This work proposes an explanation for nationalist party success based on successful issue competition. Niche parties, it has been argued, gain votes by concentrating on their “owned” issues, such as environmentalism for green parties and mono-culturalism for nationalists. We argue that nationalist parties may increase their vote share by engaging in issue competition with mainstream parties and expanding the diversity of issues emphasized in their platforms. Because of their position and ideology, green parties are not able to engage in such an electoral strategy. Relatedly, no such reward exists for nationalist parties in well-documented majoritarian systems. In party systems with a size typical of proportional systems, we find that as nationalist parties broaden their issue agenda from highly specialized positions, they are able to increase their vote share. Our findings have significant implications for the study of party–voter issue linkages and party competition in fragmented political space.
Abou-ChadiT (2016) Niche Party Success and Mainstream Party Policy Shifts—How Green and Radical Right Parties Differ in Their Impact. British Journal of Political Science46 (02): 417–436.
2.
Abou-ChadiTOrlowskiM (2016) Moderate as Necessary: The Role of Electoral Competitiveness and Party Size in Explaining Parties’ Policy Shifts. The Journal of Politics78 (3): 868–881.
3.
AdamsJ (2012) Causes and Electoral Consequences of Party Policy Shifts in Multiparty Elections: Theoretical Results and Empirical Evidence. Annual Review of Political Science15: 401–419.
4.
AdamsJSomer-TopcuZ (2009) Policy Adjustment by Parties in Response to Rival Parties’ Policy Shifts: Spatial Theory and the Dynamics of Party Competition in Twenty-Five Post-War Democracies. British Journal of Political Science39 (4): 825–846.
5.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowL, et al. (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 Science50 (3): 513–529.
6.
AkkermanT (2012) Comparing Radical Right Parties in Government: Immigration and Integration Policies in Nine Countries. West European Politics35 (3): 511–529.
7.
AllenCS (2009) “Empty Nets”: Social Democracy and the “Catch-All Party Thesis” in Germany and Sweden. Party Politics15 (5): 635–653.
8.
ArndtC (2014) Beating Social Democracy on Its Own Turf: Issue Convergence as Winning Formula for the Centre-Right in Universal Welfare States. Scandinavian Political Studies37 (2): 149–170.
9.
AslanidisP (2016) Is Populism an Ideology? A Refutation and a New Perspective. Political Studies64 (15): 88–104.
10.
BaleT (2008) Turning Round the Telescope. Centre-Right Parties and Immigration and Integration Policy in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy15 (3): 315–330.
11.
BaleTGreen-PedersenCKrouwelA, et al. (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 Studies58 (3): 315–330.
12.
BaleTHoughDVan KesselS (2012) In or Out of Proportion? Labour and Social Democratic Party Responses to the Radical Right. In: RydgrenJ (ed.) Class Politics and the Radical Right. London: Routledge, pp.91–106.
13.
BeckNKatzJN (1995) What to Do (and Not to Do) With Time-Series Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review89 (03): 634–647.
14.
BernardiLAdamsJ (2017) Does Government Support Respond to Governments’ Social Welfare Rhetoric or Their Spending? An Analysis of Government Support in Britain, Spain and the United States. British Journal of Political Science. Epub ahead of print 8 November. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123417000199.
15.
BillietJDe WitteH (1995) Attitudinal Dispositions to Vote for a “New” Extreme Right-Wing Party: The Case of “Vlaams Blok.”European Journal of Political Research27 (2): 181–202.
16.
BischofD (2017) Towards a Renewal of the Niche Party Concept: Parties, Market Shares and Condensed Offers. Party Politics23 (3): 220–235.
BudgeIFarlieD (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.
19.
CarminesEStimsonJ (1993) On the Evolution of Political Issues. In: RikerWH (ed.) Agenda Formation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp.151–168.
20.
ChristensenLDahlbergSMartinssonJ (2015) Changes and Fluctuations in Issue Ownership: The Case of Sweden, 1979-2010. Scandinavian Political Studies38 (2): 137–157.
21.
CoxG (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems, Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
de KosterWAchterbergPVan der WaalJ (2013) The New Right and the Welfare State: The Electoral Relevance of Welfare Chauvinism and Welfare Populism in the Netherlands. International Political Science Review34 (1): 3–20.
23.
De LangeS (2007) A New Winning Formula? The Programmatic Appeal of the Radical Right. Party Politics13 (4): 411–435.
24.
De VriesCHoboltS (2012) When Dimensions Collide: The Electoral Success of Issue Entrepreneurs. European Union Politics13 (2): 246–268.
25.
DöringHManowP (2015) Parliaments and Governments Database (ParlGov): Information on Parties, Elections and Cabinets in Modern Democracies. Available at: http://www.parlgov.org/data/table/view_election/ (accessed 9 July 2019).
26.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of Political Economy65 (2): 135–150.
