Chapter 1 identified the formation, electoral support and dissolution, in the years immediately following the First World War, of agrarian political parties in Australia, Canada and New Zealand as a relevant problem for comparative political science research. This chapter assesses major studies of agrarian parties in these countries. It argues that these studies do not resolve (indeed, that they do not address) the problem for research set out in Chapter 1: their scope is not comparative, their assertions are not consis tent with the findings of contemporary political science research, and, most importantly, methodological, conceptual and logical difficulties undermine their conclusions. This chapter therefore argues that the problem for research set out in Chapter 1 has not yet been resolved.
At the same time, this assessment re-inforces the contention that an analysis of the economic antece dents of party and voter behaviour in rural districts may resolve this problem for research — and may thereby contribute to a more complete understanding of major and non-major parties, voter behaviour and the party system. This chapter thus justifies an econometric analysis of the formation, electoral support and dissolution of agrarian parties in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Section 2.1 examines previous works’ methodological base. Section 2.2 analyses the class and territorial, ideological and organisational interpretations of agrarian parties in these countries.
2.1. Methodology
Studies of political phenomena generally utilise one of two types of explanation (Dray, 1974pp.66-89); (Moon, 1982pp. 150-155). (1) Theoretical explanations assert that political behaviour does not vary ran domly or capriciously [see, for example, (Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes, 1960p.8-37)]. Theories (general or abstract statements that relate observable events to one another) represent this uniformity (Riker and Ordeshook, 1973). Theoretical explanations thus account for empirical phenomena by relating them to inter-connected sets of general propositions (Pratt, 1978pp.69-77); (Papineau, 1978pp. 19-50); (Ryan, 1970pp.46-100); (Hempel, 1965); (Popper, 1957); (Nagel, 1961).
(2) "Intentionalist" (also known as "interpretive" or "historical") explanations do not utilise general or abstract statements (and thereby eschew theories). They explain phenomena by relating them to details specific to the case at hand (Butler, 1958p. 19); (Butler, 1955p.98); (Crick, 1959). Because events occur in different temporal and cultural contexts, and because unique personalities shape these events -- in short, because individual events are sui generis — generalisation and abstraction is impossible (Martin, 1977); (Louch, 1966); (Winch, 1958); (Moon, 1982); (Carr, 1961).
Both models of explanation produce legitimate forms of knowledge (Dray, 1974pp.68-69); (Nicholson, 1983pp.49-64; 183-204). Nonetheless, they differ in important respects (Appendix B analyses each in greater detail).
The methodology of the most significant studies of agrarian parties in Australia, Canada and New Zealand (Aitkin, 1972); (Aitkin, 1980); (Ellis, 1958); (Ellis, 1963); (Graham, 1963); (Graham, 1964); (Graham, 1966); (Lipset, 1950); (Macpherson, 1953); (Morton, 1950) is far more "intentionalist" than "theoretical." With the partial exception of Graham (Graham, 1966pp. 1-28), each work analyses a single party within a single country. None subsumes these parties under a generalisation or set of generalisa tions: Verrall, Ward and Hay, for example, conclude that the Australian Country Party’s electoral support "can often only be satisfactorally explained in terms which are historically random and particular. The party attracted initial allegiance only because of specific historical circumstances peculiar to individual regions" (Verrall, Ward and Hay, 1985p.8); see also (Hughes, 1985p.53); (Cribb, 1979p.96); (Morton, 1950p.xi). Each study, in short, considers its subject matter to be sui generis. It is at least in part for this reason that at present there exists no theory of agrarian party formation, electoral support and dissolution in these countries.
These studies typically consider agrarian party formation to be a consequence of conscious and intended action, and describe (re-enact) agrarian party formation, electoral support and dissolution in terms recog nisable to (and used by) contemporary observers. For this reason, these studies do not investigate these parties’ less visible antecedents. Graham, for example, observes that because the farmer was "unable to comprehend the complex machinery of the economic system which appeared to be working against him, the farmer would focus on the symbols of his oppression [sic] — the railroads, the banks, the grain elevator companies - and fight to break them. Indeed, the very intensity with which farmers focussed their hatred on the railroads, for example, blinded them to the other economic problems which they faced" (Graham, 1966p.l7); see also (Lipset, 1950pp.9,58). This observation applies as much to these studies of agrarian parties as to farmers in these countries.
These studies do not attempt to separate agrarian party leaders’ and journalists’ rhetoric and special- interest group pleading from their other motives. As a result, they do not challenge contemporary actors’ assertions and do not define the important but inherently ambiguous terms employed by these observers (e.g., "exploitation," "country-mindedness," "class" and "class consciousness" and "region").
These studies rely almost exclusively upon textual evidence — most notably upon impressionistic accounts in farm journals, contemporary newspapers and the agrarian party’s records [see in particular (Morton, 1950pp.300-310)]. With the partial exception of Lipset (Lipset, 1950), none uses quantitative evidence or bases its inferences upon statistical techniques. Moreover, none justifies the selection (or omission) of particular pieces of evidence or seems to be aware of the inferential difficulties that accom pany an uncritical use of such evidence. Generally speaking, these studies do not critically evaluate the evidence upon which their assertions are based. For this reason, Clubb’s criticism of intentionalist studies applies to these works: "when subjected to critical assessment [they] often appear biased, outmoded and untenable in the light of contemporary social science" (Clubb, 1977p.672).10
These studies’ methodological foundation, in short, is weak. This result is consistent with Moon’s observation that the interpretive explanation is an inadequate basis for political inquiry (Moon, 1982p.l51). In methodological terms, therefore, these studies cannot resolve the problem for comparative research formulated in Chapter 1. This problem for research can be resolved only by going beyond the intentionalist model and constructing explanations that are essentially theoretical in form (see also the argument set out in Appendix B).
22