Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-r8qmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T16:33:19.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bridging Spatial and Saliency Theory: Party Size and Issue Selection in Campaigns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2019

Chitralekha Basu Open the ORCID record for Chitralekha Basu [Opens in a new window]
Chitralekha Basu*
Affiliation:
University of Barcelona, School of Economics, Barcelona, 08007Spain
*
*Corresponding author. Email: chitralekha.basu@ub.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I propose a unified explanation for parties' joint policy and emphasis decisions which bridges saliency theory and spatial analyses of party campaigns. Party platforms are anchored by the policy preferences of activists, core supporters and target voters, leading parties to disproportionately emphasize issues where their policies are popular with all key constituencies. However, which voters a party targets relates to its historical electoral performance (“party size”). Traditionally successful (“major”) parties emphasize issues where the policies preferred by activists and core supporters are generally popular, but smaller (“minor”) parties emphasize issues where their preferred policies may be unpopular but are distinctive. Using recent European data and various empirical strategies, I show that this account has significant explanatory power beyond existing party typologies and theories of issue selection.

Keywords

Elections and CampaignsPolitical Parties and Interest Groups

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 444 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2019

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abou-Chadi, T and Orlowski, M (2016) Moderate as necessary: the role of electoral competitiveness and party size in explaining parties' policy shifts. Journal of Politics 78, 868–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramson, PR, Aldrich, JH, Blais, A, Diamond, M, Diskin, A, Indridason, IH, Lee, DJ and Levine, R (2010) Comparing strategic voting under FPTP and PR. Comparative Political Studies 43, 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J (2012) Causes and electoral consequences of party policy shifts in multiparty elections: theoretical results and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Political Science 15, 401–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, J (1983) A downsian spatial model with party activists. American Political Science Review 77, 974–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, S, Snyder, JM, Strauss, AB and Ting, MM (2005) Voting weights and formateur advantages in the formation of coalition governments. American Journal of Political Science 49, 550–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armingeon, K, Knöpfel, L, Weisstanner, D and Engler, S (2014) Comparative Political Data Set I 1960–2012. Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne.Google Scholar
Baetschmann, G, Staub, KE and Winkelmann, R (2015) Consistent estimation of the fixed effects ordered logit model. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 178, 685–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, R, Edwards, E, Hooghe, L, Jolly, S, Marks, G, Polk, J, Rovny, J, Steenbergen, M and Vachudova, M (2015) 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey, Version 2015.1. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Available on chesdata.eu.Google Scholar
Bawn, K, Cohen, M, Karol, D and Masket, S (2012) A theory of political parties: groups, policy demands and nominations in American politics. Perspectives on Politics 10, 571–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A, Erisen, C and Rheault, L (2014) Strategic voting and coordination problems in proportional systems: an experimental study. Political Research Quarterly 67, 386–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, I and Farlie, D (1983) Party competition—selective emphasis or direct confrontation? an alternative view with data. In Western European Party Systems. Continuity and Change, Chapter 10. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 267–305.Google Scholar
Corner, A, Venables, D, Spence, A, Poortinga, W, Demski, C and Pidgeon, N (2011) Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy 39, 4823–4833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, GW (1990) Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 34, 903–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutts, D and Russell, A (2015) From coalition to catastrophe: the electoral meltdown of the liberal democrats. Parliamentary Affairs 68, 70–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, S and Martinsson, J (2015) Changing issue ownership through policy communication. West European Politics 38, 817–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Sio, L and Weber, T (2014) Issue yield: a model of party strategy in multidimensional space. American Political Science Review 108, 870–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döring, H. and Manow, P (2018) Parliaments and governments database (parlgov): Information on parties, elections and cabinets in modern democracies. Available at http://www.parlgov.org. Development version.Google Scholar
Egan, PJ (2013) Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giger, N and Schumacher, G (2015) Integrated Party Organization Dataset (IPOD). http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PE8TWP, Harvard Dataverse. Version 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C and Mortensen, PB (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, 257–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gschwend, T (2007) Ticket-splitting and strategic voting under mixed electoral rules: evidence from Germany. European Journal of Political Research 46, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, SB and de Vries, CE (2012) When dimensions collide: the electoral success of issue entrepreneurs. European Union Politics 13, 246–268.Google Scholar
