Why do parties offer broad or narrow policy agendas to voters? Taking up the call to focus more on ‘issue diversity’ in election campaigns, this article argues that agenda scope is informed by (1) parties’ experience with government participation and (2) their internal organizational structure. Non-governing challengers, which are losers in the current system, seek to change the political status quo by focusing on a few issues only, whereas mainstream parties have an incentive to reinforce existing patterns of competition and thus distribute their attention across a wide range of issues. However, the extent to which parties respond to these external stimuli depends on intraparty politics. Party leaders seek to satisfy vote- and office-seeking motivations and want to ‘appeal broadly’, whereas activists want the party to ‘speak to the base’ and narrow down its issue appeals. Analyses of party agendas in 18 European democracies (1950–2013) support these expectations.
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(2): 417–436.
2.
AchenCH (2000) Why lagged dependent variables can suppress the explanatory power of other independent variables. Presented at the annual meeting of the political methodology section of the American political science association. Available at: http://www.polmeth.wustl.edu/files/polmeth/achen00.pdf (accessed 4 February 2015).
3.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowL. (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.
4.
AldrichJH (2011) Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
AragonèsECastanheiraMGianiM (2015) Electoral competition through issue selection. American Journal of Political Science59(1): 71–90.
6.
BäckHDebusMDumontP (2011) Who gets what in coalition governments? Predictors of portfolio allocation in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research50(4): 441–478.
7.
BaumCF (2001) Residual diagnostics for cross-section time series regression models. The Stata Journal1(1): 101–104.
8.
BeckNKatzJN (1995) What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross section data. American Political Science Review89(3): 634–647.
9.
BenoitKLaverM (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies. New York: Routledge.
10.
BevanSJohnP (2016) Policy representation by party leaders and followers: what drives UK prime minister’s questions?Government and Opposition51(1): 59–83.
11.
BilleL (2001) Democratizing a democratic procedure: myth or reality? Candidate selection in western European parties, 1960-1990. Party Politics7(3): 363–380.
12.
BischofD (2015) Towards a renewal of the niche party concept: parties, market shares and condensed offers. Party Politics23(3): 220–235.
13.
BoydstunAEBevanSThomasIII HF (2014) The importance of attention diversity and how to measure it. Policy Studies Journal42(2): 173–196.
BudgeIFarlieD (1983) Explaining and predicting elections: Issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies. London: Allan and Unwin.
16.
BudgeIKlingemannH-DVolkensA. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments, 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
BudgeIMeyerT (2013) Understanding and validating the left-right scale (RILE). In: VolkensABaraJBudgeI. (eds) Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts III: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 85–106.
18.
CarminesEGStimsonJA (1986) On the structure and sequence of issue evolution. The American Political Science Review80(3): 901–920.
19.
ChoiI (2001) Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance20(2): 249–272.
20.
DamoreDF (2004) The dynamics of issue ownership in presidential campaigns. Political Behavior27(1): 71–97.
21.
DamoreDF (2005) Issue convergence in presidential campaigns. Political Behavior27(1): 71–97.
22.
De HoyosRESarafidisV (2006) Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. Stata Journal6(4): 482–496.
23.
De SioLWeberT (2014) Issue yield: a model of party strategy in multidimensional space. American Political Science Review108(4): 870–885.
24.
De VriesCEHoboltSB (2012) When dimensions collide: the electoral success of issue entrepreneurs. European Union Politics13(2): 246–268.
25.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
26.
DrukkerDM (2003) Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. Stata Journal3(2): 168–177.
27.
FranzmannSKaiserA (2006) Locating political parties in policy space: a reanalysis of party manifesto data. Party Politics12(2): 163–188.
28.
GemenisK (2013) What to do (and not to do) with the comparative manifestos project data. Political Studies61(S1): 3–23.
29.
GreenJ (2011) A test of core vote theories: the British conservatives, 1997-2005. British Journal of Political Science41(4): 735–764.
30.
Green-PedersenC (2007) The growing importance of issue competition: the changing nature of party competition in western Europe. Political Studies55(3): 607–628.
31.
Green-PedersenCMortensenPB (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.
32.
Green-PedersenCMortensenPB (2015) Avoidance and engagement: issue competition in multiparty systems. Political Studies63(4): 747–764.
33.
GreeneWH (2000) Econometric Analysis. 4th ed. New York: MacMillan.
34.
GreeneZ (2015) Competing on the issues: How experience in government and economic conditions influence the scope of parties policy messages. Party Politics22(6): 809–822.
35.
HarmelRJandaK (1994) An integrated theory of party goals and party change. Journal of Theoretical Politics6(3): 259–287.
36.
HoboltSBde VriesCE (2015) Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty competition. Comparative Political Studies48(9): 1159–1185.
37.
HoboltSBKarpJA (2010) Voters and coalition governments. Electoral Studies29(3): 299–307.
38.
HoboltSBKlemmensenRPickupM (2008) The Dynamics of Issue Diversity in Party Rhetoric. OCSID 03 Working Paper. Available at: http://ocsid.politics.ox.ac.uk/publications/ (accessed 18 September 2014).
39.
HolianDB (2004) He’s stealing my issues! Clinton’s crime rhetoric and the dynamics of issue ownership. Political Behavior26(2): 95–124.
40.
KernellG (2015) Party nomination rules and campaign participation. Comparative Political Studies48(13): 1814–1843.
