How does single party dominance influence civil society organisations’ engagement strategies? Exploratory analysis of participative mainstreaming in a ‘regional’ European polity:

Paul Chaney

doi:10.1177/0952076715581876

How does single party dominance influence civil society organisations’ engagement strategies? Exploratory analysis of participative mainstreaming in a ‘regional’ European polity:

Chaney, Paul 2015-05-04 00:00:00 A raft of United Nations Treaties, European Union Directives and domestic laws oblige governments in 180 + countries to apply the Participative Democratic Model of main- streaming equalities to public administration by involving those targeted by equality initiatives at all stages in their design and delivery. Notwithstanding Participative Democratic Model’s deeply political nature, extant work has overlooked how governing party turnover influences civil society organisations’ (CSOs) strategies. Here, this lacuna is addressed using a negative ‘extreme case study’ research design involving qualitative accounts from civil society organisations in Wales, a ‘regional’ European polity charac- terised by one-party dominance. The findings reveal how the absence of turnover distorts the Participative Democratic Model in relation to diverse factors including: strategic bridging, extraparliamentary politics, cognitive locks and party institutionalisa- tion. Inter alia, the wider contribution of this analysis lies in showing the importance of turnover to effective engagement, the ‘pathologies’ associated with one-party domin- ance and the need for adaptive civil society strategies tailored to prevailing electoral politics and governing party turnover in liberal democracies. Keywords Civil society, equalities, government, mainstreaming, participation, politics, turnover Corresponding author: Paul Chaney, Wales Institute of Social Economic Research and Data (WISERD), Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3WT, Wales. Email: Chaneyp@cardiff.ac.uk Chaney 123 Introduction This study is concerned with exploring the role of governing party turnover in shaping participative mainstreaming and civil society organisations’ (CSOs) stra- tegies for engaging in the work of government. Mainstreaming is an internationally adopted approach to promoting equality. It is underpinned by a series of United Nations (UN) conventions and resolutions (e.g. CEDAW, SCR1325, SCR1888 and SCR1889), as well as European Union (EU) Directives (e.g. 2004/113/EC and 2006/54). It has also been enshrined in domestic legal codes (e.g. Equality Act, 2010). It came to prominence at the Fourth UN Conference on Women (circa 1995). Since then representatives from 189 countries have adopted the Participative Democratic Model (PDM) of mainstreaming as set out in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. Originally conceived as an approach to gender equal- ity (cf. Beveridge and Shaw, 2002; Woodward, 2008), its application has broadened to incorporate a full range of characteristics (e.g. age, disability, faith, ethnicity and sexual orientation). It is concerned with embedding equality into all stages of public policy making. Crucially, the participative model is based on engaging groups targeted by equality objectives in their design, development and implementation. Notwithstanding its prominence, a burgeoning literature attests to the diﬃcul- ties of translating mainstreaming principles into practice (cf. Bacchi and Eveline, 2010; Beveridge and Nott, 2002; Caglar, 2013; True and Parisi, 2013; Woehl, 2011). As Mosesdottir and Erlingsdottir (2005: 525) observe, ‘very few countries have managed to develop a well-functioning institutional framework around the main- streaming method’. The UN concurs. Its appraisal of progress since the Beijing Declaration concluded, ‘many gaps and challenges remain in guaranteeing .. . full and equal participation in decision-making in all stages’ (UN, 2010: 37). Mainstreaming is intimately concerned with power and agenda setting – and the challenging of exclusive norms and the exercise of power by elites unrepresentative of social diversity. Yet, curiously, existing scholarly work has tended to overlook its deeply political nature. Instead, past studies have tended to regard government as a largely non-party-political policy actor. Moreover, extant research has paid scant attention to the role of electoral politics and governing party turnover (‘turn- over’ here refers to the rate at which the party holding government oﬃce is voted out in state-wide elections and replaced by a rival). It is a signiﬁcant knowledge gap, one that the following discussion addresses. This study follows a negative ‘extreme case study’ design (for a full discussion, see Methodology section) and focuses on Wales; a rare and striking example of a liberal democratic system where governing party turnover is absent – for the coun- try has experienced single-party dominance throughout the post-war period. The ﬁndings are based on qualitative data analysis of interviews with civil soci- ety policy actors. The speciﬁc focus on CSOs is appropriate here because state– civil society relations lie at the heart of participative mainstreaming. Thus, 124 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (UN, 1995) asserts: ‘civil soci- ety cooperation with Governments [is] important to the eﬀective implementa- tion and follow-up of the Platform for Action’ (UN, 1995, Article 20). In conceptual terms, mainstreaming is based on criticality and engagement between state and non-state actors. This precludes both the inclusion of civic soci- ety organisations (because of their connection to the state) – and the private sector (which is eschewed owing to its concern with capital accumulation/the proﬁt motive, rather than representing the policy claims of those with ‘protected characteristics’). As the following discussion reveals, this study makes three original contribu- tions: (i) it synthesises diverse strands of social theory and applies them to the PDM as part of an exploration of how single-party dominance inﬂuences CSOs’ strate- gies; (ii) it presents the core argument that, although often overlooked, governing party turnover matters to the PDM for it shapes the political opportunity struc- tures and attendant CSO strategies for engagement in the work of government; and (iii) it emphasises that CSOs’ need to employ an adaptive model of policy engage- ment suited to the prevailing electoral politics and governing party turnover in liberal democracies. The ﬁndings are presented in relation to four themes emerging from the data analysis. To guide the reader, these are now brieﬂy summarised and returned to in detail in the Findings section. 1. In the ﬁrst part of the ﬁndings, social theory in relation to the Collective Interest Model and strategic bridging is applied to the interview data. This reveals how OPD skews the political dynamic for participation in the work of government. Not least it shapes group incentives – as well as whom to engage amongst pol- itical elites. 2. Subsequently, drawing on theory on action repertoires (or, the means by which CSOs advance their policy demands), attention centres on the way turnover distorts the political dynamic for participation. Interviewees allude to the mixed impact of OPD. Some view the absence of turnover as a pathology, limiting their policy input. Others see it as a spur to action, a catalyst for new repertoires to be employed in order to place policy demands on those in power. 3. Next, theory on framing and ‘cognitive locks’ again underlines how turn- over shapes engagement. Here the notion of ‘intellectual path depend- ency shows how, under OPD, CSOs are found to be more constrained in their use of language. Rather than a free exchange of ideas, interviewees speak of deliberately advancing claims in ways that align with dominant party thinking. 4. Finally, theory on policy networks, CSO alliance-building and neo-corporatism reveals how the disproportionate power of the dominant party distorts collective action and leads to ‘defensive’ networking amongst CSOs in order to counter the hegemony of the governing party. Chaney 125 Attention ﬁrst turns to a summary of the literature on mainstreaming and one- party dominant systems. In turn, this is followed by an outline of the research context and methodology, followed by the ﬁndings. Equalities mainstreaming Mainstreaming has been described as ‘one of the most rapidly adopted, pro- gressive social justice-oriented initiatives endorsed by the international commu- nity in the modern era’ (Chaney and Rees, 2004: 24). The Council of Europe (2003: 7) deﬁnes it as: ‘the (re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that an equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy-making’. Two broad approaches can be identiﬁed (Barnett Donaghy, 2003; Nott, 2000), the ‘participative-democratic’ (PDM) and ‘expert-bureau- cratic’ models. The latter is a technocratic method reliant on experts. In con- trast, the former (and subject of this paper) is predicated on exogenous groups advancing equality claims on government through active participation and engagement with civil society (Lister and Carbone, 2006). As Debusscher and Van der Vleuten (2012: 326) observe, ‘mainstreaming is constructed, articulated and transformed through discourse, policy-makers carry the responsibility to push [.. .] equality further by involving civil society and individual activists promoting [...] equality’. ‘Participation’ and ‘engagement’ here can be deﬁned as the full range of formal and informal means employed by individuals and groups to inﬂuence the aims, scope, design and implementation of public policy (Hogwood and Gunn, 1984). These include protest, boycott, lobbying, petitions and consultation responses. As noted, engagement with equalities groups in civil society is a core require- ment placed on government in a raft of international treaties and directives. It is a fundamental tenet of the Beijing Declaration: ‘full participation on the basis of equality in all spheres of society, including participation in the decision-making process and access to power, are fundamental for the achievement of equality, development and peace’ (UN, 1995: 3). Subsequently, it has been codiﬁed in no less than 10 UN resolutions (the most recent being in 2010 – Resolution A/RES/ 65/191) – as well as a series of EU directives including Council Directives on equal treatment between persons irrespective of: racial or ethnic origin (2000/43/EC); religion and belief, disability, sexual orientation and, age (Directive 2000/78/EC); as well as Sex (Art. 157 TFEU [ex. Art. 141 EC]; Dir. 2006/54/EC and Dir. 2004/ 113/EC). It is also detailed in governments’ human rights obligations (e.g. Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, Art. 21(1) and (2), Art. 23; European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 14; Protocol 12). Furthermore, it is set out in domestic equalities law. Thus, for example, Fyfe, Johnston Miller and McTavish (2009: 211) conclude, ‘the Equality Act (2006) has ﬁrmly positioned gender equality mainstreaming within UK public policy’. This is evidenced by the requirement on listed authorities to report progress on 126 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) mainstreaming the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act (2010; see Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2012). The foregoing political and legal imperatives have ensured that mainstreaming has entered the lexicon of policy reform (True and Mintrom, 2001). They have also underpinned wide-ranging institutional measures in government and beyond (such as the creation of equality policy units and application of policy tools such as impact assessments – see Jasquot, 2010; UN, 2010). According to a one UN survey, 165 member states had some form of ‘national machinery’ for mainstream- ing by government (Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality, 2005: 61). However, whilst a limited number of studies have underlined the role of pol- itical context in shaping mainstreaming practice – including the eﬀects of: a hostile political climate (Nott, 2005), political interpretation and enforcement (Payne, 2011), and the presence of ‘woman-friendly’ administrations (Kim and Kim, 2011), the majority of extant analysis has tended to ignore electoral politics, instead regarding government as a curiously non-party-political entity. Governing party turnover and one-party dominant systems Governing parties’ disposition towards civil society varies across the political spec- trum; with some favouring authoritarian, ‘top-down’ approaches to public admin- istration and others coproduction, participation and dialogue (cf. Heritier and Rhodes, 2011). Accordingly, the type of party elected to form the executive clearly matters to the PDM and understanding the patterns and processes inﬂuencing CSOs’ engagement. Such factors also provide an insight into the health of a given democracy. Thus, as Mair (1996: 84) observes, one can ‘trace sources of problems of legitimacy and stability of regimes back to the character of their party systems’. This view is consonant with Huntington’s seminal study (1991) that emphasised turnover as a key predictor of democratic maturity. Inter alia, it shapes the circulation of the political elite (Mosca, 1938), openings for new political leaders, the prevailing political opportunity structures for social interests and the scope for introducing innovatory practice in public policy and administration. Moreover, as Jackson (1994: 270) observes, the absence of turnover undermines democracy. A key gap in the academic literature is whether such assumptions are supported by empirical data on mainstreaming and CSOs’ policy engagement. Existing work suggests that a fragmented party system (with comparatively high rates of governing party turnover) will oﬀer greater political opportunities for CSOs to advance policy claims on those in power. This is because the attendant political and electoral vulnerability of parties creates a need to form coalitions resulting in party elites’ greater ﬂexibility in the face of popular demands (Saward, 2006). In contrast, strong parties in less fragmented systems are better placed to disregard civil society claims. To summarise, the distortion of the civil- society nexus implied by the literature on one-party dominance (OPD) is founded on (1) diminished legitimacy and accountability (dominant parties have less elect- oral vulnerability and can ignore/resist popular demands and impose their agendas Chaney 127 at will); (2) the foregoing limits the political opportunity structures for social inter- ests; (3) there is less circulation of political elites heightening the problem of veto players and (4) inﬂuence of the dominant party extends into civil society where criticality may be compromised as CSOs are reluctant to forego state funding and patronage. As Greene (2010: 155) explains, one-party systems are ‘“odd ducks” that incorp- orate genuine electoral competition with the absence of turnover’. International examples include Japanese politics 1955–2009 (Inoguchi, 2005) and South African politics 1994–present (cf. Be´ nit-Gbaﬀou, 2012). Far from being an obscure and unlikely eventuality, all liberal democratic systems have inherent potential for epi- sodes of OPD. The value of studying an OPD system – as in the present case, is that it eﬀectively constitutes a control experiment and reveals the role and importance of turnover to participative democratic mainstreaming. There are varying deﬁn- itions of what constitutes OPD. In his classic text, Duverger (1954: 308–389) refers to a dominant party as one whose ‘inﬂuence exceeds all others for a generation or more [ ... whose] doctrines, ideas, methods – its style, so to speak, coincide with those of the epoch’. In like fashion, Butler (2009: 159) notes that OPD: has been used to refer to the protracted electoral and ideological dominance of a one party in a representative democracy. It requires, but suggests more than, a series of electoral successes. OPD implies institutions that translate electoral success into pol- itical power; the capacity to attract support from substantial electorates over an extended period; the presence of a unifying historical project; and the ability to dominate the policy agenda of a country. Furthermore, Greene (2010: 823) oﬀers a number of deﬁning characteristics of OPD systems. These include: holding the premiership, [and] at least a plurality of legislative seats; a longevity threshold – typically a four election/20 year span; electoral competition must be meaningful (this entails ... a legislature that cannot be dismissed by the executive and who are chosen through regular popular elections, opposition forces that are allowed to form independent parties and compete in elections, and the incumbent does not engage in outcome-changing electoral fraud). As the following discussion reveals, when OPD systems emerge, they distort the civil society–state nexus, potentially subverting the beneﬁcial democratising elem- ents of criticality and resource exchange seen in other liberal democracies. In such instances, as Giliomee and Simkins (1999: 340) note, ‘the vital elements of democ- racy, namely genuine competition and uncertainty in electoral outcomes, are removed in a process that is self-sustaining’. The way that this impacts on civil society engagement with government is a key knowledge gap. It matters because, it is a core tenet of equalities mainstreaming – as well as pluralist theory (Dahl, 1961). Both underline how exogenous civil society interests perform a pivotal role through 128 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) knowledge transfer, service delivery, and critical engagement as part of the wider processes of agenda setting and holding government to account. As a result, OPD has the potential to introduce a range of obstacles to participative main- streaming – and, crucially, illuminate the role of governing party turnover. Prior to discussing these, attention ﬁrst turns to the research context. Research context As Rodriguez-Pose and Gill (2003: 334) note, ‘a devolutionary trend has swept the world [ ... involving widespread] transference of power, authority, and resources to subnational levels of government’. A burgeoning literature attests to the fact that this is not a uniform process (Krossa, 2011). The rise of meso- or ‘regional’ gov- ernment across Europe and beyond is characterised by contrasting powers and levels of autonomy being transferred to regions within UN-recognised unitary states (Heritier and Rhodes, 2011). The UK is no exception. State decentralisation (or devolution) in 1998–1999 moved the UK further down the constitutional path towards being a (quasi-)federal state. The (re-)establishment of legislatures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (circa 1998/1999) has accentuated diver- gence of the prevailing legal and policy frameworks applying to CSOs in the four constituent UK polities. It has also resulted in contrasting institutional arrangements for engagement with government (cf. Birrell, 2012). Crucially, it has meant civil society–state relations have been shaped by territorially speciﬁc patterns and processes of meso-level politics. As in other international contexts, the UK has adopted an asymmetrical model of devolution. Although initially possessing the weakest set of powers, the Welsh ‘settlement’ is the one that has seen most change. No less than three devolution statutes have been passed by Westminster since 1998, each transferring further signiﬁcant policy responsibilities to Wales (including health, housing, social ser- vices, economic development and education). Moreover, the National Assembly for Wales gained primary legislative powers in 2011 and the latest Act (in 2014) set out tax-raising powers. This is an ongoing process. The UK government has com- mitted to further change following Commission on Welsh devolution in 2014 that recommended the devolution of further competencies, including policing, youth justice and devolution in the courts system and judiciary. These developments place regional government in Wales broadly on a par with other legislative regions across Europe and beyond. The present locus of enquiry is propitious because, over the past 150 years, Welsh politics has been characterised by OPD. Throughout the second half of the 19th century, Wales experienced one-party domination under the Liberal Party (Morgan, 1981). Following a brief interregnum, since 1945 the Labour Party has been the preeminent political force (Hopkin, Tanner and Williams 2001; McAllister, 1980). Having secured 58.6% of the vote in the 1945 election, it has gained a majority of Welsh Members of Parliament in all subsequent ballots (and often an absolute majority of Welsh votes). Notably, in electoral terms, the Chaney 129 other main UK state-wide party, the right-of-centre Conservative Party, has fared worse in Wales than in England at every general election since the 1800s. Moreover, following devolution, Labour’s pre-eminence is underlined by the fact that it has always gained the largest share of the vote. In 1999, it won 28 of the 60 seats in the National Assembly for Wales (polling 37.6% of the vote, 9.4% more than their nearest rivals). In the next three ballots, the party won exactly half of the seats in the legislature – the same as its three main rivals combined (with 40% of the vote in 2003, 32.2% in 2007 and 36.9% in 2011). This record has ensured that Labour has continuously held government oﬃce since the National Assembly for Wales was created in 1999. Methodology The following discussion is based upon qualitative semistructured interview data gathered from a series of studies spanning the period 1999–2015. The analysis is aligned with phenomenological and interpretive paradigms. The emphasis is on constructivist analysis; speciﬁcally, understanding policy actors’ social construc- tions of interaction with government (see, e.g. Cassell and Symon, 1994: 2). Thus, as Denzin and Lincoln (2000: 8) observe, qualitative exploratory case study analysis ‘implies an emphasis on the qualities of entities and on processes and meanings that are not experimentally examined or measured in terms of quan- tity, amount, intensity, or frequency’. Accordingly, the quotations presented in the ﬁndings below are illustrative of key themes emerging from the data where the aim is to explore and examine policy actors’ views and experiences. The adopted methods provided a singular longitudinal perspective of the entire period of meso-governance since constitutional reform in the UK in 1998–1999. As noted, the UN policy framework (UN, 1995) states that the PDM of mainstreaming is predicated on government/state engagement with civil society. Accordingly, a purposive sample of 103 interviews was conducted with policy actors from CSOs (managers, coordinators and project workers), representing a cross-section of ‘pro- tected characteristics’. The sample comprised seven CSOs concerned with gender equality, six ethnicity, eight disability, six age, two sexual orientation, three faith and ﬁve generic equalities. In turn, the number of interviewees for each characteristic broadly reﬂects the number of representative CSOs for each group as listed in the oﬃcial third sector register of CSOs (Wales Council for Voluntary Action, 2014). The interviews were based on an interview schedule consisting of core questions developed from leading texts on mainstreaming (see ‘References’). The use of a basic interview framework – or standardised set of research stimuli, allowed com- parison of participants’ accounts. Semistructured interviews were particularly suited to the present task because they permitted the use of probes and secondary, supplementary questions (King and Horrocks, 2010). This boosted reliability of the data by enabling the exploration and clariﬁcation of the issues and experiences described by participants. The theoretical framework underpinning the schedule was participative democratic mainstreaming – as well as the literature on 130 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) deliberative democracy (cf. Elster, 1998; Gutman and Thompson, 2004). Topics covered included action repertoires, mobilising structures, networking, communi- cation, information, awareness, resource issues, access, inﬂuence, knowledge, skills and human capital. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using appropriate software. A deductive approach to analysis was used in order to allow the data to ‘speak’ for themselves without the imposition of predetermined coding categories (Boyatzis, 1998). Care was taken to minimise interviewer bias through use of a general interview schedule. Moreover, care was taken to uphold objectivity when asking supplementary or follow-up questions. This methodological framework allowed triangulation, in other words, comparison of emerging themes and issues across ‘protected characteristics’ (i.e. between CSOs representing women, disabled people, ethnic minorities and so on). In terms of case study selection, Wales was chosen because it provides a rare and striking example where governing party turnover is absent. It is a liberal demo- cratic system that has experienced single-party dominance throughout the entire postwar period. It is therefore ideally suited to an exploratory, negative ‘extreme case study’ research design (Gerring, 2004; Jahnukainen, 2010: 89). This is used to address the principal research question: ‘How does single-party dominance inﬂu- ence CSOs’ engagement strategies’? As the research methods literature attests, an ‘extreme case study’ is apposite ‘when the objective is to achieve the greatest possible amount of information on a given problem or phenomenon, [in such cir- cumstances] a representative case or a random sample may not be the most appro- priate strategy. This is because the typical or average case is often not the richest in information. Atypical or extreme cases often reveal more information’ (Flyvbjerg, 2006: 222). Seawright and Gerring (2008: 298) concur with this assessment: the extreme case approach to case study analysis is therefore a conscious attempt to maximize variance on the dimension of interest, not to minimize it ... is a purely exploratory method—a way of probing possible causes or possible eﬀects of in an open-ended fashion. Attention now turns to the research ﬁndings. Four sets of factors – or ‘spheres’ were identiﬁed by interviewees as inﬂuencing how governing party turnover aﬀects the PDM of mainstreaming under single-party dominance : collective interest rep- resentation and strategic bridging, action repertoires, framing and cognitive locks and CSO networking and alliance building (Figure 1). Each is discussed in turn. Research findings: The influence of governing party turnover on CSOs’ strategies Collective interest and strategic bridging This ﬁrst section of the ﬁndings reveals how OPD skews the political dynamic for participation in the work of government. Not least it shapes group incentives – as Chaney 131 (i). Strategic bridging Collective interest factors (ii). Framing & (iii). Action cognitive locks CSO- state repertoires Path dependency engagement cycles of Party contention institutionalization (iv). CSO networking & alliance building, 'blurred boundaries' informal politics Figure 1. Turnover-related factors influencing civil society organisations’ engagement strategies. well as whom to engage amongst political elites. As Payne (2011: 528) cogently observes, mainstreaming has both coercive and voluntary elements. Governments may variously be seen to ‘coerce’ CSOs into policy engagement through the impos- ition of structural arrangements, reporting mechanisms and resource dependency. Whereas on the voluntaristic side of the equation, CSOs’ are proactive, independ- ent policy actors concerned with placing their own demands on government. Interviewees’ comments suggest OPD shifts the accent towards the coercive side of the equation. This can be seen with reference to the Collective Interest Model (Finkel et al., 1998: 39) which outlines three categories of group incentives for engaging with those in power: (1) ‘high levels of discontent with the current pro- vision of public goods by the government or regime’, (2) the belief ‘that collective eﬀorts can be successful in providing desired public goods’ and (3) the belief that 132 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) CSOs ‘own participation will enhance the likelihood of the collective eﬀort’s suc- cess’. Each of these resonates with equality claims making under the PDM and each is mediated by turnover. In turn, this skews the overall political dynamic for CSOs’ participation in the work of government. Further understanding of precisely how this happens can be gained using the concept of ‘strategic bridging’ (Tilly, 1978: 125–133). This is a concept highlighting individual agency and engagement between policy actors in civil society and parliamentarians (see also Gamson, 1975). Crucially, CSOs’ collective interests are shown to be modiﬁed by turnover. This shapes targeted lobbying of individual ministers and backbenchers in order to advance equalities claims. This is because, when participating in government policy making, CSOs are faced with the strategic choice of whom to engage amongst a given parliamentary cohort. This is where OPD creates a singular political dynamic for participative mainstreaming. Notably, the present research data show how it reduces the value of alliance building with opposition party members. The reason for this being that they are ‘devalued’ – or viewed as less inﬂuential owing to the fact that (compared to ‘regular’ turnover liberal democracies), they are less likely to hold future government oﬃce. Thus, when asked about how OPD aﬀected the targeting of parliamentarians, one respondent said when I started [to work for the CSO] a colleague said to me ‘you’ll learn – opposition parties might be more willing to cooperate but go after Labour [i.e. the dominant party]’ ... and I was all principled and that ... No I’ll speak to them all – but he was right .. . Obviously we still try and work with the others [opposition parties] but, in terms of pay-oﬀ, the priority has to be Labour ... It just has. The associated pattern of CSO (dis-)engagement with opposition parliamentar- ians has worrying implications. Not least, it may further comprise attempts at PDM (– and democracy more widely) over future electoral cycles – for CSOs’ continued emphasis on engagement with the dominant party further strengthens its power and inﬂuence at the expense of opposition parties. Allied to the foregoing, in terms of strategic bridging, the present data also reveal that turnover not only shapes which parties CSOs engage – but also whom they engage in a given parlia- mentary cohort. Speciﬁcally, governing party turnover aﬀects participatory main- streaming through the existence of veto players. These are parliamentarians who, by virtue of their oﬃce, may block exogenous claims making by CSOs on issues like equalities (Tsebelis, 1995). Veto players may be unreceptive to mainstreaming claims for a variety of reasons including political ideology, laissez faire orientation, or discriminatory attitudes. Crucially, their inﬂuence is heighted under OPD as they are less likely to be replaced by a change of government following an election. Instead, they have enduring inﬂuence and may eﬀectively block CSO claims over successive election cycles. Thus, for example, the chief executive of a lesbian, gay and bisexual peoples’ CSO alluded to how a prominent politician had rejected policy demands from the organisation when holding one ministerial portfolio – and Chaney 133 had subsequently frustrated the CSO’s lobbying on a another matter when later appointed to a diﬀerent ministry: ‘our hearts sank when we heard [named minister] had got it [the health portfolio in a cabinet reshuﬄe] ... we had a clear indication of the way things were likely to go from the last time ... ’ Overall, the present ﬁndings align with the wider international experience of lobbying (e.g. Pare´ s, Bonet-Martı´ and Martı´-Costa, 2011); yet, hitherto the con- nection with PDM has not been stated. It is worth reﬂecting on the practical implications of this ﬁnding. It suggests that CSOs need to adapt their strategic bridging so that their targeted lobbying of individual ministers and backbenchers is aligned with governing party turnover – and where appropriate, compensates for OPD by deliberate engagement with weaker opposition parties. Failure to do this will reduce the value of alliance building with opposition party members, increase the power of veto players in dominant parties – and further the party politicisation of claims making. In turn, this will lead to a downward spiral, thereby increasing likelihood of OPD over time and bringing with it associated negative consequences for the PDM. Action repertoires This aspect of the ﬁndings provides further insight into how turnover skews the political dynamic for participation. As the following reveals, interviewees variously allude to OPD as a pathology limiting their policy input and as a catalyst for new repertoires to place policy demands on those in power. Thus, under the PDM of mainstreaming once CSOs decide to advance equality claims on those in power, they must choose the method or means by which to advance their policy demands. The options constitute CSOs’ ‘action repertoires’ (see Tilly, 1995: 42). The full gamut of claims-making methods open to CSOs is diverse. At one end of the spectrum lies protest and civil disobedience, whilst more bureaucratised means (such as policy lobbying and consultation work) are at the other. Crucially for participative mainstreaming, CSOs’ action repertoires shift over election cycles and are shaped by the type of party holding government oﬃce. A change of governing party is often the catalyst for new repertoires to be employed – or for existing ones to be revised. It is a cyclical view of mainstreaming participation, whereby repertoires are shaped in the context of peaks or cycles of protest activity or ‘cycles of contention’ (Tarrow and Tilly, 2001). The present ﬁndings suggest that governing party turnover determines the degree to which party institutionalisation sets in. This can be deﬁned as ‘the process by which a practice or organization becomes well-established and widely known, if not uni- versally accepted. In consequence actors develop expectations, orientations, and behaviour based on the premise that this practice or organization will prevail into the foreseeable future’ (Mainwaring and Scully, 1995: 4). It is a situ- ation that resonates with the notion of ‘path dependency’ in [neo-]institutionalist theory. As Pierson and Skocpol (2002: 6) explain, this refers to: ‘the dynamics of 134 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) self-reinforcing or positive feedback processes in a political system ... [involving] mechanisms that reinforce the recurrence of a particular pattern into the future ... ’ Interviewees oﬀered contrasting views of the impact of OPD on CSOs’ action repertoires. Some indeed supported the idea of ‘path dependency’ and alluded to how party institutionalisation under OPD had a stiﬂing eﬀect on participative mainstreaming. Accordingly, one policy oﬃcer it can get a bit stale if you know what I mean .. . the best way to be heard is to link-in with Labour [Party] ‘spads’ [special advisors] to ministers and senior oﬃcials ... [but] it can get a bit like Groundhog Day, mind ... In contrast, others underlined how the diminished political opportunity struc- tures under OPD had a galvanising eﬀect on engagement based on the necessity for a broad repertoire of protest and mobilisation. For example, one said ‘you have to work round it if you like ... for us we’ve tried to engage young people [and] encour- age them [to use] social media campaigns ... it’s just that thing of sort of trying to get round that political roadblock’. Another opined, We’ve tried all the conventional ways, consultations and the like .. . it always seems to fall on deaf ears as it were, either they don’t hear us or they don’t want to hear us. Most likely both! ... after the last one [i.e. election] and they [the Labour Party] got in, we said this has gotta change ... we’ve got to step it up, [and] that when it started really [series of campaigns]. I have to say, I think we were slow really ... We were a bit snail-like in realising they [Labour government] are going nowhere [i.e. they’ll remain in oﬃce over election cycles] it forces you to reconsider ... [To] up the ante. These ﬁndings resonate with the wider participation literature (e.g. work in Catalonia; see Font and Galais, 2011). In terms of the practical implications for CSOs, the current ﬁndings show that even when denied the catalysing eﬀect of regular government turnover, CSOs need to be proactive, vary their action reper- toires and employ the full gamut of claims-making methods. This is to ward against party institutionalisation, maximise criticality and advance claims making on government in order to challenge existing power relations in policy making. Framing and cognitive locks Drawing upon theory on policy framing and ‘cognitive locks’, the following fur- thers understanding of how single-party dominance shapes civil society engage- ment. Speciﬁcally, under OPD, ‘intellectual path dependency’ asserts itself and CSOs are found to be more constrained in their use of language. Rather than a free exchange of ideas, interviewees spoke of deliberately framing claims in ways that aligned with dominant party thinking. Frames here are a psycholinguistic means of ‘selecting, organizing, interpreting and making sense of a complex reality Chaney 135 to provide guideposts for knowing, analysing, persuading, and acting’ (Rein and Schon 1993: 146). Social theory (Snow and Benford, 1992: 137) underlines how CSOs can ‘strategically frame’ issues such as equalities policy demands in order that they ﬁt – or resonate – with the dominant frames held by other policy actors, including government. As Pollack and Hafner-Burton, (2000: 435) explain, those in power are ‘more likely to adopt new frames that are resonant, rather than in con- ﬂict, with their existing dominant’ frames’. A surface reading might suggest that OPD would make CSOs’ task easier. Ergo, in a ‘regular’ liberal democratic system government is constantly changing over election cycles, therefore one might expect a need for CSOs to consistently vary framing practices to align with the political complexion of those in power. However, respondents alluded to the speciﬁc chal- lenges posed by OPD. In the present case study, the Labour Party has placed strong rhetorical emphasis on a policy discourse of ‘traditional’ socialism (in con- trast to more centrist interpretations of social democracy held by the UK Labour Party at Westminster). For example, it has featured the tropes of mutuality, equal- ity of outcome and redistribution (Chaney and Drakeford, 2004). Accordingly, one interviewee alluded to how they had deliberately linked equality of opportunity claims with (government) aspirations for tackling income inequalities. This was done in order to align the CSO’s framing with one of the dominant frames in the governing party discourse. She recalled how they had pressed a minister and his team on gender budgeting with limited success. Subsequently, she alluded to how: We had this rethink .. . OK, we know they were [i.e. government minister] not overly keen .. . [That is an] understatement! I think there was a concern with [the potential cost of] equal pay claims in local government, anyway ... we thought [if] we pitch it in terms of the economic aspect – ‘Clear Red Water’, Classic Labour – all that [references to a notable First Minister’s speech stating the party’s socialist governing principles] and the tackling poverty agenda [a key policy goal of the governing party] ... and it was after that there was the pilot [scheme] ... its easy after the event I know – but I do think the change of language on our part helped”. An allied ﬁnding is the way that governing party turnover – and thus party institutionalisation – may shape mainstreaming practices through ‘cognitive locks’. The latter represent what Forestiere and Allen (2011: 381) term ‘intellectual path dependency in policymaking’. Once established, they become a guiding set of ideas or ‘ideological mantra to be repeated and applied no matter ... [what] the actual conditions of a situation’ (Blyth, 2002: 229). They are particularly evident under one-party dominant regimes because change or reversal of government poli- cies as a result of exogenous pressure – what Hirschman (1970: 30) calls ‘voice’ – is limited or absent. As noted, in the present case study, the dominant Labour Party has long espoused a socialist ideology and a generally rejected mixed economy approaches to welfare involving the private sector. Against this background, the 136 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) manager of a disabled people’s CSO gave an example of an ideologically grounded cognitive lock: we asked her [the minister] .. . if the only way to ensure the service was to contract out [i.e. to a private company] rather than face a total loss [of provision] ... our members would back that ... she wasn’t having it. No way ... We were told in no uncertain terms there was no place for that route .. . we [the CSO] weren’t happy with it – but we’d thought about it pragmatically and felt it’d be better than nothing ... they were not having it’. The present ﬁndings also reveal the party politicisation of engagement. Thus, interviewees underlined how they were obliged to negotiate the challenging and singular positional politics that characterise a one-party dominant system. Compared to ‘regular’ liberal democracies, the key diﬀerence is the absence of turnover means CSOs are consistently pitted against the same party, thereby strengthening the appearance of partisanship – wherein criticism of government may become conﬂated with criticism of party qua party. It is a viewpoint captured by the following interviewee: My personal view is the fact that it is a one party state actually does create quite a sterile environment in terms of policy-making. It very much feels that at times to challenge a policy is very much to challenge the [Labour] Party, and to challenge the hegemony of the Welsh Labour Government. Another policy oﬃcer said: “it can get a bit ‘political’ at times ... someone from the [policy network] said to me .. . ‘why are you giving Labour a hard time’? [i.e. the viewpoint they are on our side] – but that’s not the point, is it? It’s the government you’re dealing with’. Overall, these ﬁndings show that on a deliberative level, CSOs not only need to strategically frame their demands so as to align with the discourse of the dominant party – they also need to frame them in ways consonant with opposition parties’ discourse in order to facilitate broad-based, cross party engage- ment and lessen dominant party institutionalisation, as well as overcome cognitive locks. CSO networking and alliance building This section of the ﬁndings applies theory on policy networks, CSO alliance build- ing and neo-corporatism to reveal how, under OPD, the disproportionate power of the dominant party distorts collective action and leads to ‘defensive’ networking amongst CSOs in order to counter the hegemony of the governing party. The theoretical backdrop to this is that networks and mobilising structures sustain collective action in civil society (McAdam et al., 1996: 13). Taken together, they are the means for interorganisational coordination and collaboration Chaney 137 between CSOs. Interviewees’ comments reveal how participatory mainstreaming is aﬀected by single-party dominance. Speciﬁcally, the fact that the dominant party is unlikely to be voted out of oﬃce diminishes its propensity to compromise its policy agenda in the face of CSOs’ mainstreaming claims. In turn, this may further weaken and disadvantage ‘standalone’ organisations who, even in ‘regular’ liberal democracies, are often easier for political elites to sideline or defeat compared to coordinated action from multiple networked CSOs (cf. Banazak, 2010). The dis- proportionate power of the dominant party under OPD strengthens the incentives for CSOs to eﬀectively seek ‘strength in numbers’ and coordinate when engaging with government (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). This is evident in the present study. For example, an interviewee alluded to how CSOs representing individual equalities ‘strands’ (e.g. gender, disability, ethnicity and so on) had decided to unite to produce a manifesto of equalities demands spanning protected characteristics. The underlying rationale was that it would aﬀord them greater inﬂuence over the dominant party’s programme in the run-up to national elections: We’d seen what had happened on [the previous election commitment by the dominant party to] ‘free’ social care [the party did a U-turn, widely seen as reneging] ... this was a terrible betrayal of disabled people ... We thought right! So, yes, we did sign-up to the [Equalities] Manifesto ... our Exec[utive] Committee said we must make sure that it [government ‘betrayal’] doesn’t happen again, so having everyone on-board [i.e. coordinated claims-making by CSOs] ticks that box ... shifts the balance ... [of power with the governing party]. The current study also reveals the impact of single-party dominance and neo- corporatism. As Mansbridge (1999: 495) explains, the latter as an approach that ‘values interest groups as ongoing institutional mechanisms for representing inter- ests not easily represented in the territorial representative process. [And] it attempts to bring the laissez faire system of interest representation partly under public con- trol’. In the current research context, neo-corporatism takes the form of state- sponsored policy networks. Whilst undoubtedly facilitating engagement, its use can also be emblematic of the coercive aspect of mainstreaming (cf. Payne, 2011: 528). Accordingly, CSOs’ proximity to power elites under neo-corporatism may undermine their autonomy and criticality, thereby compromising their independ- ence (Korolczuk, 2014; Mansbridge, 1999). Thus, as De Jager (2005: 56) explains: civil society derives its very legitimacy from its ability to act and then to act independently .. . The development of more formal and regulated civil society–state relations may subvert the character of civil society and compromise its role in enhan- cing democracy. Whilst this concern is germane to liberal democracies in general, interviewees’ comments attest to its heightened signiﬁcance under OPD because of the increased 138 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) power of political patronage stemming from power centred on a single party. Thus, the director of a CSO reﬂected: ‘we don’t want to alienate [ministers] but also we don’t want to be in the pocket of the minister and it’s that balance which is diﬃcult’. Another oﬀered candidly: ‘we are afraid to say “the emperor has no clothes” .. . we are afraid to show when failure is happening, because you know you have several people that have to wear several hats [i.e. perform multiple roles as CSO representatives and members of government policy task and ﬁnish groups, and recipients of state funding], there are conﬂicts of interest ... ’Another manager alluded to how OPD even limited CSOs’ willingness to provide information to assist opposition backbenchers in criticising government policy. This is because its specialist nature meant its provenance would be clear (and in turn likely to be viewed as an overt attack on government, their chief sponsor). One manager said, ‘it can misﬁre ... having the right points advanced by the “wrong party”’ – er, [irony] it doesn’t always advance your cause!’