Existing accounts of issue competition have focused on content: What issues do parties choose to compete with. We complement this literature with an account of parties’ choices on when to compete. Conceiving of the object of competition – public attention – as a common-pool resource, we explain the timing of party attempts at acquiring issues as an interdependent process. Outside of election times, parties coordinate their attempts along a tit-for-tat logic. Within election times, they raise rates of their attempts, rendering coordination futile. This especially concerns opposition parties. We test our hypotheses with a novel data set on roll call vote (RCV) requests in the 16 German state parliaments. These parliaments lend themselves to comparative analysis since they are nearly identical in institutional features and political positions of parties, yet diverse as concerns party strength and government participation at any point in time. The data set covers all 4849 RCVs held in 16.968 plenary sessions in the period 1947–2011.
AnsolabehereSIyengarS (1994) Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: the joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly58(3): 335–357.
2.
AxelrodR (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Penguin Books.
3.
BandaKK (2015) Competition and the dynamics of issue convergence. American Politics Research43(5): 821–845.
4.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBDWilkersonJ (2011) Comparative studies of policy dynamics. Comparative Political Studies44(8): 947–972.
BudgeIFarlieD (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in 23 Democracies. London, UK: Unwin.
7.
CareyJM (2009) Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
ChongSYHumbleJKendallG. (2007) Iterated prisoner’s dilemma and evolutionary game theory. In: KendallGYaoXChongSY (eds), The Iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma: 20 Years on. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, pp. 63–88.
9.
ColemanJS (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
DahlbergSMartinssonJ (2015) Changing issue ownership through policy communication. West European Politics38(4): 817–838.
11.
DäublerTDebusM (2009) Government formation and policy formulation in the German states. Regional and Federal Studies19(1): 73–95.
12.
DöringH (1995) Time as a scarce resource: government control of the agenda. In: DöringH (ed), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, pp. 223–246.
13.
DuerschPOechsslerJSchipperBC (2014) When is tit-for-tat unbeatable?International Journal of Game Theory43(1): 25–36.
14.
EisslerRRussellAJonesBD (2014) New avenues for the study of agenda setting. Policy Studies Journal42: S71–S86.
15.
FroioCBevanSJenningsW (2016) Party mandates and the politics of attention: party platforms, public priorities and the policy agenda in Britain. Party Politics. Online First on July, 9, 2016, DOI: 10.1177/1354068815625228.
16.
GanghofSBräuningerT (2006) Government status and legislative behaviour: partisan veto players in Australia, Denmark, Finland and Germany. Party Politics12(4): 521–539.
17.
GreenJHoboltSB (2008) Owning the issue agenda: party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies27(3): 460–476.
18.
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.
19.
Green-PedersenC (2010) Bringing parties into parliament: the development of parliamentary activities in Western Europe. Party Politics16(3): 347–369.
20.
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.
21.
Green-PedersenCMortensenPB (2015) Avoidance and engagement: issue competition in multiparty systems. Political Studies63(4): 747–764.
22.
HardinG (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science162: 1243–1248.
23.
HilbeCTraulsenASigmundK (2015) Partners or rivals? Strategies for the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Games and Economic Behavior92: 41–52.
24.
HixSNouryARolandG (2006) Dimensions of politics in the European parliament. American Journal of Political Science50(2): 494–511.
25.
HoboltSBde VriesCE (2015) Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty competition. Comparative Political Studies48(9): 1159–1185.
26.
HugS (2010) Selection effects in roll call votes. British Journal of Political Science40(1): 225–235.
27.
KlüverHSagarzazuI (2016) Setting the agenda or responding to voters? Political parties, voters and issue attention. West European Politics39(2): 380–398.
28.
KlüverHSpoonJJ (2016) Who responds? Voters, parties and issue attention. British Journal of Political Science46(3): 633–654.
29.
KönenS (2009) Wo Sind Die Rebellen Hin? Dissentierendes Abstimmungsverhalten in Ost- Und Westdeutschen Landtagen. Wiesbaden: VS – Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
30.
MeguidBM (2005) Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review99(3): 347–359.
31.
OstromE (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
OstromE (2005) Doing institutional analysis: digging deeper than markets and hierarchies. In: MénardCShirleyMM (eds), Handbook of New Institutional Economics. Berlin [u.a.]: Springer, pp. 819–848.
33.
OstromEWalkerJGardnerR (1992) Covenants with and without a sword: self-governance is possible. American Political Science Review86(2): 404–417.
34.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825–850.
35.
PressWHDysonFJ (2012) Iterated prisoner’s dilemma contains strategies that dominate any evolutionary opponent. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America109(26): 10409–10413.
36.
RikerWH (1993) Rhetorical interaction in the ratification campaigns. In: RikerWH (ed), Agenda Formation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 81–126.
37.
RobertsonD (1976) A Theory of Party Competition. London: Wiley.
38.
SaalfeldT (1995) Parteisoldaten und Rebellen: Eine Untersuchung zur Geschlossenheit der Fraktionen im Deutschen Bundestag (1949–1990). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
39.
SeebergHB (2013) The opposition’s policy influence through issue politicisation. Journal of Public Policy33(1): 89–107.
40.
SigelmanLBuellEH (2004) Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in US presidential campaigns, 1960–2000. American Journal of Political Science48(4): 650–661.
41.
SimonAF (2002) The Winning Message: Candidate Behavior, Campaign Discourse, and Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
SimonHA (1985) Human nature in politics: the dialogue of psychology with political Science. American Political Science Review79(2): 293–304.
43.
SimonHA (1997 [1947]) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. New York: The Free Press.
44.
SlanyWKienreichW (2007) On some winning strategies for the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. In: KendallGYaoXChongSY (eds), The Iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma: 20 Years on. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, pp. 171–204.
45.
SpoonJ-JKlüverH (2014) Do parties respond? How electoral context influences party responsiveness. Electoral Studies35: 48–60.
46.
SpoonJ-JKlüverH (2015) Voter polarisation and party responsiveness: why parties emphasise divided issues, but remain silent on unified issues. European Journal of Political Research54(2): 343–362.
47.
SteckerC (2010) Causes of roll-call votes supply: evidence from the German Länder. The Journal of Legislative Studies16(4): 438–459.
48.
VolkensABaraJBudgeI. (2013) Mapping Policy Preferences From Texts: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
WagnerMMeyerTM (2014) Which issues do parties emphasise? Salience strategies and party organisation in multiparty systems. West European Politics37(5): 1019–1045.
50.
WalgraveSLefevereJNuytemansM (2009) Issue ownership stability and change: how political parties claim and maintain issues through media appearances. Political Communication26(2): 153–172.
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.
