Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-27T08:59:22.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Campaigning on the Ability to Govern: A Study of Strategic References to Competence Made by Political Parties in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2021

Wojciech Rafałowski Open the ORCID record for Wojciech Rafałowski [Opens in a new window]
Wojciech Rafałowski*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Sociology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
*
*Corresponding author. Email: rafalowskiw@is.uw.edu.pl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the sources of the incumbent advantage over the challenger in a two-candidate election is the possibility of referring to accomplishments in office. Incumbents exploit this resource in their campaigning rhetoric by putting greater emphasis on competence than challengers do. However, this tendency has not been tested outside two-party systems yet. In multiparty settings, the outgoing government, often formed by a coalition of parties, faces multiple opposition forces. This can change the strategic context of the competition, so the generalizations made in two-party systems may not be adequate. Using the Comparative Campaign Dynamics Dataset, I demonstrate that the tendency to put more emphasis on competence does not apply to government parties in multiparty elections in Europe. However, parties with better positions in the pre-electoral polls are more likely to emphasize traits associated with the ability to govern efficiently during the campaign.

Keywords

competencevalence campaigninggovernment participationincumbent advantagepre-electoral polls
Type
Article
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 268 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Government and Opposition Limited

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.)

Footnotes

The presented study was possible thanks to the funding provided by the Polish National Science Center grant number UMO-2018/31/D/HS5/01171. The data collection was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) grant number (DE 1667/4-1).

