Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Who Responds? Voters, Parties and Issue Attention

Abstract

Do parties listen to their voters? This article addresses this important question by moving beyond position congruence to explore whether parties respond to voters’ issue priorities. It argues that political parties respond to voters in their election manifestos, but that their responsiveness varies across different party types: namely, that large parties are more responsive to voters’ policy priorities, while government parties listen less to voters’ issue demands. The study also posits that niche parties are not generally more responsive to voter demands, but that they are more responsive to the concerns of their supporters in their owned issue areas. To test these theoretical expectations, the study combines data from the Comparative Manifestos Project with data on voters’ policy priorities from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems and various national election studies across eighteen European democracies in sixty-three elections from 1972–2011. Our findings have important implications for understanding political representation and democratic linkage.

  • 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.

      Who Responds? Voters, Parties and Issue Attention
      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.

      Who Responds? Voters, Parties and Issue Attention
      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.

      Who Responds? Voters, Parties and Issue Attention
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

University of Bamberg (email: heike.kluever@uni-bamberg.de); University of North Texas (email: spoon@unt.edu). The order of the authors’ names reflects the principle of rotation. Both authors have contributed equally to all work. We thank Shaun Bevan, Zachary Greene, Rob Johns, Thomas Meyer, Jan Rovny and the three anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions. All errors remain our own. Online appendices and data replication sets are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000313.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
AdamsJames, HauptAndrea B., and StollHeather. 2009. What Moves Parties? The Role of Public Opinion and Global Economic Conditions in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies 42 (5):611639.
AdamsJames, ClarkMichael, EzrowLawrence, and GlasgowGarrett. 2004. Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results? British Journal of Political Science 34 (4):589610.
AdamsJames, ClarkMichael, EzrowLawrence, and GlasgowGarrett. 2006. Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different than Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):513529.
AdamsJames, and Somer-TopcuZeynep. 2009. Moderate Now, Win Votes Later: The Electoral Consequences of Parties’ Policy Shifts in 25 Postwar Democracies. Journal of Politics 71 (2):678692.
BäckHanna, DebusMarc, and DumontPatrick. 2011. Who Gets What in Coalition Governments? Predictors of Portfolio Allocation in Parliamentary Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 50 (4):441478.
BakkerRyan, De VriesCatherine E., EdwardsErica, HoogheLiesbet, JollySeth, MarksGary, PolkJohn, RovnyJan, SteenbergenMarco, and VachudovaMilada Anna. 2012. Measuring Party Positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File, 1999–2010. Party Politics. DOI: 10.1177/1354068812462931.
BaleTim, and BergmanTorbjörn. 2006. A Taste of Honey Is Worse Than None at All? Coping with Generic Challenges of Support Party Status in Sweden and New Zealand. Party Politics 12 (2):189209.
BeckNathaniel, and KatzJonathan N.. 1995. What To Do (and Not To Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review 89 (3):634647.
BeckNathaniel, and KatzJonathan N.. 1996. Nuisance vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-Series-Cross-Section Models. Political Analysis 6 (1):136.
BélangerÉric, and MeguidBonnie M.. 2008. Issue Salience, Issue Ownership, and Issue-Based Vote Choice. Electoral Studies 27 (3):447491.
BenoitKenneth, and LaverMichael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. New York: Routledge.
BevanShaun, and JenningsWill. 2014. Representation, Agendas and Institutions. European Journal of Political Research 53 (1):3756.
BolleyerNicole. 2007. Small Parties: From Party Pledges to Government Policy. West European Politics 30 (1):121147.
BramborThomas, ClarkWilliam R., and GolderMatt. 2006. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14 (1):6382.
BudgeIan, and FarlieDennis J.. 1983. Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: George Allen and Unwin.
BudgeIan, KlingemannHans-Dieter, VolkensAndrea, BaraJudith, and TanenbaumEric. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Elections, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chaqués BonafontLaura, and PalauAnna M.. 2011. Assessing the Responsiveness of Spanish Policymakers to the Priorities of their Citizens. West European Politics 34 (4):706730.
CoxGary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.
DaltonRussell. 1985. Political Parties and Political Representation. Comparative Political Studies 18 (3):267299.