. Another reﬂected on the overall impact of OPD and neo-corporatist practices: In eﬀect you now have state sponsored civil society which compounds the problem that it’s hard to criticise government. So they’ve created a civil society but it’s an anaemic one because they control the ﬂow of blood and they don’t want it [civil society] to get too strong. Whilst extant work often points to political parties and civil society as largely discrete entities (cf. Chatterjee, 2004: 136; Kopecky and Mudde, 2003), single-party dominance highlights blurred boundaries (cf. Mair, 2000) and how this may impact on participative mainstreaming. Under OPD holding power over successive elec- tion cycles eﬀectively institutionalises the dominant party. It regularises and sus- tains contacts between government and civil society over extended periods of time (‘boundary blurring’) – whereas such relationships and interaction would be swept away by a new party being elected to power in regular turnover democracies. As Be´ nit-Gbaﬀou (2012: 186) explains, the resultant overlapping of government and civil society spheres aﬀects participative mainstreaming by limiting CSOs’ critical- ity towards the governing party. This can be prompted by a range of reasons – including citizens’ loyalty to the party as well as a shared sense of identity and/or ideology. It may also be due to the dominant party ‘exert[ing], through its mem- bers, a subtle but eﬃcient social control on what is said .. . it may [also] be shaped by everyone’s perception that their discourse and position might be reported to [party] structure’ (Benit-Gbaﬀou, 2012: 191). The latter point is supported by the present ﬁndings for interviewees spoke of ‘toning down’ or avoiding criticism of government for fear that some CSO man- agers – who were also members of the dominant party, convey their comments to ministers; which in turn could jeopardise their government funding. According one, “you do have to stop yourself. .. . I thought hold-on [uses own name] watch your- self! ‘cos I know a couple of policy people there are strong Party [people]”. A further, related issue is that mainstreaming may be undermined by the negative Chaney 139 aspects (opaqueness, lack of accountability and exclusive nature) of informal net- works that crosscut formal political channels and processes (Masket, 2009). This corresponds with existing work by McClurg and Lazer (2014: 4) who explicate how party organizations, interest groups and others in the policy process ... often form connections that are at times ﬂuid and at other times enduring ... suggest[ing] a host of new substantive questions about organized inﬂuence in politics that centred on explaining relationship formation and impact in political organizations. Thus, interviewees described how critical engagement with government routinely took place outside legislative channels. In other words, OPD was “short circuiting” the formal practices of parliamentary representation and instead operating as an informal, intraparty process. One interviewee said: ‘we are not going in from a zero baseline. Our existing contacts and connections are very important. There are ‘soft targets’ in the [National] Assembly’. Another echoed this by making the point that, ‘you have to be in the right groups or else you will get marginalised. You have to network’. According to another CSO manager, “some of the civil service they are very much steeped in the old ways, the Whitehall approach ... and that’s where we’ve had to make representations, you know, through political channels ... ”Another added: I found where we have had some successes is in raising concerns with Labour back- benchers who have gone on to raise the concerns themselves with ministers. So we tend to shape the policy practices indirectly through the Labour Party machine itself, shaping policy internally. I think there’s more chance of a Labour backbencher getting concessions out of a [Labour] minister than engaging opposition parties “from the outside.” A further issue is the way that OPD may increase division and mistrust between equalities CSOs. This is because the greater powers of government patronage in OPD systems may create two classes of CSO – ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ (Taylor, 2001), thereby accentuating conﬂict and tensions between equalities strands (e.g. Siim, 2007). Thus, for example, one CSO chief executive said we have this situation where – when it comes to disabled people [named organisation] are widely seen by the minister as the representative body ... Something, obviously, they have done nothing to disabuse ... We may be [a] small [CSO] but ... I mean, eﬀectively, y’ know we are crowded out ... In a broadly similar vein, another interviewee said it all really comes down to who speaks for [ethnic minority] communities ... now [named umbrella body] are funded by the government, right? They know how to play the game ... they’re not going to press the minister hard; truth told, they are 140 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) not going to press the minister! [laughs] ... [named equality body] said ‘why aren’t you members’? [of the umbrella body]. Look, there’s no way our people would have it. We’re not becoming part of that charade. In summary, the practical signiﬁcance of these ﬁndings for CSOs is that in placing their equalities claims on government they need to utilise mobilizing struc- tures to develop advocacy coalitions that act to counter the disproportionate power and inﬂuence of dominant parties. Such alliances oﬀer a way to address the com- promised independence that can result from dominant party patronage and neo- corporatist structures. In other words, by creating alliances that are broader than state-sponsored CSOs, full criticality may be restored. Conclusion The foregoing empirical analysis reveals that single-party dominance inﬂuences CSOs’ engagement strategies by shaping the prevailing political opportunity struc- tures and attendant CSO strategies for participation in the work of government. Instead of adapting their Modus operandi to take account of governing party turn- over as happens in ‘regular’ liberal democracies, the current data show how single- party dominance distorts civil society policy engagement. The analysis identiﬁes four areas aﬀected by the absence of turnover: strategic bridging, action reper- toires, framing and cognitive locks, and CSO networking and alliance building. Thus, interviewees’ comments attest to how OPD skews the ‘political dynamic’ for participation by aﬀecting group incentives. Moreover, attention to strategic brid- ging reveals how single-party dominance inﬂuences whom to engage amongst the political elite. Whilst reference to CSOs’ action repertoires also reveals how some view the absence of turnover as a pathology that limits policy input. In addition, the application of social theory on framing and ‘cognitive locks’ illustrates how, under OPD, CSOs are more constrained in their use of language. Rather than a free exchange of ideas, interviewees speak of deliberately advancing claims in ways that align with dominant party thinking. Furthermore, conceptual work on policy net- works and neo-corporatism underlines how the disproportionate power of the dominant party distorts collective action and leads to ‘defensive’ networking amongst CSOs in order to counter the hegemony of the governing party. Thus, far from being an apolitical, bureaucratic, instrumental undertaking, the operationalisation of mainstreaming principles around participation and democ- racy is shown to be shaped by electoral politics. As the principal policy actor bound by international and domestic mainstreaming obligations, government is not a constant in the mainstreaming equation. Rather, its political complexion changes each time a governing party is voted out and replaced by a rival. Accordingly, the type of party holding oﬃce shapes a broad range of factors including: the power of the incumbent, the degree of openness or resistance to exogenous criticality and claims making, the extent of political patronage and the degree of CSO resource dependency and autonomy. Chaney 141 A key point emerging from the study is that the nondiscrete issues identiﬁed are self-sustaining. Over time, diminished civil society engagement with opposition parties will further strengthen the dominant party and thus perpetuate a downward spiral such that a change of governing party is even less likely. This provides a salutary lesson for the 180 + liberal democracies subscribing to mainstreaming. To counter such problems, CSOs’ need to employ adaptive action repertoires for par- ticipative mainstreaming. These should be broad based and cross-party in nature. For example, they may include the modiﬁcation of strategic bridging to compen- sate for OPD through deliberate engagement with weaker opposition parties. Moreover, they may use their mobilising structures to develop advocacy coalitions to counter the compromised independence that can result from dominant party patronage and neo-corporatist structures. Through such measures, full criticality in state–civil society relations may be restored. Overall, the wider contribution of this study to understanding civil society engagement is threefold: (1) It reveals the types of problems that may emerge in relation to PDM when a governing party retains power over several electoral cycles, (2) It underlines the need for contemporary academic analysis to be cognizant of how Participatory Democratic Mainstreaming is contingent on electoral competition and governing party turnover, and (3) As noted, it emphasises that CSOs’ need to employ an adaptive model of policy engagement suited to the prevailing electoral politics and governing party turnover in liberal democracies. Acknowledgements The author would like thank three anonymous referees for their helpful and construct- ive comments when revising an earlier draft of this paper. The grant funding for this research was provided by the Economic and Social Research Council (Award No: ES/ L009099/1). Declaration of conflicting interests The author(s) declared no potential conﬂicts of interest with respect to the research, author- ship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) received no ﬁnancial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Notes 1. Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri¼CELEX:32004L0113 and http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri¼CELEX:32006L0054 (accessed 2 January 2014). 2. See section 4, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2011/9780111012215/contents (accessed 20 January 2015). 142 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) 3. 2001/41 of 26 July 2001, 2002/23 of 24 July 2002, 2003/49 of 24 July 2003, 2004/4 of 7 July 2004, 2005/31 of 26 July 2005, 2006/36 of 27 July 2006, 2007/33 of 27 July 2007, 2008/34 of 25 July 2008 and 2009/12 of 28 July 2009. 4. E.g. Section 3, Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012. http:// www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2012/9780111016718/contents (accessed 12 October 2014). 5. In coalition 2000–2003 and 2007–2011, with the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru, respectively. 6. Under Economic and Social Research Council Awards No: R000239410 and L219252016. 7. Thus, engagement and governing party turnover are the dependent and independent variables, respectively. 8. i.e. Systems with free and fair elections. 9. ‘Groundhog Day’ – a 1993 film directed by Harold Ramis concerning a time loop – cited here as a simile for repetition. 10. In this sense, the present findings echo the experience elsewhere. For example, in Bavaria where, even with direct democracy mechanisms such as local referendums, limited turn- over of the governing party is amongst factors that limit the agenda setting of CSOs (see Premat, 2012: 169). 11. In this respect, the findings resonate with potential issues in Bavaria, another ‘regional’ European polity characterised by limited governing party turnover where government has invested significant political capital in developing state–civil society engagement (cf. Raffl, 2014). 12. Reference to Hans Christian Andersen story – here meaning CSOs were afraid to be critical of government. References Bacchi CL and Eveline J (2010) Mainstreaming and neoliberalism: A contested relationship. In: Bacchi C and Eveline J (eds) Mainstreaming Politics Gendering Practices and Feminist Theory. Adelaide: University of Adelaide, pp. 39–61. Banazak A (2010) The Women’s Movement Inside and Outside the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barnett Donaghy T (2003) Mainstreaming: Northern Ireland’s participative democratic approach. Policy and Politics 32(1): 49–62. Be´ nit-Gbaffou C (2012) Party politics, civil society and local democracy – Reflections from Johannesburg. Geoforum 43: 178–189. Beveridge F and Nott S (2002) Mainstreaming: A case for optimism and cynicism. Feminist Legal Studies 10: 299–311. Beveridge F and Shaw J (2002) Introduction: Mainstreaming gender in European public policy. Feminist Legal Studies 10: 209–212. Birrell D (2012) Comparing Devolved Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Blyth M (2002) Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boyatzis R (1998) Transforming Qualitative Information. London: Sage. Butler A (2009) Considerations on the erosion of one-party dominance. Representation 45(2): 159–171. Caglar G (2013) Gender mainstreaming. Politics and Gender 9(3): 336–344. Chaney 143 Cassell C and Symon G (1994) Qualitative research in work contexts. In: Cassell C and Symon G (eds) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, A Practical Guide. London: Sage, pp. 1–13. Chaney P and Drakeford M (2004) The primacy of ideology: Social policy and the first term of the National Assembly for Wales. In: Ellison N, Powell M and Bauld L (eds) Social Policy Review. Vol 16, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 121–143. Chaney P and Rees T (2004) The Northern Ireland Section 75 Equality Duty: An International Perspective. In: McLaughlin E and Faris N (eds) Review of the Section 75 Equality Duty. Belfast, Northern Ireland Office, pp. 34–62. Chatterjee P (2004) The Politics of the Governed: Popular Politics in Most of the World. Columbia University Press, New York. Council of Europe (2003) Gender Mainstreaming: Conceptual Framework Methodology and Presentation of Good Practices. Strasbourg: Committee of Ministers. Dahl R (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CO: Yale University Press. Debusscher P and Van der Vleuten A (2012) Mainstreaming gender in European Union development cooperation with sub-Saharan Africa: Promising numbers, narrow contents, telling silences. International Development Planning Review 34(3): 319–338. De Jager N (2005) The ANC government, co-optive power and the perpetuation of party dominance, in challenges to democracy by one-party dominance: A comparative assessment. Johannesburg: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. Denzin N and Lincoln Y (2000) Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 1–28. Duverger M (1954) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Methuen. Elster J (1998) Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Equality and Human Rights Commission (2012) Mainstreaming the equality duty: A guide for public authorities (Scotland). Glasgow: EHRC. Finkel S, Muller E and Opp K (1989) Personal influence, collective rationality and mass political action. American Political Science Review 83: 885–903. Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219–245. Font J and Galais C (2011) The qualities of local participation: The explanatory role of ideology, external support and civil society as organizer. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 35: 932–948. Forestiere C and Allen C (2011) The formation of cognitive locks in single party dominant regimes. International Political Science Review 32: 380–395. Fyfe G, Johnston Miller K and McTavish D (2009) “Muddling through” in a devolved polity: Implementation of equal opportunities policy in Scotland. Policy Studies 30(2): 203–219. Gamson W (1975) The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Gerring J (2004) What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review 98(2): 341–357. Giliomee H and Simkins C (1999) The Awkward Embrace: One-Part Domination and Democracy in Industrialising Countries. New York: Routledge. 144 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) Greene K (2010) The political economy of authoritarian single-party dominance. Comparative Political Studies 43: 807–834. Gutman A and Thompson D (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, Princeton University Press. Heritier A and Rhodes M (2011) New Modes of Governance in Europe: Governing in the Shadow of Hierarchy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hirschman AO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hogwood B and Gunn L (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hopkin D, Tanner D and Williams C (2001) The Labour Party in Wales 1900–2000. Cardiff, University of Wales Press. Inoguchi T (2005) Japanese Politics: An Introduction. Melbourne, Australia: Trans Pacific Press. Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality (2005) Review and Appraisal of the Implementation of the Platform for Action. New York: United Nations. Jackson J (1994) Stability and renewal: Incumbency and parliamentary composition. In: Somit A, Wildenmann R, Bell B and Rommel A (eds) The Victorious Incumbent: A Threat to Democracy? Aldershot, Hants: Dartmouth, pp. 251–277. Jahnukainen M (2010) Extreme cases. In: Mills A, Durepos G and Wiebe E (eds) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jasquot S (2010) The paradox of gender mainstreaming: Unanticipated effects of new modes of governances on the gender equality domain. West European Politics 33(2): 118–135. Kim S and Kim K (2011) Gender mainstreaming and the institutionalization of the women’s movement in South Korea. Women’s Studies International Forum 34: 390–400. King N and Horrocks C (2010) Interviews in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kopecky M and Mudde C (2003) Rethinking civil society. Democratization 10(3): 1–14. Korolczuk E (2014) Promoting civil society in contemporary Poland: Gendered results of institutional changes. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 25(4): 949–967. Krossa A (2011) Europe in a Global Context. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Lister R and Carbone M (eds) (2006) New Pathways in International Development: Gender and Civil Society in EU Policy. Aldershot: Ashgate. Mainwaring S and Scully T (1995) Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Mair P (1996) Party systems and structures of competition. In: LeDuc L, Niemi RG and Norris P (eds) Comparing Democracies. Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. Three Oaks: Sage, pp. 83–106. Mair P (2000) Party organisations: From civil society to the state. In: Katz S and Mair P (eds) How Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in Richard. Western Democracies, London: Sage. Mansbridge J (1999) Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A con- tingent “yes”. Journal of Politics 61(3): 628–657. Masket S (2009) No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Chaney 145 McAdam D, McCarthy J and Zald MN (eds) (1996) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press. McAllister I (1980) The dynamics of one-partyism. Llafur: The Journal of Welsh Labour History 3(1): 79–89. McClurg S and Lazer D (2014) Political networks. Social Networks 36: 1–4. Morgan K (1981) Rebirth of a Nation 1880–1980. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mosca G (1938) The Ruling Class, ed. and rev. by Arthur Livingston, trans. Hannah D. Kahn. New York: McGraw Hill. Mosesdottir L and Erlingsdottir R (2005) Spreading the word across Europe. International Feminist Journal of Politics 7(4): 513–531. Nott S (2000) Accentuating the positive: Alternative strategies for promoting gender equal- ity. In: Beveridge F, Nott S and Stephen K (eds) Making women count: Integrating gender into law and policymaking. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp.247–276. Nott S (2005) Securing mainstreaming in a hostile political environment. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 8(1–2): 121–140. ´ ´ ´ Pares M, Bonet-Martı J and Martı-Costa M (2011) Does participation really matter in urban regeneration policies? Exploring governance networks in Catalonia. Urban Affairs Review 30(4): 1–34. Payne S (2011) Beijing fifteen years on: The persistence of barriers to gender mainstreaming in health policy. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 18(4): 515–542. Pierson P and Skocpol T (2002) Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science. Working Paper, Harvard University. Pollack M and Hafner-Burton E (2000) Mainstreaming gender in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 7(3): 432–456. Premat C (2012) Initiatives and referendums. In: Gabriel O, Keil S and Kerrouche E (eds) Political Participation in France and Germany. Essex: ECPR Press, pp. 161–189. Raffl C (2014) Open Societal Innovation (OSI) for politics, public administration, and civil society. Working Paper, The Open Government Institute (TOGI) Zeppelin University. Available at: www.ipp.oii.ox.ac.uk/sites/ipp/files/documents/IPP2014_Rafflpdf (accessed 18 January 2015). Rein M and Schon D (1993) Reframing policy discourse. In: Fischer F and Forester J (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham: Duke University Press. Rodriguez-Pose A and Gill N (2003) The global trend towards devolution and its implications. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 21(3): 333–351. Sabatier P and Jenkins-Smith HC (eds) (1993) Policy Change and Learning. An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Saward M (2006) The representative claim. Contemporary Political Theory 5(1): 297–318. Seawright J and Gerring J (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly 61: 294–308. Siim B (2007) The challenge of recognizing diversity from the perspective of gender equality: Dilemmas in Danish citizenship. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 10(4): 491–511. 146 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) Snow D and Benford R (1992) Master frames and cycles of protest. In: Morris AD and Mueller CM (eds) Frontiers of Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press. Tarrow S and Tilly C (eds) (2001) Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Taylor M (2001) Partnership: Insiders and outsiders. In: Harris M and Rochester C (eds) Voluntary Organisations and Social Policy in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Chapter 7, pp. 94–108. Tilly C (1978) From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Tilly C (1995) Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758–1834. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. True J and Mintrom M (2001) Transnational networks and diffusion: The case of gender mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly 45: 27–57. True J and Parisi L (2013) Gender mainstreaming strategies in international governance. In: Caglar G, Prugl E and Zwingel S (eds) Feminist Strategies in International Governance. London: Routledge. Tsebelis G (1995) Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science 25(3): 289–325. United Nations (1995) Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women, adopted at the UN Council 16th plenary meeting, on 15 September 1995. New York: UN. United Nations (2010) Review of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. New York: UN. Wales Council for Voluntary Action (2014) Third Sector Almanac. Cardiff, WCVA. Woehl S (2011) Gender mainstreaming in European employment policies. Critical Policy Studies 5(1): 32–46. Woodward A (2008) Too late for gender mainstreaming? Taking stock in Brussels. Journal of European Social Policy 18: 289–302. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Public Policy and Administration SAGE http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/sage/how-does-single-party-dominance-influence-civil-society-organisations-wx0K8PlbEg

