Previous research suggests that political parties respond to left–right policy positions of successful foreign political parties (“foreign leaders”). We evaluate whether this is an effective electoral strategy: specifically, do political parties gain votes in elections when they respond to successful foreign parties? We argue that parties that follow foreign leaders will arrive at policy positions closer to their own (domestic) median voter, which increases their electoral support. The analysis is based on a two-stage model specification of parties’ vote shares and suggests that following foreign leaders is a beneficial election strategy in national election because it allows them to better identify the position of their own median voter. These findings have important implications for our understanding of political representation, parties’ election strategies, and for policy diffusion.
Abou-ChadiTOrlowskiM (2016) Moderate as necessary: the role of electoral competitiveness and party size in explaining parties’ policy shifts. Journal of Politics78(3): 868–881.
2.
AdamsJ (2001) A theory of spatial competition with biased voters: party policies viewed temporally and comparatively. British Journal of Political Science31(1): 121–158.
3.
AdamsJ (2012) Causes and electoral consequences of party policy shifts in multiparty elections: theoretical results and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Political Science15(1): 401–419.
4.
AdamsJMerrillMIII (2009) Policy-seeking parties in a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation: a valence-uncertainty model. British Journal of Political Science39(3): 539–558.
5.
AdamsJSomer-TopcuZ (2009) Do parties adjust their policies in response to rival parties’ policy shifts? Spatial theory and the dynamics of party competition in twenty-five democracies. British Journal of Political Science39(4): 825–846.
6.
AlvarezRMNaglerJBowlerS (2000a) Issues, economics, and the dynamics of multiparty elections: the British 1987 general election. American Political Science Review94(1): 131–149.
7.
AlvarezRMNaglerJWilletteJR (2000b) Measuring the relative impact of issues and the economy in democratic elections. Electoral Studies19(2-3): 237–253.
8.
AnsolabehereSSnyderJMJrStewartCIII (2001) Candidate positioning in US House elections. American Journal of Political Science45(1): 136–159.
9.
ArmingeonKIslerCKnöpfelL, et al. (2016) Comparative Political Data Set 1960-2014. Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne.
10.
BawnKSomer-TopcuZ (2012) Government versus opposition at the polls: how governing status affects the impact of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science56(2): 433–446.
11.
BendorJDiermeierDSiegelD, et al. (2011) A Behavioral Theory of Elections. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
12.
BendorJMookherjeeDRayD (2005) Satisficing and selection in electoral competition. Quarterly Journal of Political Science5(1): 1–30.
13.
BöhmeltTEzrowLLehrerR, et al. (2016) Party policy diffusion. American Political Science Review110(2): 397–410.
14.
BudgeI (1994) A new spatial theory of party competition: uncertainty, ideology, and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporarily. British Journal of Political Science24(4): 443–468.
15.
BudgeIEzrowLMcDonaldM (2010) Ideology, party factionalism and policy change: an integrated dynamic theory. British Journal of Political Science40: 781–804.
16.
BudgeIKemanHMcDonaldM, et al. (2012) Organizing Democratic Choice: Party Representation Over Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
BudgeIKlingemannHDVolkensA, et al. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
BuhaugHGleditschKS (2008) Contagion or confusion? Why conflicts cluster in space. International Studies Quarterly52(2): 215–233.
19.
BurdenB (2001) Choices and Echoes in U.S. House Elections. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, March 2001, San Antonio, TX.
20.
Canes-WroneBBradyDWCoganJF (2002) Out of step, out of office: electoral accountability and house members’ voting. American Political Science Review96(1): 127–140.
21.
CeronA (2012) Bounded oligarchy: how and when factions constrain leaders in party position-taking. Electoral Studies31(4): 689–701.
22.
CoxG (1990) Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science34(4): 905–935.
23.
DobbinFSimmonsBGarrettG (2007) The global diffusion of public policies: social construction, coercion, competition, or learning?Annual Review of Sociology33(1): 449–472.
24.
DöringHManowP (2012) Parliament and government composition database (parlgov): an infrastructure for empirical information on parties, elections, and governments in modern democracies. Version 12/10—15 October 2012. Available at: http://parlgov.org/ (accessed on 20 October 2019).
25.
DowJK (2001) A comparative spatial analysis of majoritarian and proportional elections. Electoral Studies20(1): 109–125.
26.
DowJK (2011) Party-system extremism in majoritarian and proportional electoral systems. British Journal of Political Science41: 341–361.
27.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
28.
DuchRDStevensonRT (2008) The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
ElkinsZSimmonsB (2005) On waves, clusters, and diffusion: a conceptual framework. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science598(1): 33–51.
30.
EriksonRWrightG (1997) Voters, candidates and issues in congressional elections. In: DoddLOppenheimerB (eds) Congress Reconsidered, 6th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, pp. 67–92.
31.
EriksonRMacKuenMStimsonJ (2002) The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
EzrowL (2010) Linking Citizens and Parties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
FranzeseRHaysJ (2007) Spatial econometric models of cross-sectional interdependence in political science panel and time-series-cross-section data. Political Analysis15(2): 140–164.
34.
FranzeseRHaysJ (2008) Interdependence in comparative politics: substance, theory, empirics, substance. Comparative Political Studies41(4/5): 742–780.