DaltonRussell J., FarrellDavid M., and McAllisterIan. 2011. Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DaltonRussell J., and WattenbergMartin P., eds. 2000. Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
De SwannAbram. 1973. Coalition Theories and Cabinet Formations: A Study of Formal Theories of Coalition Formation Applied to Nine European Parliaments after 1918. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
DöringHolger. 2012. The Collective Action of Data Collection: A Data Infrastructure on Parties, Elections and Cabinets. European Union Politics 14 (1):161178.
DöringHolger, and ManowPhilip. 2012. Parliament and Government Composition Database (ParlGov): An Infrastructure for Empirical Information on Parties, Elections and Governments in Modern Democracies. Version 12/10 – 15 October 2012. Available from http://www.parlgov.org, accessed 15 July 2013.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
DuvergerMaurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley.
EzrowLawrence. 2008. Research Note: On the Inverse Relationship between Voters and Proximity for Niche Parties. European Journal of Political Research 47 (2):206220.
EzrowLawrence, de VriesCatherine E., SteenbergenMarco R., and EdwardsErica E.. 2011. Mean Voter Representation and Partisan Constituency Representation: Do Parties Respond to the Mean Voter Position or To Their Supporters? Party Politics 17 (3):275301.
EzrowLawrence, and HellwigTimothy. 2011. Responding to Voters or Responding to Markets? Political Parties and Public Opinion in an Era of Globalization. Paper Presented at the European Political Science Association General Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 16–18 June.
FiorinaMorris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
GolderMatt. 2006. Presidential Coattails and Legislative Fragmentation. American Journal of Political Science 50 (1):3448.
GreenJane. 2011. A Test of Core-Voters Theories: The British Conservatives, 1997–2005. British Journal of Political Science 41 (4):735764.
GreenJane, and HoboltSara B.. 2008. Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections. Electoral Studies 27 (3):460476.
GreenJane, and JenningsWill. 2012. 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 (4):469503.
Green-PedersenChristoffer, and MortensenPeter B.. 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.
GreeneZachary. ND. Competing on the Issues: How Experience in Government, Economic Conditions and Electoral Success Influences Parties’ Policy Message. Manuscript.
HarmelRobert, and JandaKenneth. 1994. An Integrated Theory of Party Goals and Party Change. Journal of Theoretical Politics 6 (3):259287.
HellerWilliam. 2002. Regional Parties and National Politics in Europe: Spain’s Estado de las Autonomías, 19932000 . Comparative Political Studies 35 (6):657685.
HoboltSara B., and De VriesCatherine E.. 2011. Issue Entrepreneurship and Multiparty Competition. Manuscript.
HoboltSara B., and KlemmensenRobert. 2008. Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Political Studies 41 (3):309337.
InglehartRonald. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
JenningsWill, and WlezienChristopher. 2011. Distinguishing between Most Important Problems and Issues. Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (3):545555.
JenningsWill, and WlezienChristopher. 2012. Measuring Public Preferences for Policy: On the Limits of ‘Most Important Problem’. Paper Presented at the Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties Conference, Oxford, UK, 7–9 September.
JenningsWill, and JohnPeter. 2009. The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen’s Speech in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science 53 (4):838854.
JonesBrian D., and BaumgartnerFrank R.. 2004. Representation and Agenda-Setting. Policy Studies Journal 32 (1):124.
JonesBrian D., Larsen-PriceHeather, and WilkersonJohn. 2009. Representation and American Governing Institutions. Journal of Politics 71 (1):277290.
KatzRichard, and MairPeter. 1995. Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party. Party Politics 1 (1):528.
KiewietD. Roderick, and RiversDouglas. 1984. A Retrospective on Retrospective Voting. Political Behavior 6 (4):369393.
KingGary, TomzMichael, and WittenbergJason. 2000. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):341355.
KirchheimerOtto. 1966. The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems. Political Parties and Political Development, Vol. 6. edited by Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner. 177200. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
KitscheltHerbert. 1988a. Left-Libertarian Parties: Explaining Innovation in Competitive Party Systems. World Politics 40 (2):194234.
KitscheltHerbert. 1988b. Organization and Strategy of Belgian and West German Ecology Parties: A New Dynamic of Party Politics in Western Europe? Comparative Politics 20:127154.
KitscheltHerbert. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
KlingemannHans-Dieter, VolkensAndrea, BaraJudith L., BudgeIan, and McDonaldMichael D.. 2006. Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD, 19902003 . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KollmanKen, MillerJohn H., and PageScott E.. 1992. Adaptive Parties in Spatial Elections. American Political Science Review 86 (4):929937.
