Why do some countries have more parties than others? The question of why party system fragmentation (referring to the number of parties contesting elections and the distribution of votes across these parties) varies from country to country has received considerable attention in previous research. To be sure, we know that countries’ electoral systems play a major role in explaining observed fragmentation, but work remains to be done to explain variation between similar countries. While research has examined the effect of ethnic diversity on party system fragmentation, the impact of socioeconomic development has received little attention.
In a recent article published in Politics & Policy, I argue that party system fragmentation tends to increase with socioeconomic development. According to social cleavage theory, party system fragmentation is greater in countries with more cleavages (i.e. societal divisions around which political parties form). Two major social changes associated with socioeconomic development leading to the formation of two cleavages are relevant: urbanisation, which produced a cleavage between urban and rural voters, and industrialisation, in which the transition from agricultural to more modern occupations produced a class cleavage between the bourgeoisie and working-class employees. As each cleavage forms, political parties appeal to one side or the other of a cleavage. When the existing parties are unable to represent issues associated with a new cleavage (which often becomes the case as countries urbanise and/or industrialise), new parties form to represent voters on one side of the new cleavage.
Though countries outside the West have experienced different patterns of socioeconomic development, I argue that these social cleavage arguments should apply cross-nationally. Regardless the timing or sequence of development, the onset of urbanisation should result in urban-rural cleavages, while changes in employment from agricultural to more modern forms of labour should result in the appearance of class cleavages. With urbanisation and occupational changes leading to the formation of urban-rural and class cleavages, social cleavage theory predicts that party systems will become increasingly fragmented.
Development and Electoral Competition
To test this argument, I examined the relationship between socioeconomic development and party system fragmentation in elections held between 1946 and 2008 in countries around the world. To measure socioeconomic development, I use a variable known as the Index of Occupational Diversification. This variable is calculated as the average of the proportion living in urban areas and the proportion employed in non-agricultural jobs, rescaled so that the index ranges from 0 (rural, agricultural societies) to 1 (urban, industrialised societies).
To determine the robustness of the effect of socioeconomic development, I examined several measures of party system fragmentation. For the sake of simplicity, I present the relationship between socioeconomic development and a measure of the distribution of national-level vote shares across parties. Figure 1 presents the predicted relationship between this measure of party system fragmentation and socioeconomic development, controlling for several alternative hypotheses (e.g. properties of the electoral system).
Figure 1 shows that socioeconomic development is positively associated with party system fragmentation. Countries at the lowest levels of development have, on average—and net of the effects of other variables—low levels of party system fragmentation, with an average of effectively 2.95 parties. Party system fragmentation increases with socioeconomic development, such that at the highest levels of socioeconomic development, the average country has effectively 4.90 parties. In keeping with social cleavage theory, this suggests that party system fragmentation increases with urbanisation (reflecting the development of urban-rural cleavages) and economic modernisation (resulting in class cleavages).