Karp, JA and Banducci, SA (2007) Party mobilization and political participation in new and old democracies. Party Politics 13, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, RS and Mair, P (1996) Cadre, catch-all or cartel? A rejoinder. Party Politics 2, 525–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedar, O (2005) When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: policy balancing in parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review 99, 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, H (1994) The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriesi, H, Grande, E, Lachat, R, Dolezal, M, Bornschier, S and Frey, T (2006) Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research 45, 921–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, P, Müller, WC and Plasser, F (eds.) (2004) Political Parties and Electoral Change: Party Responses to Electoral Markets. London: SAGE Press.Google Scholar
Meguid, B (2005) Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review 99, 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meguid, BM (2008) Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, TM and Wagner, M (2016) Issue engagement in election campaigns: the impact of electoral incentives and organizational constraints. Political Science Research and Methods 4, 555–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G and Schofield, N (2003) Activists and partisan realignment in the United States. American Political Science Review 97, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, JR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40, 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pons, V (2018) Will a five-minute discussion change your mind? A countrywide experiment on voter choice in France. American Economic Review 108, 1322–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popa, SA and Schmitt, H (2015). EES 2014 Voter Study. Mannheim: MZES, University of Mannheim.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, G and Macdonald, SE (1989) A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review 83, 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedl, M and Geishecker, I (2014) Keep it simple: estimation strategies for ordered response models with fixed effects. Journal of Applied Statistics 41, 2358–2374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, WH (1996) The Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rovny, J (2012) Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition. European Union Politics 13, 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rovny, J (2013) Where do radical right parties stand? Position blurring in multidimensional competition. European Political Science Review 5, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, A and Fieldhouse, E (2005) Neither Left nor Right? The Liberal Democrats and the Electorate. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Sagarzazu, I and Klüver, H (2017) Coalition governments and party competition: political communication strategies of coalition parties. Political Science Research and Methods 5, 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarrow, SE (2015) Beyond Party Members: Changing Approaches to Partisan Mobilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schofield, N (2004) Equilibrium in the spatial “valence” model of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16, 447–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, G and Giger, N (2017) Who leads the party? On membership size, selectorates and party oligarchy. Political Studies 65, 162–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, G, de Vries, CE and Vis, B (2013) Why do parties change position? Party organization and environmental incentives. Journal of Politics 75, 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, G, Van de Wardt, M, Vis, B and Klitgaard, MB (2015) How aspiration to office conditions the impact of government participation on party platform change. American Journal of Political Science 59, 1040–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoon, J-J (2009) Holding their own: explaining the persistence of green parties in France and the UK. Party Politics 15, 615–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoon, J-J and Klüver, H (2015) Voter polarisation and party responsiveness: Why parties emphasize divided issues, but remain silent on unified issues. European Journal of Political Research 54, 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Wardt, M (2014) Putting the damper on: do parties de-emphasize issues in response to internal divisions among their supporters? Party Politics 20, 330–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Wardt, M, Vries, CED and Hobolt, SB (2014) Exploiting the cracks: wedge issues in multiparty competition. Journal of Politics 76, 986–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkens, A, Lehmann, P, Matthieß, T, Merz, N, Regel, S and Weßels, B (2017) The manifesto data collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2017a. https://doi.org/10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2017aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, M (2012) When do parties emphasise extreme positions? How strategic incentives for policy differentiation influence issue importance. European Journal of Political Research 51, 64–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walgrave, S, Lefevere, J and Nuytemans, M (2009) Issue ownership stability and change: how political parties claim and maintain issues through media appearances. Political Communication 26, 152–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Basu Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/INR9AQ
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Basu supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Basu supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 358.3 KB