IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwsop/diw_sp692.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Micro-foundation of Party Competition and Issue Ownership: The Reciprocal Effects of Citizens' Issue Salience and Party Attachments

Author

Listed:
  • Anja Neundorf
  • James Adams

Abstract

While previous research on the reciprocal effects of citizens’ issue attitudes and their party support emphasize citizens’ issue positions, political competition revolves equally around issue salience, i.e., debates over which issue areas political parties should prioritize. Using multi-wave panel data from Germany and Great Britain, we analyze the reciprocal effects of citizens’ issue salience and their party support over the period 1984-2009, and we conclude that citizens’ issue priorities both influence and are influenced by their party attachments, and, moreover, that these effects are linked to parties’ long-term policy emphases as articulated in their election manifestos. This effect is strongest among supporters of a small issue-orientated niche party, the Greens.

Suggested Citation

  • Anja Neundorf & James Adams, 2014. "The Micro-foundation of Party Competition and Issue Ownership: The Reciprocal Effects of Citizens' Issue Salience and Party Attachments," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 692, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwsop:diw_sp692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.485019.de/diw_sp0692.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Logan Dancey & Paul Goren, 2010. "Party Identification, Issue Attitudes, and the Dynamics of Political Debate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 686-699, July.
    2. James Adams & Lawrence Ezrow & Zeynep Somer‐Topcu, 2011. "Is Anybody Listening? Evidence That Voters Do Not Respond to European Parties’ Policy Statements During Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 370-382, April.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Hetherington, Marc J., 2001. "Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 619-631, September.
    6. Thomas M. Carsey & Geoffrey C. Layman, 2006. "Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(2), pages 464-477, April.
    7. Page, Benjamin I. & Jones, Calvin C., 1979. "Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(4), pages 1071-1089, December.
    8. Kroh, Martin, 2014. "Growth trajectories in the strength of party identification: The legacy of autocratic regimes," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 33, pages 90-101.
    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. Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & João V. Ferreira, 2020. "Conflicted voters: A spatial voting model with multiple party identifications," Post-Print hal-02909682, HAL.
    2. Mirko Seithe & Lena Calahorrano, 2014. "Analysing Party Preferences Using Google Trends," CESifo Working Paper Series 4631, CESifo.
    3. Bang Quan Zheng, 2022. "Elite polarization and mass policy attitudes: A study of the 2010 senate election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1202-1220, September.
    4. Calahorrano, Lena & Seithe, Mirko, 2014. "Analysing Party Preferences Using Google Trends," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100294, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    5. Gersbach, Hans & Jackson, Matthew O. & Muller, Philippe & Tejada, Oriol, 2023. "Electoral competition with costly policy changes: A dynamic perspective," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    6. Jelle Koedam, 2021. "Avoidance, ambiguity, alternation: Position blurring strategies in multidimensional party competition," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 655-675, December.
    7. Enriqueta Aragonès & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2017. "Imperfectly Informed Voters And Strategic Extremism," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(2), pages 439-471, May.
    8. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2023. "How do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multicountry Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 703-767.
    9. Kirill Zhirkov, 2014. "New Political Issues, Niche Parties, And Spatial Voting In Multiparty Systems: Immigration As A Dimension Of Electoral Competition In Scandinavia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 12/PS/2014, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    10. 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.
    11. Elizabeth U. Cascio & Na'ama Shenhav, 2020. "A Century of the American Woman Voter: Sex Gaps in Political Participation, Preferences, and Partisanship since Women's Enfranchisement," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 24-48, Spring.
    12. Göhrs, Max & Hubo, Christiane & Krott, Max, 2021. "Partisan theory in forest nature conservation policy: Empirical evidence based on four German conflict issues," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    13. Stefan Krasa & Mattias Polborn, 2014. "Policy Divergence and Voter Polarization in a Structural Model of Elections," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 31-76.
    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. Valentino Larcinese, 2009. "Information Acquisition, Ideology and Turnout: Theory and Evidence From Britain," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(2), pages 237-276, April.
    16. Russell J Dalton, 2017. "Citizens’ representation in the 2009 European Parliament elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 188-211, June.
    17. Christian R. Grose & Keesha M. Middlemass, 2010. "Listen to What I Say, Not How I Vote: Congressional Support for the President in Washington and at Home," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(1), pages 143-167, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Jan Rovny, 2012. "Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(2), pages 269-292, June.
    20. James Adams, 1998. "Partisan Voting and Multiparty Spatial Competition," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 5-31, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:diw:diwsop:diw_sp692. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sodiwde.html .

    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.