This study critically assesses the claim of the cartel party theory that the party in central office (PCO) has lost its powers to the party in public office (PPO) as parties have adapted to various changes in their operating ‘environment’. The study argues that a party’s tendency to adapt is conditioned by the party’s ‘genetic’ heritage: if the PCO assumed a prominent position during the party’s institutionalization, it can more likely stand against external pressures compared to a PCO that has been traditionally weak. The study compares the development (1983–2017) of two Finnish parties, which hail from polar ‘genetic’ traditions: a social democratic mass party and a conservative cadre party. The change of the party ‘environment’ has strongly supported PCO’s decay. Unlike earlier longitudinal studies on intra-party power balance, the study assesses all significant power dimensions and finds a contradictory development: while the distribution of leadership positions and resources increasingly favour the PPO in both parties, significant ‘genetic’ differences in the distribution of formal decision-making power have not diminished at all. If statutory regulations matter, the results suggest that the PPO cannot ‘insulate’ like the cartel model expects in parties where the PCO’s strong role has been strictly codified.

中文翻译：

---

“遗传”效应：政党过去的组织选择能否影响卡特尔政党时代内部权力分配的发展？来自芬兰的证据，1983-2017

本研究批判性地评估了卡特尔政党理论的主张，即中央办公室 (PCO) 的权力已被公职政党 (PPO) 取代，因为政党已经适应了其运营“环境”的各种变化。该研究认为，一个政党的适应倾向受该党的“遗传”遗产的制约：如果 PCO 在党的制度化过程中占据突出地位，与传统上薄弱的 PCO 相比，它更有可能抵御外部压力。该研究比较了两个芬兰政党的发展（1983-2017 年），它们来自极地“遗传”传统：社会民主党群众政党和保守的干部政党。党的“环境”的变化有力地支持了PCO的衰败。与早期对党内权力平衡的纵向研究不同，该研究评估了所有重要的权力维度并发现了一个矛盾的发展：虽然领导职位和资源的分配越来越有利于双方的 PPO，但正式决策权分配的显着“遗传”差异根本没有减少。如果法规很重要，结果表明 PPO 不能像卡特尔模型所期望的那样在 PCO 的强大作用已被严格编纂的各方中“隔离”。