Skip to main content
×
Home

Issue Yield: A Model of Party Strategy in Multidimensional Space

  • LORENZO DE SIO (a1) and TILL WEBER (a2)
Abstract

Parties in pluralist democracies face numerous contentious issues, but most models of electoral competition assume a simple, often one-dimensional structure. We develop a new, inherently multidimensional model of party strategy in which parties compete by emphasizing policy issues. Issue emphasis is informed by two distinct goals: mobilizing the party's core voters and broadening the support base. Accommodating these goals dissolves the position-valence dichotomy through a focus on policies that unite the party internally while also attracting support from the electorate at large. We define issue yield as the capacity of an issue to reconcile these criteria, and then operationalize it as a simple index. Results of multilevel regressions combining population survey data and party manifesto scores from the 2009 European Election Study demonstrate that issue yield governs party strategy across different political contexts.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Lorenzo De Sio is Assistant Professor, LUISS Guido Carli University, Department of Political Science, Viale Romania 32, 00197 Rome, Italy (ldesio@luiss.it).
Till Weber is Assistant Professor, Baruch College, City University of New York, Department of Political Science, 1 Bernard Baruch Way, Box B5-280, New York, NY 10010 (till.weber@baruch.cuny.edu).
References
Hide All
Adams James. 1998. “Partisan Voting and Multiparty Spatial Competition: The Pressure for Responsible Parties.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 10 (1): 531.
Adams James, Ezrow Lawrence, and Somer-Topcu Zeynep. 2011. “Is Anybody Listening? Evidence that Voters Do Not Respond to European Parties’ Policy Statements during Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 370–82.
Ansolabehere Stephen, and Snyder James M.. 2000. “Valence Politics and Equilibrium in Spatial Election Models.” Public Choice 103 (3): 327–36.
Arrow Kenneth J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.
Bélanger Éric, and Meguid Bonnie M.. 2008. “Issue Salience, Issue Ownership, and Issue-Based Vote Choice.” Electoral Studies 27 (3): 477–91.
Brambor Thomas, Clark William Roberts, and Golder Matt. 2006. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analysis.” Political Analysis 14 (1): 6382.
Budge Ian, and Farlie Dennis J.. 1983. Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-three Democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.
Carmines Edward G., and Stimson James A.. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Clarke Harold D., Sanders David, Stewart Marianne C., and Whiteley Paul. 2009. Performance Politics and the British Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davis Otto A., and Hinich Melvin J.. 1966. “A Mathematical Model of Policy Formation in a Democratic Society.” In Mathematical Applications in Political Science, ed. Bernd Joseph. Dallas: Southern Methodist University, 175205.
Downs Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
Duncan Otis D., and Davis Beverly. 1953. “An Alternative to Ecological Correlation.” American Sociological Review 18 (6): 665–66.
Ezrow Lawrence. 2010. Linking Citizens and Parties: How Electoral Systems Matter for Electoral Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Feld Scott L., and Grofman Bernard. 1991. “Incumbency Advantage, Voter Loyalty and the Benefit of the Doubt.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 3 (2): 115–37.
Fiorina Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Green Jane, and Hobolt Sara B.. 2008. “Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections.” Electoral Studies 27 (3): 460–76.
Grofman Bernard. 2004. “Downs and Two-party Convergence.” Annual Review of Political Science (7): 25–46.
Grofman Bernard. 2010. “Constraints on the Turnout Gap between High and Low Knowledge (or Income) Voters: Combining the Duncan-Davis Method of Bounds with the Taagepera Method of Bounds.” Electoral Studies 29 (4): 673–77.
Iyengar Shanto, and Kinder Donald R.. 1987. News that Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kam Cindy D., and Franzese Robert J. Jr. 2007. Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kitschelt Herbert P. 1989. The Logics of Party Formation: Ecological Politics in Belgium and West Germany. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Laakso Markku, and Taagepera Rein. 1979. “The Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 327.
Laver Michael, and Sergenti Ernest. 2011. Party Competition: An Agent-based Model. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lewin Kurt. 1935. “The Conflict between Aristotelian and Galilean Modes of Thought in Contemporary Psychology.” In A Dynamic Theory of Personality, ed. Lewin Kurt. New York: McGraw-Hill, 142.
Marks Gary, Hooghe Liesbet, Steenbergen Marco R., and Bakker Ryan. 2007. “Crossvalidating Data on Party Positioning on European Integration.” Electoral Studies 26 (1): 2338.
Meguid Bonnie M. 2008. Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Müller Wolfgang C., and Strøm Kaare. 1999. Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McKelvey Richard D. 1986. “Covering, Dominance, and Institution-Free Properties of Social Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 30 (2): 283314.
Petrocik John R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825–50.
Plott Charles R. 1967. “A Notion of Equilibrium and Its Possibility under Majority Rule.” American Economic Review 57 (4): 787806.
Przeworski Adam, and Sprague John D.. 1986. Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rabinowitz George, and Macdonald Stuart Elaine. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83 (1): 93121.
Reif Karlheinz, and Schmitt Hermann. 1980. “Nine Second-Order National Elections: A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results.” European Journal of Political Research 8 (1): 344.
Riker William H. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Robertson David B. 1976. A Theory of Party Competition. New York: Wiley.
Rovny Jan. 2012. “Who Emphasizes and Who Blurs? Party Strategies in Multidimensional Competition.” European Union Politics 13 (2): 269–92.
Schattschneider E. E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Schofield Norman, and Sened Itai. 2006. Multiparty Democracy: Elections and Legislative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stokes Donald E. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” American Political Science Review 57 (2): 368–77.
Stokes Donald E. 1992. “Valence Politics.” In Electoral Politics, ed. Kavanagh Dennis. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 141–62.
Van der Brug Wouter. 2004. “Issue Ownership and Party Choice.” Electoral Studies 23 (2): 209–33.
Van der Brug Wouter, Franklin Mark N., and Tóka Gábor. 2008. “One Electorate or Many? Differences in Party Preference Formation between New and Established European Democracies.” Electoral Studies 27 (4): 589600.
Wagner Markus. 2012a. “When Do Parties Emphasise Extreme Positions? How Strategic Incentives for Policy Differentiation Influence Issue Importance.” European Journal of Political Research 51 (1): 6488.
Wagner Markus. 2012b. “Defining and Measuring Niche Parties.” Party Politics 18 (6): 845–64.
Wittman Donald A. 1973. “Parties as Utility Maximizers.” American Political Science Review 67 (2): 490–98.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary Materials

De Sio and Weber Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material

 PDF (175 KB)
175 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 15
Total number of PDF views: 256 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 777 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.