Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-mhl4m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-02T04:52:21.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Looking for the party? The effects of partisan change on issue attention in UK Acts of Parliament

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2014

Shaun Bevan*
Affiliation:
The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
Zachary Greene
Affiliation:
Collaborative Research Center, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

Abstract

Political parties matter for government outcomes. Despite this general finding for political science research, recent work on public policy and agenda-setting has found just the opposite; parties generally do not matter when it comes to explaining government attention. While the common explanation for this finding is that issue attention is different than the location of policy, this explanation has never truly been tested. Through the use of data on nearly 65 years of UK Acts of Parliament, this paper presents a detailed investigation of the effect parties have on issue attention in UK Acts of Parliament. It demonstrates that elections alone do not explain changes in the distribution of policies across issues. Instead, the parties’ organizations, responses to economic conditions, and size of the parliamentary delegation influence the stability of issue attention following a party transition.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2014 

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

Adams, J. (1999), ‘Policy divergence in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting’, Public Choice 103: 103122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J.F. and Somer-Topcu, Z. (2009), ‘Do parties adjust their policies in response to rival parties’ policy shifts? Spatial theory and the dynamics of party competition in twenty-five democracies’, British Journal of Political Science 39: 825846.Google Scholar
Adams, J., Haupt, A.B. and Stoll, H. (2009), ‘What moves parties? The role of public opinion and global economic conditions in Western Europe’, Comparative Political Studies 42(5): 611639.Google Scholar
Alesina, A. and Rosenthal, H. (1995), Partisan Politics , Divided Government and the Economy , New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alt, J.E. and Lowry, R.C. (2000), ‘A dynamic model of state budget outcomes under divided partisan government’, Journal of Politics 62(4): 10351069.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F., Brouard, S. and Grossman, E. (2009), ‘Agenda-setting dynamics in France: revisiting the ‘partisan hypothesis’’, French Politics 7(2): 7595.Google Scholar
BBC News (1979), Thatcher wins Tory landslide’ BBC News, April 5. Retrieved 17 February 2014 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/basics/4393311.stm Google Scholar
Bélanger, É. and Meguid, B. (2008), ‘Issue Salience, Issue Ownership, and issue-based Vote Choice’, Electoral Studies 27: 477491.Google Scholar
Bevan, S., John, P. and Jennings, W. (2011), ‘Keeping party programmes on track: the transmission of the policy agendas of executive speeches to legislative outputs in the United Kingdom’, European Political Science Review 3(3): 395417.Google Scholar
Boydstun, A.E., Bevan, S. and Thomas III, H.F. (2014), ‘The importance of attention diversity and how to measure it’, Policy Studies Journal 42(2): 173196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, I. (1993), ‘Issues, dimensions, and agenda change in postwar democracies: longterm trends in party election programs and newspaper reports in twenty-three democracies’, in W. Riker (ed.), Agenda Formation, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Budge, I. and Farlie, D. (1983), Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies, Boston: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Carey, J.M. (2009), Legislative Voting and Accountability , New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ceron, A. (2012), ‘Bounded oligarchy: How and when factions constrain leaders in party position-taking’, Electoral Studies 31(4): 689701.Google Scholar
Ceron, A. (2013), ‘Brave rebels stay home: assessing the effect of intra-party ideological heterogeneity and party whip on roll-call votes’, Party Politics, doi: 10.1177/1354068812472581, 113. Published online January 24.Google Scholar
Cox, G. (1987), The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, G. (2000), ‘On the effects of legislative rules’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 25(2): 169192.Google Scholar
Cox, G. and McCubbins, M. (1994), Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cross, W. and Blais, A. (2012), ‘Who selects the party leader?’, Party Politics 18(2): 127150.Google Scholar
Dalton, R. (2008), Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 5th edn., Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
De Vries, K. and Hobolt, S. (2012), ‘When dimensions collide: the electoral success of issue entrepreneurs’, European Union Politics 13: 246268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döring, H. (2001), ‘Parliamentary agenda control and legislative outcomes in Western Europe’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 26: 145165.Google Scholar
Döring, H. (2003), ‘party discipline and government imposition of restrictive rules’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 9 4): 147163.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Egan, P. (2013), Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. and Hobolt, S. (2008), ‘Owning the issue agenda: party strategies and vote choices in British elections’, Electoral Studies 27: 460476.Google Scholar
Green, J. and Jennings, W. (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.Google Scholar
Green, J. and Jennings, W. (2012b), Valence as macro-competence: an analysis of mood in party competence evaluations in Britain’, British Journal of Political Science 42: 311343.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. and Krogstrup, J. (2008), ‘Immigration as a political issue in Denmark and Sweden’, European Journal of Political Research 47(5): 610634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. and Mortensen, P. (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.Google Scholar
Greene, Zachary and Haber, M. ( forthcoming), Leadership competition and disagreement at party national congresses’, British Journal of Political Science, available on CJO2014. doi:10.1017/S0007123414000283, pp. 122.Google Scholar
Harmel, R. and Janda, K. (1994), ‘An integrated theory of party goals and party change’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 6: 259287.Google Scholar
Harmel, R. and Tan, A. (2003), ‘party actors and party change: does factional dominance matter?’, European Journal of Political Research 42(3): 409424.Google Scholar
