In this study, we explore under what conditions the various actors in minority coalition governments are perceived as more or less responsible for policy outcomes. Using the 2022 budget negotiations between Norway’s two-party minority government and its informal support party as a case, we test whether voters attribute more responsibility to parties who “own” the issues that are particularly salient during the negotiations. We test our hypotheses with a 3 × 2 × 2 factorial vignette experiment. The results reveal that junior members and support parties are perceived as more responsible for policy outcomes when their issue ownership is emphasized in budget negotiations. This effect is amplified when voters are primed to consider policy influence. This has important strategic implications especially for smaller parties involved in coalition governing.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowL, et al. (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.
AndersonC (1995) The dynamics of public support for coalition governments. Comparative Political Studies28(3): 350–383.
4.
AngelovaMKönigTProkschS-O (2016) Responsibility attribution in coalition governments: evidence from Germany. Electoral Studies43: 133–149.
BäckHDebusMDumontP (2011) Who gets what in coalition governments? Predictors of portfolio allocation in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research50(4): 441–478.
8.
BaleTBergmanT (2006) Captives no longer, but servants still? Contract parliamentarism and the new minority governance in Sweden and New Zealand1. Government and Opposition41(3): 422–449.
9.
BerghJHesstvedtSKarlsenR (2022) Dagsorden Og sakseierskap ved stortingsvalget 2022 [Notat 2022]. Institutt for samfunnsforskning.
10.
BergmanMEKraussSThürkM (2025) “In for a Penny, in for a Pound?” evidence that government support parties cannot dissociate themselves from the Prime minister’s party. The Journal of Politics87(4): 000.
ChristensenDA (1997) Adaptation of agrarian parties in Norway and Sweden. Party Politics3(3): 391–406.
16.
CollinsLMDziakJJLiR (2009) Design of experiments with multiple independent variables: a resource management perspective on complete and reduced factorial designs. Psychological Methods14(3): 202–224.
17.
DebusMStegmaierMTosunJ (2014) Economic voting under coalition governments: evidence from Germany. Political Science Research and Methods2(1): 49–67.
18.
DuchRMFalco-GimenoA (2022) Collective decision-making and the economic vote. Comparative Political Studies55(5): 757–788.
19.
DuchRMStevensonRT (2008) The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. Cambridge University Press.
20.
FisherSDHoboltSB (2010) Coalition government and electoral accountability. Electoral Studies29(3): 358–369.
21.
FortunatoDAdamsJ (2015) How voters’ perceptions of junior coalition partners depend on the prime minister’s position. European Journal of Political Research54(3): 601–621.
22.
FortunatoDLinNCNStevensonRT, et al. (2021) Attributing policy influence under coalition governance. American Political Science Review115(1): 252–268.
23.
Green-PedersenCMortensenPBThesenG (2017) The incumbency bonus revisited: causes and consequences of media dominance. British Journal of Political Science47(1): 131–148.
24.
GrossMJankowskiMJuenC-M, et al. (2023) Do voters want their parties to be office-or policy-seekers in coalition negotiations?West European Politics47: 1–30.
HjermitslevIB (2020) The electoral cost of coalition participation: can anyone escape?Party Politics26(4): 510–520.
29.
HjermitslevIB (2023) Between cabinet membership and opposition: commitment and responsibility of support parties. Party Politics29(5): 981–987.
30.
HjermitslevIB (2024) Punishing the pseudo-opposition: accountability under a minority government. European Journal of Political Research63(2): 774–786.
IvarsflatenEDahlbergSStorelvS, et al. (2024) Norwegian citizen panel round 28 (v-102).
33.
KlüverHSpoonJ-J (2020) Helping or hurting? How governing as a junior coalition partner influences electoral outcomes. The Journal of Politics82(4): 1231–1242.
34.
KraussSThürkM (2022) Stability of minority governments and the role of support agreements. West European Politics45(4): 767–792.
ØsterudØ (2005) Introduction: the peculiarities of Norway. West European Politics28(4): 705–720.
43.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40: 825–850.
44.
PetrocikJRBenoitWLHansenGJ (2003) Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly118(4): 599–626.
45.
PlesciaC (2017) Portfolio-specific accountability and retrospective voting: the case of Italy. Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica47(3): 313–336.
46.
PlesciaCKritzingerS (2022) When marriage gets hard: Intra-coalition conflict and electoral accountability. Comparative Political Studies55(1): 32–59.
47.
PlesciaCKritzingerSSpoonJ-J (2022) Who’s to blame? How performance evaluation and partisanship influence responsibility attribution in grand coalition governments. European Journal of Political Research61(3): 660–677.
48.
PowellGBWhittenGD (1993) A cross-national analysis of economic voting: taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science37(2): 391–414.
49.
RommetvedtH (2017) Politikkens allmenngjøring: stortinget, regjeringen og de organiserte interessene i et nypluralistisk demokrati. Vigmostad & Bjørke, Vol. 3.
StrømK (1984) Minority governments in parliamentary democracies: the rationality of nonwinning cabinet solutions. Comparative Political Studies17(2): 199–227.
52.
StrømK (1990) Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cambridge University Press.
StrømKMüllerWCBergmanT (2008) Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democractic Life Cycle in Western Europe. Oxford University Press.
55.
ThesenG (2016) Win some, lose none? Support parties at the polls and in political agenda-setting. Political Studies64(4): 979–999.
56.
ThürkM (2022) Small in size but powerful in parliament? The legislative performance of minority governments. Legislative Studies Quarterly47(1): 193–224.
57.
ThürkMKlüverH (2024) Hitting the sweet spot? The electoral consequences of supporting minority governments. Comparative Political Studies58(8): 00104140241271210.
58.
ThürkMKraussS (2024) The formalisation of minority governments. West European Politics47(1): 113–141.
59.
TromborgMWStevensonRTFortunatoD (2019) Voters, responsibility attribution and support parties in parliamentary democracies. British Journal of Political Science49(4): 1591–1601.
60.
WäckerleJSven-OliverP (2025) Political knowledge and perceptions of minority governments in Europe. European Journal of Political Research1–13. doi: 10.1017/S147567652510025X.
61.
WalgraveSTreschALefevereJ (2015) The conceptualisation and measurement of issue ownership. West European Politics38(4): 778–796.
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.
