Why did pro-welfare Social Democrats and Christian Democrats cease to support the welfare state in the 1980s and 1990s, and support measures such as tighter welfare programme conditionality rules and lower social security benefits instead? Building on the party position change literature, I argue and empirically demonstrate that parties with an activist-dominated party organization adapt their position to shifts in the party voter position. Parties with a leadership-dominated party organization adapt their position to shifts in the median voter position. Parties in which neither leaders nor activists dictate party policy shift in the opposite direction of the previous policy shift if they are excluded from office. Using a cross-sectional time-series regression analysis of 181 position shifts of European Socialist, Social Democratic and Christian Democratic parties in the period 1977–2003, I find strong evidence that party organization is a crucial mediating variable in explaining when these parties shift to the right or left. Demonstrating that differences in party organizations motivate parties to respond to different incentives, this study has implications for the relationship between party behaviour and welfare state policy-making.
AchenCH (2000) Why lagged dependent variables can suppress the explanatory power of other independent variables. In: Annual Meeting of the Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2000 Los Angeles.
2.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowLGlasgowG (2004) Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: Do parties respond to public opinion or to past election results?British Journal of Political Science34: 589–610.
3.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowLGlasgowG (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: 513–529.
4.
AdamsJEzrowLSomer-TopcuZ (2011) Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties policy statements during elections. American Journal of Political Science55: 370–382.
5.
AdamsJHauptABStollH (2009) What moves parties? The role of public opinion and global economic conditions in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies42: 611–639.
6.
AdamsJSomer-TopcuZ (2009) Policy adjustment by parties in response to rival parties' policy shifts: Spatial theory and the dynamic of party competition in twenty-five post-war democracies. British Journal of Political Science39: 825–846.
7.
AllanJPScruggsL (2004) Political partisanship and welfare state reform in advanced industrial societies. American Journal of Political Science48: 496–512.
8.
ArmingeonKLeimgruberPBeyelerMMenegaleS (2006) Comparative Political Data Set 1960–2004. Institute of Political Science, University of Berne.
9.
Austen-SmithDBanksJ (1988) Elections, coalitions and legislative outcomes. American Political Science Review2: 405–422.
10.
BeckNKatzJJ (1995) What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review89: 634–647.
11.
BeckNKatzJJ (1996) Nuisance or substance: Specifying and estimating time-series cross-section models. In: FreemanJR (ed.) Political Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
12.
BilleL (2001) Democratizing a democratic procedure: Myth or reality? Candidate selection in Western European parties, 1960–1990. Party Politics7: 363–380.
13.
BoeriTBörsch-SupanATabelliniG (2001) Would you like to shrink the welfare state? A survey of European citizens. Economic Policy16: 9–50.
14.
BramborTClarkWRGolderM (2006) Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analysis. Political Analysis14.
15.
BudgeI (1994) A new spatial theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science4: 443–467.
16.
BudgeIEzrowLMcdonaldMD (2010) Ideology, party factionalism and policy change: An integrated dynamic theory. British Journal of Political Science40: 781–804.
17.
BudgeIKlingemannHDVolkensABaraJTanenbaumE (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Government, 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
BurgoonB (2006) Globalization is what parties make of it: Welfare and protectionism in party platforms. GARNET Working Paper, no. 3/6.
19.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper Collins.
20.
DuvergerM (1964) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Methuen.
21.
EriksonRSMackuenMBStimsonJA (2002) The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
EzrowLDe VriesCESteenbergenMEdwardsEE (2011) Mean voter representation versus partisan constituency representation: Do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?Party Politics17: 275–301.
23.
GreeneW (1990) Econometric Analysis. New York. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
24.
HarmelRJandaK (1994) An integrated theory of party goals and party change. Journal of Theoretical Politics6: 259–287.
25.
HarmelRTanA (2003) Party actors and party change. Does factional dominance matter?European Journal of Political Research42: 409–424.
26.
HuberEStephensJD (2001) Developments and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
ISSP Research Group (2009) International Social Survey Program (ISSP): Social Inequality IV. Distributor: GESIS Cologne Germany ZA4850.