Loading next page...

References (99)

K. Peters, E. Halcomb (2015)
Interviews in qualitative research.
Nurse researcher, 22 4
C. Bacchi, J. Eveline (2003)
Mainstreaming and Neoliberalism: A Contested Relationship
Policy and Society, 22
A. Heritier, Martin Rhodes (2011)
New Modes of Governance in Europe: Governing in the Shadow of Hierarchy
D. Snow, Robert Benford (1992)
Master-frames and cycles of protest
Elżbieta Korolczuk (2014)
Promoting Civil Society in Contemporary Poland: Gendered Results of Institutional Changes
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25
(1980)
The dynamics of one-partyism
I. Katznelson, H. Milner, T. Skocpol, P. Pierson (2002)
Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science
A. Rodríguez‐Pose, N. Gill (2003)
The Global Trend towards Devolution and its Implications
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21
S. Nott (2005)
Securing Mainstreaming in a Hostile Political Environment
International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 8
Paul Chaney, T. Rees (2004)
The Northern Ireland Section 75 equality duty: an international perspective
Thus, engagement and governing party turnover are the dependent and independent variables, respectively
M. Harris, Colin Rochester (2001)
Voluntary Organisations and Social Policy in Britain
C. Bénit-Gbaffou (2012)
Party politics, civil society and local democracy - Reflections from Johannesburg
Geoforum, 43
Jane Mansbridge (1999)
Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent "Yes"
The Journal of Politics, 61
Roger Gould, C. Tilly (1996)
Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834.
Contemporary Sociology, 25
F. Hunter, R. Dahl (1962)
Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 6
W. Gamson (1975)
The strategy of social protest
Colin Williams. (1984)
K. O. Morgan Rebirth of a Nation 1880-1980
Language Problems and Language Planning, 8
Martin Collo (1997)
Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America
Bulletin of Latin American Research
Kenneth Greene (2010)
The Political Economy of Authoritarian Single-Party Dominance
Comparative Political Studies, 43
猪口孝 (2005)
Japanese politics : an introduction
Working Paper, The Open Government Institute (TOGI) Zeppelin University. Available at: www
Stefanie Woehl (2011)
Gender mainstreaming in European employment policies
Critical Policy Studies, 5
Louis Schwartz, A. Hirschman (1972)
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 120
Christopher Williams, Duncan Tanner, Deian Hopkin (2000)
The Labour Party in Wales, 1900-2000
implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services
M. Taylor (2001)
Partnership: Insiders and Outsiders
J. True, L. Parisi (2013)
Gender mainstreaming strategies in international governance
Lilja Mósesdóttir, Rósa Erlingsdóttir (2005)
Spreading the word across Europe
International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7
P. Mair (1998)
Party Systems and Structures of Competition
M. Parés, Jordi Bonet-Martí, Marc Martí-Costa (2012)
Does Participation Really Matter in Urban Regeneration Policies? Exploring Governance Networks in Catalonia (Spain)
Urban Affairs Review, 48
A. Gutmann, Dennis Thompson (2004)
Why deliberative democracy
J. Font, Carol Galais (2011)
The Qualities of Local Participation: The Explanatory Role of Ideology, External Support and Civil Society as Organizer
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35
Seung-kyung Kim, Kyounghee Kim (2011)
Gender mainstreaming and the institutionalization of the women's movement in South Korea
Womens Studies International Forum, 34
Sophie Jacquot (2010)
The Paradox of Gender Mainstreaming: Unanticipated Effects of New Modes of Governance in the Gender Equality Domain
West European Politics, 33
P. Cairney (2013)
Comparing Devolved Governance
Parliamentary Affairs, 66
C. Raffl (2014)
Open Societal Innovation ( OSI ) for Politics , Public Administration , and Civil Society
Fiona Beveridge, J. Shaw (2002)
Introduction: Mainstreaming Gender in European Public Policy
Feminist Legal Studies, 10
(2004)
The Politics of the Governed: Popular Politics in Most of the World
(1998)
Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy)
Fiona Beveridge, S. Nott (2002)
Mainstreaming: A case for optimism and cynicism
Feminist Legal Studies, 10
(2012)
Initiatives and referendums
Reference to Hans Christian Andersen story -here meaning CSOs were afraid to be critical of government
(2010)
Extreme cases. In: Mills A, Durepos G and Wiebe E (eds) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research
T. Donaghy (2004)
Mainstreaming : Northern Ireland's Participative-Democratic Approach
Policy and Politics, 32
J. True, Michael Mintrom (2001)
Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion: The Case of Gender Mainstreaming
International Studies Quarterly, 45
(2010)
University of Adelaide, pp. 39–61
(2005)
The ANC government, co-optive power and the perpetuation of party dominance, in challenges to democracy by one-party dominance: A comparative assessment. Johannesburg: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung
S. Kaplan, G. Fitzpatrick, T. Mansfield, William Tolone (1997)
MUDdling Through
(2012)
(eds) Political Participation in France and Germany
(1998)
Transforming Qualitative Information
C. Epstein (2011)
The Women’s Movement Inside and Outside the State
Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 40
Lisa Boucher (2012)
The Women’s Movement: Inside and Outside the State
Canadian Woman Studies, 29
Birte Siim (2007)
The Challenge of Recognizing Diversity from the Perspective of Gender Equality: Dilemmas in Danish Citizenship
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 10
B. Flyvbjerg (2006)
Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research
Qualitative Inquiry, 12
George Tsebelis (1995)
Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism
British Journal of Political Science, 25
S. Finkel, E. Muller, K. Opp (1989)
Personal Influence, Collective Rationality, and Mass Political Action
American Political Science Review, 83
N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln (2005)
The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research
S. Payne (2011)
Fifteen Years On : The Persistence of Barriers to Gender Mainstreaming in Health Policy
(2003)
Gender Mainstreaming: Conceptual Framework Methodology and Presentation of Good Practices
M. Duverger (1964)
Political Parties Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State
Terri Gullickson (1995)
Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide.
Psyccritiques, 40
R. Aminzade, J. Goldstone, D. Mcadam, E. Perry, W. Sewell, S. Tarrow, C. Tilley (2001)
Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics
G. Fyfe, K. Miller, D. Mctavish (2009)
‘Muddling through’ in a devolved polity: implementation of equal opportunities policy in Scotland
Policy Studies, 30
A. Heritier, Martin Rhodes (2011)
New Modes of Governance in Europe
Jason Seawright, J. Gerring (2008)
Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research
Political Research Quarterly, 61
(1998)
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2012) Mainstreaming the equality duty: A guide for public authorities (Scotland)
P. Mair (1994)
Party Organizations: From Civil Society to the State
Richard Buck (2007)
Why Deliberative Democracy?
Contemporary Political Theory, 6
M. Cohen, G. Mosca, Hannah Kahn, A. Livingston (1959)
The Ruling Class
P. Debusscher, A. Vleuten (2012)
Mainstreaming gender in European Union development cooperation with sub-Saharan Africa: promising numbers, narrow contents, telling silences
International Development Planning Review, 34
Paul Chaney, M. Drakeford (2004)
The primacy of ideology: social policy and the first term of the National Assembly for Wales
Social Policy Review 16
(1993)
Reframing policy discourse. In: Fischer F and Forester J (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning
A. Woodward (2008)
Too late for gender mainstreaming? Taking stock in Brussels
Journal of European Social Policy, 18
Groundhog Day' -a 1993 film directed by Harold Ramis concerning a time loop -cited here as a simile for repetition
C. Macpherson, G. Mosca, Hannah Kahn, Arthur Livingston (1941)
The Ruling Class
The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 7
Doug McAdam, J. McCarthy, M. Zald (1996)
Comparative perspectives on social movements : political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings
M. Saward (2010)
The Representative Claim
Contemporary Political Theory, 5
M. Savage, C. Tilly (1996)
Popular Contention in Great Britain
British Journal of Sociology, 47
S. Nott (2018)
Accentuating the Positive: Alternative Strategies for Promoting Gender Equality
Anne Krossa (2011)
Europe in a global context
C. Tilly (1978)
From mobilization to revolution
J. Gerring (2004)
What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?
American Political Science Review, 98
S. McClurg, D. Lazer (2011)
Political Networks
PS: Political Science & Politics, 44
R. Katz, P. Mair (1994)
How Parties Organize : Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in Western Democracies
(2005)
Review and Appraisal of the Implementation of the Platform for Action
A. Roberts, P. Sabatier, H. Jenkins‐Smith (1993)
Policy Change And Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach
C. Simkins, H. Giliomee (1999)
The Awkward Embrace: One-Part Domination and Democracy in Industrialising Countries
S. Masket (2009)
No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures
A. Somit, R. Wildenmann (1994)
The Victorious Incumbent: A Threat to Democracy?
T. Power, S. Mainwaring, T. Scully (1996)
Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America.
Americas, 76
Carolyn Forestiere, C. Allen (2011)
The formation of cognitive locks in single party dominant regimes
International Political Science Review, 32
Brian Hogwood, Lewis Gunn (1984)
Policy Analysis For The Real World
(2010)
Section 3, Equality Act
P. Kopecký, Cas Mudde (2003)
Rethinking civil society
Democratization, 10
Anthony Butler (2009)
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE EROSION OF ONE‐PARTY DOMINANCE
Representation, 45
Mark Pollack, E. Hafner-Burton (2000)
Mainstreaming gender in the European Union
Journal of European Public Policy, 7
Kevin Reilly (2003)
Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century
History: Reviews of New Books, 31
M. Carbone (2017)
New Pathways in International Development: Gender and Civil Society in EU Policy

