Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:56:39.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coalition Governments and Party Competition: Political Communication Strategies of Coalition Parties*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2015

Iñaki Sagarzazu  and
Heike Klüver
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Coalition parties have to reconcile two competing logics: they need to demonstrate unity to govern together, but also have to emphasize their own profile to succeed in elections. We argue that the electoral cycle explains whether unity or differentiation prevails. While differentiation dominates at the beginning and the end of the legislative term in close proximity to elections, compromise dominates the middle of the term when coalition governments focus on enacting a common policy agenda. To test our theoretical claims, we draw on an innovative quantitative text analysis of more than 21,000 press releases published by coalition parties from 2000 until 2010.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 333 - 349
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

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

*

Iñaki Sagarzazu, Lecturer in Comparative Politics, University of Glasgow, 40 Bute Gardens, Glasgow, UK G12 8RT (inaki.sagarzazu@glasgow.ac.uk). Heike Klüver, Professor of Comparative Politics, Department of Social Sciences, University of Hamburg, Allende-Platz 1, 20146 Hamburg, Germany (heike.kluever@uni-hamburg.de). The authors’ names follow the principle of rotation. Both authors have contributed equally to all work. The authors thank James Adams, Hanna Bäck, Nicholas Charron, William Heller, Thomas Saalfeld, the anonymous reviewers and Ken Benoit for valuable comments and suggestions. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.56

