Estimates of party ideological positions in Western Democracies yield useful party-level information, but generally lack the ability to provide an insight into the intraparty politics of party elites. In this article, we generate comparable measures of latent individual policy positions from elite survey data that enable analysis of elite-level party ideology and heterogeneity. This approach has some advantages over both expert surveys and approaches based on behavioral data, such as roll-call voting, and is directly relevant to the study of party cohesion. We generate a measure of elite positions for several mostly European countries using a common space scaling approach and demonstrate its validity as a measure of party ideology. We then apply these data to examine sources of party elite heterogeneity, focusing on the role of intraparty competition in electoral systems, nomination rules, and party goals. We find that policy-seeking parties and centralized party nomination rules are associated with less party heterogeneity. While intraparty competition has no effect, such contexts appear to condition the effect of district magnitude.
AmesB (1995) Electoral strategy under open-list proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science39(2): 406–433.
3.
AndewegRBThomassenJ (2010) Pathways to party unity: sanctions, loyalty, homogeneity and division of labour in the Dutch parliament. Party Politics17(5): 655–672.
4.
AndréADepauwSMartinS (2014) Electoral systems and legislators’ constituency effort the mediating effect of electoral vulnerability. Comparative Political Studies48(4): 464–496.
5.
AnsolabehereSSnyderJMJrStewartCIII (2001) The effects of party and preferences on congressional roll-call voting. Legislative Studies Quarterly26: 533–572.
6.
ArmstrongDABakkerRCarrollR. (2014) Analyzing Spatial Models of Choice and Judgment with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
7.
BäckH (2008) Intra-party politics and coalition formation: evidence from Swedish local government. Party Politics14(1): 71–89.
8.
BäckHDebusM (2016) Political Parties, Parliaments and Legislative Speechmaking. Springer.
9.
BäckHDebusMMüllerWC (2016) Intra-party diversity and ministerial selection in coalition governments. Public Choice166: 355–378.
10.
BailerS (2014) Interviews and surveys in legislative research. In: ShaneMThomasSKaareWS (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 167–193.
11.
BakkerRDe VriesCEdwardsE. (2015) Measuring party positions in Europe The Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics21(1): 143–152.
12.
BakkerREdwardsEJollyS. (2014a) Anchoring the experts: using vignettes to compare party ideology across countries. Research & Politics1(3): 1–8.
13.
BakkerRJollySPolkJ. (2014b) The European common space: extending the use of anchoring vignettes. Journal of Politics76(04): 1089–1101.
14.
BakkerRJollySPolkJ (2012) Complexity in the European party space: exploring dimensionality with experts. European Union Politics13(2): 219–245.
15.
BenoitKLaverM (2007) Estimating party policy positions: comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies26(1): 90–107.
16.
BlaisABodetMA (2006) Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policy makers?Comparative Political Studies39(10): 1243–1262.
17.
BowlerSFarrellDMKatzRS (1999) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
18.
BudgeI (2000) Expert judgements of party policy positions: uses and limitations in political research. European Journal of Political Research37(1): 103–113.
19.
BudgeI (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments, 1945–1998. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
BudgeIMcDonaldMD (2007) Election and party system effects on policy representation: bringing time into a comparative perspective. Electoral Studies26(1): 168–179.
21.
BudgeIRobertsonDHearlD (1987) Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-war Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
CainBEFerejohnJAFiorinaMP (1987) The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
23.
CamiaVCaramaniD (2012) Family meetings: ideological convergence within party families across Europe, 1945–2009. Comparative European Politics10(1): 48–85.
24.
CareyJM (2008) Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
CareyJMHixS (2011) The electoral sweet spot: low-magnitude proportional electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science55(2): 383–397.
26.
CareyJMShugartMS (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral studies14(4): 417–439.
27.
CarrollRPooleK (2014) Roll call analysis and the study of legislatures. In: MartinSSaalfeldTStromKW (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 103–124.
28.
CarrubbaCJGabelMHugS (2008) Legislative voting behavior, seen and unseen: a theory of roll-call vote selection. Legislative Studies Quarterly33(4): 543–572.
29.
CarrubbaCJGabelMMurrahL. (2006) Off the record: unrecorded legislative votes, selection bias and roll-call vote analysis. British Journal of Political Science36(4): 691–704.
30.
ClintonJJackmanSRiversD (2004) The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review98(2): 355–370.
31.
Coleman BattistaJRichmanJT (2011) Party pressure in the US state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly36(3): 397–422.
32.
CrossWPKatzRS (2013) The Challenges of Intra-party Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
DaltonRJ (2008) The quantity and the quality of party systems party system polarization, its measurement, and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies41(7): 899–920.
34.