Publisher: SAGE
Copyright: Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications and PAC
ISSN: 0952-0767
eISSN: 1749-4192
DOI: 10.1177/0952076715581876
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

A raft of United Nations Treaties, European Union Directives and domestic laws oblige governments in 180 + countries to apply the Participative Democratic Model of main- streaming equalities to public administration by involving those targeted by equality initiatives at all stages in their design and delivery. Notwithstanding Participative Democratic Model’s deeply political nature, extant work has overlooked how governing party turnover influences civil society organisations’ (CSOs) strategies. Here, this lacuna is addressed using a negative ‘extreme case study’ research design involving qualitative accounts from civil society organisations in Wales, a ‘regional’ European polity charac- terised by one-party dominance. The findings reveal how the absence of turnover distorts the Participative Democratic Model in relation to diverse factors including: strategic bridging, extraparliamentary politics, cognitive locks and party institutionalisa- tion. Inter alia, the wider contribution of this analysis lies in showing the importance of turnover to effective engagement, the ‘pathologies’ associated with one-party domin- ance and the need for adaptive civil society strategies tailored to prevailing electoral politics and governing party turnover in liberal democracies. Keywords Civil society, equalities, government, mainstreaming, participation, politics, turnover Corresponding author: Paul Chaney, Wales Institute of Social Economic Research and Data (WISERD), Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3WT, Wales. Email: Chaneyp@cardiff.ac.uk Chaney 123 Introduction This study is concerned with exploring the role of governing party turnover in shaping participative mainstreaming and civil society organisations’ (CSOs) stra- tegies for engaging in the work of government. Mainstreaming is an internationally adopted approach to promoting equality. It is underpinned by a series of United Nations (UN) conventions and resolutions (e.g. CEDAW, SCR1325, SCR1888 and SCR1889), as well as European Union (EU) Directives (e.g. 2004/113/EC and 2006/54). It has also been enshrined in domestic legal codes (e.g. Equality Act, 2010). It came to prominence at the Fourth UN Conference on Women (circa 1995). Since then representatives from 189 countries have adopted the Participative Democratic Model (PDM) of mainstreaming as set out in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. Originally conceived as an approach to gender equal- ity (cf. Beveridge and Shaw, 2002; Woodward, 2008), its application has broadened to incorporate a full range of characteristics (e.g. age, disability, faith, ethnicity and sexual orientation). It is concerned with embedding equality into all stages of public policy making. Crucially, the participative model is based on engaging groups targeted by equality objectives in their design, development and implementation. Notwithstanding its prominence, a burgeoning literature attests to the diﬃcul- ties of translating mainstreaming principles into practice (cf. Bacchi and Eveline, 2010; Beveridge and Nott, 2002; Caglar, 2013; True and Parisi, 2013; Woehl, 2011). As Mosesdottir and Erlingsdottir (2005: 525) observe, ‘very few countries have managed to develop a well-functioning institutional framework around the main- streaming method’. The UN concurs. Its appraisal of progress since the Beijing Declaration concluded, ‘many gaps and challenges remain in guaranteeing .. . full and equal participation in decision-making in all stages’ (UN, 2010: 37). Mainstreaming is intimately concerned with power and agenda setting – and the challenging of exclusive norms and the exercise of power by elites unrepresentative of social diversity. Yet, curiously, existing scholarly work has tended to overlook its deeply political nature. Instead, past studies have tended to regard government as a largely non-party-political policy actor. Moreover, extant research has paid scant attention to the role of electoral politics and governing party turnover (‘turn- over’ here refers to the rate at which the party holding government oﬃce is voted out in state-wide elections and replaced by a rival). It is a signiﬁcant knowledge gap, one that the following discussion addresses. This study follows a negative ‘extreme case study’ design (for a full discussion, see Methodology section) and focuses on Wales; a rare and striking example of a liberal democratic system where governing party turnover is absent – for the coun- try has experienced single-party dominance throughout the post-war period. The ﬁndings are based on qualitative data analysis of interviews with civil soci- ety policy actors. The speciﬁc focus on CSOs is appropriate here because state– civil society relations lie at the heart of participative mainstreaming. Thus, 124 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (UN, 1995) asserts: ‘civil soci- ety cooperation with Governments [is] important to the eﬀective implementa- tion and follow-up of the Platform for Action’ (UN, 1995, Article 20). In conceptual terms, mainstreaming is based on criticality and engagement between state and non-state actors. This precludes both the inclusion of civic soci- ety organisations (because of their connection to the state) – and the private sector (which is eschewed owing to its concern with capital accumulation/the proﬁt motive, rather than representing the policy claims of those with ‘protected characteristics’). As the following discussion reveals, this study makes three original contribu- tions: (i) it synthesises diverse strands of social theory and applies them to the PDM as part of an exploration of how single-party dominance inﬂuences CSOs’ strate- gies; (ii) it presents the core argument that, although often overlooked, governing party turnover matters to the PDM for it shapes the political opportunity struc- tures and attendant CSO strategies for engagement in the work of government; and (iii) it emphasises that CSOs’ need to employ an adaptive model of policy engage- ment suited to the prevailing electoral politics and governing party turnover in liberal democracies. The ﬁndings are presented in relation to four themes emerging from the data analysis. To guide the reader, these are now brieﬂy summarised and returned to in detail in the Findings section. 1. In the ﬁrst part of the ﬁndings, social theory in relation to the Collective Interest Model and strategic bridging is applied to the interview data. This reveals how OPD skews the political dynamic for participation in the work of government. Not least it shapes group incentives – as well as whom to engage amongst pol- itical elites. 2. Subsequently, drawing on theory on action repertoires (or, the means by which CSOs advance their policy demands), attention centres on the way turnover distorts the political dynamic for participation. Interviewees allude to the mixed impact of OPD. Some view the absence of turnover as a pathology, limiting their policy input. Others see it as a spur to action, a catalyst for new repertoires to be employed in order to place policy demands on those in power. 3. Next, theory on framing and ‘cognitive locks’ again underlines how turn- over shapes engagement. Here the notion of ‘intellectual path depend- ency shows how, under OPD, CSOs are found to be more constrained in their use of language. Rather than a free exchange of ideas, interviewees speak of deliberately advancing claims in ways that align with dominant party thinking. 4. Finally, theory on policy networks, CSO alliance-building and neo-corporatism reveals how the disproportionate power of the dominant party distorts collective action and leads to ‘defensive’ networking amongst CSOs in order to counter the hegemony of the governing party. Chaney 125 Attention ﬁrst turns to a summary of the literature on mainstreaming and one- party dominant systems. In turn, this is followed by an outline of the research context and methodology, followed by the ﬁndings. Equalities mainstreaming Mainstreaming has been described as ‘one of the most rapidly adopted, pro- gressive social justice-oriented initiatives endorsed by the international commu- nity in the modern era’ (Chaney and Rees, 2004: 24). The Council of Europe (2003: 7) deﬁnes it as: ‘the (re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that an equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy-making’. Two broad approaches can be identiﬁed (Barnett Donaghy, 2003; Nott, 2000), the ‘participative-democratic’ (PDM) and ‘expert-bureau- cratic’ models. The latter is a technocratic method reliant on experts. In con- trast, the former (and subject of this paper) is predicated on exogenous groups advancing equality claims on government through active participation and engagement with civil society (Lister and Carbone, 2006). As Debusscher and Van der Vleuten (2012: 326) observe, ‘mainstreaming is constructed, articulated and transformed through discourse, policy-makers carry the responsibility to push [.. .] equality further by involving civil society and individual activists promoting [...] equality’. ‘Participation’ and ‘engagement’ here can be deﬁned as the full range of formal and informal means employed by individuals and groups to inﬂuence the aims, scope, design and implementation of public policy (Hogwood and Gunn, 1984). These include protest, boycott, lobbying, petitions and consultation responses. As noted, engagement with equalities groups in civil society is a core require- ment placed on government in a raft of international treaties and directives. It is a fundamental tenet of the Beijing Declaration: ‘full participation on the basis of equality in all spheres of society, including participation in the decision-making process and access to power, are fundamental for the achievement of equality, development and peace’ (UN, 1995: 3). Subsequently, it has been codiﬁed in no less than 10 UN resolutions (the most recent being in 2010 – Resolution A/RES/ 65/191) – as well as a series of EU directives including Council Directives on equal treatment between persons irrespective of: racial or ethnic origin (2000/43/EC); religion and belief, disability, sexual orientation and, age (Directive 2000/78/EC); as well as Sex (Art. 157 TFEU [ex. Art. 141 EC]; Dir. 2006/54/EC and Dir. 2004/ 113/EC). It is also detailed in governments’ human rights obligations (e.g. Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, Art. 21(1) and (2), Art. 23; European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 14; Protocol 12). Furthermore, it is set out in domestic equalities law. Thus, for example, Fyfe, Johnston Miller and McTavish (2009: 211) conclude, ‘the Equality Act (2006) has ﬁrmly positioned gender equality mainstreaming within UK public policy’. This is evidenced by the requirement on listed authorities to report progress on 126 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) mainstreaming the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act (2010; see Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2012). The foregoing political and legal imperatives have ensured that mainstreaming has entered the lexicon of policy reform (True and Mintrom, 2001). They have also underpinned wide-ranging institutional measures in government and beyond (such as the creation of equality policy units and application of policy tools such as impact assessments – see Jasquot, 2010; UN, 2010). According to a one UN survey, 165 member states had some form of ‘national machinery’ for mainstream- ing by government (Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality, 2005: 61). However, whilst a limited number of studies have underlined the role of pol- itical context in shaping mainstreaming practice – including the eﬀects of: a hostile political climate (Nott, 2005), political interpretation and enforcement (Payne, 2011), and the presence of ‘woman-friendly’ administrations (Kim and Kim, 2011), the majority of extant analysis has tended to ignore electoral politics, instead regarding government as a curiously non-party-political entity. Governing party turnover and one-party dominant systems Governing parties’ disposition towards civil society varies across the political spec- trum; with some favouring authoritarian, ‘top-down’ approaches to public admin- istration and others coproduction, participation and dialogue (cf. Heritier and Rhodes, 2011). Accordingly, the type of party elected to form the executive clearly matters to the PDM and understanding the patterns and processes inﬂuencing CSOs’ engagement. Such factors also provide an insight into the health of a given democracy. Thus, as Mair (1996: 84) observes, one can ‘trace sources of problems of legitimacy and stability of regimes back to the character of their party systems’. This view is consonant with Huntington’s seminal study (1991) that emphasised turnover as a key predictor of democratic maturity. Inter alia, it shapes the circulation of the political elite (Mosca, 1938), openings for new political leaders, the prevailing political opportunity structures for social interests and the scope for introducing innovatory practice in public policy and administration. Moreover, as Jackson (1994: 270) observes, the absence of turnover undermines democracy. A key gap in the academic literature is whether such assumptions are supported by empirical data on mainstreaming and CSOs’ policy engagement. Existing work suggests that a fragmented party system (with comparatively high rates of governing party turnover) will oﬀer greater political opportunities for CSOs to advance policy claims on those in power. This is because the attendant political and electoral vulnerability of parties creates a need to form coalitions resulting in party elites’ greater ﬂexibility in the face of popular demands (Saward, 2006). In contrast, strong parties in less fragmented systems are better placed to disregard civil society claims. To summarise, the distortion of the civil- society nexus implied by the literature on one-party dominance (OPD) is founded on (1) diminished legitimacy and accountability (dominant parties have less elect- oral vulnerability and can ignore/resist popular demands and impose their agendas Chaney 127 at will); (2) the foregoing limits the political opportunity structures for social inter- ests; (3) there is less circulation of political elites heightening the problem of veto players and (4) inﬂuence of the dominant party extends into civil society where criticality may be compromised as CSOs are reluctant to forego state funding and patronage. As Greene (2010: 155) explains, one-party systems are ‘“odd ducks” that incorp- orate genuine electoral competition with the absence of turnover’. International examples include Japanese politics 1955–2009 (Inoguchi, 2005) and South African politics 1994–present (cf. Be´ nit-Gbaﬀou, 2012). Far from being an obscure and unlikely eventuality, all liberal democratic systems have inherent potential for epi- sodes of OPD. The value of studying an OPD system – as in the present case, is that it eﬀectively constitutes a control experiment and reveals the role and importance of turnover to participative democratic mainstreaming. There are varying deﬁn- itions of what constitutes OPD. In his classic text, Duverger (1954: 308–389) refers to a dominant party as one whose ‘inﬂuence exceeds all others for a generation or more [ ... whose] doctrines, ideas, methods – its style, so to speak, coincide with those of the epoch’. In like fashion, Butler (2009: 159) notes that OPD: has been used to refer to the protracted electoral and ideological dominance of a one party in a representative democracy. It requires, but suggests more than, a series of electoral successes. OPD implies institutions that translate electoral success into pol- itical power; the capacity to attract support from substantial electorates over an extended period; the presence of a unifying historical project; and the ability to dominate the policy agenda of a country. Furthermore, Greene (2010: 823) oﬀers a number of deﬁning characteristics of OPD systems. These include: holding the premiership, [and] at least a plurality of legislative seats; a longevity threshold – typically a four election/20 year span; electoral competition must be meaningful (this entails ... a legislature that cannot be dismissed by the executive and who are chosen through regular popular elections, opposition forces that are allowed to form independent parties and compete in elections, and the incumbent does not engage in outcome-changing electoral fraud). As the following discussion reveals, when OPD systems emerge, they distort the civil society–state nexus, potentially subverting the beneﬁcial democratising elem- ents of criticality and resource exchange seen in other liberal democracies. In such instances, as Giliomee and Simkins (1999: 340) note, ‘the vital elements of democ- racy, namely genuine competition and uncertainty in electoral outcomes, are removed in a process that is self-sustaining’. The way that this impacts on civil society engagement with government is a key knowledge gap. It matters because, it is a core tenet of equalities mainstreaming – as well as pluralist theory (Dahl, 1961). Both underline how exogenous civil society interests perform a pivotal role through 128 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) knowledge transfer, service delivery, and critical engagement as part of the wider processes of agenda setting and holding government to account. As a result, OPD has the potential to introduce a range of obstacles to participative main- streaming – and, crucially, illuminate the role of governing party turnover. Prior to discussing these, attention ﬁrst turns to the research context. Research context As Rodriguez-Pose and Gill (2003: 334) note, ‘a devolutionary trend has swept the world [ ... involving widespread] transference of power, authority, and resources to subnational levels of government’. A burgeoning literature attests to the fact that this is not a uniform process (Krossa, 2011). The rise of meso- or ‘regional’ gov- ernment across Europe and beyond is characterised by contrasting powers and levels of autonomy being transferred to regions within UN-recognised unitary states (Heritier and Rhodes, 2011). The UK is no exception. State decentralisation (or devolution) in 1998–1999 moved the UK further down the constitutional path towards being a (quasi-)federal state. The (re-)establishment of legislatures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (circa 1998/1999) has accentuated diver- gence of the prevailing legal and policy frameworks applying to CSOs in the four constituent UK polities. It has also resulted in contrasting institutional arrangements for engagement with government (cf. Birrell, 2012). Crucially, it has meant civil society–state relations have been shaped by territorially speciﬁc patterns and processes of meso-level politics. As in other international contexts, the UK has adopted an asymmetrical model of devolution. Although initially possessing the weakest set of powers, the Welsh ‘settlement’ is the one that has seen most change. No less than three devolution statutes have been passed by Westminster since 1998, each transferring further signiﬁcant policy responsibilities to Wales (including health, housing, social ser- vices, economic development and education). Moreover, the National Assembly for Wales gained primary legislative powers in 2011 and the latest Act (in 2014) set out tax-raising powers. This is an ongoing process. The UK government has com- mitted to further change following Commission on Welsh devolution in 2014 that recommended the devolution of further competencies, including policing, youth justice and devolution in the courts system and judiciary. These developments place regional government in Wales broadly on a par with other legislative regions across Europe and beyond. The present locus of enquiry is propitious because, over the past 150 years, Welsh politics has been characterised by OPD. Throughout the second half of the 19th century, Wales experienced one-party domination under the Liberal Party (Morgan, 1981). Following a brief interregnum, since 1945 the Labour Party has been the preeminent political force (Hopkin, Tanner and Williams 2001; McAllister, 1980). Having secured 58.6% of the vote in the 1945 election, it has gained a majority of Welsh Members of Parliament in all subsequent ballots (and often an absolute majority of Welsh votes). Notably, in electoral terms, the Chaney 129 other main UK state-wide party, the right-of-centre Conservative Party, has fared worse in Wales than in England at every general election since the 1800s. Moreover, following devolution, Labour’s pre-eminence is underlined by the fact that it has always gained the largest share of the vote. In 1999, it won 28 of the 60 seats in the National Assembly for Wales (polling 37.6% of the vote, 9.4% more than their nearest rivals). In the next three ballots, the party won exactly half of the seats in the legislature – the same as its three main rivals combined (with 40% of the vote in 2003, 32.2% in 2007 and 36.9% in 2011). This record has ensured that Labour has continuously held government oﬃce since the National Assembly for Wales was created in 1999. Methodology The following discussion is based upon qualitative semistructured interview data gathered from a series of studies spanning the period 1999–2015. The analysis is aligned with phenomenological and interpretive paradigms. The emphasis is on constructivist analysis; speciﬁcally, understanding policy actors’ social construc- tions of interaction with government (see, e.g. Cassell and Symon, 1994: 2). Thus, as Denzin and Lincoln (2000: 8) observe, qualitative exploratory case study analysis ‘implies an emphasis on the qualities of entities and on processes and meanings that are not experimentally examined or measured in terms of quan- tity, amount, intensity, or frequency’. Accordingly, the quotations presented in the ﬁndings below are illustrative of key themes emerging from the data where the aim is to explore and examine policy actors’ views and experiences. The adopted methods provided a singular longitudinal perspective of the entire period of meso-governance since constitutional reform in the UK in 1998–1999. As noted, the UN policy framework (UN, 1995) states that the PDM of mainstreaming is predicated on government/state engagement with civil society. Accordingly, a purposive sample of 103 interviews was conducted with policy actors from CSOs (managers, coordinators and project workers), representing a cross-section of ‘pro- tected characteristics’. The sample comprised seven CSOs concerned with gender equality, six ethnicity, eight disability, six age, two sexual orientation, three faith and ﬁve generic equalities. In turn, the number of interviewees for each characteristic broadly reﬂects the number of representative CSOs for each group as listed in the oﬃcial third sector register of CSOs (Wales Council for Voluntary Action, 2014). The interviews were based on an interview schedule consisting of core questions developed from leading texts on mainstreaming (see ‘References’). The use of a basic interview framework – or standardised set of research stimuli, allowed com- parison of participants’ accounts. Semistructured interviews were particularly suited to the present task because they permitted the use of probes and secondary, supplementary questions (King and Horrocks, 2010). This boosted reliability of the data by enabling the exploration and clariﬁcation of the issues and experiences described by participants. The theoretical framework underpinning the schedule was participative democratic mainstreaming – as well as the literature on 130 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) deliberative democracy (cf. Elster, 1998; Gutman and Thompson, 2004). Topics covered included action repertoires, mobilising structures, networking, communi- cation, information, awareness, resource issues, access, inﬂuence, knowledge, skills and human capital. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using appropriate software. A deductive approach to analysis was used in order to allow the data to ‘speak’ for themselves without the imposition of predetermined coding categories (Boyatzis, 1998). Care was taken to minimise interviewer bias through use of a general interview schedule. Moreover, care was taken to uphold objectivity when asking supplementary or follow-up questions. This methodological framework allowed triangulation, in other words, comparison of emerging themes and issues across ‘protected characteristics’ (i.e. between CSOs representing women, disabled people, ethnic minorities and so on). In terms of case study selection, Wales was chosen because it provides a rare and striking example where governing party turnover is absent. It is a liberal demo- cratic system that has experienced single-party dominance throughout the entire postwar period. It is therefore ideally suited to an exploratory, negative ‘extreme case study’ research design (Gerring, 2004; Jahnukainen, 2010: 89). This is used to address the principal research question: ‘How does single-party dominance inﬂu- ence CSOs’ engagement strategies’? As the research methods literature attests, an ‘extreme case study’ is apposite ‘when the objective is to achieve the greatest possible amount of information on a given problem or phenomenon, [in such cir- cumstances] a representative case or a random sample may not be the most appro- priate strategy. This is because the typical or average case is often not the richest in information. Atypical or extreme cases often reveal more information’ (Flyvbjerg, 2006: 222). Seawright and Gerring (2008: 298) concur with this assessment: the extreme case approach to case study analysis is therefore a conscious attempt to maximize variance on the dimension of interest, not to minimize it ... is a purely exploratory method—a way of probing possible causes or possible eﬀects of in an open-ended fashion. Attention now turns to the research ﬁndings. Four sets of factors – or ‘spheres’ were identiﬁed by interviewees as inﬂuencing how governing party turnover aﬀects the PDM of mainstreaming under single-party dominance : collective interest rep- resentation and strategic bridging, action repertoires, framing and cognitive locks and CSO networking and alliance building (Figure 1). Each is discussed in turn. Research findings: The influence of governing party turnover on CSOs’ strategies Collective interest and strategic bridging This ﬁrst section of the ﬁndings reveals how OPD skews the political dynamic for participation in the work of government. Not least it shapes group incentives – as Chaney 131 (i). Strategic bridging Collective interest factors (ii). Framing & (iii). Action cognitive locks CSO- state repertoires Path dependency engagement cycles of Party contention institutionalization (iv). CSO networking & alliance building, 'blurred boundaries' informal politics Figure 1. Turnover-related factors influencing civil society organisations’ engagement strategies. well as whom to engage amongst political elites. As Payne (2011: 528) cogently observes, mainstreaming has both coercive and voluntary elements. Governments may variously be seen to ‘coerce’ CSOs into policy engagement through the impos- ition of structural arrangements, reporting mechanisms and resource dependency. Whereas on the voluntaristic side of the equation, CSOs’ are proactive, independ- ent policy actors concerned with placing their own demands on government. Interviewees’ comments suggest OPD shifts the accent towards the coercive side of the equation. This can be seen with reference to the Collective Interest Model (Finkel et al., 1998: 39) which outlines three categories of group incentives for engaging with those in power: (1) ‘high levels of discontent with the current pro- vision of public goods by the government or regime’, (2) the belief ‘that collective eﬀorts can be successful in providing desired public goods’ and (3) the belief that 132 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) CSOs ‘own participation will enhance the likelihood of the collective eﬀort’s suc- cess’. Each of these resonates with equality claims making under the PDM and each is mediated by turnover. In turn, this skews the overall political dynamic for CSOs’ participation in the work of government. Further understanding of precisely how this happens can be gained using the concept of ‘strategic bridging’ (Tilly, 1978: 125–133). This is a concept highlighting individual agency and engagement between policy actors in civil society and parliamentarians (see also Gamson, 1975). Crucially, CSOs’ collective interests are shown to be modiﬁed by turnover. This shapes targeted lobbying of individual ministers and backbenchers in order to advance equalities claims. This is because, when participating in government policy making, CSOs are faced with the strategic choice of whom to engage amongst a given parliamentary cohort. This is where OPD creates a singular political dynamic for participative mainstreaming. Notably, the present research data show how it reduces the value of alliance building with opposition party members. The reason for this being that they are ‘devalued’ – or viewed as less inﬂuential owing to the fact that (compared to ‘regular’ turnover liberal democracies), they are less likely to hold future government oﬃce. Thus, when asked about how OPD aﬀected the targeting of parliamentarians, one respondent said when I started [to work for the CSO] a colleague said to me ‘you’ll learn – opposition parties might be more willing to cooperate but go after Labour [i.e. the dominant party]’ ... and I was all principled and that ... No I’ll speak to them all – but he was right .. . Obviously we still try and work with the others [opposition parties] but, in terms of pay-oﬀ, the priority has to be Labour ... It just has. The associated pattern of CSO (dis-)engagement with opposition parliamentar- ians has worrying implications. Not least, it may further comprise attempts at PDM (– and democracy more widely) over future electoral cycles – for CSOs’ continued emphasis on engagement with the dominant party further strengthens its power and inﬂuence at the expense of opposition parties. Allied to the foregoing, in terms of strategic bridging, the present data also reveal that turnover not only shapes which parties CSOs engage – but also whom they engage in a given parlia- mentary cohort. Speciﬁcally, governing party turnover aﬀects participatory main- streaming through the existence of veto players. These are parliamentarians who, by virtue of their oﬃce, may block exogenous claims making by CSOs on issues like equalities (Tsebelis, 1995). Veto players may be unreceptive to mainstreaming claims for a variety of reasons including political ideology, laissez faire orientation, or discriminatory attitudes. Crucially, their inﬂuence is heighted under OPD as they are less likely to be replaced by a change of government following an election. Instead, they have enduring inﬂuence and may eﬀectively block CSO claims over successive election cycles. Thus, for example, the chief executive of a lesbian, gay and bisexual peoples’ CSO alluded to how a prominent politician had rejected policy demands from the organisation when holding one ministerial portfolio – and Chaney 133 had subsequently frustrated the CSO’s lobbying on a another matter when later appointed to a diﬀerent ministry: ‘our hearts sank when we heard [named minister] had got it [the health portfolio in a cabinet reshuﬄe] ... we had a clear indication of the way things were likely to go from the last time ... ’ Overall, the present ﬁndings align with the wider international experience of lobbying (e.g. Pare´ s, Bonet-Martı´ and Martı´-Costa, 2011); yet, hitherto the con- nection with PDM has not been stated. It is worth reﬂecting on the practical implications of this ﬁnding. It suggests that CSOs need to adapt their strategic bridging so that their targeted lobbying of individual ministers and backbenchers is aligned with governing party turnover – and where appropriate, compensates for OPD by deliberate engagement with weaker opposition parties. Failure to do this will reduce the value of alliance building with opposition party members, increase the power of veto players in dominant parties – and further the party politicisation of claims making. In turn, this will lead to a downward spiral, thereby increasing likelihood of OPD over time and bringing with it associated negative consequences for the PDM. Action repertoires This aspect of the ﬁndings provides further insight into how turnover skews the political dynamic for participation. As the following reveals, interviewees variously allude to OPD as a pathology limiting their policy input and as a catalyst for new repertoires to place policy demands on those in power. Thus, under the PDM of mainstreaming once CSOs decide to advance equality claims on those in power, they must choose the method or means by which to advance their policy demands. The options constitute CSOs’ ‘action repertoires’ (see Tilly, 1995: 42). The full gamut of claims-making methods open to CSOs is diverse. At one end of the spectrum lies protest and civil disobedience, whilst more bureaucratised means (such as policy lobbying and consultation work) are at the other. Crucially for participative mainstreaming, CSOs’ action repertoires shift over election cycles and are shaped by the type of party holding government oﬃce. A change of governing party is often the catalyst for new repertoires to be employed – or for existing ones to be revised. It is a cyclical view of mainstreaming participation, whereby repertoires are shaped in the context of peaks or cycles of protest activity or ‘cycles of contention’ (Tarrow and Tilly, 2001). The present ﬁndings suggest that governing party turnover determines the degree to which party institutionalisation sets in. This can be deﬁned as ‘the process by which a practice or organization becomes well-established and widely known, if not uni- versally accepted. In consequence actors develop expectations, orientations, and behaviour based on the premise that this practice or organization will prevail into the foreseeable future’ (Mainwaring and Scully, 1995: 4). It is a situ- ation that resonates with the notion of ‘path dependency’ in [neo-]institutionalist theory. As Pierson and Skocpol (2002: 6) explain, this refers to: ‘the dynamics of 134 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) self-reinforcing or positive feedback processes in a political system ... [involving] mechanisms that reinforce the recurrence of a particular pattern into the future ... ’ Interviewees oﬀered contrasting views of the impact of OPD on CSOs’ action repertoires. Some indeed supported the idea of ‘path dependency’ and alluded to how party institutionalisation under OPD had a stiﬂing eﬀect on participative mainstreaming. Accordingly, one policy oﬃcer it can get a bit stale if you know what I mean .. . the best way to be heard is to link-in with Labour [Party] ‘spads’ [special advisors] to ministers and senior oﬃcials ... [but] it can get a bit like Groundhog Day, mind ... In contrast, others underlined how the diminished political opportunity struc- tures under OPD had a galvanising eﬀect on engagement based on the necessity for a broad repertoire of protest and mobilisation. For example, one said ‘you have to work round it if you like ... for us we’ve tried to engage young people [and] encour- age them [to use] social media campaigns ... it’s just that thing of sort of trying to get round that political roadblock’. Another opined, We’ve tried all the conventional ways, consultations and the like .. . it always seems to fall on deaf ears as it were, either they don’t hear us or they don’t want to hear us. Most likely both! ... after the last one [i.e. election] and they [the Labour Party] got in, we said this has gotta change ... we’ve got to step it up, [and] that when it started really [series of campaigns]. I have to say, I think we were slow really ... We were a bit snail-like in realising they [Labour government] are going nowhere [i.e. they’ll remain in oﬃce over election cycles] it forces