27.
EzrowL (2008) Research Note: On the Inverse Relationship Between Votes and Proximity for Niche Parties. European Journal of Political Research47 (2): 206–220.
28.
EzrowL (2010) Linking Citizens and Parties: How Electoral Systems Matter for Political Representation. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
EzrowLDe VriesCSteenbergenM, et al. (2011) Mean Voter Representation and Partisan Constituency Representation: Do Parties Respond to the Mean Voter Position or to Their Supporters?Party Politics17 (3): 275–301.
30.
GigerN (2011) The Risk of Social Policy? The Electoral Consequences of Welfare State Retrenchment and Social Policy Performance in OECD Countries. London: Routledge.
31.
GivensT (2005) Voting Radical Right in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
GreenJHoboltS (2008) Owning the Issue Agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies27 (3): 460–476.
33.
GreenJJenningsW (2012) The Dynamics of Issue Competence and Vote for Parties In and Out of Power: An Analysis of Valence in Britain, 1979–1997. European Journal of Political Research51 (4): 469–503.
34.
GreeneZ (2016) Competing on the Issues: How Experience in Government and Economic Conditions Influence the Scope of Parties’ Policy Message. Party Politics22 (6): 809–822.
35.
GreeneZ (2018) Being Heard above the Noise: The Role of Incumbent Issue Diversity in Election Campaigns. Political Behavior. Epub ahead of print 1 October. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-018-9504-2.
36.
Green-PedersonCMortensenP (2010) Who Sets the Agenda and Who Responds to It in the Danish Parliament? A New Model of Issue Competition and Agenda-Setting. European Journal of Political Research49 (2): 257–281.
37.
HanKJ (2015) The Impact of Radical Right-Wing Parties on the Positions of Mainstream Parties Regarding Multiculturalism. West European Politics38 (3): 557–576.
38.
HansenME (2008) Back to the Archives? A Critique of the Danish Part of the Manifesto Dataset. Scandinavian Political Studies31 (2): 201–216.
39.
HumphreyM (2013) Green Ideology. In: FreedenMSargentLTStearsM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.422–438.
40.
IgnaziP (1992) The Silent Counter-Revolution. European Journal of Political Research22 (1): 3–34.
41.
JensenC (2010) Issue Compensation and Right-Wing Government Social Spending. European Journal of Political Research49 (2): 282–299.
42.
JungarA-CJupskåsAR (2014) Populist Radical Right Parties in the Nordic Region: A New and Distinct Party Family?Scandinavian Political Studies37 (3): 215–238.
43.
KarrethJPolkJTAllenCS (2012) Catchall or Catch and Release? The Electoral Consequences of Social Democratic Parties’ March to the Middle in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies46 (7): 791–822.
44.
KirchheimerO (1966) The Transformation of Western European Party Systems. In: LaPalombaraJWeinerM (eds) Political Parties and Political Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.177–200.
45.
KitscheltH (1988) Left-Libertarian Parties: Explaining Innovation in Competitive Party Systems. World Politics40 (2): 194–234.
46.
KitscheltH (1994) The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
KlingemannHHofferbertRBudgeI (1994) Parties, Policies, and Democracy (Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy), 1st edn. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
48.
KlüverHSpoonJ-J (2016) Who Responds? Voters, Parties and Issue Attention. British Journal of Political Science46 (03): 633–654.
49.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1979) The “Effective” Number of Parties: A Measure With Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies12 (1): 3–27.
50.
LachatR (2014) Issue Ownership and the Vote: The Effects of Associative and Competence Ownership on Issue Voting. Swiss Political Science Review20 (4): 727–740.
51.
LijphartA (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
52.
LoweWBenoitKMikhaylovS, et al. (2011) Scaling Policy Preferences from Coded Political Texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly36 (1): 123–155.
53.
LubbersMScheepersP (2000) Individual and Contextual Characteristics of the German Extreme Right-Wing Vote in the 1990s: A Test of Complementary Theories. European Journal of Political Research38 (1): 63–94.
54.
McDonaldMBudgeI (2005) Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55.
MeguidBM (2005) Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success. American Political Science Review99 (03): 347–359.
56.
MeguidBM (2008) Party Competition Between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
MeyerTMMillerB (2015) The Niche Party Concept and Its Measurement. Party Politics21 (2): 259–271.
58.
MeyerTMWagnerM (2013) Mainstream or Niche? Vote-Seeking Incentives and the Programmatic Strategies of Political Parties. Comparative Political Studies46 (10): 1246–1272.
59.
MuddeC (1999) The Single-Issue Party Thesis: Extreme Right Parties and the Immigration Issue. West European Politics22 (3): 182–197.
60.
MuddeC (2004) The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition39 (4): 541–563.
61.
MuddeC (2013) Three Decades of Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe: So What?European Journal of Political Research52 (1): 1–19.
