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

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 513-529

  Adams, James ^a   Clark, Michael ^b   Ezrow, Lawrence ^c   Glasgow, Garrett ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33744723521     PISSN: 00925853     EISSN: 15405907     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00199.x     Document Type: Review

References (81)

1. Adams, James. 2001. Party Competition and Responsible Party Government: A Theory of Spatial Competition Based Upon Insights from Behavioral Voting Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
2. Adams, James, and Samuel Merrill, III. 1999. "Party Policy Equilibrium for Alternative Spatial Voting Models: An Application to the Norwegian Storting." European Journal of Political Research 36(6):235-55.
3. Adams, James, and Samuel Merrill, III. 2000. "Spatial Models of Candidate Competition and the 1988 French Presidential Election: Are Presidential Candidates Vote-Maximizers?" Journal of Politics 62(3):729-56.
4. Adams, James, and Samuel Merrill, III. 2005. "Parties' Policy Platforms and Elections Outcomes: The Three Faces of Policy Representation." European Journal of Political Research 44(6):899-918.
5. Adams, James, Michael Clark, Lawrence Ezrow, and Garrett Glasgow. 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(4):589-610.
6. Adams, James, Samuel Merrill, III, and Bernard Grofman. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A CrossNational Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Aldrich, John. 1983. "A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activists." American Political Science Review 77(4):974-90.
8. Alvarez, R. Michael, and Jonathan Nagler. 1995. "Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election." American Journal of Political Science 39(3):714-44.
9. Alvarez, R. Michael, and Jonathan Nagler. 1998. "Economics, Entitlements, and Social Issues: Voter Choice in the 1996 Presidential Election." American Journal of Political Science 42(4): 1349-63.
10. Alvarez, R. Michael, Jonathan Nagler, and Shaun Bowler. 2000. "Issues, Economics, and Dynamics of Multiparty Elections: The 1987 British General Election." American Political Science Review94(1):131-49.
11. Alvarez, R. Michael, Jonathan Nagler, and Jennifer Willette. 2000. "Measuring the Relative Impact of Issues and the Economy in Democratic Elections." Electoral Studies 19(2-3):237-53.
12. Amorim Neto, Octavio, and Gary Cox. 1997. "Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures and the Number of Parties." American Journal of Political Science 41(1):149-74.
13. Andrews, Josephine, and Robert Jackman. 2005. "Nothing Succeeds Like Success: Consequences of Electoral Failure for Party Leaders." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington.
14. Austen-Smith, David. 1987. "Interest Groups, Campaign Contributions, and Pluralistic Voting." Public Choice 54(2): 123-37.
15. Austen-Smith, David, and Jeffrey Banks. 1988. "Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative Outcomes." American Political Science Review 82(2):405-22.
16. Beck, Nathaniel, and Jonathan N.Katz. 1995. "What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data." American Political Science Review 89(3):634-47.
17. Beck, Nathaniel, and Jonathan N. Katz. 1996. "Nuisance vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-Series-CrossSection Models." Political Analysis 6:1-36.
18. Bernhardt, Daniel M., and Daniel E. Ingberman. 1985. "Candidate Reputations and the Incumbency Effect.'" Journal of Public Economics 27(1):47-67.
19. Brambor, Thomas, William R. Clark, and Matthew Golder. 2006. "Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses." Political Analysis 14(1):63-82.
20. Budge, Ian. 1994. "A New Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology, and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally." British Journal of Political Science 24(4):443-67.
21. Budge, Ian, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, and Eric Tanenbaum. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Burt, Gordon. 1997. "Party Policy: Decision Rule or Chance? A Note on Budge's New Spatial Theory of Party Competition." British Journal of Political Science 27(4):647-58.
23. Caramani, Daniele. 2000. Elections in Western Europe Since 1815: Electoral Results by Constituencies, CD-ROM. New York: Grove's Dictionaries.
24. Clark, Michael. 2005. "Scandalous! The Electoral Effects of Valence Issues in Western Europe, 1976-1998." Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.
25. Cox, Gary. 1990. "Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems." American Journal of Political Science 34(4):905-35.
26. Cox, Gary. 1997. Making Votes Count. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. D'Alimonte, Roberta. 1999. "Party Behavior in a Polarized System: The Italian Communist Party and the Historic Compromise." In Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, ed. Wolfgang Muller and Kaare Strom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141-71.
28. Dow, Jay K. 2001. "A Comparative Spatial Analysis of Majoritarian and Proportional Elections." Electoral Studies 20(1): 109-25.
29. Downs, An thony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
30. Endow, James, and Melvin Hinich. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Enelow, James, and Melvin Hinich. 1994. "A Test of the Predictive Dimensions Model in Spatial Voting Theory." Public Choice 78(2):155-69.
32. Erikson, Robert, and David Romero. 1990. "Candidate Equilibrium and the Behavioral Model of the Vote." American Political Science Review 84(4):1103-26.
33. Erikson, Robert, Michael MacKuen, and James Stimson. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1985. Politics against Markets: The Social Democratic Road to Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
35. Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
36. Ezrow, Lawrence. 2005. "Are Moderate Parties Rewarded in Multiparty Systems? A Pooled Analysis of Western European Elections, 1984-98." European Journal of Political Research 44(6):881-98.
37. Golder, Matt. 2003. "Explaining Variation in the Success of Extreme Right Parties in Western Europe." Comparative Political Studies 36(4):432-66.
38. Green, Donald P., Soo Yeon Kim, and David H. Yoon. 2001. "Dirty Pool." International Organization 55(2):441-68.
39. Grofman, Bernard. 2001. "The Impact of Electoral Systems on Party Polarization." Typescript.
40. Groseclose, Tim. 2001. "A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage." American Journal of Political Science 45(4):862-86.
