) (42) (122)

because of the smallnumber. Relevantonly for completeness

whoplan is position lessforthose of alsotheimportance theparty and might this to quit, typeofreinforcementreorientation nothave occurred. orientation lack be then, Whatmay indicated, is a relative ofparty more become could the Further, problem of activists. onthe part some As organization we notedearlier, acuteat thislevelof theparty do we with officials whom are dealing notholdpositions theparty evaluations the or powerful influential, officials' are which particularly It this reflect assessment. is also clearthatthosewho do planto political articulate and/or do their posts notperceive relnquish party Indeed, as incentivesparticularly material or important ambitionsother the virtually same. the rank incentive both categories groups at then, appears activism thelocallevel, of Theproblem maintaining here studied as elsein several First, theareas to have components.
as are incentives becoming increasingly important where,purposive

INCENTIVES FOR MAINTE1NANCE TABLE 9

137

OF THE IMPORTANCE VA1aous INcENTvEsOo THE LOCALPARTYOFFICIALS WHO Anu

IN TO TO GOING CONTINUE TM POSIiON,AS COMPARED THOSEWHO ARE TO GOING QUIT* (m percentages) Planto Continue m Office 91 80 58 48 42 31 21 21 9 8 Planto Quit theOffice 90 83 45 50 40 33 31 24 7 7 (42)

Incentive

Purposive Concernwithpublicissues obligatlon Sense of commumty Solidary Strongpartyloyalty Politicspartof way of life and friends Makingsocial contacts of Fun and excitement the campaign Personalfriendof candidates Material people Bemg close to mfluential contacts Makingbusmess Furtherngpoliticalambitions N-=(80)

" when questionedabout In percentages thoseanswermg very important" of the mcentive.

however, such In activism. maintaining activism, an impetus party to " pay-off" suchincentives to or on to of the ability thepartyeither thembecomescritical.Thus, for thosewho or reinforce reorient and a highevaluation the of in partyloyalty continue partyoffice, a to of may reflect, some extent, personalimportance partyoffice benefits and Moretangible direct personal of socialization theactivist. areas.And, levelin these at not maysimply be relevant thelocalparty of or indeed,the chancesfor patronage politicaladvancement any For some activists, in consequence theseareas are quite restricted. whichfosters or to attachment theparty socialization imtial however, in position and both suchattachment to theparty general to theparty strong. in particular maynotbe sufficiently
SUMMARY

are It is clear that personalrewardsand satisfactions important of at incentives the local level. The degreeto which officials both theirpositive articulate in parties NorthCarolinaand Massachusetts

138

AND W. DONALDSON D. L. BowmAN, IPPOLITO

In terms indicates clearly. addiin work these this to responses partY for are ummportant allsub-groups. tion, incentives relatively material the of the availability suchincentives, reflects relative Thisprobably and we with structure which are dealing, the basiclevelof party activist. of character thecontemporary changing unrelated is however, apparently activism, in Discontinuty party who that To of perceptions incentives. theextent those to differing who planto quit,the essential those differ from to continue plan
TABLE 10
To REATION OF TnPFs OF INCENTIVES TiE LocAL PARTY OFmamAL' PIANS TO CoNTINUE OR TO Qurr Tnm PosmoN

Category Incentive Maternal Solhdary N=

to Plans Quit to Plans Continue of for Mean Score Category Incentive 3.0 1.9 (80)
1.2

3.1 2.0 (42)

1.2

Purposive

"; important "; are ratmgs (1) "veryimportant(2) " somewhat The possible the at ", (3) "not veryunportant (4) "not important all." Thus,the hlgher in category importance. the the mean, lower mcentive

attach they which to to appears be related theimportance difference For of loyalty. perceptions party and position their party to their the is and whom party important for loyalty very party to those whom are orientation less and orientation position those whose party among strong. incenpurposive activists through then, The localparty, canattract the to of But requires, someextent, tives. themaintenance activism as the toward party a of orientation the activist positive eventual incentives material Where in party.7 his and group toward position the
consuggestthis also. As he notes,"The one strildng findmgs 7Eldersveld's who fromthis analysisis that those activists emerging of sistency perspectives the goal of the party,and those who had no clear unable to articulate were motimclmedto be disillusioned percepnonof theirown role, were defimtely 293)." It is to be expectedthat mdecisionabout partygoals and vationally(p of lack of clear perception one's role are not likelyto sustamstrongpersonal and to commitments either. If this is the case, the need for remforcement becomesacute. reornentation

than is continued activism morelikely is important, position personally

INCENTIVES FOR MAINTENANCE

139

the and or unavailable largely irrelevant where party's areeither ability the in of is incentives restricted, importance to pay off terms purposive attachment particular in and incentives general of party of solhdary in that appears require to of clear. The maintenance activism becomes whether or valuein hisposition, find thepartyofficial somepersonal is powerful influential. or position actually notthat