This article addresses the questions of whether and why political parties respond to media-covered street protests. To do so, it adopts an agenda-setting approach and traces issue attention in protest politics and parliament over several years in four West European countries (France, Spain, the Netherlands and Switzerland). The article innovates in two ways. First, it does not treat the parties in parliament as a unitary actor but focuses on the responses of single parties. Second, partisan characteristics are introduced that might condition the effect of protest on parliamentary activity. More precisely, it assesses the explanatory power of ideological factors (left-right orientation and radicalism) and other factors related to issue competition between parties (opposition status, issue ownership and contagion). The results show that parties do respond to street protests in the news, and they are more likely to respond if they are in opposition and if their competitors have reacted to the issue.
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 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.
3.
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.
4.
BaumgartnerFMahoneyC (2005) Social movements, the rise of new issues, and the public agenda. In: MeyerDSJennesVIngramH (eds) Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 65–86.
5.
BudgeIFarlieD (1983) Party competition – selective emphasis or direct confrontation? An alternative view with data. In: DaalderHMairP (eds) Western European Party Systems. Continuity and Change. London: Sage, pp. 267–305.
6.
BurnsteinP (1999) Social movements and public policy. In: GiugniMMcAdamDTillyC (eds) How Social Movements Matter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–21.
7.
BursteinPFreudenbergW (1978) Changing public policy: the impact of public opinion, antiwar demonstrations, and war costs on senate voting on vietnam war motions. American Journal of Sociology84(1): 99–122.
8.
CarminesEGStimsonJA (1993) On the evolution of political issues. In: RikerW (ed.) Agenda Formation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 151–168.
9.
CostainANMajstorovicS (1994) Congress social movements and public opinion: multiple origins of women’s rights legislation. Political Research Quarterly47(1): 111–135.
10.
DaltonRVan SickleAWeldonS (2010) The individual-institutional nexus of protest behaviour. British Journal of Political Science40(1): 51–73.
DolezalMEnnser-JedenastikLMüllerWC. (2014) How parties compete for votes: a test of saliency theory. European Journal of Political Research53(1): 57–76.
13.
EarlJMartinAMcCarthyJD. (2004) The use of newspaper data in the study of collective action. Annual Review of Sociology30: 65–80.
14.
EzrowLde VriesCESteenbergenM. (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.
15.
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.
16.
Green-PedersenCMortensenPB (2015) Avoidance and engagement: issue competition in multiparty systems. Political Studies63(4): 747–764.
17.
HutterS (2014a) Protest event analysis and its offspring. In: della PortaD (ed.) Methodological Practices in Social Movement Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 335–367.
18.
HutterS (2014b) Protesting Culture and Economics in Western Europe: New Cleavages in Left and Right Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
19.
HutterSKriesiH (2013) Movements of the left and movements of the right reconsidered. In: van StekelenburgJRoggebandCMKlandermansB (eds) The Future of Social Movement Research. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 281–298.
20.
JohnsonEW (2008) Social movement size organizational diversity and the making of federal law. Social Forces86(3): 967–993.
21.
JohnsonEWAgnoneJMcCarthyJ (2010) Movement Organizations, Synergistic Tactics and Environmental Public Policy. Social Forces88(5): 2267–2292.
22.
KingBGCornwallMDahlinEC (2005) Winning woman suffrage one step at a time: social movements and the logic of the legislative process. Social Forces83(3): 1211–1234.
23.
KingBGBenteleKGSouleSA (2007) Protest and policymaking: explaining fluctuation in congressional attention to rights issues 1960-1986. Social Forces86(1): 137–163.
24.
KlingemannHDVolkensABaraJ. (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
KlüverHSpoonJJ (2014) Who responds? Voters parties and issue attention. British Journal of Political Science. DOI:10.1017/S0007123414000313
26.
KoopmansR (1995) Appendix: the newspaper data. In: KriesiHKoopmansRDuyvendakJWGiugniM (eds) New Social Movements in Western Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 253–273.
27.
KoopmansR (2004) Movements and media: selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere. Theory and Society33(3): 367–391.
28.
KriesiHGrandeEDolezalM. (2012) Political Conflict in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
KriesiHKoopmansRDuyvendakJW. (1995) New Social Movements in Western Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
30.
