How does governing in coalitions affect coalition parties’ responsiveness to voters? In this article, we seek to understand the relationship between political parties’ participation in multiparty governments and their responsiveness to voters. We argue that the extent to which coalition parties respond to policy priorities of voters is influenced by the divisiveness of policy issues within the cabinet and the ministerial responsibility for policies. To test our hypotheses, we combine data on the issue attention of 55 coalition parties from the Comparative Manifestos Project with data on government composition and data on the policy priorities of voters from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems and various election studies in 45 elections across 16 European countries from 1972 to 2011. While we find that intra-cabinet divisiveness decreases coalition parties’ responsiveness, we find no effect for portfolio responsibility. Our findings shed light on the relationship between party competition and coalition governments and its implications for political representation.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowL. (2004) Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: do parties respond to public opinion or to past election results?British Journal of Political Science34(4): 589–610.
2.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowL. (2006). Are Niche parties fundamentally different than mainstream parties? The causes and the electoral consequences of Western European parties’ policy shifts, 1976-1998. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 513–529.
3.
AdamsJHauptABStollH (2009) What moves parties? The role of public opinion and global economic conditions in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies42(5): 611–639.
4.
AdamsJSomer-TopcuZ (2009) Moderate now, win votes later: the electoral consequences of parties’ policy shifts in 25 postwar democracies. Journal of Politics71(2): 678–692.
5.
AnderssonSBergmanTErssonS (2014) The European representative democracy data archive, release 3”. Main sponsor: Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (In2007-0149:1-E). Available at: www.erdda.se
6.
AnsolabehereSIyengarS (1994) Riding the wave and claiming ownershipover issues. Public Opinion Quarterly58(3): 335–357.
7.
BäckHDebusMDumontP (2011) Who gets what in coalition governments? Predictors of portfolio allocation in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research50(4): 441–478.
8.
BeckN (2001) Time-series-cross-section data: what have we learned in the past few years?Annual Review of Political Science4: 271–293.
9.
BeckNKatzJN (1995) What to do (and Not To Do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review89(3): 634–647.
10.
BeckNKatzJN (1996) Nuisance vs. substance: specifying and estimating time-series-cross-section models. Political Analysis6(1): 1–36.
BudgeIFarlieDJ (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: George Allen and Unwin.
15.
BudgeIMeyerTM (2013) Understanding and validating the left-right scale. In: VolkensABaraJBudgeI. (eds) Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 85–106.
16.
BurdenBC (2004) Candidate positioning in US congressional elections. British Journal of Political Science34(2): 211–227.
17.
DaltonRJFarrellDMMcAllisterI (2011) Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
DäublerT (2012) The preparation and use of election manifestos: learning from the Irish case. Irish Political Studies27(1): 51–70.
19.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
20.
DöringHManowP (2012) Parliament and Government Composition Database (ParlGov): an infrastructure for empirical information on parties, elections and governments in modern democracies. Version 11/07 – 26 July 2011. Available at: www.parlgov.org (accessed July 15, 2013).
21.
European Journal of Political Research (2015) Annual Data Yearbooks. 1995-2011.
22.
EzrowLde VriesCESteenbergenMR. (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.
23.
EzrowLHellwigT (2014) Responding to voters or responding to markets? political parties and public opinion in an era of globalization. International Studies Quarterly58(4): 816–827.
24.
Falcó-GimenoA (2014) The use of control mechanisms in coalition governments: the role of preference tangentiality and repeated interactions. Party Politics20(3): 341–356.
25.
FiorinaMP (1981) Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
26.
GolderS (2005) Pre-electoral coalition formation in parliamentary democracies. British Journal of Political Science36(2): 193–212.
27.
GolderM (2006) Presidential coattails and legislative fragmentation. American Journal of Political Science50(1): 34–48.
28.
HoboltSBKlemmensenR (2008) Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies41(3): 309–337.
29.
JenningsWJohnP (2009) The dynamics of political attention: public opinion and the queen’s speech in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science53(4): 838–854.
30.
JenningsWWlezienC (2011) Distinguishing between most important problems and issues. Public Opinion Quarterly75(3): 545–555.
31.
JenningsWWlezienC (2012) Measuring public preferences for policy: on the limits of ‘most important problem’. Paper presented at the Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties Conference, Oxford, UK.
32.
JonesBDBaumgartnerFR (2004) Representation and agenda-setting. Policy Studies Journal32(1): 1–24.
33.
Keesing’s Record of World Events. Available at: http://www.keesings.com (Last accessed 28 June 2014).
34.
KiewietDRRiversD (1984) A retrospective on retrospective voting. Political Behavior6(4): 369–393.
35.
KitscheltH (1988) Organization and strategy of Belgian and West German ecology parties: a new dynamic of party politics in Western Europe?Comparative Politics20: 127–154.
36.
KitscheltH (1994) The Transformation of European Social Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
KlemmensenRHoboltSBHansenME (2007) Estimating policy positions using political texts: an evaluation of the wordscores approach. Electoral Studies26: 746–755.
38.
