Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:40:46.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Parties’ Policy Shifts in Western Europe: The Role of Valence, 1976–2003

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2013

Michael Clark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Do parties’ valence characteristics affect their policy strategies? The verdict of the spatial modeling literature on the positioning effects of valence is mixed on this point. Some spatial studies argue that valence-advantaged parties/candidates should moderate their policies, while others argue that they should radicalize their policies. Empirical cross-national work on this issue has been lacking. Using an original measure of valence and party positioning data compiled by the Comparative Manifesto Project, the period 1976–2003 is analyzed in this article for nine West European countries. The findings suggest that as parties’ character-based valence attributes worsen they tend to moderate their Left–Right positions, and there is a notable time lag in parties’ responses to changes in their character-based valence attributes.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 261 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

*

Department of Political Science, Northern Illinois University (e-mail: mclark12@niu.edu). The author wishes to thank Jim Adams and Debra Leiter for their thoughtful comments during the drafting of this article. A supplementary appendix and data replication sets are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123412000622

References

Abney, Ronni, Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Easton, Malcolm, Ezrow, Lawrence, Kosmidis, Spyros Neundorf, Anja. Forthcoming, 2013. When Does Valence Matter? Heightened Valence Effects for Governing Parties During Election Campaigns. Party Politics.Google Scholar
Adams, James. 2001. Party Competition and Responsible Party Government: A Theory of Spatial Competition Based Upon Insights from Behavioural Voting Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence Glasgow, Garrett. 2004. Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or Past Election Results? British Journal of Political Science 34:589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence Glasgow, Garrett. 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 50:513–529.Google Scholar
Adams, James Ezrow, Lawrence. 2009. Who Do European Parties Represent? How Western European Parties Represent the Policy Preferences of Opinion Leaders. Journal of Politics 71:206–223.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Ezrow, Lawrence, Merrill III, Samuel Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. Forthcoming, 2013. Does Collective Responsibility for Performance Alter Party Strategies? Policy-Seeking Parties in Proportional Systems. British Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Haupt, Andrea Stoll, Heather. 2009. What Moves Parties? The Role of Public Opinion and Global Economic Conditions in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies 42:611–639.Google Scholar
Adams, James Merrill, Samuel III. 2009. Policy-Seeking Parties in a Parliamentary Democracy with Proportional Representation: A Valence-Uncertainty Model. British Journal of Political Science 39:539–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Merrill, Samuel III Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Adams, Hames, Merrill, Samuel III, Simas, Elizabeth N. Stone, Walter J.. 2011. When Candidates Value Good Character: A Spatial Model with Applications to Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 73:17–30.Google Scholar
Adams, James Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2009. Do Parties Adjust Their Policies in Response to Rival Parties’ Policy Shifts? Spatial Theory and the Dynamics of Party Competition in Twenty-Five Postwar Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 39:825–846.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John. 1983. A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activists. American Political Science Review 77:974–990.Google Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J. 2000. Economic Voting and Political Context: A Comparative Perspective. Electoral Studies 19:151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, David Banks, Jeffrey. 1988. Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative Outcomes. American Political Science Review 82:405–422.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel Katz, Jonathan N.. 1995. What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review 89:634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel Katz, Jonathan N.. 1996. Nuisance vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-Series-Cross-Section Models. Political Analysis 6:1–36.Google Scholar
Belanger, Éric Meguid, Bonnie. 2008. Issue Salience, Issue Ownership, and Issue-Based Vote Choice. Electoral Studies 27:477–491.Google Scholar
Berger, Mark M., Munger, Michael C. Pothoff, Richard F. 2000. The Downsian Model Predicts Candidate Divergence. Journal of Theoretical Politics 12:78–90.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, M. Daniel Ingberman, Daniel E.. 1985. Candidate Reputations and the ‘Incumbency Effect’. Journal of Public Economics 27:47–67.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian. 1994. A New Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology, and Policy Equilibria Viewed Temporally and Comparatively. British Journal of Political Science 24:443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian, Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith Tenenbaum, Eric. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry. 2004. Candidate Positioning in U.S. Congressional Elections. British Journal of Political Science 34:211–227.Google Scholar
Burk, James. 1999. Public Support for Peacekeeping in Lebanon and Somalia: Assessing the Casualties Hypothesis. Political Science Quarterly 114:53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttice, Matthew K. Stone, Walter J.. 2012. Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 74 (3):870–887.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W. Cogan, John F.. 2002. Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting. American Political Science Review 96:127–140.Google Scholar
Clark, Michael. 2009. Valence and Electoral Outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998. Electoral Studies 28:111–122.Google Scholar
Clark, Michael Leiter, Debra. Forthcoming. Does the Ideological Dispersion of Parties Mediate the Electoral Impact of Valence? A Cross-National Study of Party Support in Nine Western European Democracies. Comparative Political Studies.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne C. Whiteley, Paul. 2004. Political Choice in Britain. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne C. Whiteley, Paul. 2009. Performance Politics and the British Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1990. Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems. American Journal of Political Science 34:905–935.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1997. Making Votes Count. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curtice, John Holmberg, Soren. 2005. Party Leaders and Party Choice. Pp. 235–253 in The European Voter edited by Jacques Thomassen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. Duval, Robert. 1986. The Political Environment and Foreign Policy Opinions: British Attitudes Towards European Integration, 1972–1979. British Journal of Political Science 16:113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., Farrell, David M. McAllister, Ian. 2011. Political Parties and Democratic Linkage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dow, Jay K. 2001. A Comparative Spatial Analysis of Majoritarian and Proportional Elections. Electoral Studies 20:109–125.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M. Hinich, Melvin J.. 1982. Nonspatial Candidate Characteristics and Electoral Competition. Journal of Politics 44:115–130.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert, MacKuen, Michael Stimson, James. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1985. Politics against Markets: The Social Democratic Road to Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence. 2007. The Variance Matters: How Party Systems Represent the Preference of Voters. Journal of Politics 69:182–192.Google Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence, De Vries, Catherine, Steenbergen, Marco Edwards, Erica. 2011. Mean Voter Representation and Partisan Constituency Representation: Do Parties Respond to the Mean Voter Position, or to Their Supporters? Party Politics 17:275–301.Google Scholar
Feld, Scott Grofman, Bernard. 1991. Incumbency Advantage, Voter Loyalty and the Benefit of the Doubt. Journal of Theoretical Politics 3:115–137.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1978. Home Style. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1977. Representatives, Roll-Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L. 1999. Bringing the Candidate into Models of Candidate Evaluations. Journal of Politics 61:700–720.Google Scholar
Galasso, Vincenzo Nannicini, Tomasso. 2011. Competing on Good Politicians. American Political Science Review 105:79–99.Google Scholar
Green, Jane Hobolt, Sara B.. 2008. Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections. Electoral Studies 27:460–476.Google Scholar
Green, Jane Jennings, Will. 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 51:469–503.Google Scholar
Green, Jane Jennings, Will. 2012b. Valence as Macro-Competence: An Analysis of Mood in Party Competence Evaluations in Great Britain. British Journal of Political Science 42:311–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grose, Christian R. 2005. Do Legislators Use ‘Pork’ Projects to Deviate from Constituents’ Interests? Valence Advantages and Position-Taking in Congress. (Unpublished paper, Vanderbilt University.)Google Scholar
Grose, Christian R., Globetti, Suzanne 2008. Valence Voters: Images, Issues, and Citizen Choice in U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial Elections. Found online at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1135702.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Timothy. 2001. A Model of Candidate Location when One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage. American Journal of Political Science 45:862–886.Google Scholar
Haupt, Andrea B. 2010. Parties’ Responses to Economic Globalization: What is Left for the Left and Right for the Right? Party Politics 16 (1):5–27.Google Scholar
Hearl, Derek. 2001. Checking the Party Policy Estimates: Reliability. Pp. 111–126 in Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998, edited by Ian Budge, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Eric Tannenbaum, and Judith Bara. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hillebrand, Ron Irwin, Galen. 1999. Changing Strategies: The Dilemma of the Dutch Labor Party. Pp. 112–140 in Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, edited by Wolfgang Muller and Kaare Strøm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin Munger, Michael. 1996. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Keesing 1993. Keesing's Record of World Events. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Keesing 1994. Keesing's Record of World Events. London: Longman.Google Scholar
King, Anthony. 2002. Do Leaders’ Personalities Really Matter? Pp. 1–43 in Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections, edited by Anthony King. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert P. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, Benoit, Kenneth Garry, John. 2003. Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data. American Political Science Review 97:311–331.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael. 2005. Policy and the Dynamics of Political Competition. American Political Science Review 99:263–281.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael. 1988. Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Londregan, John Romer, Thomas. 1993. Polarization, Incumbency, and the Personal Vote. Pp. 355–378 in Political Economy: Institutions, Competition, and Representation, edited by William A. Barnett, Melvin J. Hinich, and Norman J. Schofield. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Stuart E. Rabinowitz, George. 1998. Searching the Paradox of Nonconvergence: Valence, Position, and Direction in Democratic Politics. Electoral Studies 17:281–300.Google Scholar
