Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-mqrwx Total loading time: 0.479 Render date: 2022-11-29T22:43:38.574Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2005

BONNIE M. MEGUID
Affiliation:
University of Rochester

Abstract

What accounts for variation in the electoral success of niche parties? Although institutional and sociological explanations of single-issue party strength have been dominant, they tend to remove parties from the analysis. In this article, I argue that the behavior of mainstream parties influences the electoral fortunes of the new, niche party actors. In contrast to standard spatial theories, my theory recognizes that party tactics work by altering the salience and ownership of issues for political competition, not just party issue positions. It follows that niche party support can be shaped by both proximal and non-proximal competitors. Analysis of green and radical right party vote in 17 Western European countries from 1970 to 2000 confirms that mainstream party strategies matter; the modified spatial theory accounts for the failure and success of niche parties across countries and over time better than institutional, sociological, and even standard spatial explanations.

Type
ARTICLES
Copyright
© 2005 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amorim Neto Octavio, and Gary Cox. 1997. “Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures and the Number of Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (January): 14974.Google Scholar
Beck Nathaniel, and Jonathan N. Katz. 1995. “What to Do (And Not to Do) with Time-Series-Cross-Section Data.” American Political Science Review 89 (September): 63447.Google Scholar
Beck Nathaniel, and Jonathan N. Katz. 1996. “Nuisance vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-Series-Cross-Section Models.” Political Analysis 6: 136.Google Scholar
Bélanger Eric. 2003. “Issue Ownership by Canadian Political Parties since 1953.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 36 (July/August): 53958.Google Scholar
Budge Ian, and Denis Farlie. 1983. “Party Competition—Selective Emphasis or Direct Confrontation?” In Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change, ed. Hans Daalder and Peter Mair. London: Sage, 267306.
Budge Ian, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, Eric Tannenbaum, et al. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Budge Ian, David Robertson, and Derek Hearl. 1987. Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bürklin Wilhelm. 1987. “Governing Left Parties Frustrating the Radical Non-established Left: The Rise and Inevitable Decline of the Greens.” European Sociological Review 3 (September): 10926.Google Scholar
Caramani Daniele. 2000. Elections in Western Europe Since 1815. New York: Macmillan.
Castles Francis G., and Peter Mair. 1984. “Left-Right Political Scales: Some “Expert” Judgments.” European Journal of Political Research 12 (March): 7388.Google Scholar
Downs Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper Collins.
Duverger Maurice. 1963. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Metheun.
Elazar Daniel. 1994. Federal Systems of the World. Vol. 2. Harlow, UK: Longman Current Affairs.
Enelow James M., and Melvin J. Hinich. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Faux Emmanuel, Thomas Legrand, and Gilles Perez. 1994. La Main Droite de Dieu. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Golder Matt. 2003. “Explaining Variation in the Success of Extreme Right Parties in Western Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 36 (May): 43266.Google Scholar
Hainsworth Paul, ed. 2000. The Politics of the Extreme Right. New York: Pinter.
Harmel Robert, and Kenneth Janda. 1982. Parties and Their Environments. New York: Longman.
Harmel Robert, and John Robertson. 1985. “Formation and Success of New Parties: A Cross-National Analysis.” International Political Science Review 6 (October): 50123.Google Scholar
Harmel Robert, and Lars Svasand. 1997. “The Influences of New Parties on Old Parties' Platforms.” Party Politics 3 (3): 31540.Google Scholar
Inglehart Ronald. 1998. Modernization and Postmodernization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jackman Robert W., and Karin Volpert. 1996. “Conditions Favouring Parties of the Extreme Right in Western Europe.” British Journal of Political Science 26 (October): 50121.Google Scholar
Keesing's Worldwide. 1999. Keesing's Record of World Events CD-ROM. Bethesda, MD: Keesing's Worldwide.
Kitschelt Herbert. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kitschelt Herbert. 1995. The Radical Right in Western Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Laver Michael, and John Garry. 2000. “Estimating Policy Positions from Political Texts.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (July): 61934.Google Scholar
Laver Michael, and W. Ben Hunt. 1992. Policy and Party Competition. New York: Routledge.
Mackie Thomas, and Richard Rose. 1991, 1997. The International Almanac of Electoral History. London: Macmillan.
Mair Peter. 1999. “New Political Parties in Established Party Systems: How Successful Are They?” In Elites, Parties and Democracy, eds. E. Beukel, K. Klausen, and P. Mouritzen. Odense: Odense University Press, 20724.
Meguid Bonnie M. 2002. “Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Rising Party Success in Western Europe.” Ph.D. diss. Harvard University.
Müller-Rommel Ferdinand. 1996. “The New Challengers: Explaining the Electoral Success of Green and Right-Wing Populist Parties in Western Europe.” In Les Petits Partis, eds. Annie Laurent and Bruno Villalba. Paris: L'Harmattan, 11941.
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. 2000. OECD Statistical Compendium CD-ROM. Paris: OECD Electronic Editions.
O'Neill Michael. 1997. Green Parties and Political Change in Contemporary Europe. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
Petrocik John. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (August): 82550.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz George, and Stuart Elaine Macdonald. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83 (March): 93121.Google Scholar
Rohrschneider Robert. 1993. “New Party Versus Old Left Realignments: Environmental Attitudes, Party Politics and Partisan Affiliations in Four Western European Countries.” Journal of Politics 55 (August): 682701.Google Scholar
Shepsle Kenneth A. 1991. Models of Multiparty Electoral Competition. New York: Harwood Academic Publishing.
Swank Duane, and Hans-Georg Betz. 1995. “Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
Swank Duane, and Hans-Georg Betz. 1996. “Internationalization and Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe.” Paper presented at the Conference on Globalization and Labor Markets, University of California, Los Angeles.
Swank Duane, and Hans-Georg Betz. 2003. “Globalization, the Welfare State and Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe.” Socio-Economic Review 1 (May): 21545.Google Scholar
Taggart Paul. 1996. The New Populism and the New Politics. New York: St Martin's Press.
Willey Joseph. 1998. “Institutional Arrangements and the Success of New Parties in Old Democracies.” Political Studies 46 (3): 65168.Google Scholar
Woldendorp Jaap, Hans Keman, and Ian Budge. 1998. “Party Government in 20 Democracies: An Update (1990–1995).” European Journal of Political Research 33 (1): 12564.Google Scholar
624
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *