Quantitative research on party politics often has to assume that parties are unitary actors with homogeneous policy preferences simply because intra-party heterogeneity is difficult to measure. This article proposes a measure of preference heterogeneity based on surveys of party elites. We draw on Comparative Candidates Survey (CCS) data from 28 elections in 21 developed democracies to quantify intra-party heterogeneity and validate this measure. The usefulness of the measure is demonstrated by studying the effects of intra-party heterogeneity on issue salience. We find support for the hypothesis that heterogeneity regarding a policy issue tends to be negatively associated with the emphasis a party places on that issue by regressing measures of issue salience from the Chapel Hill Expert Survey and the Manifesto Project on our CCS measure of heterogeneity. Problems of elite surveys notwithstanding, drawing on this data source seems a promising way to overcome the unitary party assumption.
AndewegRBThomassenJ (2010) Pathways to party unity: sanctions, loyalty, homogeneity and division of labour in the Dutch parliament. Party Politics17(5): 655–672.
2.
BailerS (2009) The puzzle of continuing party group cohesion in the European Parliament after Eastern enlargement. In: GianettiDKennethB (eds) Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 189–204.
3.
BailerS (2014) Interviews and surveys in legislative research. In: MartinSSaalfeldTStrømKW (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 167–193.
4.
BakkerRDe VriesCEdwardsE. (2015) Measuring party positions in Europe: the Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics21(1): 143–152.
5.
BernauerJBräuningerT (2009) Intra-party preference heterogeneity and faction membership in the 15th German Bundestag: a computational text analysis of parliamentary speeches. German Politics18(3): 385–402.
6.
BudgeIFarlieD (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London, UK: Allen & Unwin.
7.
CCS (2016) Comparative Candidates Survey Module I – 2005-2013 [Dataset – cumulative file], Version 3.1. Distributed by FORS, Lausanne, 2016. Available at: http://forscenter.ch/en/.
8.
CeronA (2016) Inter-factional conflicts and government formation: do party leaders sort out ideological heterogeneity?Party Politics22(6): 797–808.
9.
DaalderH (1983) The comparative study of European parties and party systems. In: DaalderHMairP (eds) Western European Party Systems: Continuity & Change. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 1–27.
10.
DäublerT (2012) The preparation and use of election manifestos: learning from the Irish case. Irish Political Studies27(1): 51–70.
11.
De VriesCEVan de WardtM (2011) EU issue salience and domestic party competition. In: OppermannKVierigH (eds) Issue Salience in International Politics. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 173–187.
12.
DolezalMEnnser-JedenastikLMüllerWC. (2012) The life cycle of party manifestos: the Austrian case. West European Politics35(4): 869–895.
13.
EldersveldSJ (1964) Political Parties: A Behavioral Analysis. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
14.
GanghofS (2003) Promises and pitfalls of veto player analysis. Swiss Political Science Review9(2): 1–25.
15.
GreeneZD (2016) How intra-party disagreement determines issue diversity in election manifestos. In: EUENGAGE Amsterdam Text Analysis Conference, Amsterdam, NL, 21–22June 2016.
16.
GreeneZDHaberM (2015) The consequences of appearing divided: an analysis of party evaluations and vote choice. Electoral Studies37(1): 15–27.
17.
GreeneZDHaberM (2016) Leadership competition and disagreement at party national congresses. British Journal of Political Science46(3): 611–632.
18.
GreeneZDO’BrienDZ (2016) Diverse parties, diverse agendas? Female politicians and the parliamentary party’s role in platform formation. European Journal of Political Research55(3): 435–453.
19.
KlingemannHDVolkensABaraJ. (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II. Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990-2003. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20.
KitscheltH (1994) The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
KitscheltHSmythR (2002) Programmatic party cohesion in emerging postcommunist democracies: Russia in comparative context. Comparative Political Studies35(10): 1228–1256.
22.
KitscheltHHawkinsKALunaJP. (2010) Latin American Party Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
KluckhohnC (1951) Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: an exploration in definition and classification. In: ParsonsTShilsE (eds) Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 388–433.
24.
KriesiH (2012) Personalization of national election campaigns. Party Politics18(6): 825–844.
25.
LaverM (2014) Measuring policy positions in political space. Annual Review of Political Science17(1): 207–223.
26.
MacAllisterI (2007) The personalization of politics. In: DaltonRJKlingemannHD (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 570–588.
27.
MeguidBM (2008) Party Competition Between Unequals. Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
NorrisP (1995) May’s law of curvilinear disparity revisited: leaders, officers, members and voters in British political parties. Party Politics1(1): 29–47.
29.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825–850.
30.
SaalfeldTStrømKW (2014) Political parties and legislators. In: ShaneMSaalfeldTStrømKW (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 371–398.
31.
SiebererU (2006) Party unity in parliamentary democracies: a comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies12(2): 150–178.
32.
SpoonJ (2012) How salient is Europe? An analysis of european election manifestos, 1979-2004. European Union Politics13(4): 558–579.
33.
SteckerC (2013) How effects on party unity vary across votes. Party Politics21(5): 791–802.
34.
SteenbergenMRScottDJ (2004) Contesting Europe? The salience of European integration as a party issue. In: GaryMSteenbergenMR (eds) European Integration and Political Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 165–192.
35.
TavitsMPotterJD (2015) The effect of inequality and social identity on party strategies. American Journal of Political Science59(3): 744–758.
36.
Van der EijkC (2001) Measuring agreement in ordered rating scales. Quality and Quantity35(3): 325–341.
37.
Van de WardtMDe VriesCEHoboltSB (2014) Exploiting the cracks: wedge issues in multiparty competition. The Journal of Politics76(4): 986–999.
38.
VolkensALehmannPMatthießT. (2016) The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2016a. Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
39.
WagnerM (2012) When do parties emphasise extreme positions? How strategic incentives for policy differentiation influence issue importance. European Journal of Political Research51(1): 64–88.
40.
ZittelT (2015) Constituency candidates in comparative perspective: how personalized are constituency campaigns, why, and does it matter?Electoral Studies39(3): 286–294.
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.