References

Adams, JF, Scheiner, E and Kawasumi, J (2016) Running on Character? Running on Policy? An Analysis of Japanese Candidates’ Campaign Platforms. Electoral Studies 44, 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.06.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armingeon, K, Wenger, V, Wiedemeier, F, Isler, C, Weisstanner, D and Knöpfel, L (2018) Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set: Government Composition 1960–2016. Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne.Google Scholar
Ashworth, S and de Mesquita, EB (2008) Electoral Selection, Strategic Challenger Entry, and the Incumbency Advantage. Journal of Politics 70(4), 1006–1025. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608081024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, M and Gross, M (2016) Where Is My Party? Introducing New Data Sets on Ideological Cohesion and Ambiguity of Party Positions in Media Coverage. Working Paper. Mannheim: Arbeitspapiere – Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung 167.Google Scholar
Baumann, M, Debus, M and Gross, M (2021) Strategic Issue Emphasis in Parties’ Election Campaign Statements. Party Politics 27(3), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068819864091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleck, J. and van de Walle, N (2012) Valence Issues in African Elections Navigating Uncertainty and the Weight of the Past. Comparative Political Studies 46(11), 1394–1421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012453448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, I and Farlie, D (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Butt, S (2006) How Voters Evaluate Economic Competence: A Comparison Between Parties in and out of Power. Political Studies 54(4), 743–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00631.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, A, Louvet, E, Chauvin, B and Rohmer, O (2014) The Primacy of Agency Over Competence in Status Perception. Social Psychology 45(5), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, JL, Engstrom, EJ and Roberts, JM (2007) Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress. American Political Science Review 101(2), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055407070311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M (2009) Valence and Electoral Outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998. Electoral Studies 28(1), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2008.07.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
da Fonseca, ML (2017) Identifying the Source of Incumbency Advantage Through A Constitutional Reform. American Journal of Political Science 61(3), 657–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debus, M, Somer-Topcu, Z and Tavits, M (2018) Comparative Campaign Dynamics Dataset. Mannheim: Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Mannheim. https://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/d7/en/datasets/comparative-campaign-dynamics-dataset.Google Scholar
Druckman, JN, Kifer, MJ and Parkin, M (2009) Campaign Communications in U.S. Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 103(3), 343–366. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409990037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, JN, Kifer, MJ and Parkin, M (2020) Campaign Rhetoric and the Incumbency Advantage. American Politics Research 48(1), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18822314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duch, R and Stevenson, R (2008) The Economic Vote. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouirnaies, A and Hall, AB (2014) The Financial Incumbency Advantage: Causes and Consequences. Journal of Politics 76(3), 711–724. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381614000139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J (2007) When Voters and Parties Agree: Valence Issues and Party Competition. Political Studies 55(3), 629–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00671.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Z (2016) Competing on the Issues: How Experience in Government and Economic Conditions Influence the Scope of Parties Policy Messages. Party Politics 22(6), 809–822. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068814567026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassell, JG and Oeltjenbruns, KR (2016) When to Attack: The Trajectory of Congressional Campaign Negativity. American Politics Research 44(2), 222–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X15589613.Google Scholar
Hayes, D (2005) Candidate Qualities Through A Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait Ownership. American Journal of Political Science 49(4), 908–923. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00163.x.Google Scholar
Holian, DB (2004) He's Stealing My Issues! Clinton's Crime Rhetoric and the Dynamics of Issue Ownership. Political Behavior 26(2), 95–124. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:POBE.0000035959.35567.16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laakso, M and Taagepera, R (1979) Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Applications to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407901200101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanz, S (2020) No Substitute for Competence: On the Origins and Consequences of Issue Ownership. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
Lau, RR and Pomper, GM (2002) Effectiveness of Negative Campaigning in U.S. Senate Elections. American Journal of Political Science 46(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, SD and Wolfram, CD (1997) Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/440290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, MM (2019) Do Parties Respond Strategically to Opinion Polls? Evidence From Campaign Statements. Electoral Studies 59, 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2019.02.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peskowitz, Z (2019) Ideological Signaling and Incumbency Advantage. British Journal of Political Science 49(2), 467–490. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, JR (1996) Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with A 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40(3), 825–850. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, SL (1994) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prior, M (2006) The Incumbent in the Living Room: The Rise of Television and the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House. Elections Journal of Politics 68(3), 657–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00452.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, WH (1993) Political Interaction in The Ratification Campaigns. In Riker, WH (ed.), Agenda Formation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 81–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, D and Norris, P (2005) The Impact of Political Advertising in the 2001 U.K. General Election. Political Research Quarterly 58(4), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.2307/3595639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, D, Clarke, HD, Stewart, MC and Whiteley, P (2011) Downs, Stokes and the Dynamics of Electoral Choice. British Journal of Political Science 41, 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123410000505.Google Scholar
Schleiter, P and Belu, V (2018) Electoral Incumbency Advantages and the Introduction of Fixed Parliamentary Terms in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20(2), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117739858.Google Scholar
Schofield, N and Sened, I (2006) Multiparty Democracy: Elections and Legislative Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skaperdas, S and Grofman, B (1995) Modeling Negative Campaigning. American Political Science Review 89(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/2083074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Z, Tavits, M and Baumann, M (2020) Does Party Rhetoric Affect Voter Perceptions of Party Positions? Electoral Studies 65, Article 102153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spälti, AK, Brandt, MJ and Zeelenberg, M (2017) Memory Retrieval Processes Help Explain the Incumbency Advantage. Judgment and Decision Making 12(2), 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, DE (1963) Spatial Models of Party Competition. American Political Science Review 57(2), 368–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952828.Google Scholar
Stokes, DE (1992) Valence Politics. In Kavanagh, D (ed.), Electoral Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 141–164.Google Scholar
van Heck, S (2018) Appealing Broadly or Narrowing Down? The Impact of Government Experience and Party Organization on the Scope of Parties’ Issue Agendas. Party Politics 24(4), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068816657374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vegetti, F (2014) From Political Conflict to Partisan Evaluations: How Citizens Assess Party Ideology and Competence in Polarized Elections. Electoral Studies 35, 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2014.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, AS (2014) Negative Campaigning in Western Europe: Similar or Different? Political Studies 62(S1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank (2016) World Development Indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rafałowski supplementary material

Rafałowski supplementary material

Download Rafałowski supplementary material(File)
File 27.6 KB