Theories of issue evolution and issue manipulation suggest that ‘political losers’ in the party system can advance their position by introducing a new issue dimension. According to these theories, a strategy of issue entrepreneurship, that is the attempt to restructure political competition by mobilizing a previously non-salient issue dimension, allows political losers to attract new voters and reap electoral gains. In this study, we examine the extent to which these expectations hold by exploring issue entrepreneurial strategies of political parties when applied to the issue of European integration. Using multi-level modelling to analyse European Election Study data, we first show that voters are more likely to cast their ballot for parties that are losers on the extant dimension based on concerns related to European integration. Secondly, a time-series cross-sectional analysis demonstrates that parties that employ an issue entrepreneurial strategy are more successful electorally. Put differently, voters are responsive to the issue entrepreneurial strategies of parties. These findings have important implications for our understanding of party competition and electoral behaviour in multi-party systems.
AdamsG (1997) Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science41: 718–737.
2.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowLGlasgowG (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: 513–529.
3.
AlfordJHibbingJ (1981) Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House. Journal of Politics43: 1042–1061.
4.
BakkerRJollySPolkJ (2012) Complexity in the European party space: Exploring dimensionality with experts. European Union Politics13(2): 219–245.
5.
BartoliniS(1998) Coalition potential and governmental power. In: PenningsPLaneJE (eds). Comparing Party System Change. London: Routledge, 40–61.
6.
BeckNKatzJJ (1995) What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data in comparative politics. American Political Science Review89: 634–647.
7.
BeckNKatzJJ(1996) Nuisance or substance: Specifying and estimating times-series cross-section models. In: FreemanJR (ed.) Political Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1–36.
8.
BenoitKLaverM (2012) The dimensionality of political space: Epistemological and methodological considerations. European Union Politics13(2): 194–218.
9.
BrowneWJ (2003) MCMC Estimation in MLwiN. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
10.
CarminesEStimsonJA (1986) On the structure and sequence of issue evolution. American Political Science Review80: 901–920.
11.
CarminesEStimsonJA (1989) Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Ithaca, NY: Princeton University Press.
12.
CarminesEStimsonJA(1993) On the evolution of political issues. In: RikerW (ed.) Agenda Formation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 151–168.
13.
De VriesCE (2007) Sleeping giant: Fact or fairytale? How European integration affects vote choice in national elections. European Union Politics8: 363–385.
14.
De VriesCEEdwardsE (2009) Taking Europe to its extremes: Extremist parties and public euroscepticism. Party Politics15: 5–28.
15.
De VriesCEMarksG (2012) The struggle over dimensionality: A note on theory and empirics. European Union Politics13(2): 185–193.
16.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
17.
DuchRMStevensonR (2008) The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
EnelowJMHinichMJ (1984) The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
GellmanAHillJJ (2007) Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Hobolt SB and De Vries CE (2010) Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty competition. Paper presented at the MPSA Annual Conference, 22–25 April, Chicago, USA.
21.
HoboltSBKarpJ (2010) Voters and coalition governments. Electoral Studies29: 299–307.
22.
HoboltSBSpoonJJTilleyJ (2009) A vote against Europe? Explaining defection at the 1999 and 2004 European Parliament elections. British Journal of Political Science39: 93–115.
23.
HoogheLBakkerRBrigevichADe VriesCE (2010) Reliability and validity of measuring party positions: The Chapel Hill expert surveys of 2002 and 2006. European Journal of Political Research49: 687–703.
24.
HoogheLMarksGWilsonCJ (2002) Does left/right structure party positions on European integration?Comparative Political Studies35: 965–989.
25.
HugS (2001) Altering Party Systems: Strategic Behavior and the Emergence of New Political Parties in Western Democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
26.
InglehartR (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
JackmanS (2000) Estimation and inference via Bayesian simulation: An introduction to Markov Chain Monte Carlo. American Journal of Political Science44: 369–398.
28.
KaidLLHoltz-BachaC (2006) The Sage Handbook of Political Advertising. London: Sage.
29.
KeyVO (1966) The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting, 1936–1960. New York: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
30.
KitscheltHP (1988) Left-libertarian parties: Explaining innovation in competitive party systems. World Politics40: 194–234.
31.
KriesiHGrandeELachatRDolezalM (2006) Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research45: 921–956.
32.
KriesiHGrandeELachatRDolezalM (2008) West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
LaverMSchofieldN (1998) Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
34.
Lewis-BeckMSStegmaierM (2000) Economic determinants of electoral outcomes. Annual Review of Political Science3: 183–219.
35.
LindamanKHaider-MarkelDP (2002) Issue evolution, political parties and the culture wars. Political Science Quarterly55: 91–110.
36.
MarksGHoogheLSteenbergenMRBakkerR (2007) Cross-validating data on party positioning on European integration. Electoral Studies26: 23–38.
37.
MeguidB (2005) Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy and niche party success. American Political Science Review99: 347–360.
38.
MeguidB (2008) Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
NetjesCEBinnemaH (2007) The salience of the European integration issue: Three data sources compared. Electoral Studies26: 39–49.
40.
PayneJL (1980) The personal electoral advantage of House incumbents. American Politics Quarterly8: 375–398.
41.
RabinowitzGMacdonaldSE (1989) A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review83: 93–121.
42.
RayL (1999) Measuring party positions on European integration: Results from an expert survey. European Journal of Political Research36: 283–306.
43.
RikerWH (1982) Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. Long Grove: Waveland Press.
44.
RikerWH (1986) The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
RikerWH (1996) The Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46.
RovnyJ (2012) Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition. European Union Politics13(2): 269–292.
47.
SartoriG (2005) Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
SchattschneiderEE (1960) The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Hinsdale: The Dryden Press.
49.
SnijdersTABBoskerRJ (1999) Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modelling. London: Sage Publications.
50.
SteenbergenMRJonesBS (2002) Modelling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science46: 218–237.
51.
SteenbergenMRMarksG (2007) Evaluating expert surveys. European Journal of Political Research46: 347–366.
52.
StrømK (1990) Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
WarwickPV (1996) Coalition government membership in West European parliamentary democracies. British Journal of Political Science26: 471–499.
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.