KlingemannH-DVolkensABaraJ. (eds) (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD. 1990-2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
KlüverHSpoonJ (2016) Who responds? voters, parties, and issue attention. British Journal of Political Science46(3): 633–654, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000313.
40.
KollmanKMillerJHPageSE (1992) Adaptive parties in spatial elections. American Political Science Review86(4): 929–937.
41.
LaverMBenoitKGarryJ (2003) Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review97(2): 311–331.
42.
LaverMShepsleKA (1994) Cabinet ministers and government formation in parliamentary democracies. In: LaverM (ed) Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Government. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–14.
43.
LaverMShepsleKA (1996) Making and Breaking Governments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
LawsonK (1980) Political parties and linkage. In: LawsonK (ed) Political Parties and Linkage: A Comparative Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 3–24.
45.
LawsonK (2005) Linkage and democracy. In: RömmeleAFarrellDMIgnaziP (eds) Political Parties and Political Systems: The Concept of Linkage Revisited. Westport: Praeger, pp. 161–170.
46.
LoweWBenoitKMikhaylovS. (2011) Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly36(1): 123–155.
47.
LupiaAStrømK (1995) Coalition termination and the strategic timing of legislative elections. American Political Science Review89(3): 648–665.
48.
MartinLW (2004) The government agenda in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science48(3): 445–461.
49.
MartinLWVanbergG (2011) Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50.
MartinLWVanbergG (2014) Parties and policymaking in multiparty governments: the legislative median, ministerial autonomy, and the coalition compromise. American Journal of Political Science58(4): 979–996.
51.
MeguidBM (2005) Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in Niche party success. American Political Science Review99(3): 347–359.
52.
MeyerTM (2013) Constraints on Party Policy Change. Colchester: ECPR Press.
53.
MikhaylovSLaverMBenoitK (2012) Coder reliability and misclassification in the human coding of party manifestos. Political Analysis20(1): 78–91.
54.
MüllerWCStrømK (2000) Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55.
MüllerWCStrømK (2008) Coalition agreements and cabinet governance. In: StrømKMüllerCBergmanT (eds) Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 159–199.
56.
MüllerWCMeyerT (2010) Meeting the challenges of representation and accountability in multi-party governments. West European Politics33(5): 1065–1092.
57.
NeundorfAAdamsJ (2016) The micro-foundations of party competition and issue ownership: the reciprocal effects of citizens’ issue salience and party attachments. British Journal of Political Science.
58.
PenningsP (2005) Parties, voters and policy positions in the Netherlands, 1971-2002. Party Politics11(1): 29–45.
59.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825–850.
60.
PowellGBJrWhittenGD (1993) A cross-national analysis of economic voting: taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science37(2): 391–414.
61.
RabinowitzGMacdonaldSE (1989) A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review83(1): 93–121.
62.
RikerWH (1962) The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press.
63.
SchermannKEnnser-JedenastikL (2014a) Coalition policy making under constraints: examining the role of preferences and institutions. West European Politics37(3): 564–583.
64.
SchermannKEnnser-JedenastikL (2014b) Explaining coalition-bargaining outcomes: evidence from Austria, 2002-2008. Party Politics20(5): 791–801.
65.
SchumacherGde VriesCEVisB (2013) Why do parties change position? Party organization and environmental incentives. Journal of Politics75(2): 464–477.
66.
SpoonJKlüverH (2014) Do parties respond? How electoral context influences party responsiveness. Electoral Studies35: 48–60.
67.
SpoonJKlüverH (2015) Voter polarization and party responsiveness: Why parties emphasize divided issues, but remain silent on unified issues. European Journal of Political Research54(2): 343–362.
68.
StrømK (1984) Minority governments in democracies: the rationality of nonwinning cabinet solutions. Comparative Political Studies17(2): 199–227.
69.
StrømK (1990) A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science34(2): 565–598.
70.
StrømKMüllerWC (1999) Political parties and hard choices. In: MüllerWCStrømK (eds) Policy, Office or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–35.
71.
StrømKMüllerWCBergmanT (2008) Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72.
TavitsM (2007) Principle vs. pragmatism: policy shifts and political competition. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 151–165.
73.
ThiesMF (2001) Keeping tabs on partners: the logic of delegation in coalition governments. American Journal of Political Science45(3): 580–598.
74.
ThomsonR (2001) The programme to policy linkage: the fulfillment of election pledges on socio-economic policy in the Netherlands, 1986-1998. European Journal of Political Research40(2): 171–197.
75.
TsebelisG (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
76.
VeenT (2011) Positions and salience in European union politics: a new dataset. European Union Politics12(2): 267–288.
77.
WagnerMMeyerT (2014) Which issues do parties emphasise? Salience strategies and party organization in multiparty systems. West European Politics37(5): 1019–1045.
78.
WarwickP (1994) Government Survival in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
79.
WlezienC (2005) On the salience of political issues: the problem with ‘most important problem’. Electoral Studies24(4): 555–579.
80.
WoldendorpJJKemanHBudgeI (2000) Party Government in 48 Democracies (1945-1998): Composition, Duration, and Personnel. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
81.
ZubekRKlüverH (2015) Legislative pledges and coalition government. Party Politics21(4): 603–614.
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.
