Causes and electoral consequences of party policy shifts in multiparty elections: Theoretical results and empirical evidence

Annual Review of Political Science

Volumn 15, Issue , 2012, Pages 401-419

  Adams, James ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

spatial modeling; representation; valence issues; voting behavior

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861435147     PISSN: 10942939     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-031710-101450     Document Type: Review

References (116)

1. Achen C, Bartels L. 2006. It feels like we're thinking: the rationalizing voter and electoral democracy. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., Philadelphia, Aug. 30-Sept. 3
2. 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? Br. J. Polit. Sci. 34:589-610
3. Adams J, Clark M, Ezrow L, Glasgow G. 2006. Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and the electoral consequences of western European parties' policy shifts, 1976-1998. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 50(3):513-29
4. Adams J, de Vries C, Leiter D. 2011. The reciprocal relationships between citizens' policy beliefs and their partisanship in a multiparty system: the case of the Netherlands. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., Seattle, Sept. 3-6
5. Adams J, Ezrow L. 2009. Who do European parties represent? How western European parties represent the policy preferences of opinion leaders. J. Polit. 71(1):206-23
6. Adams J, Ezrow L, Somer-Topcu Z. 2011a. Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties' policy programmes. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 55(2):370-82
7. Adams J, Ezrow L, Somer-Topcu Z. 2011b. What types of information do voters consider when they update their perceptions of parties' policy positions? An analysis of mass-elite linkages on European integration in 13 party systems. Presented at Annu. Meet. Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc., Chicago, April 3-6
8. Adams J, Haupt AB, Stoll H. 2009. What moves parties? The role of public opinion and global economic conditions in western Europe. Comp. Polit. Stud. 42(5):611-39
9. Adams J, Merrill S. 2009. Policy-seeking parties in a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation: a valence-uncertainty model. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 39(3):539-58
10. Adams J,Merrill S, Grofman B. 2005.AUnified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
11. Adams J, Somer-Topcu Z. 2009a.Moderate now, win votes later: the electoral consequences of parties' policy shifts in 25 postwar democracies. J. Polit. 71(2):678-92
12. Adams J, Somer-Topcu Z. 2009b. Do parties adjust their policies in response to rival parties' policy shifts? Spatial theory and the dynamics of party competition in twenty-five democracies.Br. J. Polit. Sci. 39(4):825-46
13. Aldrich JH. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press
14. Alesina A, Rosenthal H. 1995. Partisan Politics, Divided Government, and the Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
15. Alvarez RM, Nagler J. 1995. Economics, issues and the Perot candidacy: voter choice in the 1992 presidential election. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 39:714-44
16. Alvarez RM, Nagler J, Bowler S. 2000. Issues, economics, and the dynamics of multiparty elections: the 1987 British general election. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 94:131-49
17. Ansolabehere S, Snyder J. 2000. Valence politics and equilibrium in spatial voting models. Public Choice 103:327-36
18. Aragones E, Palfrey T. 2002. Mixed equilibrium in aDownsian model with a favored candidate. J. Econ. Theory 103(1):131-61
19. Bartels L. 2002. Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions. Polit. Behav. 24(2):117-50
20. Bawn K, Somer-Topcu Z. 2012. Government versus opposition at the polls: how governing status affects the impact of policy positions. Am. J. Polit. Sci. In press
21. Benoit K, Laver M. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge
22. Benoit K, Laver M. 2007. Estimating party policy positions: comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Elect. Stud. 26(1):90-107
23. Benoit K, Laver M, Mikhaylov S. 2009. Treating words as data with error: uncertainty in text statements of policy positions. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 53(2):495-513
24. Blair T. 2010. A Journey: My Political Life. New York: Knopf
25. Blais A, Blake D, Dion S. 1993. Do parties make a difference? Parties and the size of government in liberal democracies. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 37:40-64
26. Bruter M, EriksonR, Strauss A. 2010. Uncertain candidates, voters with valence, and the dynamics of candidate position-taking. Public Choice 44(1-2):153-68
27. Budge I. 1994. A new spatial theory of party competition: uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 4(Oct.):443-67
28. Budge I, Ezrow L,McDonald M. 2010. Ideology, party factionalism and policy change: an integrated dynamic theory. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 40:781-804
29. Budge I, Klingemann HD, Volkens A, Tannenbaum E, Bara J. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
30. Burt G. 1997. Party policy:Decision rule or chance? A note on Budge's new spatial theory of party competition. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 27:619-659
31. Calvo E, Hellwig T. 2011. Centripetal and centrifugal incentives under different electoral systems. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 55:27-41
32. Campbell A, Converse P, Miller W, Stokes S. 1960. The American Voter. New York:Wiley