DepauwS (1999) Parliamentary party cohesion and the scarcity of sanctions in the belgian chamber of representatives. Res Publica: Tijdschrift voor Politologie41(1): 15–39.
35.
DepauwSMartinS (2009) Legislative party discipline and cohesion in comparative perspective. In GiannettiDBenoitK (eds) Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments in Parliamentary Democracies. London: Routledge, pp. 103–120.
36.
DeschouwerKDepauwS (2014) Representing the People: A Survey among Members of Statewide and Substate Parliaments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
DesposatoSW (2005) Correcting for small group inflation of roll-call cohesion scores. British Journal of Political Science35(4): 731–744.
38.
DesposatoSW (2006) The impact of electoral rules on legislative parties: lessons from the Brazilian senate and chamber of deputies. Journal of Politics68(4): 1018–1030.
39.
DowJK (2001) A comparative spatial analysis of majoritarian and proportional elections. Electoral Studies20(1): 109–125.
40.
DowJK (2011) Party-system extremism in majoritarian and proportional electoral systems. British Journal of Political Science41(2): 341–361.
41.
EnnserL (2010) The homogeneity of West European party families: the radical right in comparative perspective. Party Politics18(2): 151–171.
42.
EzrowL (2008) Parties’ policy programmes and the dog that didn’t bark: no evidence that proportional systems promote extreme party positioning. British Journal of Political Science38(3): 479–497.
43.
FaasT (2003) To defect or not to defect? National, institutional and party group pressures on MEPs and their consequences for party group cohesion in the European Parliament. European Journal of Political Research42(6): 841–866.
GiannettiDBenoitK (2008) Intra-party Politics and Coalition Governments. New York: Routledge.
46.
HallerbergMMarierP (2004) Executive authority, the personal vote, and budget discipline in Latin American and Caribbean countries. American Journal of Political Science48(3): 571–587.
47.
HansenMERasmussenNEK (2013) Does running for the same party imply similar policy preferences? Evidence from voting advice applications. Representation49(2): 189–205.
48.
HazanRY (2003) Introduction: does cohesion equal discipline? Towards a conceptual delineation. The Journal of Legislative Studies9(4): 1–11.
49.
HazanRY (2006) Cohesion and Discipline in Legislatures. New York: Routledge.
50.
HazanRYRahatG (2010) Democracy within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and their Political Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
HeitshusenVYoungGWoodDM (2005) Electoral context and MP constituency focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science49(1): 32–45.
52.
HixS (2004) Electoral institutions and legislative behavior: explaining voting defection in the European Parliament. World politics56(2): 194–223.
53.
HoogheLBakkerRBrigevichA. (2010) Reliability and validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill expert surveys on party positioning. European Journal of Political Research49(5): 687–703.
54.
HuberJInglehartH (1995) Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics1(1): 73–111.
55.
JahnDOberstJ (2012) Ideological party cohesion in macro-comparative politics: the Nordic social democratic parties from a comparative perspective. Scandinavian Political Studies35(3): 222–245.
56.
KamC (2001) Do ideological preferences explain parliamentary behaviour? Evidence from Great Britain and Canada. Journal of Legislative Studies7(4): 89–126.
57.
KamCBiancoWTSenedI. (2010) Ministerial selection and intraparty organization in the contemporary British parliament. American Political Science Review104(2): 289–306.
58.
KatzRS (1986) Intraparty Preference Voting. In: GrofmanLijphart (eds) Electoral Laws and their olitical Consequences. New York: Agathon Press, pp. 85–103.
59.
KatzRSMairP (1992) Party Organization: A Data Handbook. London: Sage.
60.
KitscheltHFreezeK (2010) Programmatic party system structuration: developing and comparing cross-national and cross-party measures with a new global data set. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
61.
KitscheltHKselmanDM (2013) Economic development, democratic experience, and political parties’ linkage strategies. Comparative Political Studies46(11): 1453–1484.
62.
KitscheltHSmythR (2002) Programmatic party cohesion in emerging postcommunist democracies Russia in comparative context. Comparative Political Studies35(10): 1228–1256.
63.
KlingemannHHofferbertRIBudgeI (1994) Parties, Policies, and Democracy. Boulder: Westview Press.
64.
KlingemannHVolkensABaraJ. (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65.
KönigTMarbachMOsnabrüggeM (2013) Estimating party positions across countries and time—a dynamic latent variable model for manifesto data. Political Analysis21(4): 468–491.
66.
KristjánssonS (1998) Electoral politics and governance: Transformation of the party system in Iceland, 1970–1996. In PenningsPLaneJ-E (eds) Comparing party system change. London: Routledge, pp. 167–182.
67.
