IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v53y2009i1p190-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Friction and Party Manifesto Change in 25 Countries, 1945–98

Author

Listed:
  • Stefaan Walgrave
  • Michiel Nuytemans

Abstract

Political processes are affected by “friction.” Due to cognitive limitations and institutional delays, political agendas do not adapt smoothly to real‐world impulses; political agendas either ignore them or overreact. The first question this article tackles is whether the same punctuated change process can be observed in party manifestos. Secondly, it examines whether there are differences across political systems and across party lines. Thirdly, the study tries to account for differences in the degree of “punctuatedness” of party manifestos. Drawing on the vast dataset of the Manifesto Research Group, the article shows that party manifestos are indeed characterized by friction and resistance to change; it also establishes that there are considerable differences in frictional patterns between parties and political systems; and it finds that electoral fragmentation, government participation, and electoral volatility are key to understanding these differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefaan Walgrave & Michiel Nuytemans, 2009. "Friction and Party Manifesto Change in 25 Countries, 1945–98," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 190-206, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:53:y:2009:i:1:p:190-206
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00365.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00365.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00365.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. Jones, Bryan D. & Sulkin, Tracy & Larsen, Heather A., 2003. "Policy Punctuations in American Political Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(1), pages 151-169, February.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Budge, Ian, 1994. "A New Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(4), pages 443-467, October.
    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. Nguyen, Ha Thi Thu & Larimo, Jorma & Ghauri, Pervez, 2022. "Understanding foreign divestment: The impacts of economic and political friction," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 675-691.
    2. Tevfik Murat Yildirim, 2022. "Stability and change in the public’s policy agenda: a punctuated equilibrium approach," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 337-350, June.
    3. Tao Peng & Tom Christensen & Liu Yihong & Chu Chun, 2024. "Power Structure, Issue Priorities and Attention Dynamics of Leaders from 2001 to 2017 in China," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 351-368, March.

    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. Jelle Koedam, 2021. "Avoidance, ambiguity, alternation: Position blurring strategies in multidimensional party competition," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 655-675, December.
    2. Bilge Öztürk Göktuna, 2019. "A dynamic model of party membership and ideologies," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(2), pages 209-243, April.
    3. Benjamin Michallet & Giuseppe Lucio Gaeta & François Facchini, 2015. "Greening Up or Not? The Determinants Political Parties’ Environmental Concern: An Empirical Analysis Based on European Data (1970-2008)," Working Papers 2015.25, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    4. Fuchs, Dieter, 1997. "Kriterien demokratischer Performanz in Liberalen Demokratien," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions and Social Change FS III 97-203, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. 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).
    6. James Adams, 1998. "Partisan Voting and Multiparty Spatial Competition," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 5-31, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Robert Rohrschneider & Stephen Whitefield, 2016. "Responding to growing European Union-skepticism? The stances of political parties toward European integration in Western and Eastern Europe following the financial crisis," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 138-161, March.
    9. Bjørnskov, Christian, 2005. "Political Ideology and Economic Freedom," Working Papers 05-8, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    10. Michallet, Benjamin & Gaeta, Giuseppe Lucio & Facchini, Francois, 2015. "Greening up or not? The determinants of political parties’ environmental concern: an empirical analysis based on European data (1970-2008)," MPRA Paper 63335, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Mar 2015.
    11. Robert Ford & Matthew J. Goodwin, 2010. "Angry White Men: Individual and Contextual Predictors of Support for the British National Party," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(1), pages 1-25, February.
    12. Jasper Muis, 2010. "Simulating Political Stability and Change in the Netherlands (1998-2002): an Agent-Based Model of Party Competition with Media Effects Empirically Tested," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 13(2), pages 1-4.
    13. Chatterji, Aaron K. & Kim, Joowon & McDevitt, Ryan C., 2018. "School spirit: Legislator school ties and state funding for higher education," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 254-269.
    14. James F. Adams & Ernest W. Adams, 2000. "The Geometry of Voting Cycles," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 131-153, April.
    15. Daniel Kselman & Emerson Niou, 2011. "Protest voting in plurality elections: a theory of voter signaling," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 395-418, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Armèn Hakhverdian, 2009. "Capturing Government Policy on the Left–Right Scale: Evidence from the United Kingdom, 1956–2006," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(4), pages 720-745, December.
    18. Stefano Bartolini, 2000. "Collusion, Competition and Democracy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(1), pages 33-65, January.
    19. Benjamin Michallet & Giuseppe Gaeta & François Facchini, 2015. "Greening up or not? The determinants of political parties' environmental concern: an empirical analysis based on European data (1970-2008)," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01154006, HAL.
    20. Luigi Curini, 2015. "Explaining party ideological stances," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 79-96, 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:wly:amposc:v:53:y:2009:i:1:p:190-206. 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.