33. Campbell A. 2007. The Blair Years: Extracts from the Alastair Campbell Diaries. New York: Knopf
34. Canes-Wrone B, Brady D, Cogan JF. 2002. Out of step, out of office: electoral accountability and House elections. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 96(1):127-41
35. Carmines EG, Stimson JA. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
36. Carsey TM,LaymanGC. 2006. Changing sides or changingminds? Party identification and policy preferences in the U.S. electorate. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 50(2):464-77
37. Clark M. 2009. Valence and electoral outcomes in western Europe, 1976-1998. Elect. Stud. 28(1):111-122
38. Converse P. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and Discontent, ed. D Apter. New York: Free Press
39. Cox G. 1990. Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 34:903-35
40. Dalton R. 1985. Political parties and political representation. Comp. Polit. Stud. 17:267-99
41. Dow JK. 2001. A comparative spatial analysis of majoritarian and proportional systems. Elect. Stud. 20:109-25
42. Dow JK. 2011. Party system extremism in majoritarian and proportional electoral systems. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 41:430-47
43. Downs A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row
44. Duverger M. 1959. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York:Wiley
45. Erikson R, Romero D. 1990. Candidate equilibrium and the behavioral model of the vote. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 84:1103-26
46. Erikson R, MacKuen M, Stimson J. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
47. EzrowL. 2007. The variance matters: how party systems represent the preferences of voters. J. Polit. 69(1):182-92
48. Ezrow L. 2008. Parties' policy programmes and the dog that didn't bark: no evidence that proportional systems promote extreme party positioning. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 38(3):479-97
49. Ezrow L. 2011. Reply to Dow: Party positions, votes, and the mediating role of electoral systems? Br. J. Polit. Sci. 41:448-52
50. Ezrow L, De Vries CE, Steenbergen M, Edwards EE. 2011. Mean voter representation versus partisan constituency representation: Do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters? Party Polit. 17(3):275-301
51. Fortunato D, Stevenson R. 2012. Perceptions of partisan ideologies: the effects of coalition participation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. In press
52. Gabel MJ, Huber JD. 2000. Putting parties in their place. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 44:94-103
53. Goren P, Federico CM, Kittilson MC. 2009. Source cues, partisan identities, and political value expression. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 53(4):805-20
54. Goren P. 2005. Party identification and core political values. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 49:881-96
55. Green DP, Shapiro I. 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
56. Green J. 2007. When voters and parties agree: valence issues and party competition. Polit. Stud. 55(3):629-55
57. Green J. 2011. A test of core vote theories: the British Conservatives, 1997-2005.Br. J. Polit. Sci. 41(4):735-64
58. Grofman B. 2004. Downs and two-party convergence. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 7:25-46
59. Groseclose T. 2001. A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 45(Oct.):862-86
60. Haupt AB. 2010. Parties' responses to economic globalization. What is left for the left and right for the right? Party Pol. 16(1):5-27
61. Hinich M, Munger M. 1994. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. Mich. Press
62. Hobolt SB, Klemmensen R. 2008. One for all, all for one: issue competition in party leader rhetoric. Presented at Politics of Change Workshop, Amsterdam, June 13-14
63. Imbeau LM, Petry F, Lamari M. 2001. Left-right party ideology and government policies: a meta-analysis. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 30:1-29
64. Iversen T. 1994. The logics of electoral politics: spatial, directional, andmobilization effects.Comp. Polit. Stud. 27:155-89
65. Janda K, Harmel R, Edens C, Goff P. 1995. Changes in party identity: evidence from party manifestos. Party Polit. 1(2):171-96
66. Jessee S. 2012. Ideology and Spatial Voting in American Elections. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
67. Kirchheimer O. 1966. The transformation of western European party systems. In Political Parties and Political Development, ed. J LaPalombara, MWeiner. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
68. Kitschelt H. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
69. Klingemann HD, Volkens A, Bara J, Budge I. 2006. Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates For Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990-2003. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
70. Kollman K, Miller J, Page S. 1992. Adaptive parties in spatial elections. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 86(Dec.):929-37
71. Laver M, Schofield N. 1990. Multiparty Governments: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
72. Laver M. 2005. Policy and the dynamics of political competition. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99(May):263-81
73. Laver M, Sergenti E. 2012. Party Competition: An Agent Based Model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
74. Lin T, Enelow JM, DorussenH. 1999. Equilibrium in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting. Public Choice 98:59-82
75. MarksG,HoogheL, SteenbergenMR,BakkerR. 2007. Cross validating data on party positioning on European integration. Elect. Stud. 26:23-38