McCurley, Carl Mondak, Jeffery J.. 1995. Inspected by #1184063113: The Influence of Incumbents’ Competence and Integrity in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 39:864–885.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael Mendes, Sylvia. 2001. Checking the Party Policy Estimates: Convergent Validity. Pp. 127–142 in Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998, edited by Ian Budge, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Eric Tannenbaum, and Judith Bara. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Michael Budge, Ian. 2005. Elections, Parties, and Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McGann, Anthony. 2002. The Advantages of Ideological Cohesion: A Model of Constituency Representation and Electoral Competition in Multiparty Democracies. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14:37–70.Google Scholar
Meguid, Bonnie. 2005. Competition between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success. American Political Science Review 99:347–360.Google Scholar
Merrill, Samuel III Adams, James. 2002. Centripetal Incentives in Multicandidate Elections. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14:275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57:45–56.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary Schofield, Norman. 2003. Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States. American Political Science Review 97:245–260.Google Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J. 1995. Competence, Integrity, and the Electoral Success of Congressional Incumbents. Journal of Politics 57:1043–1069.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Daniel L. 2003. Supplying Trade Reform: Political Institutions and Liberalization in Middle-Income Presidential Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 47:470–491.Google Scholar
Palmer, Harvey D. Whitten, Guy D.. 2000. Government Competence, Economic Performance and Endogenous Election Dates. Electoral Studies 19:413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pancer, Mark S., Brown, Steven D. Widdis Barr, Cathy. 1999. Forming Impressions of Political Leaders: A Cross-National Comparison. Political Psychology 20:345–368.Google Scholar
Pardos-Prado, Sergi. 2012. Valence Beyond Consenus. Electoral Studies 31:342–352.Google Scholar
Pelizzo, Riccardo. 2003. Party Position or Party Direction? An Analysis of Party Manifesto Data. West European Politics 26:67–89.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John R. 1996. Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40:825–850.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham Jr. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, William H. 1993. Regression Standard Errors in Clustered Samples. Stata Technical Bulletin 13:19–23.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 2003. Valence Competition in the Spatial Stochastic Model. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15:371–383.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman Sened, Itai. 2005. Modeling the Interaction of Parties, Activists, and Voters: Why is the Political Center so Empty? European Journal of Political Research 44:355–390.Google Scholar
Serra, Gilles. 2010. Polarization of What? A Model of Elections with Endogenous Valence. Journal of Politics 72:426–437.Google Scholar
Serra, Gilles. 2011. Why Primaries? The Party's Tradeoff between Policy and Valence. Journal of Theoretical Politics 23:21–51.Google Scholar
Share, Donald. 1999. From Policy-Seeking to Office-Seeking: The Metamorphosis of the of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party. Pp. 89–111 in Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, edited by Wolfgang Muller and Kaare Strøm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2007. Party Policy Strategies and Valence Issues: An Empirical Study of Ten Post-Communist European Party Systems. Paper presented at the Conference on the Dynamics of Party Position Taking, SUNY Binghamton, NY.Google Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2009. Timely Decisions: The Effects of Past National Elections on Party Policy. Journal of Politics 71:238–248.Google Scholar
Stimson, James, MacKuen, Michael Erikson, Robert. 1995. Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89:543–565.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald. 1963. Spatial Models and Party Competition. American Political Science Review 57:368–377.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald. 1992. Valence Politics. Pp. 141–162 in Electoral Politics, edited by Dennis Kavanagh. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J. Simas, Elizabeth. 2010. Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 54:371–388.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John L., Aldrich, John H., Borgida, Eugene Rahn, Wendy. 1990. Candidate Appraisal and Human Nature: Man and Superman in the 1984 Election. Political Psychology 11:459–484.Google Scholar
Ward, Hugh, Ezrow, Lawrence Dorussen, Han. 2011. Globalization, Party Positions, and the Median Voter. World Politics 63:509–547.Google Scholar
Warwick, Paul. 1999. Ministerial Autonomy or Ministerial Accomodation? Contested Bases of Governmental Survival in Parliamentary Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 29:369–394.Google Scholar
Williams, Rick L. 2000. A Note on Robust Variance Estimation for Cluster-Correlated Data. Biometrics 56:645–646.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald A. 1977. Candidates with Policy Preferences: A Dynamic Model. Journal of Economic Theory 14:180–189.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald A. 1983. Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories. American Political Science Review 77:142–157.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald A. 1990. Spatial Strategies When Candidates Have Policy Preferences. Pp. 66–98 in Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting, edited by James M. Enelow, and Melvin J. Hinich. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald A. 2005. Valence Characteristics, Costly Policy and the Median-Crossing Property: A Diagrammatic Exposition. Public Choice 124 (3):365–382.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald A. 2007. Candidate Quality, Pressure Group Endorsements, and the Nature of Political Advertising. European Journal of Political Economy 23 (2):360–378.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Clark Appendix

Clark Appendix

Download Clark Appendix(File)
File 2 MB