LawsonKay. 1980. Political Parties and Linkage. In Political Parties and Linkage: A Comparative Perspective, edited by Kay Lawson, 324. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
LawsonKay. 2005. Linkage and Democracy. In Political Parties and Political Systems: The Concept of Linkage Revisited, edited by Andrea Römmele, David M. Farrell and Piero Ignazi, 161170. Westport, CT: Praeger.
MaasCora J. M., and HoxJoop J.. 2004. Robustness Issues in Multilevel Regression Analysis. Statistica Neerlandica 58 (2):127137.
MarkovitsAndrei S., and GorskiPhilip S.. 1993. The German Left: Red, Green and Beyond. Cambridge: Polity Press.
MeguidBonnie M. 2005. Competition between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success. American Political Science Review 99 (3):347359.
MeguidBonnie M. 2008. Party Competition Between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.
MillerGary, and SchofieldNorman. 2003. Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States. American Political Science Review 97 (2):245260.
NanouKyriaki, and DorussenHan. 2013. European Integration and Electoral Democracy: How the European Union Constrains Party Competition in the Member States. European Journal of Political Research 52 (1):7193.
PanebiancoAngelo. 1988. Political Parties: Organization and Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.
PetrocikJohn. 1996. Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40 (3):825850.
PowellG. Bingham, Jr., and WhittenGuy D.. 1993. A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context. American Journal of Political Science 37 (2):391414.
PrzeworskiAdam, and SpragueJohn. 1986. Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
RikerWilliam H. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
RikerWilliam H.. 1982. Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. Long Grove: Waveland Press.
RobertsonDavid. 1976. Theory of Party Competition. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
SpoonJae-Jae. 2011. Political Survival of Small Parties in Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
SpoonJae-Jae, and KlüverHeike. 2014. Do Parties Respond? How Electoral Context Influences Party Responsiveness. Electoral Studies 35:4860.
SpoonJae-Jae, HoboltSara B., and de VriesCatherine E.. 2014. Going Green: Explaining Issue Competition on the Environment. European Journal of Political Research 53 (2):363380.
StimsonJames A., MackuenMichael B., and EriksonRobert S.. 1995. Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89 (3):543565.
StokesDonald E. 1963. Spatial Models of Party Competition. American Political Science Review 57 (2):368377.
StrømKaare. 1990. A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 34 (2):565598.
StrømKaare, and MüllerWolfgang C.. 1999. Political Parties and Hard Choices. In Policy, Office or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, edited by Wolfgang C. Müller and Kaare Strøm, 135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van SpanjeJoost. 2010. Contagious Parties: Anti-Immigration Parties and Their Impact on Other Parties’ Immigration Stances in Contemporary Western Europe. Party Politics 16 (5):563586.
van der BrugWouter. 2004. Issue Ownership and Party Choice. Electoral Studies 23 (2):209233.
WagnerMarkus. 2012. Defining and Measuring Niche Parties. Party Politics 18 (6):845864.
WagnerMarkus, and MeyerThomas. 2014. Which Issues do Parties Emphasise? Salience Strategies and Party Organization in Multiparty Systems. Forthcoming. West European Politics. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2014.911483.
WalgraveStefaan, LefevereJonas, and TreschAnke. 2012. The Associative Dimension of Issue Ownership. Public Opinion Quarterly 76:771782.
WestKarleen Jones, and SpoonJae-Jae. 2013. Credibility Versus Competition: The Impact of Party Size on Decisions to Enter Presidential Elections in South America and Europe. Comparative Political Studies 46 (4):513539.
WittmanDonald. 1973. Parties as Utility Maximizers. American Political Science Review 67 (2):490498.
WittmanDonald. 1983. Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories. American Political Science Review 77 (1):142157.
WlezienChristopher. 2005. On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with ‘Most Important Problem’. Electoral Studies 24 (4):555579.
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

Klüver and Spoon Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material

 Unknown (62 KB)
62 KB
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Klüver and Spoon Supplementary Material
Appendix

 PDF (139 KB)
139 KB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary Materials

Klüver and Spoon Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material

 Unknown (4.2 MB)
4.2 MB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary Materials

Klüver and Spoon Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material

 Unknown (7 KB)
7 KB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary Materials

Klüver and Spoon Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material

 Unknown (9 KB)
9 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 24
Total number of PDF views: 502 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1188 *
Loading metrics...

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