IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ciwdps/12020.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why so negative? Negative party positioning in spatial models of voting

Author

Listed:
  • Hoch, Felix
  • Kellermann, Kim Leonie

Abstract

Why should political parties say what they do not want instead of saying what they want? In this paper, we introduce the concept of negative positioning into spatial models of voting and discuss its relevance as a campaigning tool in European multiparty systems. By negative positioning, we refer to the rejection, denial or criticism of opposing positions on a political issue scale without providing information on what a party's own position is instead. We argue that negative positioning is an attractive tool in reaction to high issue salience among voters as it allows to acknowledge the respective issue without costly commitment to or design of own policy proposals. We provide a first empirical test of our concept for elections held in 26 European countries between 2002 and 2018, examining immigration as an issue with a highly volatile salience. We use data on voter issue salience from the Eurobarometer and on party positions from the Manifesto Project Database. Indeed we find that if an issue is highly salient among voters, parties increase the share of negative positioning on that issue in their manifestos. Interestingly, negative positioning is more prevalent among smaller, opposition and extreme parties.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoch, Felix & Kellermann, Kim Leonie, 2020. "Why so negative? Negative party positioning in spatial models of voting," CIW Discussion Papers 1/2020, University of Münster, Center for Interdisciplinary Economics (CIW).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ciwdps:12020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/226690/1/174037214X.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carmines, Edward G. & Stimson, James A., 1980. "The Two Faces of Issue Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 78-91, March.
    2. Maarten C. W. Janssen & Mariya Teteryatnikova, 2017. "Mystifying but not misleading: when does political ambiguity not confuse voters?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(3), pages 501-524, September.
    3. Annemarie S. Walter, 2014. "Negative Campaigning in Western Europe: Similar or Different?," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 62, pages 42-60, 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. van Gils, Freek & Müller, Wieland & Prüfer, Jens, 2020. "Big Data and Democracy," Other publications TiSEM ecc11d8d-1478-4dd2-b570-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Lee Dutter, 1985. "An application of the multicandidate calculus of voting to the 1972 and 1976 German federal elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 405-424, January.
    3. Clareta Treger, 2023. "When do people accept government paternalism? Theory and experimental evidence," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 195-214, January.
    4. Marthe Hårvik Austgulen, 2016. "Environmentally Sustainable Textile Consumption—What Characterizes the Political Textile Consumers?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 441-466, December.
    5. Denisova, Irina & Eller, Markus & Frye, Timothy & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2009. "Who Wants To Revise Privatization? The Complementarity of Market Skills and Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(2), pages 284-304, May.
    6. Alston, Lee J. & Jenkins, Jeffery A. & Nonnenmacher, Tomas, 2006. "Who Should Govern Congress? Access to Power and the Salary Grab of 1873," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(3), pages 674-706, September.
    7. Ted G. Jelen & Linda A. Lockett, 2014. "Religion, Partisanship, and Attitudes Toward Science Policy," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440135, January.
    8. Christopher Z. Mooney & Mei-Hsien Lee, 1999. "Morality Policy Reinvention: State Death Penalties," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 566(1), pages 80-92, November.
    9. David T Yi, 2009. "The effect of post-election asymmetry information possibility on pre-election policy platform choices," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(4), pages 3233-3243.
    10. Black, Iain & Veloutsou, Cleopatra, 2017. "Working consumers: Co-creation of brand identity, consumer identity and brand community identity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 416-429.
    11. repec:esx:essedp:748 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Mariano Torcal & Sergio Martini & Lluis Orriols, 2018. "Deciding about the unknown: The effect of party and ideological cues on forming opinions about the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 502-523, September.
    13. Hermann Schmitt & Jacques Thomassen, 2000. "Dynamic Representation: The Case of European Integration," MZES Working Papers 21, MZES.
    14. 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.
    15. Schipper, Burkhard C. & Woo, Hee Yeul, 2019. "Political Awareness, Microtargeting of Voters, and Negative Electoral Campaigning," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 14(1), pages 41-88, January.
    16. Tolvanen, Juha, 2024. "On political ambiguity and anti-median platforms," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    17. Lee Drutman, 2022. "Moderation, Realignment, or Transformation? Evaluating Three Approaches to America’s Crisis of Democracy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 699(1), pages 158-174, January.
    18. Seth J. Hill & Chris Tausanovitch, 2018. "Southern realignment, party sorting, and the polarization of American primary electorates, 1958–2012," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 107-132, July.
    19. Healy, Andrew J. & Malhotra, Neil & Mo, Cecilia H., 2009. "Personal Emotions and Political Decision Making: Implications for Voter Competence," Research Papers 2034, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    20. De Toni, Alberto & Nassimbeni, Guido, 2000. "Just-in-time purchasing: an empirical study of operational practices, supplier development and performance," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-651, December.
    21. Roberto Pannico, 2017. "Is the European Union too complicated? Citizens’ lack of information and party cue effectiveness," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 424-446, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    issue salience; party positioning; negative positioning; negative campaigning;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    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:zbw:ciwdps:12020. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ilmuede.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.