Restricted access

Research article

First published online June 10, 2013

Request permissions

Does the Ideological Dispersion of Parties Mediate the Electoral Impact of Valence? A Cross-National Study of Party Support in Nine Western European Democracies

Michael Clark and Debra LeiterView all authors and affiliations

Volume 47, Issue 2

https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013488537

Abstract
References
Biographies

Abstract

Previous empirical research has found evidence suggesting that the character-based valence attributes of parties, such as competence and integrity, can have notable effects of levels of electoral support (Clark, 2009; Mondak, 1995). A related strand of literature analyzes the importance of parties’ policy positions. In this study, we bring together research on valence and party dispersion to examine whether the ideological dispersion of parties in a party system mediates the electoral impact of valence. We perform empirical analyses covering nine Western European countries over the period 1976 to 2003, and test the hypothesis that when parties are more ideologically proximate to the mean voter position, character-based valence attributes will be of greater significance in determining parties’ electoral fortunes. Surprisingly, we find no support for this hypothesis. Instead, our analyses suggest that the more ideologically dispersed parties are, the more likely it is that character-based valence attributes will affect parties’ vote shares.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

Abney R., Adams J., Clark M., Easton M., Ezrow L., Kosmidis S., Neundorf A. (2013). When does valence matter? Heighted valence effects for governing parties during election campaigns. Party Politics, 19, 61-82.

Adams J. (1999). Policy divergence in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting. Public Choice, 99, 259-274.

Adams J. (2001). A theory of spatial competition with biased voters: Party policies viewed temporally and comparatively. British Journal of Political Science, 31, 121-158.

Adams J., Clark M., Ezrow L., Glasgow G. (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.

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. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 513-529.

Adams J., Ezrow L., Merrill S. III, Somer-Topcu Z. (2013). Does collective responsibility for performance alter party strategies? Policy-seeking parties in proportional systems. British Journal of Political Science, 43, 1-23.

Adams J., Green J., Milazzo C. (2012). Has the British public depolarized along with political elites? An American perspective on British public opinion. Comparative Political Studies, 45, 507-530.

Adams J., Merrill S. III. (2007). Policy seeking parties in a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation: A valence uncertainty model. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 539-558.

Adams J., Merrill S. III, Grofman B. (2005). A unified theory of party competition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Adams J., Merrill S. III, Simas E. N., Stone W. J. (2011). When candidates value good character: A spatial model with applications to Congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 73, 17-30.

Adams J., Somer-Topcu Z. (2009). Moderate now, win votes later: The electoral consequences of parties’ policy shifts in 25 postwar democracies. Journal of Politics, 71, 678-692.

Alvarez R. M., Nagler J. (1995). Economics, issues, and the Perot candidacy: Voter choice in the 1992 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 714-744.

Alvarez R. M., Nagler J. (1998). Economics, entitlements, and social issues: Voter choice in the 1996 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 139-163.

Alvarez R. M., Nagler J., Willette J. R. (2000). Measuring the relative impact of issues and the economy in democratic elections. Electoral Studies, 19, 237-253.

Anderson C. J. (1995). Blaming the government: Citizens and the economy in five European democracies. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Anderson C. J. (2000). Economic voting and political context: A comparative context. Electoral Studies, 19, 151-170.

Anderson R., Heath A., Sinnott R. (2002). Political knowledge and electoral choice. In Bennie L., Rallings C., Tonge J., Webb P. (Eds.), British elections and parties review (Vol. 12, pp. 11-27). London, England: Frank Cass.

Ansolabehere S., Snyder J. (2000). Valence politics and equilibrium in spatial model elections. Public Choice, 103, 327-336.

Beck N., Katz J. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89, 634-647.

Beck N., Katz J. N. (1996). Nuisance vs. substance: Specifying and estimating time-series cross-section models. Political Analysis, 6, 1-36.

Belanger E., Meguid B. (2008). Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies, 27, 477-491.

Bogdanor V. (2007). Social democracy. In Seldon A. (Ed.), Blair’s Britain: 1997-2007 (pp. 164-184). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brambor T., Clark W. R., Golder M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63-82.

Budge I. (1994). A new spatial theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology, and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science, 24, 443-467.

Budge I., Klingemann H., Volkens A., Bara J., Tanenbaum E. (Eds.). (2001). Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments, 1945-1998. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Burk J. (1999). Public support for peacekeeping in Lebanon and Somalia: Assessing the casualties hypothesis. Political Science Quarterly, 114, 53-78.

Buttice M., Stone W. J. (2012). Candidates matter: Policy and quality differences in congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 74, 870-887.

Clark M. (2009). Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe, 1976-1998. Electoral Studies, 28, 111-122.

Clarke H. D., Sanders D., Stewart M. C., Whiteley P. (2004). Political choice in Britain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Clarke H. D., Sanders D., Stewart M. C., Whitelely P. (2009). Performance politics and the British voter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cox G. (1990). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 903-935.

Curtice J., Holmberg S. (2005). Party leaders and party choice. In Thomassen J. (Ed.), The European voter: A comparative study of modern democracies (pp. 235-253). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Dahlberg S. (2009). Political parties and perceptual agreement. Electoral Studies, 28, 270-288.

