Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Understanding Parties’ Policy Shifts in Western Europe: The Role of Valence, 1976–2003

Abstract

Do parties’ valence characteristics affect their policy strategies? The verdict of the spatial modeling literature on the positioning effects of valence is mixed on this point. Some spatial studies argue that valence-advantaged parties/candidates should moderate their policies, while others argue that they should radicalize their policies. Empirical cross-national work on this issue has been lacking. Using an original measure of valence and party positioning data compiled by the Comparative Manifesto Project, the period 1976–2003 is analyzed in this article for nine West European countries. The findings suggest that as parties’ character-based valence attributes worsen they tend to moderate their Left–Right positions, and there is a notable time lag in parties’ responses to changes in their character-based valence attributes.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

Department of Political Science, Northern Illinois University (e-mail: mclark12@niu.edu). The author wishes to thank Jim Adams and Debra Leiter for their thoughtful comments during the drafting of this article. A supplementary appendix and data replication sets are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123412000622

Footnotes
References
Hide All
AbneyRonni, AdamsJames, ClarkMichael, EastonMalcolm, EzrowLawrence, KosmidisSpyros NeundorfAnja. Forthcoming, 2013. When Does Valence Matter? Heightened Valence Effects for Governing Parties During Election Campaigns. Party Politics.
AdamsJames. 2001. Party Competition and Responsible Party Government: A Theory of Spatial Competition Based Upon Insights from Behavioural Voting Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
AdamsJames, ClarkMichael, EzrowLawrence GlasgowGarrett. 2004. Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or Past Election Results? British Journal of Political Science 34:589610.
AdamsJames, ClarkMichael, EzrowLawrence GlasgowGarrett. 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 50:513529.
AdamsJames EzrowLawrence. 2009. Who Do European Parties Represent? How Western European Parties Represent the Policy Preferences of Opinion Leaders. Journal of Politics 71:206223.
AdamsJames, EzrowLawrence, Merrill IIISamuel Somer-TopcuZeynep. Forthcoming, 2013. Does Collective Responsibility for Performance Alter Party Strategies? Policy-Seeking Parties in Proportional Systems. British Journal of Political Science.
AdamsJames, HauptAndrea StollHeather. 2009. What Moves Parties? The Role of Public Opinion and Global Economic Conditions in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies 42:611639.
AdamsJames MerrillSamuelIII. 2009. Policy-Seeking Parties in a Parliamentary Democracy with Proportional Representation: A Valence-Uncertainty Model. British Journal of Political Science 39:539558.
AdamsJames, MerrillSamuelIII GrofmanBernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
AdamsHames, MerrillSamuelIII, SimasElizabeth N. StoneWalter J.. 2011. When Candidates Value Good Character: A Spatial Model with Applications to Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 73:1730.
AdamsJames Somer-TopcuZeynep. 2009. Do Parties Adjust Their Policies in Response to Rival Parties’ Policy Shifts? Spatial Theory and the Dynamics of Party Competition in Twenty-Five Postwar Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 39:825846.
AldrichJohn. 1983. A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activists. American Political Science Review 77:974990.
AndersonChristopher J. 2000. Economic Voting and Political Context: A Comparative Perspective. Electoral Studies 19:151170.
Austen-SmithDavid BanksJeffrey. 1988. Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative Outcomes. American Political Science Review 82:405422.
BeckNathaniel KatzJonathan N.. 1995. What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review 89:634647.
BeckNathaniel KatzJonathan N.. 1996. Nuisance vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-Series-Cross-Section Models. Political Analysis 6:136.
BelangerÉric MeguidBonnie. 2008. Issue Salience, Issue Ownership, and Issue-Based Vote Choice. Electoral Studies 27:477491.
BergerMark M., MungerMichael C. PothoffRichard F. 2000. The Downsian Model Predicts Candidate Divergence. Journal of Theoretical Politics 12:7890.
BernhardtM. Daniel IngbermanDaniel E.. 1985. Candidate Reputations and the ‘Incumbency Effect’. Journal of Public Economics 27:4767.
BudgeIan. 1994. A New Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology, and Policy Equilibria Viewed Temporally and Comparatively. British Journal of Political Science 24:443467.
BudgeIan, KlingemannHans-Dieter, VolkensAndrea, BaraJudith TenenbaumEric. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BurdenBarry. 2004. Candidate Positioning in U.S. Congressional Elections. British Journal of Political Science 34:211227.
BurkJames. 1999. Public Support for Peacekeeping in Lebanon and Somalia: Assessing the Casualties Hypothesis. Political Science Quarterly 114:5378.
ButticeMatthew K. StoneWalter J.. 2012. Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 74 (3):870887.
Canes-WroneBrandice, BradyDavid W. CoganJohn F.. 2002. Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting. American Political Science Review 96:127140.
ClarkMichael. 2009. Valence and Electoral Outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998. Electoral Studies 28:111122.
ClarkMichael LeiterDebra. Forthcoming. Does the Ideological Dispersion of Parties Mediate the Electoral Impact of Valence? A Cross-National Study of Party Support in Nine Western European Democracies. Comparative Political Studies.
