Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Leadership Competition and Disagreement at Party National Congresses

Abstract

Theories often explain intraparty competition based on electoral conditions and intraparty rules. This article further opens this black box by considering intraparty statements of preferences. In particular, it predicts that intraparty preference heterogeneity increases after electoral losses, but that candidates deviating from the party’s median receive fewer intraparty votes. Party members grant candidates greater leeway to accommodate competing policy demands when in government. The study tests the hypotheses using a new database of party congress speeches from Germany and France, and uses automated text classification to estimate speakers’ relative preferences. The results demonstrate that speeches at party meetings provide valuable insights into actors’ preferences and intraparty politics. The article finds evidence of a complex relationship between the governing context, the economy and intraparty disagreement.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

      Leadership Competition and Disagreement at Party National Congresses
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Leadership Competition and Disagreement at Party National Congresses
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Leadership Competition and Disagreement at Party National Congresses
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

University of Mannheim (emails: zacgreene@gmail.com, mhaber@uni-mannheim.de). The data replication sets and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123414000283. This work was supported by the Collaborative Research Center 884 Political Economy of Reforms (Project C2), funded by the German Research Foundation.

Footnotes
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

James Adams , Michael Clark , Lawrence Ezrow , and Garrett Glasgow . 2006. Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):513529.

James Adams , Andrea Haupt , and Heather Stoll . 2009. What Moves Parties? The Role of Public Opinion and Global Economic Conditions in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies 42 (5):611639.

James Adams , and Samuel Merrill , III 1999. Modeling Party Strategies and Policy Representation in Multiparty Elections: Why Are Strategies so Extreme? American Journal of Political Science 43 (3):765791.

James Adams , and Samuel Merrill . 2005. Candidates’ Policy Platforms and Election Outcomes: The Three Faces of Representation. European Journal of Political Research 44:899918.

Christopher Anderson . 2007. The End of Economic Voting? Contingency Dilemmas and the Limits of Democratic Accountability. Annual Review of Political Science 10:271296.

Clifford Carrubba , Matthew Gabel , and Simon Hug . 2008. Legislative Voting Behavior, Seen and Unseen: A Theory of Roll-Call Vote Selection. Legislative Studies Quarterly 33:543572.

Andrea Ceron . 2012. Bounded Oligarchy: How and When Factions Constrain Leaders in Party Position-Taking. Electoral Studies 31 (4):689701.

Joshua D. Clinton , and John Lapinski . 2008. Laws and Roll Calls in the U.S. Congress, 1891–1994. Legislative Studies Quarterly 33:511542.

Gary Cox , and Matthew McCubbins . 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herbert Döring . 2003. Party Discipline and Government Imposition of Restrictive Rules. Journal of Legislative Studies 9 (4):147163.

Jane Green , and Will Jennings . 2012a. The Dynamics of Issue Competence and Vote for Parties In and Out of Power: An Analysis of Valence in Britain, 1979–1997. European Journal of Political Research 51:469503.

Christoffer Green-Pedersen , and Peter Mortensen . 2010. Who Sets the Agenda and Who Responds to it in the Danish Parliament? A New Model of Issue Competition and Agenda-Setting. European Journal of Political Research 49 (2):257281.

Robert Harmel , and Kenneth Janda . 1994. An Integrated Theory of Party Goals and Party Change. Journal of Theoretical Politics 6:259287.

Robert Harmel , Uk Heo , Alexander Tan , and Kenneth Janda . 1995. Performance, Leadership, Factions and Party Change: An Empirical Analysis. West European Politics 18 (1):133.

Reuven Hazan , and Gideon Rahat . 2006. The Influence of Candidate Selection Methods on Legislatures and Legislators: Theoretical Propositions, Methodological Suggestions and Empirical Evidence. The Journal of Legislative Studies 12 (3–4):366385.

John Huber . 1996. Rationalizing Parliament: Legislative Institutions and Party Politics in France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Simon Hug , and Tobias Schulz . 2007. Left-Right Positions of Political Parties in Switzerland. Party Politics 13 (3):305330.

Kenneth Janda , Robert Harmel , Christine Edens , and Patricia Goff . 1995. Changes in Party Identity: Evidence from Party Manifestos. Party Politics 1 (2):171196.

Mona Krook , and Diana O’Brien . 2010. The Politics of Group Representation: Quotas for Women and Minorities Worldwide. Comparative Politics 42 (3):253272.

Mona Krook , and Diana O’Brien . 2012. All the President’s Men? The Appointment of Female Cabinet Ministers Worldwide. Journal of Politics 74 (3):840855.

Michael Laver , Ken Benoit , and John Garry . 2003. Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data. American Political Science Review 97 (2):311331.

Michael Laver , and Kenneth Shepsle . 1996. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ron Lehrer . 2012. Intra-Party Democracy and Party Responsiveness. West European Politics 35 (6):12951319.

Michael Lewis-Beck , and Marie Stegmair . 2000. Economic Determinates of Political Outcomes. Annual Review of Political Science 3:183219.

Gerhard Loewenberg . 2008. The Contribution of Comparative Research to Measuring the Policy Preferences of Legislators. Legislative Studies Quarterly 33 (4):501510.

Kenneth McElwain . 2008. Manipulating Electoral Rules to Manufacture Single-Party Dominance. American Journal of Political Science 52 (1):3247.

Bonnie Meguid . 2008. Party Competition between Unequals. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Diana O’Brien , and Yael Shomer . 2013. A Cross-National Analysis of Party Switching. Legislative Studies Quarterly 38 (1):111141.

Sven-Oliver Proksch , and Jonathan Slapin . 2012. Institutional Foundations of Legislative Speech. American Journal of Political Science 56 (3):520537.

Patrick Seyd , and Paul Whitely . 2002. New Labour’s Grassroots: The Transformation of the Labour Party Membership. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Jonathan B. Slapin , and Sven-Oliver Proksch . 2008. A Scaling Model for Estimating Time-Series Party Positions from Texts. American Journal of Political Science 52 (3):705722.

Jae-Jae Spoon . 2011. Political Survival of Small Parties in Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Kaare Strøm . 1990. A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 34 (2):565598.

George Tsebelis . 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ingrid Van Biezen , Peter Mair , and Thomas Poguntke . 2012. Going, Going … Gone? The Decline of Party Membership in Contemporary Europe. European Journal of Political Research 51:2456.

Recommend this journal

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

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary Materials

Greene and Haber Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material 2

 Unknown (4 KB)
4 KB
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Greene and Haber Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material 6

 PDF (926 KB)
926 KB
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Greene and Haber Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material 1

 PDF (256 KB)
256 KB
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Greene and Haber Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material 4

 PDF (162 KB)
162 KB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary Materials

Greene and Haber Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material 3

 Unknown (7 KB)
7 KB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary Materials

Greene and Haber Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material 5

 Unknown (52 KB)
52 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 16
Total number of PDF views: 211 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 680 *
Loading metrics...

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