Hibbs, D.A. (1977), ‘Political parties and macroeconomic policy’, American Political Science Review 71: 14671487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, A.M. and Swank, D.H. (1992), ‘Politics, institutions, and welfare spending in industrialized democracies, 1960-1982’, American Political Science Review 86: 658674.Google Scholar
Huber, J.D. (1992), ‘Restrictive legislative procedures in France and the United States’, The American Political Science Review 86: 675687.Google Scholar
Huber, J.D. (1996), Rationalizing Parliament: Legislative Institutions and Party Politics in France, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huber, J.D. and Shipan, C. (2002), Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, S. and Schulz, T. (2007), ‘Left–right positions of political parties in Switzerland’, Party Politics 13(3): 305330.Google Scholar
Jennings, W., Bevan, S. and John, P. (2011a), The British government’s political agenda: the speech from the throne, 1911-2008’, Political Studies 59(1): 7498.Google Scholar
Jennings, W., Bevan, S., Timmermans, A., Breeman, G., Brouard, S., Chaques, L., Green-Pedersen, C., John, P., Palau, A. and Mortensen, P.B. (2011b), Effects of the core functions of government on the diversity of executive agendas’, Comparative Political Studies 44(8): 10011030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, P., Bevan, S. and Jennings, W. (2014), ‘Party politics and policy agendas: the case of the United Kingdom’’, in C. Green-Pedersen and S. Walgrave (eds), Agenda-Setting from a Policy Theory to a Theory of Politics, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kenig, O. (2009), ‘Democratization of party leadership selection: do wider selectorates produce more competitive contests?’, Electoral Studies 28(2): 240247.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H. (1989), ‘The internal politics of parties: the law of curvilinear disparity revisited’, Political Studies 37(3): 400421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, M. (1999), ‘Divided parties, divided government’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 24: 529.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. and Stegmaier, M. (2000), ‘Economic determinates of political outcomes’, Annual Review of Political Science 3: 183219.Google Scholar
Lipset, S.M. and Rokkan, S. (1967), Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, Toronto: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Martin, L. (2004), ‘The government agenda in parliamentary democracies’, American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 445461.Google Scholar
McAtee, A., Yackee, S.W. and Lowery, D. (2003), ‘Reexamining the dynamic model of divided partisan government’, Journal of Politics 65(2): 477490.Google Scholar
McGuinness, F. (2012), ‘Membership of UK political parties’, House of Commons Library (Standard Note: SN/SG/5125).Google Scholar
Mortensen, P.B., Green-Pedersen, C., Breeman, G., Chaqués-Bonafont, L., Jennings, W., John, P., Palau, A.M. and Timmermans, A. (2011), ‘Comparing government agendas executive speeches in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Denmark’, Comparative Political Studies 44(8): 9731000.Google Scholar
Müller, W. and Strøm, K. (eds) (2000), Coalition Governments in Western Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D.Z. and Shomer, Y. (2013), ‘A cross-national analysis of party switching’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 38(1): 111141.Google Scholar
Petrocik, J. (1996), ‘Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study’, American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 825850.Google Scholar
Powell, B. and Whitten, G. (1993), ‘A cross-national analysis of economic voting: taking account of the political context’, American Journal of Political Science 37(2): 391414.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. (2006), ‘When parties matter: a review of the possibilities and limits of partisan influence on public policy’, European Journal of Political Research 30: 155183.Google Scholar
Schofield, N. and Sened, I. (2006), Multiparty Democracy: Elections and Legislative Politics, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schumacher, G. (2013), ‘When does the left do the right thing? A study of party position change on welfare policies’, Party Politics , doi: 10.1177/1354068812470505, 112.Google Scholar
Schumacher, G., de Vries, C. and Vis, B. (2013), ‘Why do parties change position? Party organization and environmental incentives’, Journal of Politics 75(2): 464477.Google Scholar
Seeberg, H.B. (2013), ‘The opposition’s policy influence through issue politicisation’, Journal of Public Policy 33(1): 89107.Google Scholar
Seyd, P. and Whiteley, P. (1992), Labour’s Grassroots: The Politics of Party Membership, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Seyd, P. and Whiteley, P. (2004), ‘British party members an overview’, Party Politics 10(4): 355366.Google Scholar
Shomer, Y. (2014), ‘What affects candidate selection processes? A cross-national examination’, Party Politics 20(4): 533546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Z. (2009), ‘Timely decisions: the effects of past national elections on party policy change’, Journal of Politics 71: 238248.Google Scholar
Soroka, S. and Wlezien, C. (2010), Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, And Policy, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spoon, J.J. (2011), Political Survival of Small Parties in Europe, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Strøm, K. (1990), Minority Government and Majority Rule, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tan, A. (1997), ‘Party change and party membership decline: an exploratory analysis’, Party Politics 3: 363377.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002), Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vliegenthart, R. and Walgrave, S. (2011), ‘Content matters: the dynamics of parliamentary questioning in Belgium and Denmark’, Comparative Political Studies 44(8): 11311159.Google Scholar
Whitten, G. and Palmer, H. (1999), ‘Cross-national analysis of economic voting’, Electoral Studies 18: 4967.Google Scholar
Whiteley, P. and Seyd, P. (2002), High-Intensity Participation : The Dynamics of Party Activism in Britain , Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Whiteley, P., Seyd, P., Richardson, J. and Bissell, P. (1994), ‘Explaining party activism: the case of the British conservative party’, British Journal of Political Science 24(1): 7994.Google Scholar
Williams, L., Seki, K. and Whitten, G. ( forthcoming), ‘You’ve got some explaining to do: the influence of economic conditions and spatial competition on party strategy’, Political Science and Research Methods.Google Scholar