41. Hearl, Derek. 2001. "Checking the Party Policy Estimates: Reliability." In Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998, ed. Ian Budge, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, and Eric Tanenbaum. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111-25.
42. Hillebrand, Ron, and Galen Irwin. 1999. "Changing Strategies: The Dilemma of the Dutch Labor Party." In Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, ed. Wolfgang Muller and Kaare Strom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 112-49.
43. Hinich, Melvin, and Michael Munger. 1989. "Political Investment, Voter Perceptions, and Candidate Strategy: An Equilibrium Analysis." In Models of Strategic Choice in Politics, cd. Peter Ordeshook. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 49-68.
44. Hinich, Melvin, Christian Henning, and Susumu Shakano. 2004. "Proximity versus Directional Models of Voting: Different Results but One Theory." Presented at the annual meeting of the Public Choice Society, Baltimore.
45. Hsiao, Cheng. 2003. Analysis of Panel Data. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Huber, John. 1989. "Values and Partisanship in Left-Right Orientations: Measuring Ideology." European Journal of Political Research }7(5):599-62L
47. Hug, Simon. 1995. "Third Parties in Equilibrium." Public Choice 82 (1-2): 159-80.
48. Kedar, Orit. 2004. "The Micro Foundations of (Vertically) Divided Government: Evidence from Germany." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
49. Kedar, Orit. 2005. "When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections." American Political Science Review 99(2):185-200.
50. Kitschelt, Herbert. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51. Laver, Michael, Kenneth Benoit, and John Garry. 2003. "Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data." American Political Science Review 97(2): 311-31.
52. Lewis-Beck, Michael. 1988. Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
53. Lin, Tse-Min, Yun-han Chu, and Melvin Hinich. 1996. "Conflict Displacement and Regime Transition in Taiwan: A Spatial Analysis." World Politics 48(4):453-81.
54. Lin, Tse-Min, James Enclow, and Han Dorusscn. 1999. "Equilibrium in Multicandidatc Probabilistic Spatial Voting." Public Choice 98(1-2):59-82.
55. Markus, Gregory B. 1979. Analyzing Panel Data. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
56. McDonald, Michael, and Ian Budge. 2005. Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57. McDonald, Michael, and Sylvia Mendes. 2001. "Checking the Party Policy Estimates: Convergent Validity." In Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998, ed. lan Budge, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, and Eric Tanenbaum. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 127-42.
58. McDonald, Michael, Sylvia Mendes, and Ian Budge. 2004. "What Are Elections For? Conferring the Median Mandate." British Journal of Political Science 34(l):l-26.
59. McGann, Anthony. 2002. "The Advantages of Ideological Cohesion: A Model of Constituency Representation and Electoral Competition in Multiparty Democracies." Journal of Theoretical Politics 14(1):37-70.
60. Meguid, Bonnie. 2005. "Competition between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy and Niche Party Success." American Political Science Review 99(3):347-60.
61. Merrill, Samuel, III, and Bernard Grofman. 1999. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. Merrill, Samuel, III, and James Adams. 2002. "Centripetal Incentives in Multicandidatc Elections." Journal of Theoretical Politics 14(3):275-300.
63. Miller, Gary, and Norman Schofield. 2003. "Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States." American Political Science Review 97(2):245-60.
64. Paldam, Martin. 1991. "How Robust Is the Vote Function? A Study of Seventeen Nations Over Two Decades." In Economics and Politics: The Calculus of Support, ed. Helmut Norpoth, Michael Lewis-Beck, and Jean-Dominique Lafay. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 931.
65. Pelizzo, Riccardo. 2003. "Party Position or Party Direction? An Analysis of Party Manifesto Data." West European Politics 26(2):67-89.
66. Pennings, Paul. 1998. "Party Responsiveness and Socio-Economic Problem-Solving in Western Democracies." Party Politics 4(3):393-404.
67. Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy. Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven: Yale University Press.
68. Powell, G. Bingham, and Guy Whitten. 1993. "A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of Political Context." American Journal of Political Science 37(2):391-414.
69. Przeworski, Adam, and John Sprague. 1986. Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
70. Quinn, Kevin, and Andrew Martin. 2002. "An Integrated Computational Model of Multiparty Electoral Competition." Statistical Science 17(4):405-19.
71. Roemer, John. 2001. Political Competition: Theory and Applications. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
72. Rogers, William H. 1993. "Regression Standard Errors in Clustered Samples." Stata Technical Bulletin 1.3:1923.
73. Schofield, Norman, Andrew Martin, Kevin Quinn, and David Nixon. 1998. "Multiparty Electoral Competition in the Netherlands and Germany: A Model Based on Multinomial Probit." Public Choice 97(3):257-93.
74. Schofield, Norman, and Itai Sened. 2005. "Modeling the Interaction of Parties, Activists, and Voters: Why Is the Political Center So Empty?" European Journal of Political Research 44(3):355-90.
75. Schofield, Norman, and Itai Sened. 2006. Multiparty Democracy: Parties, Elections, and Legislative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76. Share, Donald. 1999. "From Policy-Seeking to Office-Seeking: The Metamorphosis of die Spanish Socialist Workers Party." In Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, ed. Wolfgang Muller and Kaare Strom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 89-111.
77. Stimson, James, Michael MacKuen, and Robert Erikson. 1995. "Dynamic Representation." American Political Science Review 89 (3):543-65.
78. Stokes, Donald. 1963. "Spatial Models of Party Competition." American Political Science Review 57(2):368-77.
79. Tarrow, Sidney. 1989. Democracy and Disorder. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
80. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Various years. Economic Survey of Europe. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
81. Williams, Rick L. 2000. "A Note on Robust Variance Estimation for Cluster-Correlated Data." Biometrics 56(2):645-46.