35.
GilardiF (2010) Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes?American Journal of Political Science54(3): 650–666.
36.
GilardiF (2012) Transnational diffusion: norms, ideas, and policies. In: WalterCRisseTSimmonsB (eds). Handbook of International Relations. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 453–477.
37.
GreeneZD (2015) Competing on the issues: how experience in government and economic conditions influence the scope of parties’ policy messages. Party Politics22(6): 809–822.
38.
HearlD (2001) Checking the party policy estimates: reliability. In: IanBKlingemannHDVolkensABaraJTannenbaumT (eds) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–125.
39.
HuberJDPowellGB (1994) Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of democracy. World Politics46(3): 291–326.
40.
JenningsWWlezienC (2018) Election polling errors across time and space. Nature Human Behaviour2(1): 276–283.
41.
KahnemanDFrederickS (2002) Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: ThomasGGriffinDKahnemanD (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–81.
42.
KangSGPowellGBJr (2010) Representation and policy responsiveness: the median voter, election rules, and redistributive welfare spending. Journal of Politics72(4): 1014–1028.
43.
KayserMA (2007) How domestic is domestic politics? Globalization and elections. Annual Review of Political Science10(1): 341–362.
44.
KayserMA (2009) Partisan waves: international business cycles and electoral choice. American Journal of Political Science53(4): 950–970.
45.
KlingemannHDVolkensABaraJ, et al. (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990-2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1979) “Effective” number of parties: a measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
47.
LaverM (2005) Policy and the dynamics of political competition. American Political Science Review99(2): 263–281.
48.
LaverMSergentiE (2012) Party Competition: An Agent Based Model. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
49.
LaverMBenoitKGarryJ (2003) Estimating the policy positions of political actors using words as data. American Political Science Review97(2): 311–331.
50.
LehrerR (2012) Intra-party democracy and party responsiveness. West European Politics35(6): 1295–1319.
51.
LehrerREzrowLWardH, et al. (2017) Intraparty democracy and responsiveness to rival parties’ policies. Social Science Quarterly93: 1026–1044.
52.
Lewis-BeckM (1988) Economics and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
53.
MarksGHoogheLSteenbergenMR, et al. (2007) Crossvalidating data on party positioning on European integration. Electoral Studies26(1): 23–38.
54.
McDonaldMBudgeI (2005) Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55.
McDonaldMMendesSM (2001) Checking the party policy estimates: convergent validity. In: IanBKlingemannHDVolkensABaraJTannenbaumE (eds) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 127–141.
56.
MeguidBM (2005) Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review99(3): 347–359.
57.
MeguidBM (2008) Party Competition Between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
PaldamM (1991) How robust is the vote function? A study of seventeen nations over four decades. In: HelmutNLewis-BeckMSLafayJD (eds) Economics and Politics. The Calculus of Support. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 9–31.
59.
PowellGB (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven: Yale University Press.
60.
PowellGBWhittenGD (1993) A cross-national analysis of economic voting: taking account of political context. American Journal of Political Science37(2): 391–414.
61.
SchmittHScholzE (2005) The Mannheim Eurobarometer Trend File, 1970-2002. Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
62.
SchofieldN (2003) Valence competition in the spatial stochastic model. Journal of Theoretical Politics15(4): 371–383.
63.
SchofieldN (2004) Equilibrium in the spatial valence model of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics16(3/4): 447–481.
64.
SchofieldNSenedI (2006) Multiparty Democracy: Parties, Elections, and Legislative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
65.
SchofieldNSenedINixonD (1998a) Nash equilibrium in multiparty competition with ‘stochastic’ voters. Annals of Operations Research84: 3–27.
66.
SchofieldNMartinAQuinnK, et al. (1998b) Multiparty electoral competition in the Netherlands and Germany: a model based on multinomial probit. Public Choice97(3): 257–293.
67.
SchumacherGDe VriesCVisB (2013) Why political parties change their position: environmental incentives and party organization. Journal of Politics75(2): 464–477.
68.
SchumacherGvan de WardtMVisB, et al. (2015) Government formation and party platform change: how aspiration to office conditions the impact of government participation on party platform change. American Journal of Political Science59(4): 1040–1054.
69.
ShorBRogowskiJC (2018) Ideology and the US Congressional Vote. Political Science Research and Methods6(2): 323–341.
70.
SimonH (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics69(1): 99–118.
71.
Somer-TopcuZ (2009) Timely decisions: the effects of past national elections on party policy change. 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.
SorokaSNWlezienC (2010) Degrees of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
74.
SpoonJJ (2011) Political Parties of Small Parties in Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
75.
StimsonJAMackuenMBEriksonRS (1995) Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review89(3): 543–565.
76.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. In: TverskyAKahnemanD (eds) Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–22.
77.
VolkensALehmannPMatthießT, et al. (2015) The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/ MARPOR). Version 2015a. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
78.
WilliamsL (2015) It’s all relative: spatial positioning of parties and ideological shifts. European Journal of Political Research54(1): 141–159.
79.
WilliamsLWhittenG (2015) Don’t stand so close to me: spatial contagion effects and party competition. American Journal of Political Science59(2): 309–325.
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.