Downs A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Erikson R., MacKuen M., Stimson J. (2002). The macro polity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ezrow L. (2010). Linking citizens and parties: How electoral systems matter for political representation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ezrow L., Xezonakis G. (2011). Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings: A cross-national analysis of twelve European party systems, 1976-2003. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 1152-1178.

Fiorina M. (1977). Representatives, roll-calls, and constituencies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Fiorina M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Funk C. L. (1996). The impact of scandal on candidate evaluations: An experimental test of the role of candidate traits. Political Behaviour, 18, 1-24.

Funk C. L. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluations. Journal of Politics, 61, 700-720.

Gelman A., Hill J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Green J. (2007). When voters and parties agree: Valence issues and party competition. Political Studies, 55, 629-655.

Green D. P., Kim S. Y., Yoon D. H. (2001). Dirty pool. International Organization, 55, 441-468.

Green J., Binzer Hobolt S. (2008). Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies, 27, 460-474.

Grose C. R. (2005). Do legislators use pork projects to deviate from constituents’ interests? Valence advantages and position-taking in Congress. Unpublished manuscript.

Grose C. R., Globetti S. (2008, April 5-8). Valence voters: Images, issues, and citizen vote choice in U.S. senate elections. Paper prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

Grose C. R., Middlemass K. M. (2005, April 7-10). Did 9/11 allow members of Congress to vote more extremely? Homeland security, valence issues, and legislator ideological distance from their constituents. Paper prepared for delivery at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

Groseclose T. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 862-886.

Hearl D. J. (2001). Checking the party policy estimates: Reliability. In Budge I., Klingemann H. D., Volkens A., Bara J., Tanenbaum E. (Eds.), Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945-1998 (pp. 111-126). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hsaio C. (2003). Analysis of panel data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kam C. D., Franzese R. J. Jr.(2007). Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

King A. (2002). Do leaders’ personalities really matter. In King A. (Ed.), Leaders’ personalities and the outcomes of democratic elections (pp. 1-43). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Laver M., Benoit K., Garry J. (2003). Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review, 97, 311-331.

Lewis-Beck M. (1988). Economics and elections: The major Western democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan press.

Marks G. (Ed.). (2007). Special symposium: Comparing measures of party positioning: Expert, manifesto, and survey data. Electoral Studies, 26, 1-141.

McCurley C., Mondak J. 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.

McDonald M. D., Budge I. (2005). Elections, parties, democracy: Conferring the median mandate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

McDonald M. D., Mendes S. M. (2001). The policy space of party manifestos. In Laver M. (Ed.), Estimating the policy positions of political actors (pp. 90-114). London, England: Routledge.

Meguid B. (2005). Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review, 99, 247-259.

Meguid B. (2008). Party competition between unequals: Strategies and electoral fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Merrill S. III, Adams J. (2002). Centrifugal incentives in multi-candidate elections. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14, 275-300.

Mondak J. J. (1995). Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of Congressional incumbents. Journal of Politics, 57, 1043-1069.

Nielsen D. L. (2003). Supplying trade reform: Political institutions and liberalisation in middle income presidential democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 470-491.

Paldam M. (1991). How robust is the vote function? A study of seventeen nations over four decades. In Norpoth H., Lewis-Beck M. S., Lafay J. D. (Eds.), Economics and politics: The calculus of support (pp. 9-32). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Palmer H. D., Whitten G. D. (2000). Government competence, economic performance, and endogenous election dates. Electoral Studies, 19, 413-426.

Pancer M. S., Brown S. D., Widdis Barr C. (1999). Forming impressions of political leaders: A cross-national comparison. Political Psychology, 20, 345-368.

Pardos S. (2011). Valence is not about consensus. Unpublished manuscript.

Pierce R. (1995). Choosing the chief: Presidential elections in France and the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Schofield N. (2003). Valence competition in the spatial stochastic model. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15, 371-383.

Serra G. (2010). Polarization of what? A model of elections with endogenous valence. Journal of Politics, 72, 426-437.

Serra G. (2011). Why primaries? The party’s tradeoff between policy and valence. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 23, 21-51.

Stokes D. E. (1963). Spatial models and party competition. American Political Science Review, 57, 368-377.

Stokes D. E. (1992). Valence politics. In Kavanagh D. (Ed.), Electoral politics (pp. 141-164). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Stone W. J., Simas E. N. (2010). Candidate valence and ideological placement in U.S. house elections. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 371-388.

Sullivan J. L., Aldrich J. H., Borgida E., Rahn W. (1990). Candidate appraisal and human nature: Man and superman in the 1984 election. Political Psychology, 11, 459-484.

Warwick P. (1999). Ministerial autonomy or ministerial accommodation? Contested bases of government survival in parliamentary democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 29, 369-394.

Biographies

Michael Clark is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Northern Illinois University. His research interests include the study of valence dimensions of party and candidate evaluation, party strategies, political representation, and electoral outcomes. His work has been published in the British Journal of Political Science, the American Journal of Political Science, Electoral Studies, and Party Politics.

Debra Leiter is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Missouri–Kansas City. Her research focuses on the intersection of elections, voters, and political parties, with a particular emphasis on the role the information environment plays in altering voter decision-making processes, and party strategies. Her work has been published in the British Journal of Political Science and Western European Politics.

|

You currently have no access to this content. Visit the access options page to authenticate.