76. Martin LW, Stevenson RT. 2010. Incumbency, context, and government formation in multiparty parliamentary democracies. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 104(2):503-18
77. McDonald M, Budge I. 2005. Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring theMedianMandate.Oxford, UK:Oxford Univ. Press
78. McGann A. 2002. The advantages of ideological cohesion: a model of constituency representation and electoral competition in multiparty democracies. J. Theor. Polit. 14(1):37-70
79. Meguid B. 2005. Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99(3):347-259
80. Meguid B. 2008. Competition Between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes inWestern Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
81. Merrill S, Adams J. 2002. Centrifugal incentives in multi-candidate elections. J. Theor. Polit. 14:273-300
82. Milazzo C, Adams J, Green J. 2012. Are voter decision rules endogenous to parties' policy strategies? A model with applications to elite depolarization in post-Thatcher Britain. J. Polit. 74(1): 262-76
83. Miller G, Schofield N. 2003. Activists and partisan realignment in the United States. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 97:245-60
84. Müller WC, Strøm K, eds. 1999. Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Choices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
85. Nagel J, Wlezien C. 2010. Center-party strength and major-party polarization in Britain. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 40(2):279-304
86. Panebianco A. 1988. Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
87. Pierce R. 2000. Candidate evaluations and presidential electoral choices in France. In Leaders' Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections, ed. A King. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
88. Poole K, Rosenthal H. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll-Call Voting. NewYork: OxfordUniv. Press
89. Przeworski A, Sprague J. 1986. Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
90. RayL. 2003.Whenpartiesmatter: the conditional influence of party positions on voter opinion about European integration. J. Polit. 65(4):978-94
91. Roemer J. 2001. Political Competition: Theory and Applications. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
92. Schofield N. 2003. Valence competition in the spatial stochastic model. J. Theor. Polit. 15:371-83
93. Schofield N. 2007. The mean voter theorem: necessary and sufficient conditions for convergent equilibrium. Rev. Econ. Stud. 74(3):965-80
94. Schofield N, Sened I. 2005a. Multiparty competition in Israel, 1988-1996. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 35(4):635-63
95. Schofield N, Sened I. 2005b. Modeling the interaction of parties, activists and voters: why is the political center so empty? Eur. J. Pol. Res. 44(3):355-90
96. Schofield N, Sened S. 2006. Multiparty Parliaments: Parties, Elections and Legislative Politics in Parliamentary Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
97. Schofield N, Cataife G. 2007. A model of political competition with activists applied to elections in Argentina, 1985-1995. Math. Soc. Sci. 53(3):213-31
98. Serra G. 2010. Polarization of what? A model of elections with endogenous valence. J. Polit. 72(2):426-37
99. Serra G. 2011. Why primaries? The party's tradeoff between policy and valence. J. Theor. Polit. 23(1):21-51
100. Seyd P. 1998. Tony Blair and New Labour. In New Labour Triumphs: Britain at the Polls, ed. A King et al., pp. 49-74. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House
101. Somer-Topcu Z. 2009. Timely decisions: the effects of past national elections on party policy. J. Polit. 71(1):238-48
102. Somer-Topcu Z, Williams L. 2011. Opposition party policy shifts in response to no-confidence motions. Typescript
103. Soroka S, Wlezien C. 2005. Opinion-policy dynamics: public preferences and public expenditure in the UK. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 35:665-89
104. Soroka S, Wlezien C. 2010. Degrees of Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
105. Spoon J. 2011. Political Survival of Small Parties in Western Europe. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. Mich. Press
106. Steenbergen M, Marks G. 2007. Evaluating expert surveys. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 46(3):347-66
107. Steenbergen MR, Edwards EE, de Vries CE. 2007. Who's cueing whom? Mass-elite linkages and the future of European integration. Eur. Union Polit. 8(1):13-35
108. Stokes D. 1963. Spatial models of party competition. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 57:368-77
109. Stokes D. 1992. Valence politics. In Electoral Politics, ed. D Kavanaugh. Oxford, UK: Clarendon
110. Stokes S. 2001. Mandates andDemocracy:Neoliberalism by Surprise in Latin America.Cambridge,UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
111. Tavits M. 2007. Principle versus pragmatism: policy shifts and political competition. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 51(Jan.):151-65
112. Ward H, Ezrow L, Dorussen H. 2011. Globalization, party positions, and the median voter. World Politics 63(3):509-37
113. Warwick P. 2001. Coalition policies in parliamentary democracies: who gets how much and why. Comp. Polit. Stud. 34(10):1212-36
114. Wittman D. 1990. Spatial strategies when candidates have policy preferences. In Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting, ed. J Enelow, M Hinich. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
115. Wlezien C. 1995. The public as thermostat: dynamics of preferences for spending. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 39:981-1000
116. Zaller J. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press