{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02733485193621868, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006074411541381929, 'mean_word_length': 4.883928571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Christopher J. Kam, Party discipline and parliamentary politics, reviewed by Mihail Chiru

remains under-explored. Whether voters actually care about party coherence, legitimacy and flexibility is assumed rather than demonstrated. In fact, it seems that Art’s book provides some interesting hypotheses to be tested in further research. In short, Art has developed an innovative ‘agency based’ theoretical framework and did a tremendous job in gathering in-depth information on the radical right in an impressive number of countries. It is a welcome contribution to a literature that is perhaps too much dominated by quantitative studies that yield diminishing returns in terms of knowledge. This book is moreover worth reading not only by people interested in the radical right but also by scholars whose focus is on electoral behaviour and party politics in general. At the same time, Art’s theory is clearly provocative and might need further adaptation and testing. It seems that in more recent work De Lange and Art (2011) put more emphasis on ‘learning effects’ which might be a way forward. In addition, this book invites scholars to explore more how supply-side factors – such as party unity, competence and legitimacy – are perceived by voters and impact on voting behaviour (e.g. Bos and Van der Brug, 2010).