you to reconsider ... [To] up the ante. These ﬁndings resonate with the wider participation literature (e.g. work in Catalonia; see Font and Galais, 2011). In terms of the practical implications for CSOs, the current ﬁndings show that even when denied the catalysing eﬀect of regular government turnover, CSOs need to be proactive, vary their action reper- toires and employ the full gamut of claims-making methods. This is to ward against party institutionalisation, maximise criticality and advance claims making on government in order to challenge existing power relations in policy making. Framing and cognitive locks Drawing upon theory on policy framing and ‘cognitive locks’, the following fur- thers understanding of how single-party dominance shapes civil society engage- ment. Speciﬁcally, under OPD, ‘intellectual path dependency’ asserts itself and CSOs are found to be more constrained in their use of language. Rather than a free exchange of ideas, interviewees spoke of deliberately framing claims in ways that aligned with dominant party thinking. Frames here are a psycholinguistic means of ‘selecting, organizing, interpreting and making sense of a complex reality Chaney 135 to provide guideposts for knowing, analysing, persuading, and acting’ (Rein and Schon 1993: 146). Social theory (Snow and Benford, 1992: 137) underlines how CSOs can ‘strategically frame’ issues such as equalities policy demands in order that they ﬁt – or resonate – with the dominant frames held by other policy actors, including government. As Pollack and Hafner-Burton, (2000: 435) explain, those in power are ‘more likely to adopt new frames that are resonant, rather than in con- ﬂict, with their existing dominant’ frames’. A surface reading might suggest that OPD would make CSOs’ task easier. Ergo, in a ‘regular’ liberal democratic system government is constantly changing over election cycles, therefore one might expect a need for CSOs to consistently vary framing practices to align with the political complexion of those in power. However, respondents alluded to the speciﬁc chal- lenges posed by OPD. In the present case study, the Labour Party has placed strong rhetorical emphasis on a policy discourse of ‘traditional’ socialism (in con- trast to more centrist interpretations of social democracy held by the UK Labour Party at Westminster). For example, it has featured the tropes of mutuality, equal- ity of outcome and redistribution (Chaney and Drakeford, 2004). Accordingly, one interviewee alluded to how they had deliberately linked equality of opportunity claims with (government) aspirations for tackling income inequalities. This was done in order to align the CSO’s framing with one of the dominant frames in the governing party discourse. She recalled how they had pressed a minister and his team on gender budgeting with limited success. Subsequently, she alluded to how: We had this rethink .. . OK, we know they were [i.e. government minister] not overly keen .. . [That is an] understatement! I think there was a concern with [the potential cost of] equal pay claims in local government, anyway ... we thought [if] we pitch it in terms of the economic aspect – ‘Clear Red Water’, Classic Labour – all that [references to a notable First Minister’s speech stating the party’s socialist governing principles] and the tackling poverty agenda [a key policy goal of the governing party] ... and it was after that there was the pilot [scheme] ... its easy after the event I know – but I do think the change of language on our part helped”. An allied ﬁnding is the way that governing party turnover – and thus party institutionalisation – may shape mainstreaming practices through ‘cognitive locks’. The latter represent what Forestiere and Allen (2011: 381) term ‘intellectual path dependency in policymaking’. Once established, they become a guiding set of ideas or ‘ideological mantra to be repeated and applied no matter ... [what] the actual conditions of a situation’ (Blyth, 2002: 229). They are particularly evident under one-party dominant regimes because change or reversal of government poli- cies as a result of exogenous pressure – what Hirschman (1970: 30) calls ‘voice’ – is limited or absent. As noted, in the present case study, the dominant Labour Party has long espoused a socialist ideology and a generally rejected mixed economy approaches to welfare involving the private sector. Against this background, the 136 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) manager of a disabled people’s CSO gave an example of an ideologically grounded cognitive lock: we asked her [the minister] .. . if the only way to ensure the service was to contract out [i.e. to a private company] rather than face a total loss [of provision] ... our members would back that ... she wasn’t having it. No way ... We were told in no uncertain terms there was no place for that route .. . we [the CSO] weren’t happy with it – but we’d thought about it pragmatically and felt it’d be better than nothing ... they were not having it’. The present ﬁndings also reveal the party politicisation of engagement. Thus, interviewees underlined how they were obliged to negotiate the challenging and singular positional politics that characterise a one-party dominant system. Compared to ‘regular’ liberal democracies, the key diﬀerence is the absence of turnover means CSOs are consistently pitted against the same party, thereby strengthening the appearance of partisanship – wherein criticism of government may become conﬂated with criticism of party qua party. It is a viewpoint captured by the following interviewee: My personal view is the fact that it is a one party state actually does create quite a sterile environment in terms of policy-making. It very much feels that at times to challenge a policy is very much to challenge the [Labour] Party, and to challenge the hegemony of the Welsh Labour Government. Another policy oﬃcer said: “it can get a bit ‘political’ at times ... someone from the [policy network] said to me .. . ‘why are you giving Labour a hard time’? [i.e. the viewpoint they are on our side] – but that’s not the point, is it? It’s the government you’re dealing with’. Overall, these ﬁndings show that on a deliberative level, CSOs not only need to strategically frame their demands so as to align with the discourse of the dominant party – they also need to frame them in ways consonant with opposition parties’ discourse in order to facilitate broad-based, cross party engage- ment and lessen dominant party institutionalisation, as well as overcome cognitive locks. CSO networking and alliance building This section of the ﬁndings applies theory on policy networks, CSO alliance build- ing and neo-corporatism to reveal how, under OPD, the disproportionate power of the dominant party distorts collective action and leads to ‘defensive’ networking amongst CSOs in order to counter the hegemony of the governing party. The theoretical backdrop to this is that networks and mobilising structures sustain collective action in civil society (McAdam et al., 1996: 13). Taken together, they are the means for interorganisational coordination and collaboration Chaney 137 between CSOs. Interviewees’ comments reveal how participatory mainstreaming is aﬀected by single-party dominance. Speciﬁcally, the fact that the dominant party is unlikely to be voted out of oﬃce diminishes its propensity to compromise its policy agenda in the face of CSOs’ mainstreaming claims. In turn, this may further weaken and disadvantage ‘standalone’ organisations who, even in ‘regular’ liberal democracies, are often easier for political elites to sideline or defeat compared to coordinated action from multiple networked CSOs (cf. Banazak, 2010). The dis- proportionate power of the dominant party under OPD strengthens the incentives for CSOs to eﬀectively seek ‘strength in numbers’ and coordinate when engaging with government (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). This is evident in the present study. For example, an interviewee alluded to how CSOs representing individual equalities ‘strands’ (e.g. gender, disability, ethnicity and so on) had decided to unite to produce a manifesto of equalities demands spanning protected characteristics. The underlying rationale was that it would aﬀord them greater inﬂuence over the dominant party’s programme in the run-up to national elections: We’d seen what had happened on [the previous election commitment by the dominant party to] ‘free’ social care [the party did a U-turn, widely seen as reneging] ... this was a terrible betrayal of disabled people ... We thought right! So, yes, we did sign-up to the [Equalities] Manifesto ... our Exec[utive] Committee said we must make sure that it [government ‘betrayal’] doesn’t happen again, so having everyone on-board [i.e. coordinated claims-making by CSOs] ticks that box ... shifts the balance ... [of power with the governing party]. The current study also reveals the impact of single-party dominance and neo- corporatism. As Mansbridge (1999: 495) explains, the latter as an approach that ‘values interest groups as ongoing institutional mechanisms for representing inter- ests not easily represented in the territorial representative process. [And] it attempts to bring the laissez faire system of interest representation partly under public con- trol’. In the current research context, neo-corporatism takes the form of state- sponsored policy networks. Whilst undoubtedly facilitating engagement, its use can also be emblematic of the coercive aspect of mainstreaming (cf. Payne, 2011: 528). Accordingly, CSOs’ proximity to power elites under neo-corporatism may undermine their autonomy and criticality, thereby compromising their independ- ence (Korolczuk, 2014; Mansbridge, 1999). Thus, as De Jager (2005: 56) explains: civil society derives its very legitimacy from its ability to act and then to act independently .. . The development of more formal and regulated civil society–state relations may subvert the character of civil society and compromise its role in enhan- cing democracy. Whilst this concern is germane to liberal democracies in general, interviewees’ comments attest to its heightened signiﬁcance under OPD because of the increased 138 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) power of political patronage stemming from power centred on a single party. Thus, the director of a CSO reﬂected: ‘we don’t want to alienate [ministers] but also we don’t want to be in the pocket of the minister and it’s that balance which is diﬃcult’. Another oﬀered candidly: ‘we are afraid to say “the emperor has no clothes” .. . we are afraid to show when failure is happening, because you know you have several people that have to wear several hats [i.e. perform multiple roles as CSO representatives and members of government policy task and ﬁnish groups, and recipients of state funding], there are conﬂicts of interest ... ’Another manager alluded to how OPD even limited CSOs’ willingness to provide information to assist opposition backbenchers in criticising government policy. This is because its specialist nature meant its provenance would be clear (and in turn likely to be viewed as an overt attack on government, their chief sponsor). One manager said, ‘it can misﬁre ... having the right points advanced by the “wrong party”’ – er, [irony] it doesn’t always advance your cause!’. Another reﬂected on the overall impact of OPD and neo-corporatist practices: In eﬀect you now have state sponsored civil society which compounds the problem that it’s hard to criticise government. So they’ve created a civil society but it’s an anaemic one because they control the ﬂow of blood and they don’t want it [civil society] to get too strong. Whilst extant work often points to political parties and civil society as largely discrete entities (cf. Chatterjee, 2004: 136; Kopecky and Mudde, 2003), single-party dominance highlights blurred boundaries (cf. Mair, 2000) and how this may impact on participative mainstreaming. Under OPD holding power over successive elec- tion cycles eﬀectively institutionalises the dominant party. It regularises and sus- tains contacts between government and civil society over extended periods of time (‘boundary blurring’) – whereas such relationships and interaction would be swept away by a new party being elected to power in regular turnover democracies. As Be´ nit-Gbaﬀou (2012: 186) explains, the resultant overlapping of government and civil society spheres aﬀects participative mainstreaming by limiting CSOs’ critical- ity towards the governing party. This can be prompted by a range of reasons – including citizens’ loyalty to the party as well as a shared sense of identity and/or ideology. It may also be due to the dominant party ‘exert[ing], through its mem- bers, a subtle but eﬃcient social control on what is said .. . it may [also] be shaped by everyone’s perception that their discourse and position might be reported to [party] structure’ (Benit-Gbaﬀou, 2012: 191). The latter point is supported by the present ﬁndings for interviewees spoke of ‘toning down’ or avoiding criticism of government for fear that some CSO man- agers – who were also members of the dominant party, convey their comments to ministers; which in turn could jeopardise their government funding. According one, “you do have to stop yourself. .. . I thought hold-on [uses own name] watch your- self! ‘cos I know a couple of policy people there are strong Party [people]”. A further, related issue is that mainstreaming may be undermined by the negative Chaney 139 aspects (opaqueness, lack of accountability and exclusive nature) of informal net- works that crosscut formal political channels and processes (Masket, 2009). This corresponds with existing work by McClurg and Lazer (2014: 4) who explicate how party organizations, interest groups and others in the policy process ... often form connections that are at times ﬂuid and at other times enduring ... suggest[ing] a host of new substantive questions about organized inﬂuence in politics that centred on explaining relationship formation and impact in political organizations. Thus, interviewees described how critical engagement with government routinely took place outside legislative channels. In other words, OPD was “short circuiting” the formal practices of parliamentary representation and instead operating as an informal, intraparty process. One interviewee said: ‘we are not going in from a zero baseline. Our existing contacts and connections are very important. There are ‘soft targets’ in the [National] Assembly’. Another echoed this by making the point that, ‘you have to be in the right groups or else you will get marginalised. You have to network’. According to another CSO manager, “some of the civil service they are very much steeped in the old ways, the Whitehall approach ... and that’s where we’ve had to make representations, you know, through political channels ... ”Another added: I found where we have had some successes is in raising concerns with Labour back- benchers who have gone on to raise the concerns themselves with ministers. So we tend to shape the policy practices indirectly through the Labour Party machine itself, shaping policy internally. I think there’s more chance of a Labour backbencher getting concessions out of a [Labour] minister than engaging opposition parties “from the outside.” A further issue is the way that OPD may increase division and mistrust between equalities CSOs. This is because the greater powers of government patronage in OPD systems may create two classes of CSO – ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ (Taylor, 2001), thereby accentuating conﬂict and tensions between equalities strands (e.g. Siim, 2007). Thus, for example, one CSO chief executive said we have this situation where – when it comes to disabled people [named organisation] are widely seen by the minister as the representative body ... Something, obviously, they have done nothing to disabuse ... We may be [a] small [CSO] but ... I mean, eﬀectively, y’ know we are crowded out ... In a broadly similar vein, another interviewee said it all really comes down to who speaks for [ethnic minority] communities ... now [named umbrella body] are funded by the government, right? They know how to play the game ... they’re not going to press the minister hard; truth told, they are 140 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) not going to press the minister! [laughs] ... [named equality body] said ‘why aren’t you members’? [of the umbrella body]. Look, there’s no way our people would have it. We’re not becoming part of that charade. In summary, the practical signiﬁcance of these ﬁndings for CSOs is that in placing their equalities claims on government they need to utilise mobilizing struc- tures to develop advocacy coalitions that act to counter the disproportionate power and inﬂuence of dominant parties. Such alliances oﬀer a way to address the com- promised independence that can result from dominant party patronage and neo- corporatist structures. In other words, by creating alliances that are broader than state-sponsored CSOs, full criticality may be restored. Conclusion The foregoing empirical analysis reveals that single-party dominance inﬂuences CSOs’ engagement strategies by shaping the prevailing political opportunity struc- tures and attendant CSO strategies for participation in the work of government. Instead of adapting their Modus operandi to take account of governing party turn- over as happens in ‘regular’ liberal democracies, the current data show how single- party dominance distorts civil society policy engagement. The analysis identiﬁes four areas aﬀected by the absence of turnover: strategic bridging, action reper- toires, framing and cognitive locks, and CSO networking and alliance building. Thus, interviewees’ comments attest to how OPD skews the ‘political dynamic’ for participation by aﬀecting group incentives. Moreover, attention to strategic brid- ging reveals how single-party dominance inﬂuences whom to engage amongst the political elite. Whilst reference to CSOs’ action repertoires also reveals how some view the absence of turnover as a pathology that limits policy input. In addition, the application of social