ClarkeHarold D., SandersDavid, StewartMarianne C. WhiteleyPaul. 2004. Political Choice in Britain. New York: Oxford University Press.
ClarkeHarold D., SandersDavid, StewartMarianne C. WhiteleyPaul. 2009. Performance Politics and the British Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.
CoxGary. 1990. Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems. American Journal of Political Science 34:905935.
CoxGary. 1997. Making Votes Count. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CurticeJohn HolmbergSoren. 2005. Party Leaders and Party Choice. Pp. 235253 in The European Voter edited by Jacques Thomassen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DaltonRussell J. DuvalRobert. 1986. The Political Environment and Foreign Policy Opinions: British Attitudes Towards European Integration, 1972–1979. British Journal of Political Science 16:113134.
DaltonRussell J., FarrellDavid M. McAllisterIan. 2011. Political Parties and Democratic Linkage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DowJay K. 2001. A Comparative Spatial Analysis of Majoritarian and Proportional Elections. Electoral Studies 20:109125.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
EnelowJames M. HinichMelvin J.. 1982. Nonspatial Candidate Characteristics and Electoral Competition. Journal of Politics 44:115130.
EriksonRobert, MacKuenMichael StimsonJames. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Esping-AndersenGøsta. 1985. Politics against Markets: The Social Democratic Road to Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Esping-AndersenGøsta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
EzrowLawrence. 2007. The Variance Matters: How Party Systems Represent the Preference of Voters. Journal of Politics 69:182192.
EzrowLawrence, De VriesCatherine, SteenbergenMarco EdwardsErica. 2011. Mean Voter Representation and Partisan Constituency Representation: Do Parties Respond to the Mean Voter Position, or to Their Supporters? Party Politics 17:275301.
FeldScott GrofmanBernard. 1991. Incumbency Advantage, Voter Loyalty and the Benefit of the Doubt. Journal of Theoretical Politics 3:115137.
FennoRichard F.Jr. 1978. Home Style. New York: Harper Collins.
FiorinaMorris. 1977. Representatives, Roll-Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
FunkCarolyn L. 1999. Bringing the Candidate into Models of Candidate Evaluations. Journal of Politics 61:700720.
GalassoVincenzo NanniciniTomasso. 2011. Competing on Good Politicians. American Political Science Review 105:7999.
GreenJane HoboltSara B.. 2008. Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections. Electoral Studies 27:460476.
GreenJane JenningsWill. 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.
GreenJane JenningsWill. 2012b. Valence as Macro-Competence: An Analysis of Mood in Party Competence Evaluations in Great Britain. British Journal of Political Science 42:311343.
GroseChristian R. 2005. Do Legislators Use ‘Pork’ Projects to Deviate from Constituents’ Interests? Valence Advantages and Position-Taking in Congress. (Unpublished paper, Vanderbilt University.)
GroseChristian R., GlobettiSuzanne 2008. Valence Voters: Images, Issues, and Citizen Choice in U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial Elections. Found online at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1135702.
GrosecloseTimothy. 2001. A Model of Candidate Location when One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage. American Journal of Political Science 45:862886.
HauptAndrea B. 2010. Parties’ Responses to Economic Globalization: What is Left for the Left and Right for the Right? Party Politics 16 (1):527.
HearlDerek. 2001. Checking the Party Policy Estimates: Reliability. Pp. 111126 in Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998, edited by Ian Budge, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Eric Tannenbaum, and Judith Bara. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HillebrandRon IrwinGalen. 1999. Changing Strategies: The Dilemma of the Dutch Labor Party. Pp. 112140 in Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, edited by Wolfgang Muller and Kaare Strøm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HinichMelvin MungerMichael. 1996. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Keesing 1993. Keesing's Record of World Events. London: Longman.
Keesing 1994. Keesing's Record of World Events. London: Longman.
KingAnthony. 2002. Do Leaders’ Personalities Really Matter? Pp. 143 in Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections, edited by Anthony King. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KitscheltHerbert P. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
LaverMichael, BenoitKenneth GarryJohn. 2003. Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data. American Political Science Review 97:311331.
LaverMichael. 2005. Policy and the Dynamics of Political Competition. American Political Science Review 99:263281.
Lewis-BeckMichael. 1988. Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
LondreganJohn RomerThomas. 1993. Polarization, Incumbency, and the Personal Vote. Pp. 355378 in Political Economy: Institutions, Competition, and Representation, edited by William A. Barnett, Melvin J. Hinich, and Norman J. Schofield. New York: Cambridge University Press.
MacDonaldStuart E. RabinowitzGeorge. 1998. Searching the Paradox of Nonconvergence: Valence, Position, and Direction in Democratic Politics. Electoral Studies 17:281300.
McCurleyCarl MondakJeffery J.. 1995. Inspected by #1184063113: The Influence of Incumbents’ Competence and Integrity in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 39:864885.
