Centripetal party competition is traditionally associated with the need to capture the median voter in a two-party system, whereas the existence of center parties is associated with centrifugal party competition. This article argues that the existence of a ‘pivotal center party’ leads to centripetal party competition in multiparty systems. A pivotal center party is so strong in electoral terms that forming a majority either to the left or to the right of it is unrealistic. Therefore, office-seeking political parties are forced on to a centrist course. This dynamic can be so forceful that the major parties to the left and to the right of the center party decide to govern in a broad coalition, and we may speak of an ‘implosion’ of the party system. The theoretical argument can explain party system developments in the Netherlands and Finland.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnckarD. (1992) ‘Finland, Dualism and Consensual Rule’, in DamgaardE. (ed.), Parliamentary Change in the Nordic Countries.Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, pp. 152–91.
2.
AndewegR. B.IrwinG. A. (1993) Dutch Government and Politics.London: Macmillan.
3.
ArterD. (1979) ‘The Finnish Centre Party: Profile of a “Hinge Group”’, West European Politics, 2 (1), 108–27.
4.
ArterD. (1981) ‘Kekkonnen's Finland: Enlightened Despotism or Consensual Democracy?’, West European Politics, 4 (3), 219–34.
5.
ArterD. (1987) Politics and Policy Making in Finland.Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.
6.
ArterD. (1999a) Scandinavian Politics Today.Manchester: Manchester University Press.
7.
ArterD. (1999b) ‘From Class Party to Catchall Party?: The Adaptation of the Finnish Agrarian-Center Party’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 22 (2), 157–80.
8.
ArterD. (1999c) ‘Sweden: A Mild Case of “Electoral Instability Syndrome”?’, in BroughtonD.DonovanM. (eds), Changing Party Systems in Western Europe.London: Pinter, pp. 143–62.
9.
ArterD. (2000) ‘The Finnish Election of 21 March 1999: Towards a Distinctive Model of Government’, West European Politics, 23 (1), 180–6.
10.
BartoliniS. (1998) ‘Coalition Potential and Government Power’, in PenningsP.LaneJ. E. (eds), Comparing Party System Change.London: Routledge, pp. 40–61.
11.
BergströmH. (1991) ‘Swedish Politics and Party System at the Crossroads’, West European Politics, 14 (1), 8–30.
12.
BlomqvistP.Green-PedersenC. (2004) ‘Defeat at Home: Issue-Ownership and Social Democratic Support in Scandinavia’, Government and Opposition, forthcoming.
13.
BudgeI.KlingemannH.-D. (2001) ‘Finally! Comparative Over-Time Mapping of Party Policy Movement’, in BudgeI.KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA.BaraJ.TanenbaumE. (eds), Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998.Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–50.
14.
BudgeI.KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA.BaraJ.TanenbaumE. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
CoxG. W. (1990) ‘Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems’, American Journal of Political Science, 34 (4), 903–35.
16.
DaalderH. (1984) ‘In Search of the Center of European Party Systems’, American Political Science Review, 78 (1), 92–109.
17.
van DeemenA. (1991) ‘Coalition Formation in Centralized Policy Games’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3 (2), 139–61.
18.
De WinterL.DumontP. (1999) ‘Belgium: Party System(s) on the Eve of Disintegration’, in BroughtonD.DonovanM. (eds), Changing Party Systems in Western Europe.London: Pinter, pp. 183–206.
19.
DownsA. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy.New York: Harper & Row.
20.
EitrheimP.KuhnleS. (2000) ‘Nordic Welfare States in the 1990s: Institutional Stability, Signs of Divergence’, in KuhnleS. (ed.), The Survival ofthe European Welfare State.London: Routledge, pp. 39–57.
21.
EvansJ. A. (2002) ‘In Defence of Sartori’, Party Politics, 8 (2), 155–74.
22.
FitzmauriceJ. (2000) ‘The Belgian Elections of 13 June 1999: Near Melt Down or Soft Landing?’, West European Politics, 23 (1), 175–9.
23.
Green-PedersenC. (2001) ‘Minority Governments and Party Politics: The Political and Institutional Background to the “Danish Miracle”’, Journal of Public Policy, 21 (1), 63–80.
24.
Green-PedersenC. (2002) The Politics of Justification: Party Competition and Welfare-State Retrenchment in Denmark and the Netherlands from 1982 to 1998.Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
25.
Green-PedersenC. (2003) ‘Det Radikale Venstres betydning i dansk politik. Er den så stor, som vi går og tror?’, Politica, 35 (3), 274–86.
26.
Green-PedersenC.van KersbergenK. (2002) ‘The Politics of the “Third Way”: The Transformation of Social Democracy in Denmark and the Netherlands’, Party Politics, 8 (5), 507–24.
27.
GrofmanB. (2001) ‘The Impact of Electoral Systems on Party Polarization’, unpublished paper, University of California, Irvine.
28.
HarmelR.SvüsandL. (1997) ‘The Influence of New Parties on Old Parties Platforms: The Cases of the Progress Parties and Conservative Parties of Denmark and Norway’, Party Politics, 3 (3), 315–40.
29.
HazanR. Y. (1997) Centre Parties: Polarization and Competition in European Parliamentary Democracies.London: Pinter.
30.
HolmbergS.WesterståhlJ.BranzénK. (1977) Väljarna och kärnkraften.Stockholm: LiberFörlag.
31.
ImmergutE. (2002) ‘The Swedish Constitution and Social Democratic Power: Measuring the Mechanical Effect of Political Institutions’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 25 (3), 231–57.
32.
JungarA.-C. (2000) Surplus Majority Government: A Comparative Study of Italy and Finland.Uppsala: Statsvetenskapliga föreningen.
33.
KemanH. (1994) ‘The Search for the Centre: Pivot Parties in West European Party Systems’, West European Politics, 17 (4), 124–48.
34.
LaaksoM.TaageperaR. (1979) ‘Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to Western Europe’, Comparative Political Studies, 12 (1), 3–27.
35.
LaverM. (1998) ‘Models of Government Formation’, Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 1–25.
36.
LijphartA. (1979) Verzuiling, pacificatie en kentering in de Nederlandse politiek, Third Edition. Amsterdam: J. H. De Bussy.
37.
MöllerT. (1999) ‘The Swedish Election of 1998: A Protest Vote and the Birth of A New Political Landscape?’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 22 (3), 261–76.
38.
PedersenM. N. (1987) ‘The Danish “Working Multiparty System”: Breakdown or Adaptation’, in DaalderH. (ed.), Party Systems in Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Belgium.London: Frances Pinter, pp. 1–60.
39.
PedersenM. N. (1988) ‘The Defeat of All Parties: The Danish Folketing Election, 1973’, in LawsonK.MerklP. H. (eds), When Parties Fail.Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 257–81.
40.
PenningsP. (1998) ‘The Triad of Party System Change: Vote, Office and Policy’, in PenningsP.LaneJ. E. (eds), Comparing Party System Change.London: Routledge, pp. 79–100.
41.
van RoozendaalP. (1990) ‘Center Parties and Coalition Cabinet Formations: A Game Theoretic Approach’, European Journal of Political Research, 18 (3), 325–48.
42.
SartoriG. (1976) Parties and Party Systems.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
StrømK. (1990) ‘A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties’, American Journal of Political Science, 34 (2), 565–98.
44.
VerkuilD. (1992) Een positieve grondhouding: De geschiedenis van het CDA.Den Haag: SDU.
45.
WidfeldtA. (1995) ‘The Swedish Parliamentary Election of 1994’, Electoral Studies, 17 (2), 206–12.