LaverM (2014) Measuring policy positions in political space. Annual Review of Political Science17: 207–223.
68.
LaverMBenoitK (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.
69.
LaverMHuntWB (1992) Policy and Party Competition. London: Routledge.
70.
LaverMShepsleKA (1990) Government coalitions and intraparty politics. British Journal of Political Science20(4): 489–507.
71.
LoJProkschSGschwendT (2014) A common left-right scale for voters and parties in Europe. Political Analysis22(2): 205–223.
72.
MairPMuddeC (1998) The party family and its study. Annual Review of Political Science1(1): 211–229.
73.
MarksGHoogheLSteenbergenMR. (2007) Crossvalidating data on party positioning on European integration. Electoral Studies26(1): 23–38.
74.
McGannAJ (2002) The advantages of ideological cohesion a model of constituency representation and electoral competition in multi-party democracies. Journal of Theoretical Politics14(1): 37–70.
75.
MikhaylovSLaverMBenoitKR (2012) Coder reliability and misclassification in the human coding of party manifestos. Political Analysis20(1): 78–91.
76.
MorgensternS (2003) Patterns of Legislative Politics: Roll-call Voting in Latin America and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
77.
Ortega VillodesC (2006) Preference voting systems and their impact on the personalisation of politics. Presented at the Comparative Studies of Electoral Systems Meeting (CSES) Conference and Planning Committee Meeting, Sevilla, Spain, March 28–31 2006.
78.
OwensJE (2003) Part 1: cohesion: explaining party cohesion and discipline in democratic legislatures: purposiveness and contexts. The Journal of Legislative Studies9(4): 12–40.
79.
ÖzbudunE (1970) Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.
80.
PedersenHH (2012) Policy-seeking parties in multiparty systems: influence or purity?Party Politics18(3): 297–314.
81.
PenningsPHazanRY (2001) Democratizing candidate selection: causes and consequences. Party Politics7(3): 267–275.
82.
PooleKT (1998) Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science42(3): 954–993.
83.
PooleKT (2005) Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
84.
PooleKLewisJRosenthalH. (2016) Recovering a basic space from issue scales in R. Journal of Statistical Software69(7): 1–21.
85.
PooleKTRosenthalH (1997) Congress: A Political-economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
86.
PooleKTHowardR (2007) Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick: Transaction Press.
ProkschSSlapinJB (2014) The Politics of Parliamentary Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
89.
RahatGHazanRY (2001) Candidate selection methods an analytical framework. Party Politics7(3): 297–322.
90.
RahatGSheaferT (2007) The personalization (s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication24(1): 65–80.
91.
RovnyJ (2012) Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition. European Union Politics13(2): 269–292.
92.
SaieghSM (2009) Recovering a basic space from elite surveys: evidence from Latin America. Legislative Studies Quarterly34(1): 117–145.
93.
SaieghSM (2015) Using joint scaling methods to study ideology and representation: evidence from Latin America. Political Analysis23(3): 363–384.
94.
SchattschneiderEE (1942) Party Government: American Government in Action. New York: Farrar and Rinehart. Transaction Publishers.
95.
ScheinerE (2006) Democracy without Competition in Japan: Opposition Failure in a One-party Dominant State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
96.
ScullyRHixSFarrellDM (2012) National or European parliamentarians? Evidence from a new survey of the members of the European parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies50(4): 670–683.
97.
SiebererU (2006) Party unity in parliamentary democracies: a comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies12(2): 150–178.
98.
SlapinJBProkschS (2008) A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science52(3): 705–722.
99.
SpirlingAMcLeanI (2007) UK OC OK? Interpreting optimal classification scores for the UK House of Commons. Political Analysis15(1): 85–96.
100.
StrømK (1990) A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science34(2): 565–598.
101.
ValdiniME (2006) Electoral Institutions and Information Shortcuts: The Effect of Decisive Intraparty Competition on the Behavior of Voters and Party Elites. PhD dissertation, San Diego: University of California.
102.
ValdiniME (2013) Electoral institutions and the manifestation of bias: the effect of the personal vote on the representation of women. Politics & Gender9(1): 76–92.
103.
VolkensA (2007) Strengths and weaknesses of approaches to measuring policy positions of parties. Electoral Studies26(1): 108–120.
104.
VolkensABaraJBudgeI. (2013) Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press.
105.
Von BeymeK (1985) Political Parties in Western Democracies. Gower Publishing Company, Limited.
106.
WiesehomeierNBenoitK (2009) Presidents, parties, and policy competition. Journal of Politics71(4): 1435–1447.
107.
ZittelTGschwendS (2008) Individualised constituency campaigns in mixed-member electoral systems: candidates in the 2005 German elections. West European Politics31(5): 978–1003.
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.