theory on framing and ‘cognitive locks’ illustrates how, under OPD, CSOs are more constrained in their use of language. Rather than a free exchange of ideas, interviewees speak of deliberately advancing claims in ways that align with dominant party thinking. Furthermore, conceptual work on policy net- works and neo-corporatism underlines how the disproportionate power of the dominant party distorts collective action and leads to ‘defensive’ networking amongst CSOs in order to counter the hegemony of the governing party. Thus, far from being an apolitical, bureaucratic, instrumental undertaking, the operationalisation of mainstreaming principles around participation and democ- racy is shown to be shaped by electoral politics. As the principal policy actor bound by international and domestic mainstreaming obligations, government is not a constant in the mainstreaming equation. Rather, its political complexion changes each time a governing party is voted out and replaced by a rival. Accordingly, the type of party holding oﬃce shapes a broad range of factors including: the power of the incumbent, the degree of openness or resistance to exogenous criticality and claims making, the extent of political patronage and the degree of CSO resource dependency and autonomy. Chaney 141 A key point emerging from the study is that the nondiscrete issues identiﬁed are self-sustaining. Over time, diminished civil society engagement with opposition parties will further strengthen the dominant party and thus perpetuate a downward spiral such that a change of governing party is even less likely. This provides a salutary lesson for the 180 + liberal democracies subscribing to mainstreaming. To counter such problems, CSOs’ need to employ adaptive action repertoires for par- ticipative mainstreaming. These should be broad based and cross-party in nature. For example, they may include the modiﬁcation of strategic bridging to compen- sate for OPD through deliberate engagement with weaker opposition parties. Moreover, they may use their mobilising structures to develop advocacy coalitions to counter the compromised independence that can result from dominant party patronage and neo-corporatist structures. Through such measures, full criticality in state–civil society relations may be restored. Overall, the wider contribution of this study to understanding civil society engagement is threefold: (1) It reveals the types of problems that may emerge in relation to PDM when a governing party retains power over several electoral cycles, (2) It underlines the need for contemporary academic analysis to be cognizant of how Participatory Democratic Mainstreaming is contingent on electoral competition and governing party turnover, and (3) As noted, it emphasises that CSOs’ need to employ an adaptive model of policy engagement suited to the prevailing electoral politics and governing party turnover in liberal democracies. Acknowledgements The author would like thank three anonymous referees for their helpful and construct- ive comments when revising an earlier draft of this paper. The grant funding for this research was provided by the Economic and Social Research Council (Award No: ES/ L009099/1). Declaration of conflicting interests The author(s) declared no potential conﬂicts of interest with respect to the research, author- ship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) received no ﬁnancial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Notes 1. Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri¼CELEX:32004L0113 and http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri¼CELEX:32006L0054 (accessed 2 January 2014). 2. See section 4, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2011/9780111012215/contents (accessed 20 January 2015). 142 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) 3. 2001/41 of 26 July 2001, 2002/23 of 24 July 2002, 2003/49 of 24 July 2003, 2004/4 of 7 July 2004, 2005/31 of 26 July 2005, 2006/36 of 27 July 2006, 2007/33 of 27 July 2007, 2008/34 of 25 July 2008 and 2009/12 of 28 July 2009. 4. E.g. Section 3, Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012. http:// www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2012/9780111016718/contents (accessed 12 October 2014). 5. In coalition 2000–2003 and 2007–2011, with the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru, respectively. 6. Under Economic and Social Research Council Awards No: R000239410 and L219252016. 7. Thus, engagement and governing party turnover are the dependent and independent variables, respectively. 8. i.e. Systems with free and fair elections. 9. ‘Groundhog Day’ – a 1993 film directed by Harold Ramis concerning a time loop – cited here as a simile for repetition. 10. In this sense, the present findings echo the experience elsewhere. For example, in Bavaria where, even with direct democracy mechanisms such as local referendums, limited turn- over of the governing party is amongst factors that limit the agenda setting of CSOs (see Premat, 2012: 169). 11. In this respect, the findings resonate with potential issues in Bavaria, another ‘regional’ European polity characterised by limited governing party turnover where government has invested significant political capital in developing state–civil society engagement (cf. Raffl, 2014). 12. Reference to Hans Christian Andersen story – here meaning CSOs were afraid to be critical of government. References Bacchi CL and Eveline J (2010) Mainstreaming and neoliberalism: A contested relationship. In: Bacchi C and Eveline J (eds) Mainstreaming Politics Gendering Practices and Feminist Theory. Adelaide: University of Adelaide, pp. 39–61. Banazak A (2010) The Women’s Movement Inside and Outside the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barnett Donaghy T (2003) Mainstreaming: Northern Ireland’s participative democratic approach. Policy and Politics 32(1): 49–62. Be´ nit-Gbaffou C (2012) Party politics, civil society and local democracy – Reflections from Johannesburg. Geoforum 43: 178–189. Beveridge F and Nott S (2002) Mainstreaming: A case for optimism and cynicism. Feminist Legal Studies 10: 299–311. Beveridge F and Shaw J (2002) Introduction: Mainstreaming gender in European public policy. Feminist Legal Studies 10: 209–212. Birrell D (2012) Comparing Devolved Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Blyth M (2002) Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boyatzis R (1998) Transforming Qualitative Information. London: Sage. Butler A (2009) Considerations on the erosion of one-party dominance. Representation 45(2): 159–171. Caglar G (2013) Gender mainstreaming. Politics and Gender 9(3): 336–344. Chaney 143 Cassell C and Symon G (1994) Qualitative research in work contexts. In: Cassell C and Symon G (eds) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, A Practical Guide. London: Sage, pp. 1–13. Chaney P and Drakeford M (2004) The primacy of ideology: Social policy and the first term of the National Assembly for Wales. In: Ellison N, Powell M and Bauld L (eds) Social Policy Review. Vol 16, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 121–143. Chaney P and Rees T (2004) The Northern Ireland Section 75 Equality Duty: An International Perspective. In: McLaughlin E and Faris N (eds) Review of the Section 75 Equality Duty. Belfast, Northern Ireland Office, pp. 34–62. Chatterjee P (2004) The Politics of the Governed: Popular Politics in Most of the World. Columbia University Press, New York. Council of Europe (2003) Gender Mainstreaming: Conceptual Framework Methodology and Presentation of Good Practices. Strasbourg: Committee of Ministers. Dahl R (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CO: Yale University Press. Debusscher P and Van der Vleuten A (2012) Mainstreaming gender in European Union development cooperation with sub-Saharan Africa: Promising numbers, narrow contents, telling silences. International Development Planning Review 34(3): 319–338. De Jager N (2005) The ANC government, co-optive power and the perpetuation of party dominance, in challenges to democracy by one-party dominance: A comparative assessment. Johannesburg: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. Denzin N and Lincoln Y (2000) Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 1–28. Duverger M (1954) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Methuen. Elster J (1998) Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Equality and Human Rights Commission (2012) Mainstreaming the equality duty: A guide for public authorities (Scotland). Glasgow: EHRC. Finkel S, Muller E and Opp K (1989) Personal influence, collective rationality and mass political action. American Political Science Review 83: 885–903. Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219–245. Font J and Galais C (2011) The qualities of local participation: The explanatory role of ideology, external support and civil society as organizer. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 35: 932–948. Forestiere C and Allen C (2011) The formation of cognitive locks in single party dominant regimes. International Political Science Review 32: 380–395. Fyfe G, Johnston Miller K and McTavish D (2009) “Muddling through” in a devolved polity: Implementation of equal opportunities policy in Scotland. Policy Studies 30(2): 203–219. Gamson W (1975) The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Gerring J (2004) What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review 98(2): 341–357. Giliomee H and Simkins C (1999) The Awkward Embrace: One-Part Domination and Democracy in Industrialising Countries. New York: Routledge. 144 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) Greene K (2010) The political economy of authoritarian single-party dominance. Comparative Political Studies 43: 807–834. Gutman A and Thompson D (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, Princeton University Press. Heritier A and Rhodes M (2011) New Modes of Governance in Europe: Governing in the Shadow of Hierarchy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hirschman AO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hogwood B and Gunn L (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hopkin D, Tanner D and Williams C (2001) The Labour Party in Wales 1900–2000. Cardiff, University of Wales Press. Inoguchi T (2005) Japanese Politics: An Introduction. Melbourne, Australia: Trans Pacific Press. Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality (2005) Review and Appraisal of the Implementation of the Platform for Action. New York: United Nations. Jackson J (1994) Stability and renewal: Incumbency and parliamentary composition. In: Somit A, Wildenmann R, Bell B and Rommel A (eds) The Victorious Incumbent: A Threat to Democracy? Aldershot, Hants: Dartmouth, pp. 251–277. Jahnukainen M (2010) Extreme cases. In: Mills A, Durepos G and Wiebe E (eds) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jasquot S (2010) The paradox of gender mainstreaming: Unanticipated effects of new modes of governances on the gender equality domain. West European Politics 33(2): 118–135. Kim S and Kim K (2011) Gender mainstreaming and the institutionalization of the women’s movement in South Korea. Women’s Studies International Forum 34: 390–400. King N and Horrocks C (2010) Interviews in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kopecky M and Mudde C (2003) Rethinking civil society. Democratization 10(3): 1–14. Korolczuk E (2014) Promoting civil society in contemporary Poland: Gendered results of institutional changes. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 25(4): 949–967. Krossa A (2011) Europe in a Global Context. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Lister R and Carbone M (eds) (2006) New Pathways in International Development: Gender and Civil Society in EU Policy. Aldershot: Ashgate. Mainwaring S and Scully T (1995) Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Mair P (1996) Party systems and structures of competition. In: LeDuc L, Niemi RG and Norris P (eds) Comparing Democracies. Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. Three Oaks: Sage, pp. 83–106. Mair P (2000) Party organisations: From civil society to the state. In: Katz S and Mair P (eds) How Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in Richard. Western Democracies, London: Sage. Mansbridge J (1999) Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A con- tingent “yes”. Journal of Politics 61(3): 628–657. Masket S (2009) No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Chaney 145 McAdam D, McCarthy J and Zald MN (eds) (1996) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press. McAllister I (1980) The dynamics of one-partyism. Llafur: The Journal of Welsh Labour History 3(1): 79–89. McClurg S and Lazer D (2014) Political networks. Social Networks 36: 1–4. Morgan K (1981) Rebirth of a Nation 1880–1980. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mosca G (1938) The Ruling Class, ed. and rev. by Arthur Livingston, trans. Hannah D. Kahn. New York: McGraw Hill. Mosesdottir L and Erlingsdottir R (2005) Spreading the word across Europe. International Feminist Journal of Politics 7(4): 513–531. Nott S (2000) Accentuating the positive: Alternative strategies for promoting gender equal- ity. In: Beveridge F, Nott S and Stephen K (eds) Making women count: Integrating gender into law and policymaking. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp.247–276. Nott S (2005) Securing mainstreaming in a hostile political environment. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 8(1–2): 121–140. ´ ´ ´ Pares M, Bonet-Martı J and Martı-Costa M (2011) Does participation really matter in urban regeneration policies? Exploring governance networks in Catalonia. Urban Affairs Review 30(4): 1–34. Payne S (2011) Beijing fifteen years on: The persistence of barriers to gender mainstreaming in health policy. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 18(4): 515–542. Pierson P and Skocpol T (2002) Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science. Working Paper, Harvard University. Pollack M and Hafner-Burton E (2000) Mainstreaming gender in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 7(3): 432–456. Premat C (2012) Initiatives and referendums. In: Gabriel O, Keil S and Kerrouche E (eds) Political Participation in France and Germany. Essex: ECPR Press, pp. 161–189. Raffl C (2014) Open Societal Innovation (OSI) for politics, public administration, and civil society. Working Paper, The Open Government Institute (TOGI) Zeppelin University. Available at: www.ipp.oii.ox.ac.uk/sites/ipp/files/documents/IPP2014_Rafflpdf (accessed 18 January 2015). Rein M and Schon D (1993) Reframing policy discourse. In: Fischer F and Forester J (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham: Duke University Press. Rodriguez-Pose A and Gill N (2003) The global trend towards devolution and its implications. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 21(3): 333–351. Sabatier P and Jenkins-Smith HC (eds) (1993) Policy Change and Learning. An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Saward M (2006) The representative claim. Contemporary Political Theory 5(1): 297–318. Seawright J and Gerring J (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly 61: 294–308. Siim B (2007) The challenge of recognizing diversity from the perspective of gender equality: Dilemmas in Danish citizenship. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 10(4): 491–511. 146 Public Policy and Administration 31(2) Snow D and Benford R (1992) Master frames and cycles of protest. In: Morris AD and Mueller CM (eds) Frontiers of Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press. Tarrow S and Tilly C (eds) (2001) Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Taylor M (2001) Partnership: Insiders and outsiders. In: Harris M and Rochester C (eds) Voluntary Organisations and Social Policy in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Chapter 7, pp. 94–108. Tilly C (1978) From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Tilly C (1995) Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758–1834. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. True J and Mintrom M (2001) Transnational networks and diffusion: The case of gender mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly 45: 27–57. True J and Parisi L (2013) Gender mainstreaming strategies in international governance. In: Caglar G, Prugl E and Zwingel S (eds) Feminist Strategies in International Governance. London: Routledge. Tsebelis G (1995) Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science 25(3): 289–325. United Nations (1995) Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women, adopted at the UN Council 16th plenary meeting, on 15 September 1995. New York: UN. United Nations (2010) Review of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. New York: UN. Wales Council for Voluntary Action (2014) Third Sector Almanac. Cardiff, WCVA. Woehl S (2011) Gender mainstreaming in European employment policies. Critical Policy Studies 5(1): 32–46. Woodward A (2008) Too late for gender mainstreaming? Taking stock in Brussels. Journal of European Social Policy 18: 289–302.

Journal

Public Policy and Administration – SAGE

Published: May 4, 2015

Keywords: Civil society; equalities; government; mainstreaming; participation; politics; turnover

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

How does single party dominance influence civil society organisations’ engagement strategies? Exploratory analysis of participative mainstreaming in a ‘regional’ European polity:

How does single party dominance influence civil society organisations’ engagement strategies? Exploratory analysis of participative mainstreaming in a ‘regional’ European polity:

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

How does single party dominance influence civil society organisations’ engagement strategies? Exploratory analysis of participative mainstreaming in a ‘regional’ European polity:

How does single party dominance influence civil society organisations’ engagement strategies? Exploratory analysis of participative mainstreaming in a ‘regional’ European polity:

References (99)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies