IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v52y2004i2p289-306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Electoral Impact of Constituency Campaigning in Britain, 1992–2001

Author

Listed:
  • David Denver
  • Gordon Hands
  • Iain MacAllister

Abstract

Political parties maintain local organisations and recruit members mainly to fight elections. For most of the post‐war period, however, the dominant view among analysts has been that constituency campaigning in British general elections has little or no effect on election outcomes. This view has been challenged over the last ten years or so. Evidence derived from post‐election surveys of constituency election agents following the 1992, 1997 and 2001 general elections is used here to show that the intensity of constituency campaigning significantly affects turnout levels and, for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, levels of party support. There is also some evidence that Conservative campaigning affected constituency variations in the party's performance in 2001. The conclusions reached on the basis of aggregate‐level analysis are supported by analysis of individual‐level data derived from British Election Study surveys. The effects of campaigning are not large, but they are clear and significant – and sufficient to affect the numbers of seats won by the major parties. In the light of this, parties have good reasons to maintain healthy local organisations.

Suggested Citation

  • David Denver & Gordon Hands & Iain MacAllister, 2004. "The Electoral Impact of Constituency Campaigning in Britain, 1992–2001," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 52(2), pages 289-306, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:52:y:2004:i:2:p:289-306
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2004.00480.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2004.00480.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2004.00480.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pattie, Charles J. & Johnston, Ronald J. & Fieldhouse, Edward A., 1995. "Winning the Local Vote: The Effectiveness of Constituency Campaign Spending in Great Britain, 1983–1992," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(4), pages 969-983, December.
    2. Pattie, C. J. & Johnston, R. J., 2003. "Hanging on the Telephone? Doorstep and Telephone Canvassing at the British General Election of 1997," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 303-322, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Soberman & Loïc Sadoulet, 2007. "Campaign Spending Limits and Political Advertising," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1521-1532, October.
    2. Abel François & Michael Visser & Lionel Wilner, 2022. "The petit effect of campaign spending on votes: using political financing reforms to measure spending impacts in multiparty elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 192(1), pages 29-57, July.
    3. Anselm Hager & Johannes Hermle & Lukas Hensel & Christopher Roth, 2020. "Does Party Competition Affect Political Activism?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8431, CESifo.
    4. Abel François & Michael Visser & Lionel WILNER, 2016. "Campaign spending and legislative election outcomes: Exploiting the French political financing reforms of the mid-1990s," Working Papers 2016-28, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    5. Charles Pattie & Patrick Seyd & Paul Whiteley, 2003. "Citizenship and Civic Engagement: Attitudes and Behaviour in Britain," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(3), pages 443-468, October.
    6. Kenneth Benoit & Michael Marsh, 2008. "The Campaign Value of Incumbency: A New Solution to the Puzzle of Less Effective Incumbent Spending," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 874-890, October.
    7. R J Johnston & I MacAllister & C J Pattie, 1999. "The Funding of Constituency Party General Election Campaigns in Great Britain," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 17(4), pages 391-409, August.
    8. Ron Johnston & Todd Hartman & Charles Pattie, 2019. "Predicting general election outcomes: campaigns and changing voter knowledge at the 2017 general election in England," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 1369-1389, May.
    9. Carl Müller-Crepon, 2022. "Local ethno-political polarization and election violence in majoritarian vs. proportional systems," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(2), pages 242-258, March.
    10. Benoit S Y Crutzen & Sabine Flamand, 2021. "Leaders, Factions and Electoral Success," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-041/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. C J Pattie & R J Johnston, 1996. "The Value of Making an Extra Effort: Campaign Spending and Electoral Outcomes in Recent British General Elections—A Decomposition Approach," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 28(11), pages 2081-2090, November.
    12. Matros, Alexander, 2012. "Sad-Loser contests," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 155-162.
    13. Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher, 2003. "Explaining Split‐Ticket Voting at the 1979 and 1997 General and Local Elections in England," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(3), pages 558-572, October.
    14. P J Taylor, 1996. "Creative Tensions," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 28(11), pages 1983-1995, November.
    15. Robert K. Fleck, 1999. "Electoral Incentives, Public Policy, and the New Deal Realignment," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(3), pages 377-404, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:52:y:2004:i:2:p:289-306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.