62.
Müller-RommelF (1998) Ethnoregionalist Parties in Western Europe. In: De WinterL (ed.) Regionalist Parties in Western Europe. London: Routledge, pp.17–27.
63.
NeundorfAAdamsJ (2018) The Micro-Foundations of Party Competition and Issue Ownership: The Reciprocal Effects of Citizens’ Issue Salience and Party Attachments. British Journal of Political Science48 (2): 385–406.
64.
NorrisP (2005) Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
65.
Pardos-PradoS (2015) How Can Mainstream Parties Prevent Niche Party Success? Center-Right Parties and the Immigration Issue. The Journal of Politics77 (2): 352–367.
66.
PenningsP (2006) An Empirical Analysis of the Europeanization of National Party Manifestos, 1960-2003. European Union Politics7 (2): 257–270.
67.
PetrocikJ (1996) Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, With a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science40 (3): 825–850.
68.
PlümperTTroegerV (2007) Efficient Estimation of Time-Invariant and Rarely Changing Variables in Finite Sample Panel Analyses With Unit Fixed Effects. Political Analysis15 (2): 124–139.
69.
PlümperTTroegerVManowP (2005) Panel Data Analysis in Comparative Politics: Linking Method to Theory. European Journal of Political Research44 (2): 327–354.
70.
PowellGBWhittenGD (1993) A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context. American Journal of Political Science37 (2): 391–414.
71.
RikerW (1982) The Two-Party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science. American Political Science Review76 (4): 753–766.
72.
RoseRMackieT (1983) Incumbency in Government: Asset or Liability? In: MairP (ed.) West European Party Systems. London: SAGE Publishing, pp.115–137.
73.
RovnyJ (2012) Who Emphasizes and Who Blurs? Party Strategies in Multidimensional Competition. European Union Politics13 (2): 269–292.
74.
RovnyJ (2013) Where Do Radical Right Parties Stand? Position Blurring in Multidimensional Competition. European Political Science Review5 (1): 1–26.
75.
SchumacherGvan KersbergenK (2016) Do Mainstream Parties Adapt to the Welfare Chauvinism of Populist Parties?Party Politics22 (3): 300–312.
76.
SchumacherGVisBvan KersbergenK (2013) Political Parties’ Welfare Image, Electoral Punishment and Welfare State Retrenchment. Comparative European Politics11 (1): 1–21.
77.
Somer-TopcuZ (2015) Everything to Everyone: The Electoral Consequences of the Broad-Appeal Strategy in Europe. American Journal of Political Science59 (4): 841–854.
78.
SpoonJ-J (2011) Political Survival of Small Parties in Europe. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
79.
SpoonJ-JKlüverH (2015) Voter Polarisation and Party Responsiveness: Why Parties Emphasise Divided Issues, but Remain Silent on Unified Issues. European Journal of Political Research54 (4): 343–362.
80.
SpoonJ-JHoboltSBde VriesCE (2014) Going Green: Explaining Issue Competition on the Environment. European Journal of Political Research53 (2): 363–380.
81.
StromK (1990) A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science34 (2): 565–598.
82.
TrochimWDonellyJAroraK (2016) Research Methods: The Essential Knowledge Base. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
83.
van der BrugW (2004) Issue Ownership and Party Choice. Electoral Studies23 (2): 209–233.
84.
VolkensALehmannPMatthießT, et al. (2015) The Manifesto Data Collection (Manifesto project [MRG/CMP/MARPOR] Version 2015a). Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
85.
WagnerM (2012a) Defining and Measuring Niche Parties. Party Politics18 (6): 845–864.
86.
WagnerM (2012b) When Do Parties Emphasise Extreme Positions? How Strategic Incentives for Policy Differentiation Influence Issue Importance. European Journal of Political Research51 (1): 64–88.
87.
WagnerMMeyerTM (2014) Which Issues Do Parties Emphasise? Salience Strategies and Party Organisation in Multiparty Systems. West European Politics37 (5): 1019–1045.
88.
WagnerMMeyerTM (2017) The Radical Right as Niche Parties? The Ideological Landscape of Party Systems in Western Europe, 1980-2014. Political Studies65 (15): 84–107.
89.
WalgraveSLefevereJTreschA (2012) The Associative Dimension of Issue Ownership. Public Opinion Quarterly76 (4): 771–782.
90.
WilliamsCIshiyamaJ (2018) Responding to the Left: The Effect of Far-Left Parties on Mainstream Party Euroskepticism. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties28 (4): 443–466.
91.
ZasloveA (2012) The Populist Radical Right in Government: The Structure and Agency of Success and Failure. Comparative European Politics10 (4): 421–448.
92.
ZonsG (2016) How Programmatic Profiles of Niche Parties Affect Their Electoral Performance. West European Politics39 (6): 1205–1229.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