McDonaldMichael MendesSylvia. 2001. Checking the Party Policy Estimates: Convergent Validity. Pp. 127142 in Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998, edited by Ian Budge, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Eric Tannenbaum, and Judith Bara. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDonaldMichael BudgeIan. 2005. Elections, Parties, and Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McGannAnthony. 2002. The Advantages of Ideological Cohesion: A Model of Constituency Representation and Electoral Competition in Multiparty Democracies. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14:3770.
MeguidBonnie. 2005. Competition between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success. American Political Science Review 99:347360.
MerrillSamuelIII AdamsJames. 2002. Centripetal Incentives in Multicandidate Elections. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14:275300.
MillerWarren StokesDonald E.. 1963. Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57:4556.
MillerGary SchofieldNorman. 2003. Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States. American Political Science Review 97:245260.
MondakJeffery J. 1995. Competence, Integrity, and the Electoral Success of Congressional Incumbents. Journal of Politics 57:10431069.
NielsenDaniel L. 2003. Supplying Trade Reform: Political Institutions and Liberalization in Middle-Income Presidential Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 47:470491.
PalmerHarvey D. WhittenGuy D.. 2000. Government Competence, Economic Performance and Endogenous Election Dates. Electoral Studies 19:413426.
PancerMark S., BrownSteven D. Widdis BarrCathy. 1999. Forming Impressions of Political Leaders: A Cross-National Comparison. Political Psychology 20:345368.
Pardos-PradoSergi. 2012. Valence Beyond Consenus. Electoral Studies 31:342352.
PelizzoRiccardo. 2003. Party Position or Party Direction? An Analysis of Party Manifesto Data. West European Politics 26:6789.
PetrocikJohn R. 1996. Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40:825850.
PowellG. BinghamJr. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
RogersWilliam H. 1993. Regression Standard Errors in Clustered Samples. Stata Technical Bulletin 13:1923.
SchofieldNorman. 2003. Valence Competition in the Spatial Stochastic Model. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15:371383.
SchofieldNorman SenedItai. 2005. Modeling the Interaction of Parties, Activists, and Voters: Why is the Political Center so Empty? European Journal of Political Research 44:355390.
SerraGilles. 2010. Polarization of What? A Model of Elections with Endogenous Valence. Journal of Politics 72:426437.
SerraGilles. 2011. Why Primaries? The Party's Tradeoff between Policy and Valence. Journal of Theoretical Politics 23:2151.
ShareDonald. 1999. From Policy-Seeking to Office-Seeking: The Metamorphosis of the of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party. Pp. 89111 in Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, edited by Wolfgang Muller and Kaare Strøm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Somer-TopcuZeynep. 2007. Party Policy Strategies and Valence Issues: An Empirical Study of Ten Post-Communist European Party Systems. Paper presented at the Conference on the Dynamics of Party Position Taking, SUNY Binghamton, NY.
Somer-TopcuZeynep. 2009. Timely Decisions: The Effects of Past National Elections on Party Policy. Journal of Politics 71:238248.
StimsonJames, MacKuenMichael EriksonRobert. 1995. Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89:543565.
StokesDonald. 1963. Spatial Models and Party Competition. American Political Science Review 57:368377.
StokesDonald. 1992. Valence Politics. Pp. 141162 in Electoral Politics, edited by Dennis Kavanagh. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
StoneWalter J. SimasElizabeth. 2010. Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 54:371388.
SullivanJohn L., AldrichJohn H., BorgidaEugene RahnWendy. 1990. Candidate Appraisal and Human Nature: Man and Superman in the 1984 Election. Political Psychology 11:459484.
WardHugh, EzrowLawrence DorussenHan. 2011. Globalization, Party Positions, and the Median Voter. World Politics 63:509547.
WarwickPaul. 1999. Ministerial Autonomy or Ministerial Accomodation? Contested Bases of Governmental Survival in Parliamentary Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 29:369394.
WilliamsRick L. 2000. A Note on Robust Variance Estimation for Cluster-Correlated Data. Biometrics 56:645646.
WittmanDonald A. 1977. Candidates with Policy Preferences: A Dynamic Model. Journal of Economic Theory 14:180189.
WittmanDonald A. 1983. Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories. American Political Science Review 77:142157.
WittmanDonald A. 1990. Spatial Strategies When Candidates Have Policy Preferences. Pp. 6698 in Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting, edited by James M. Enelow, and Melvin J. Hinich. New York: Cambridge University Press.
WittmanDonald A. 2005. Valence Characteristics, Costly Policy and the Median-Crossing Property: A Diagrammatic Exposition. Public Choice 124 (3):365382.
WittmanDonald A. 2007. Candidate Quality, Pressure Group Endorsements, and the Nature of Political Advertising. European Journal of Political Economy 23 (2):360378.
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
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Clark Appendix
Clark Appendix

 Word (2.0 MB)
2.0 MB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 10
Total number of PDF views: 60 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 268 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.