41.
KirchheimerO (1966) The transformation of western European party systems. In: La PalombaraJWeinerM (eds) Political Parties and Political Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 177–200.
42.
KitscheltH (1989) The Logics of Party Formation. Ecological Politics in Belgium and West Germany. Ithaca &London: Cornell University Press.
43.
KitscheltH (1994) The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
KlingemannH-DVolkensABaraJ. (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, the European Union and the OECD, 1990-2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
LacewellOP (2013) Beyond class: class party programmatic responses to globalization pressures and cleavage change. Presented at the annual meeting of the American political science association. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract1/42300918 (accessed 18 September 2014).
46.
LaverMHuntWB (1992) Policy and Party Competition. New York & London: Routledge.
47.
LehrerR (2012) Intra-party democracy and party responsiveness. West European Politics35(6): 1295–1319.
48.
LoweWBenoitKMikhaylovS. (2011) Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly36(1): 123–155.
49.
LundellK (2004) Determinants of candidate selection. The degree of centralization in comparative perspective. Party Politics10(1): 25–47.
50.
MeguidBM (2005) Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review99(3): 347–359.
51.
MeijersMJ (2015) Contagious Euroscepticism: the impact of Eurosceptic support on mainstream party positions on European integration. Party Politics23(4): 413–423.
52.
MeyerTMWagnerM (2013) Mainstream or niche? Vote-seeking incentives and the programmatic strategies of political parties. Comparative Political Studies46(10): 1246–1272.
53.
MeyerTMWagnerM (2015) Issue engagement in election campaigns. The impact of electoral incentives and organizational constraints. Political Science Research and Methods4(3): 555–571.
54.
MuddeC (1999) The single-issue party thesis: extreme right parties and the immigration issue. West European Politics22(3): 182–197.
55.
MüllerWCStrømK (1999) Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
PanebiancoA (1988) Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
PedersenHH (2010) How intra-party power relations affect the coalition behaviour of political parties. Party Politics16(6): 737–754.
58.
PedersenHH (2012) What do parties want? Policy versus office. West European Politics35(4): 896–910.
59.
PesaranMH (2004) General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. CESifo working papers, No. 1229. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/18868 (accessed 18 December 2014).
60.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825–850.
61.
PlümperTTroegerVEManowP (2005) Panel data analysis in comparative politics: linking method to theory. European Journal of Political Research44(2): 327–354.
62.
RihouxBRüdigW (2006) Analyzing greens in power: Setting the agenda. European Journal of Political Research45: S1–S33.
63.
RikerWH (1986) The art of political manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
64.
RikerWH (1993) Rhetorical Interaction in the Ratification Campaigns. In: RikerWH (ed.) Agenda Formation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 81–123.
65.
RobertsonD (1976) A Theory of Party Competition. London: John Wiley & Sons.
66.
RovnyJ (2012) Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition. European Union Politics12(2): 269–292.
67.
SchlesingerJA (1975) The primary goals of political parties: a clarification of positive theory. The American Political Science Review69(3): 840–849.
68.
SchumacherGDe VriesCEVisB (2013) Why do parties change position? Party organization and environmental incentives. The Journal of Politics75(2): 464–477.
69.
SeebergHB (2013) The opposition’s policy influence through issue politicisation. Journal of Public Policy33(1): 89–107.
70.
SigelmanLBuellEH (2004) Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in U.S. presidential campaigns, 1960–2000. American Journal of Political Science48(4): 650–661.
71.
Somer-TopcuZ (2009) Timely decisions: the effects of past national elections on party policy change. The Journal of Politics71(1): 238–248.
72.
Somer-TopcuZ (2015) Everything to everyone: the electoral consequences of the broad-appeal strategy in Europe. American Journal of Political Science59(4): 841–854.
73.
SpoonJ-JHoboltSBDe VriesCE (2014) Going green: explaining issue competition on the environment. European Journal of Political Research53(2): 363–380.
74.
StrømK (1990) A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science34(2): 565–598.
75.
TavitsMPotterJD (2015) The effect of inequality and social identity on party strategies. American Journal of Political Science59(3): 744–758.
76.
Van De WardtM (2015) Desperate needs, desperate deeds: why mainstream parties respond to the issues of niche parties. West European Politics38(1): 93–122.
77.
Van De WardtMDe VriesCEHoboltSB (2014) Exploiting the cracks: wedge issues in multiparty competition. The Journal of Politics76(4): 986–999.
78.
VolkensALehmannPMerzN. (2014) The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2014b. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
79.
WagnerM (2012a) Defining and measuring niche parties. Party Politics18(6): 845–864.
80.
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.
81.
WagnerMMeyerTM (2014) Which issues do parties emphasise? Salience strategies and party organisation in multiparty systems. West European Politics37(5): 1019–1045.
82.
WalgraveSLefevereJNuytemansM (2009) Issue ownership stability and change: How political parties claim and maintain issues through media appearances. Political Communication26(2): 153–172.
83.
WalgraveSLefevereJTreschA (2012) The associative dimension of issue ownership. Public Opinion Quarterly76(4): 771–782.
84.
WareA (1992) Activist–leader relations and the structure of political parties: ‘Exchange’ models and vote-seeking behaviour in parties. British Journal of Political Science22(1): 71–92.
85.
WooldridgeJM (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
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.
