IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v16y2015i2p176-193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differentiated party response: The effect of Euroskeptic public opinion on party positions

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Williams
  • Jae-Jae Spoon

Abstract

Do parties respond to voters’ preferences on European integration in elections to the European Parliament? In this article, we argue that political parties do respond to voters’ Euroskeptic attitudes, but that party type conditions responsiveness. In particular, we posit that larger parties are more responsive and that governing parties are less responsive to aggregate Euroskepticism. To test our theoretical expectations, we use data from the Euromanifestos Project and European Election Study from 1989 to 2009 for 252 parties across 26 European Union Member States. Our findings have important implications for understanding democratic representation in the European Union and the second-order nature of elections to the European Parliament.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Williams & Jae-Jae Spoon, 2015. "Differentiated party response: The effect of Euroskeptic public opinion on party positions," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(2), pages 176-193, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:16:y:2015:i:2:p:176-193
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116514564702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116514564702
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116514564702?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. Margit Tavits, 2007. "Principle vs. Pragmatism: Policy Shifts and Political Competition," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 151-165, January.
    2. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:44:y:2006:i::p:533-562 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Burden, Barry C., 2004. "Candidate Positioning in US Congressional Elections," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 211-227, April.
    4. Kaeding, Michael, 2006. "Determinants of Transposition Delay in the European Union," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 229-253, December.
    5. Meguid, Bonnie M., 2005. "Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 347-359, August.
    6. Beck, Nathaniel & Katz, Jonathan N., 1995. "What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 634-647, September.
    7. Wittman, Donald A., 1973. "Parties as Utility Maximizers," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(2), pages 490-498, June.
    8. Adams, James & Clark, Michael & Ezrow, Lawrence & Glasgow, Garrett, 2004. "Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(4), pages 589-610, October.
    9. Wittman, Donald, 1983. "Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 142-157, March.
    10. Stimson, James A. & Mackuen, Michael B. & Erikson, Robert S., 1995. "Dynamic Representation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 543-565, September.
    11. James Adams & Michael Clark & Lawrence Ezrow & Garrett Glasgow, 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, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 513-529, July.
    12. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    13. Andreas Follesdal & Simon Hix, 2006. "Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 533-562, September.
    14. Adams, James & Somer-Topcu, Zeynep, 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, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 825-846, October.
    15. Brambor, Thomas & Clark, William Roberts & Golder, Matt, 2006. "Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 63-82, January.
    16. Park, Rolla Edward & Mitchell, Bridger M., 1980. "Estimating the autocorrelated error model with trended data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 185-201, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ryan Bakker & Seth Jolly & Jonathan Polk, 2018. "Multidimensional incongruence and vote switching in Europe," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 267-296, July.

    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. Jae-Jae Spoon, 2012. "How salient is Europe? An analysis of European election manifestos, 1979–2004," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 558-579, December.
    2. Adam, Antonis & Ftergioti, Stamatia, 2019. "Neighbors and friends: How do European political parties respond to globalization?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 369-384.
    3. Edoardo Cefalà, 2022. "The political consequences of mass repatriation," Discussion Papers 2022-05, University of Nottingham, GEP.
    4. Bilge Öztürk Göktuna, 2019. "A dynamic model of party membership and ideologies," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(2), pages 209-243, April.
    5. Christopher J Williams, 2016. "Issuing reasoned opinions: The effect of public attitudes towards the European Union on the usage of the 'Early Warning System'," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 504-521, September.
    6. Catherine E. De Vries & Sara B. Hobolt, 2012. "When dimensions collide: The electoral success of issue entrepreneurs," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(2), pages 246-268, June.
    7. Abou-Chadi, Tarik & Krause, Werner, 2020. "The Causal Effect of Radical Right Success on Mainstream Parties’ Policy Positions: A Regression Discontinuity Approach," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 50(3), pages 829-847.
    8. Gaetan Fournier & Alberto Grillo & Yevgeny Tsodikovich, 2023. "Strategic flip-flopping in political competition," Papers 2305.02834, arXiv.org.
    9. Krause, Werner, 2020. "Appearing moderate or radical? Radical left party success and the two-dimensional political space," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 43(7), pages 1365-1387.
    10. Jelle Koedam, 2021. "Avoidance, ambiguity, alternation: Position blurring strategies in multidimensional party competition," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 655-675, December.
    11. Forand, Jean Guillaume, 2014. "Two-party competition with persistent policies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 64-91.
    12. Millner, Antony & Ollivier, Hélène & Simon, Leo, 2014. "Policy experimentation, political competition, and heterogeneous beliefs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 84-96.
    13. Selim Jürgen Ergun, 2015. "Centrist’S Curse? An Electoral Competition Model With Credibility Constraints," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-18, December.
    14. Christopher J. Williams & John Ishiyama, 2022. "How voter distributions, issue ownership, and position influence party emphasis," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1084-1100, September.
    15. Bayerlein, Michael, 2021. "Chasing the Other 'Populist Zeitgeist'? Mainstream Parties and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 240403, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    16. Ben Lockwood & James Rockey, 2020. "Negative Voters? Electoral Competition with Loss-Aversion," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(632), pages 2619-2648.
    17. Ingo Rohlfing & Tobias Schafföner, 2019. "The time-varying relationship between economic globalization and the ideological center of gravity of party systems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-26, February.
    18. Goodin, Robert E. & Güth, Werner & Sausgruber, Rupert, 2008. "When to Coalesce: Early Versus Late Coalition Announcement in an Experimental Democracy," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(1), pages 181-191, January.
    19. Tim Bale & Christoffer Green‐Pedersen & André Krouwel & Kurt Richard Luther & Nick Sitter, 2010. "If You Can't Beat Them, Join Them? Explaining Social Democratic Responses to the Challenge from the Populist Radical Right in Western Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(3), pages 410-426, June.
    20. Walter J. Stone & Elizabeth N. Simas, 2010. "Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 371-388, April.

    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:sae:eeupol:v:16:y:2015:i:2:p:176-193. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.