28.
KatzRSMairPBardiLBilleLDeschouwerKFarrellDKooleRMorlinoLMüllerWCPierreJPoguntkeTSundbergJSvasandLVan De VeldeHWebbPWidfeldtA (1992) The membership of political parties in European democracies, 1960–1990. European Journal of Political Research22: 329–345.
29.
KitscheltH. (1988) Left-libertarian parties: Explaining Innovation in Competitive Party Systems. World Politics, 40(2): 194–234.
30.
KitscheltH (1989) The internal politics of parties. The law of curvilinear disparity revisited. Political Studies37(3): 400–421.
31.
KitscheltH (1994) The Transformation of European Social Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
KlingemannHDVolkensABaraJBudgeI (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
KorpiWPalmeJ (2003) New politics and class politics in the context of austerity and globalization: Welfare state regress in 18 countries, 1975–95. American Political Science Review97: 425–446.
34.
LaverM (2005) Policy and the dynamics of political competition. American Political Science Review99: 263–281.
35.
LaverMHuntWB (1992) Policy and Party CompetitionLondon: Routledge.
36.
LundellK (2004) Determinants of candidate selection. The degree of centralization in comparative perspective. Party Politics10: 25–47.
37.
MairPVan BiezenI (2000) Party membership in twenty European democracies, 1980–2000. Party Politics7: 5–21.
38.
MüllerWCStrømK (1999) Policy, Office or Votes. How Political Parties in Europe make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
NarudHMSkareA (1999) Are party activists the party extremists? The structure of opinion in political parties. Scandinavian Political Studies22(1): 45–65.
40.
NorrisP (1995) May's law of curvilinear disparity revisited. Leaders, officers, members and voters in British political parties. Party Politics1(1): 29–47.
41.
PanebiancoA (1988) Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
42.
PiersonP (2001) The New Politics of the Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
PlümperTTroegerVEManowP (2005) Panel data analysis in comparative politics: Linking method to theory. European Journal of Political Research44: 327–354.
44.
PoguntkeT (2000) Parteiorganisation im Wandel. Gesellschaftliche Verankerung und organisatorische Anpassung im europäischen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
45.
PoguntkeT (2002) Party organizational linkage. Parties without firm social roots? In: LutherKRMüller-RommelF (eds) Political Parties in the New Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
PontussonJRuedaD (2010) The politics of inequality: Voter mobilization and left parties in advanced industrial states. Comparative Political Studies43: 675–705.
47.
ScarrowSGezgorB (2010) Declining memberships, changing members? European political party members in a new era. Party Politics16: 823–843.
48.
SchmittHScholzE (2005) The Mannheim Eurobarometer Trend File, 1970–2002. Cologne, Germany: Prepared by Zentralarchiv fur Empirische Sozialforschung. ICPSR04357-v1. Mannheim, Germany: Mannheimer Zentrum fur Europaische Sozialforschung and Zentrum fur Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen [producers]. Zentralarchiv fur Empirische Sozialforschung/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], 2005-12-06. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR04357.
49.
SchumacherGDe VriesCEVisB (2013) Why Do Parties Change Position: Party organization and Environmental Incentives. Journal of Politics3.
50.
Seeleib-KaiserMVan DykSRoggenkampM (2008) Party Politics and Social Welfare. Comparing Christian and Social Democracy in Austria, Germany and The Netherlands. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
51.
Somer-TopcuZ (2009) Timely decisions: The effect of past national elections on party policy change. Journal of Politics71: 238–248.
52.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1981) The framing of decision and the psychology of choice. Science211: 453–458.
53.
Van KersbergenK (1995). Social Capitalism. A Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State. London and New York: Routledge.
54.
VolkensA (2007) Strengths and weaknesses of approaches to measuring policy positions of parties. Electoral Studies26: 108–120.
55.
WardHEzrowLDorussenH (2011) Globalization, party positions, and the median voter. World Politics63: 509–537.
56.
WoldendorpJKemanHBudgeI (2000) Party Government in 48 Democracies (1945–1998). Composition, Duration, Personnel. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
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.
