IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v28y1996i11p2081-2090.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Value of Making an Extra Effort: Campaign Spending and Electoral Outcomes in Recent British General Elections—A Decomposition Approach

Author

Listed:
  • C J Pattie

    (Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, England)

  • R J Johnston

    (Department of Geography, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1SS, England)

Abstract

An increasing volume of research has shown that the amount which British political parties spend on constituency campaigns at general elections is related to their relative performance there. Because parties are better able to mobilise campaign resources where they are already electorally strong, and because they tend to remain strong in the same parts of the country over long sequences of elections, however, there are technical problems in separating out the ‘real’ impacts of campaign spending from those which reflect prior strength. A two-stage modelling procedure is introduced here which allows such separation: it provides strong evidence that where parties spend more than the average for a constituency of a certain type, they garner electoral rewards accordingly.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:28:y:1996:i:11:p:2081-2090
    DOI: 10.1068/a282081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a282081
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a282081?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. Fieldhouse, E. A. & Pattie, C. J. & Johnston, R. J., 1996. "Tactical Voting and Party Constituency Campaigning at the 1992 General Election in England," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 403-418, July.
    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. P J Taylor, 1996. "Creative Tensions," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 28(11), pages 1983-1995, November.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Abel François & Michael Visser & Lionel Wilner, 2016. "Using Political Financing Reforms to Measure Campaign Spending Effects on Electoral Outcomes," CESifo Working Paper Series 6232, CESifo.
    4. 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.
    5. Benoit S Y Crutzen & Sabine Flamand, 2021. "Leaders, Factions and Electoral Success," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-041/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Matros, Alexander, 2012. "Sad-Loser contests," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 155-162.
    7. 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.
    8. P J Taylor, 1996. "Creative Tensions," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 28(11), pages 1983-1995, November.
    9. 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.
    10. David Soberman & Loïc Sadoulet, 2007. "Campaign Spending Limits and Political Advertising," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1521-1532, October.
    11. 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.
    12. St'ephane Dupraz & Daniel Muller & Lionel Page, 2013. "Tactical Voting and Voter's Sophistication in British Elections," QuBE Working Papers 011, QUT Business School.
    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. 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:sae:envira:v:28:y:1996:i:11:p:2081-2090. 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.