LohmannS (1993) A signalling model of informative and manipulative political action. American Political Science Review87(2): 319–333.
31.
MaguireD (1995) Opposition movements and opposition parties: equal partners or dependent relations in the struggle for power and reform? In: JenkinsJCKlandermansB (eds) The Politics of Social Protest. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 99–112.
32.
MarchLMuddeC (2005) What’s left of the Radical left? The European radical left after 1989: decline and mutation. Comparative European Politics3: 23–49.
33.
McAdamDSuY (2002) The war at home: antiwar protests and congressional voting 1965 to 1973. American Sociological Review67(5): 396–721.
34.
McAdamDTarrowS (2010) Ballots and barricades: on the reciprocal relationship between elections and social movements. Perspectives on Politics8(2): 529–542.
35.
McAdamDTarrowS (2013) Social movements and elections: toward a broader understanding of the political context of contention. In: van StekelenburgJRoggebandCMKlandermansB (eds) The Future of Social Movement Research. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 325–346.
36.
McCarthyJTitarenkoLMcPhailC. (2008) Assessing stability in the patterns of selection bias in newspaper coverage of protest during the transition from communism in Belarus. Mobilization13(2): 127–146.
37.
MeguidBM (2005) Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review99(3): 347–359.
38.
MuddeC (2007) Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
OlzakSSouleSA (2009) Cross-cutting influences of environmental protest and legislation. Social Forces88(1): 201–226.
40.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825–850.
41.
RobertsonD (1976) A Theory of Party Competition. London: Wiley.
42.
SouleSAKingBG (2006) The stages of the policy process and the equal rights amendment 1972-1982. American Journal of Sociology111(6): 1871–1909.
43.
SouleSAMcAdamDMcCarthyJ. (1999) Protest events: causes or consequence of the U.S. Women’s movement and federal congressional activities. Mobilization4(2): 239–256.
44.
SpoonJJHoboltSBde VriesCE (2014) Going green: explaining issue competition on the environment. European Journal of Political Research53(2): 363–380.
45.
UbaK (2009) The contextual dependence of movement outcomes: a simplified meta-analysis. Mobilization14(4): 433–448.
46.
UbaK (2016) Protest against school closures in Sweden: accepted by politicians? In: BosiLGiugniMUbaK (eds) The Consequences of Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–184.
47.
van de WardtM (2014) Desperate needs desperate deeds: why mainstream parties respond to the issues of niche parties. West European Politics38(1): 93–122.
48.
VerbaSSchlozmanKBradyH (1995) Voice and Equality. Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
49.
VliegenthartRWalgraveS (2011) When the media matter for politics: partisan moderators of the mass media’s agenda-setting influence on parliament in Belgium. Party Politics17(3): 321–342.
50.
VliegenthartRWalgraveSHutterS. (2015) The Media as a Dual Mediator of the Political Agenda Setting Effect of Protest: A Longitudinal Study in Six West-European Countries. Unpublished manuscript.
51.
VliegenthartRWalgraveSBaumgartnerFR. (2016) Do the media set the parliamentary agenda? A comparative study in seven countries. European Journal of Political Research55(2): 283–301.
52.
VolkensABaraJBudgeI. (eds) (2013) Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts. Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
WagnerMMeyerTM (2014) Which issues do parties emphasise? Salience strategies and party organisation in multiparty systems. West European Politics37(5): 1019–1045.
54.
WalgraveSLefevereJTreschA (2012) The associative dimension of issue ownership. Public Opinion Quarterly76(4): 771–782.
55.
WalgraveSVan AelstP (2006) The contingency of the mass media’s political agenda setting power: toward a preliminary theory. Journal of Communication56(1): 88–109.
56.
WalgraveSSorokaSNuytemansM (2008) The mass media’s political agenda-setting power. A longitudinal analysis of media parliament and government in Belgium (1993 to 2000). Comparative Political Studies41(6): 814–836.
57.
WalgraveSVliegenthartR (2012) The complex agenda-setting power of protest. demonstrations, media, parliament, government and legislation in Belgium 1993-2000. Mobilization17(2): 129–156.
58.
WibergM (1995) Parliamentary questioning: control by communication? In: DöringH (ed.) Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag, pp. 179–222.
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.