References

Bäck, Hanna, Debus, Marc, and Dumont, Patrick. 2011. ‘Who Gets What in Coalition Governments? Predictors of Portfolio Allocation in Parliamentary Democracies’. European Journal of Political Research 50(4):441–478.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1995. ‘What To Do (and Not To Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data’. American Political Science Review 89(3):634–647.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1996. ‘Nuisance vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-Series-Cross-Section Models’. Political Analysis 6(1):1–36.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian. 1993. ‘Issues, Dimensions, and Agenda Change in Postwar Democracies: Long-Term Trends in Party Election Programs and Newspaper Reports in Twenty-Three Democracies’. In William H. Riker (ed.), Agenda Formation, 41–80. Ann Arbor, MI: 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. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
Ennser-Jedenastik, Laurenz, and Schermann, Katrin. 2013. The Dynamics of Policy Implementation in Coalition Governments. Paper presented at the 7th ECPR General Conference. Bordeaux, 4–7 September.Google Scholar
Falcó-Gimeno, Albert. 2014. ‘The Use of Control Mechanisms in Coalition Governments: The Role of Preference Tangentiality and Repeated Interactions’. Party Politics 20(3):341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortunato, David, and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2013. ‘Perceptions of Partisan Ideologies: The Effect of Coalition Participation’. American Journal of Political Science 57(2):459–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golder, Sona N. 2006a. The Logic of Preelectoral Coalition Formation . Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Golder, Sona Nadenichek. 2006b. ‘Pre-Electoral Coalition Formation in Parliamentary Democracies’. British Journal of Political Science 36(2):193–212.Google Scholar
Golding, Peter, and Elliott, Philip. 1979. Making the News. Longman, London, 241pp.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, and Mortensen, Peter B.. 2015. ‘Avoidance and Engagement: Issue Competition in Multiparty Systems’. Political Studies 63(4):747–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, Justin. 2010. ‘A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases’. Political Analysis 18(1):1–35.Google Scholar
Grimmer, Justin. 2013. ‘Appropriators Not Position Takers: The Distorting Effects of Electoral Incentives on Congressional Representation’. American Journal of Political Science 57(3):624–642.Google Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, and Stewart, Brandon M.. 2013. ‘Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts’. Political Analysis 21(3):267–297.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News that Matters: Television and American Public Opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jae-Jae, Spoon, and Klüver, Heike. 2014. ‘Do Parties Respond? How Electoral Context Influences Party Responsiveness’. Electoral Studies 35:48–60.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kayser, Mark Andreas. 2005. ‘Who Surfs, Who Manipulates? The Determinants of Opportunistic Election Timing and Electorally Motivated Economic Intervention’. American Political Science Review 99(1):17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. ‘Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation’. American Journal of Political Science 44(2):341–355.Google Scholar
Klüver, Heike, and Sagarzazu, Iñaki. forthcoming. ‘Setting the Agenda or Responding to Voters? Political Parties, Voters and Issue Attention’. West European Politics.Google Scholar
Klüver, Heike, and Spoon, Jae-Jae. 2014. ‘Who Responds? Voters, Parties and Issue Attention’. British Journal of Political Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000313 (Epublication ahead of print. October, 2014).Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Stegmaier, Mary. 2000. ‘Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes’. Annual Review of Political Science 3(1):183–219.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Strøm, Kaare. 1995. ‘Coalition Termination and the Strategic Timing of Legislative Elections’. American Political Science Review 89(3):648–665.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2008. ‘Coalition Government and Political Communication’. Political Research Quarterly 61(3):502–516.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2011. Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Lenny W. 2004. ‘The Government Agenda in Parliamentary Democracies’. American Journal of Political Science 48(3):445–461.Google Scholar
Meyer, Thomas M. 2013. Constraints on Party Policy Change. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang, and Strøm, Kaare. 2008a. Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe, 464pp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang, and Strøm, Kaare. 2008b. ‘Coalition Agreements and Cabinet Governance’. In Kaare Strøm, Wolfgang C. Müller and Torbjörn Bergman (eds), Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining , 159–199. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang C., and Meyer, Thomas M.. 2010. ‘Meeting the Challenges of Representation and Accountability in Multi-Party Governments’. West European Politics 33(5):1065–1092.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. ‘A Directional Theory of Issue Voting’. American Political Science Review 83(1):93–121.Google Scholar
Riker, William Harrison. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William Harrison. 1993. ‘Rhetorical Interaction in the Ratification Campaigns’. In William H. Riker (ed.), Agenda Formation, 81–126. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Saalfeld, Thomas. 2000. ‘Germany: Stable Parties, Chancellor Democracy and the Art of Informal Settlement’. In Wolfgang C. Müller and Kaare Strøm (eds), Coalition governments in Western Europe, 32–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saalfeld, Thomas. 2008. ‘Institutions, Chance and Choices: The Dynamics of Cabinet Survival’. In Kaare Strøm, Wolfgang C. Müller and Torbjörn Bergman (eds), Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe, 301–326. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Brian F. 2006. ‘Local News Coverage and the Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 31(4):491–511.Google Scholar
Schermann, Katrin, and Ennser-Jedenastik, Laurenz. 2014a. ‘Coalition Policy Making Under Constraints: Examining the Role of Preferences and Institutions’. West European Politics 37(3):564–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schermann, Katrin, and Ennser-Jedenastik, Laurenz. 2014b. ‘Explaining Coalition-Bargaining Outcomes: Evidence from Austria, 2002–2008’. Party Politics 20(5):791–801.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, Pamela J., and Reese, Stephen D.. 2013. Mediating the Message in the 21st Century. London: Routledge, 308pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, Kaare. 1990. ‘A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties’. American Journal of Political Science 34(2):565–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thies, Michael F. 2001. ‘Keeping Tabs on Partners: The Logic of Delegation in Coalition Governments’. American Journal of Political Science 45(3):580–598.Google Scholar
Thomson, Robert. 2001. ‘The Programme to Policy Linkage: The Fulfilment of Election Pledges on Socio-Economic Policy in the Netherlands, 1986-1998’. European Journal of Political Research 40(2):171–197.Google Scholar
Volkens, Andrea, McDonald, Michael D., Bara, Judith, Budge, Ian, and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter (eds) 2013. Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walgrave, Stefaan, Varone, Frédéric, and Dumont, Patrick. 2006. ‘Policy With or Without Parties? A Comparative Analysis of Policy Priorities and Policy Change in Belgium, 1991 to 2000’. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7):1021–1038.Google Scholar
Warwick, Paul. 1994. Government Survival in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zubek, Radoslaw, and Klüver, Heike. 2015. ‘Legislative Pledges and Coalition Government’. Party Politics 21(4):603–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Sagarzazu and Klüver supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Sagarzazu and Klüver supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 223.7 KB