Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T11:46:53.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The opposition's policy influence through issue politicisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2013

Henrik Bech Seeberg
Henrik Bech Seeberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark
*
Henrik Bech SeebergDepartment of Political Science University of Aarhus Bartholins Allé 7 8000 Aarhus C Denmark Email: h.seeberg@ps.au.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a quantitative study using unique quarterly data across two decades, this article addresses the opposition's opportunities to influence policy; a topic that has been neglected in existing party-policy research. The idea that is developed is applied to a remarkable policy development on crime during the Danish leftwing government in the 1990s. Contrary to its policy position when it took office in 1993, the leftwing government repeatedly adopted severe restrictions to penal policy. The policy position of the rightwing opposition and its vehement and persistent criticism of the government provide an explanation, the article argues. Taking media coverage, public opinion, violence statistics, and the government's performance into account, the analysis shows that opposition criticism spurred the penal policy restrictions. Hence, by incorporating a policy agenda perspective, this article encourages a broadening of the perspective on parties’ policy influence. In particularly the opposition's opportunities to politicise issues and hereby influence policy.

Keywords

Agenda-settingparty competitionpolicy changepolitics matters
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , April 2013 , pp. 89 - 107
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.)

References

Adams, J., Clark, M., Ezrow, L.Glasgow, G. (2004) Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results? British Journal of Political Science 34: 589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J., Clark, M., Ezrow, L.Glasgow, G. (2006) Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 513–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J.Somer-Topcu, Z. (2009) Policy Adjustment by Parties in Response to Rival Parties’ Policy Shifts: Spatial Theory and the Dynamics of Party Competition in Twenty-Five Post-War Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 39: 825–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, D. (1990) The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Balvig, F. (2005) When Law and Order Returned to Denmark. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 5(2): 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F.Jones, B. (1993) Agendas and Instabilities in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F., Brouard, S.Grossman, E. (2009) Agenda-setting Dynamics in France: Revisiting the ‘Partisan Hypothesis’. French Politics 7(2): 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A., Blake, D.Dion, S. (1993) Do Parties Make a Difference? Parties and the Size of Government in Liberal Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 37(1): 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambor, T., Clark, W.Golder, M. (2006) Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14: 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, I.Farlie, D. (1983) Party Competition – Selective Emphasis or Direct Confrontation? An Alternative View with Data. In H. Daalder and P. Mair (eds.), West European Party Systems. Continuity & Change. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (1978) The Expansion of the Public Economy. American Political Science Review 72(4): 1243–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, E. (1991) The Logic of Party Alignment. Journal of Theoretical Politics 3(1): 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, F.McKinlay, R. (1979) Does Politics Matter: An Analysis of the Public Welfare Commitment in Advanced Democratic States. European Journal of Political Research 7(2): 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, R.Elder, C. (1983) Participation in American Politics, the Dynamics of Agenda-building. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Danish Statistics Bureau. Accessed 1 June 2011 on www.dst.dk.Google Scholar
Döring, H. (1995) Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Mannheim: Mannheim Centre for European Social Research at the University of Mannheim.Google Scholar
Erikson, R., MacKuen, M.Stimson, J. (2006) The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Estrada, F. (2004) The Transformation of the Politics of Crime in High Crime Societies. European Journal of Crominology 1: 419–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falck, S., von Hofer, H.Storgaard, A. (2003) Nordic Criminal Statistics 1950–2000. Report. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Folketingstidende (various years). Copenhagen: Folketinget.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. (2005) The Political Agenda in Denmark. Measurement and Trends since 1953. Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. (2011) Partier i nye tider. Den politiske dagsorden i Danmark. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C.Mortensen, P. (2010) Who Sets the Agenda and Who Responds to It in the Danish Parliament? European Journal of Political Research 49(2): 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C., Mortensen, P. (2012) The dynamics of Issue Competition: Avoidance and Engagement, University of Aarhus: manuscript.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C.Stubager, R. (2010) The Political Conditionality of Mass Media Influence: When Do Parties Follow Mass Media Attention? British Journal of Political Science 40(3): 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C.Thomsen, L. (2005) Bloc Politics vs. Broad Cooperation? The Functioning of Danish Minority Parliamentarism. The Journal of Legislative Studies 11(2): 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbs, D. (1977) Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy. American Political Science Review 71(4): 1467–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, A.Swank, D. (1992) Politics, Institutions, and Welfare Spending in Industrialized Democracies, 1960–82. American Political Science Review 86(3): 658–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbe, J. (2008) Brief Overview on Interpreting Count Model Risk Ratios. An addendum to Negative Binomial Regression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press(published in 2007).Google Scholar
Huber, J., Shipan, C.Pfahler, M. (2001) Legislatures and Statutory Control of Bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science 45(2): 330–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbeau, L., Pétry, F.Lamari, M. (2001) Left-Right Party Ideology and Government Policies: A Meta-analysis. European Journal of Political Research 40(1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keman, H. (1994) The Search for the Centre: Pivot Parties in West European Party Systems. West European Politics 17(4): 124–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, J. (1995) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Harper Collings College.Google Scholar
Klingemann, H.-D., Hofferbert, R.Budge, I. (1994) Parties, Policies, and Democracy. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Long, S.Freese, J. (2006) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Meguid, B. (2005) Competition between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success. American Political Science Review 99(3): 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, P., Green-Pedersen, C., Breeman, G., Bonafont, L., Jennings, W., John, P., Palau, A.Timmermans, A. (2011) Comparing Government Agendas: Executive Speeches in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies 44(8): 973–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, P. (1990) Parliament in the United Kingdom: Balancing Effectiveness and Consent? West European Politics 13(3): 10–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, P. (2008) Making sense of opposition. Journal of Legislative Studies 14(1–2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, J. (1996) Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétry, F. (1991) Fragile Mandate: Party Programmes and Public Expenditures in the French Fifth Republic. European Journal of Political Research 20: 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Retsinformation. 1 June 2011 Accessed at www.retsinformation.dk.Google Scholar
Riker, W. (1996) The Strategy of Rhetoric. Campaigning for the American Constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, R. (1990) Inheritance Before Choice in Public Policy. Journal of Theoretical Politics 2(3): 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, T. (2003) Who's Responsible for the Economy? The Formation and Consequences of Responsibility Attributions. American Journal of Political Science 47(4): 698–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E. (1960) The Semisovereign People. New York: Hold, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. (1996) When Parties Matter: A Review of The Possibility and Limits of Partisan Influence on Public Policy. European Journal of Political Research 30(2): 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, S. (2002) Agenda-Setting Dynamics in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Strøm, K. (1990) A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 34(2): 565–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulkin, T. (2005) Issue Politics in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavits, M. (2007) Principle vs. Pragmatism: Policy Shifts and Political Competition. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thesen, G. (2011) Attack and Defend! Explaining Party Responses to News, PhD Dissertation, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Thomsen, S. R. (2012) Gallup Polls. Data made available by S. R. Thomsen. Dept. of Political Science, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Weaver, K. (1986) The Politics of Blame Avoidance. Journal of Public Policy 6(4): 371–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar