Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Working through the issues: how issue diversity and ideological disagreement influence coalition duration

  • Zachary Greene (a1)
Abstract

Issue salience and diversity direct a range of outcomes such as voting behavior and public policy. Studies, however, have yet to fully integrate theoretical or empirical expectations for the effect of issue salience on coalition stability. By focusing on the mechanism linking parties’ preferences to policy-making, I propose that parties with more diverse platforms provide coalitions greater room to negotiate, whereas parties focusing on a small number of issues exacerbate ideological tensions. Issue diversity becomes important once parties exhaust opportunities to make the initial, easy policy compromises. Using evidence from 299 coalitions in 24 European countries, I find that issue diversity in parties’ platforms moderates the effect of disagreement. Using a non-proportional hazard analysis, I find that the effect of issue diversity varies over the coalition’s lifecycle. Governments with parties willing to negotiate over a larger range of issues decrease the risk that disagreements will result in coalition termination.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*E-mail: zacgreene@gmail.com
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.

J. Adams (1999), ‘Policy divergence in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting’, Public Choice 100: 103122.

J. Adams , M. Clark , L. Ezrow and G. 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: 513529.

H. Bäck , M. Debus and P. Dumont (2011), ‘Who gets what in coalition governments? Predictors of portfolio allocation in parliamentary democracies’, European Journal of Political Research 50(4): 441478.

J.M. Box-Steffensmeier and B.S. Jones (2004), Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A.E. Boydstun , D.S. Bevan and H.F. Thomas (2014), ‘The importance of attention diversity and how to measure it’, Policy Studies Journal 42(2): 173196.

J.M. Carey (2008), Legislative Voting and Accountability , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

K. De Vries and S. Hobolt (2012), ‘When dimensions collide: the electoral success of issue entrepreneurs’, European Union Politics 13: 246268.

D. Diermeier and R.T. Stevenson (1999), ‘Cabinet survival and competing risks’, American Journal of Political Science 43: 10511068.

H. Döring (2003), ‘Party discipline and government imposition of restrictive rules’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 9(4): 147163.

J.N. Druckman (2008), ‘Approaches to studying parliamentary coalitions’, Political Research Quarterly 61: 479483.

J.N. Druckman and M.F. Thies (2002), ‘The importance of concurrence: the impact of bicameralism on government formation and duration’, American Journal of Political Science 46(4): 760771.

J. Eichorst (2014), ‘Explaining variation in coalition agreements: the electoral and policy motivations for drafting agreements’, European Journal of Political Research 53(1): 98115.

R. Elgie (2011), Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance, Oxford: Oxford University press.

L. Ezrow (2007), ‘The variance matters: how party systems represent the preferences of voters’, Journal of Politics 69(1): 182192.

L. Ezrow , C. De Vries , M. Steenbergen and E. Edwards (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.

A. Falcó-Gimeno (2014), ‘The use of control mechanisms in coalition governments the role of preference tangentiality and repeated interactions’, Party Politics 20(3): 341356.

J. Green and S. Hobolt (2008), ‘Owning the issue agenda: party strategies and vote choices in British elections’, Electoral Studies 27: 460476.

C. Green-Pedersen and P.B. 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.

D.A. Hibbs (1977), ‘Political parties and macroeconomic policy’, The American Political Science Review 71(4): 14671487.

J.D. Huber (1996), Rationalizing Parliament: Legislative Institutions and Party Politics in France, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

R. Ibenskas (2015), ‘Understanding pre-electoral coalitions in Central and Eastern Europe’, British Journal of Political Science, 119, doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000544. FirstView.

W. Jennings , S. Bevan , A. Timmermans , G. Breeman , S. Brouard , L. Chaques-Bonafont , C. Green-Pedersen , P. John , P. Mortensen and A. Palau (2011), ‘Effects of the core functions of government on the diversity of executive agendas’, Comparative Political Studies 44(8): 10011030.

C.J. Kam (2009), Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

G.J.E.A. King , N.E. Burns and M. Laver (1990), ‘A unified model of cabinet dissolution in parliamentary democracies’, American Political Science Review 34: 846871.

M. Laver (2003), ‘Government termination’, Annual Review of Political Science 6: 2340.

M. Laver and K.A. Shepsle (1996), Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

C.S. Lipsmeyer and H.N. Pierce (2011), ‘The eyes that bind: junior ministers as oversight mechanisms in coalition governments’, Journal of Politics 73: 11521164.

L.W. Martin and G. Vanberg (2003), ‘Wasting time? The impact of ideology and size on delay in coalition formation’, British Journal of Political Science 33(2): 323332.

L.W. Martin and G. Vanberg (2005), ‘Coalition policymaking and legislative review’, The American Political Science Review 99(1): 93106.

L.W. Martin and G. Vanberg (2008), ‘Coalition government and political communication’, Political Research Quarterly 61: 502516.

L.W. Martin and G. Vanberg (2011), Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

L.W. Martin and G. Vanberg (2014), ‘Parties and policymaking in multiparty governments: the legislative median, ministerial autonomy, and the coalition compromise’, American Journal of Political Science 58(4): 979996.

B. Meguid (2008), Party Competition Between Unequals, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

T.M. Meyer and M. Wagner (2013), ‘Mainstream or niche? Vote-seeking incentives and the programmatic strategies of political parties’, Comparative Political Studies 46(10): 12461272.

T.M. Meyer and B. Miller (2015), ‘The niche party concept and its measurement’, Party Politics 21(2): 259271.

W.C. Müller and K. Strøm (eds) (1999), Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

John R. Petrocik (1996), ‘Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study’, American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 825850.

J. Rovny (2012), ‘Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition’, European Union Politics 13(2): 269292.

T. Saalfeld (2000), ‘Members of parliament and governments in Western Europe: agency relations and problems of oversight’, European Journal of Political Research 37(3): 353376.

T Saalfeld . (2013), ‘Economic performance, political institutions and cabinet durability in 28 European parliamentary democracies, 1945–2011’, in W.C. Müller and H.M. Narud (eds), Party Governance and Party Democracy, New York: Springer, pp. 5179.

Z Somer-Topçu . (2009), ‘Timely decisions: the effects of past national elections on party policy change’, Journal of Politics 71: 238248.

Z. Somer-Topçu (2015), ‘Everything to everyone: the electoral consequences of the broad-appeal strategy in Europe’, American Journal of Political Science 59(4): 841854.

J.-J. Spoon (2011), Political Survival of Small Parties in Europe, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

H. Stoll (2011), ‘Dimensionality and the number of parties in legislative elections’, Party Politics 17(3): 405429.

M. Thies (2001), ‘Keeping tabs on partners: the logic of delegation in coalition governments’, American Journal of Political Science 45(3): 580598.

G. Tsebelis (2002), Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

P. van Roozendaal (1997), ‘Government survival in western multi-party democracies’, European Journal of Political Research 32: 7192.

P. Warwick (1992), ‘Ideological diversity and government survival in Western European parliamentary democracies’, Comparative Political Studies 25: 332361.

Recommend this journal

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

European Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 1755-7739
  • EISSN: 1755-7747
  • URL: /core/journals/european-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Greene supplementary material
Online Appendix

 Word (59 KB)
59 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 81 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 343 *
Loading metrics...

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