Advertisement

The effect of incumbency on ideological and valence perceptions of parties in multilevel polities

  • Susumu Shikano
  • Dominic NyhuisEmail author
Article
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

A number of studies recently have investigated party position-taking in multilevel polities. Given the attempts of federally organized parties to tailor their messages to their audiences, we investigate the voter side of the equation: Are voters sufficiently politically sophisticated to pick up on highly differentiated policy signals? Following common conceptions of political preferences, we argue that citizens have a heuristic view of party competition that is shaped by ideological and valence factors, where the latter are much less challenging to process than the former. Accordingly, citizens are able to differentiate only between the national and the regional party on the valence dimension. We argue that a valence delta between different party branches is most likely to be perceived in contexts of high media exposure, particularly when parties are in government. Results from an analysis of survey data covering 21 German state-level elections support those expectations.

Keywords

Spatial models of party competition Valence Federalism Germany 

Notes

Supplementary material

11127_2019_659_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (198 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 198 kb)

References

  1. Abney, R., Adams, J., Clark, M., Easton, M., Ezrow, L., Kosmidis, S., et al. (2013). When does valence matter? Heightened valence effects for governing parties during election campaigns. Party Politics, 19(1), 61–82.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, J. (2012). Causes and electoral consequences of party policy shifts in multiparty elections: Theoretical results and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 401–419.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, J., Merrill, S., III, Simas, E. N., & Stone, W. J. (2011). When candidates value good character: A spatial model with applications to congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 73(1), 17–30.Google Scholar
  4. Althaus, S. L. (1998). Information effects in collective preferences. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 545–558.Google Scholar
  5. Andersen, R., Tilley, J., & Heath, A. F. (2005). Political knowledge and enlightened preferences: Party choice through the electoral cycle. British Journal of Political Science, 35(2), 285–302.Google Scholar
  6. Ansolabehere, S., & Snyder, J. M., Jr. (2000). Valence politics and equilibrium in spatial election models. Public Choice, 103(3/4), 327–336.Google Scholar
  7. Aragones, E. (2002). Mixed equilibrium in a Downsian model with a favored candidate. Journal of Economic Theory, 103(1), 131–161.Google Scholar
  8. Arceneaux, K. (2006). Do campaigns help voters learn? A cross-national analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 159–173.Google Scholar
  9. Bäck, H., Debus, M., Müller, J., & Bäck, H. (2013). Regional government formation in varying multilevel contexts: A comparison of eight European countries. Regional Studies, 47(3), 368–387.Google Scholar
  10. Bailey, M. A. (2007). Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the Court, Congress, and presidency. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 433–448.Google Scholar
  11. Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194–230.Google Scholar
  12. Bornschier, S. (2010). The new cultural divide and the two-dimensional political space in Western Europe. West European Politics, 33(3), 419–444.Google Scholar
  13. Brancati, D. (2008). The origins and strengths of regional parties. British Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 135–159.Google Scholar
  14. Bräuninger, T., & Debus, M. (2008). Der Einfluss von Koalitionsaussagen, programmatischen Standpunkten und der Bundespolitik auf die Regierungsbildung in den deutschen Ländern. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 49(2), 309–338.Google Scholar
  15. Bräuninger, T., & Debus, M. (2012). Parteienwettbewerb in den deutschen Bundesländern. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  16. Carrillo, J., & Castanheira, M. (2008). Information and strategic political polarisation. The Economic Journal, 118, 845–874.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, M. (2009). Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998. Electoral Studies, 28(1), 111–122.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, M. (2014). Understanding parties’ policy shifts in Western Europe: The role of valence, 1976–2003. British Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 261–286.Google Scholar
  19. Clark, M., & Leiter, D. (2014). Does the ideological dispersion of parties mediate the electoral impact of valence? A cross-national study of party support in nine Western European democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 47(2), 171–202.Google Scholar
  20. Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M. C., & Whiteley, P. (2009). Performance politics and the British voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Clarke, H., Sanders, D., Stewart, M., & Whiteley, P. (2011). Valence politics and electoral choice in Britain, 2010. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 21(2), 237–253.Google Scholar
  22. Dalton, R. J., Beck, P. A., & Flanagan, S. C. (1984). Electoral change in advanced industrial democracies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Druckman, J. N., Jacobs, L. R., & Ostermeier, E. (2004). Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. Journal of Politics, 66(4), 1180–1202.Google Scholar
  26. Easton, D. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5(4), 435–457.Google Scholar
  27. Endersby, J. W. (1994). Nonpolicy issues and the spatial theory of voting. Quality & Quantity, 28, 251–265.Google Scholar
  28. Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1982). Ideology, issues, and the spatial theory of elections. American Political Science Review, 76(3), 493–501.Google Scholar
  29. Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Erikson, R., & Palfrey, T. (2000). Equilibria in campaign spending games: Theory and data. The American Political Science Review, 94(3), 559–609.Google Scholar
  31. Fabre, E. (2008). Party organization in a multi-level system: Party organizational change in Spain and the UK. Regional and Federal Studies, 18(4), 309–329.Google Scholar
  32. Franzmann, S., & Kaiser, A. (2006). Locating political parties in policy space: A reanalysis of party manifesto data. Party Politics, 12(2), 163–188.Google Scholar
  33. Freitag, M., & Vatter, A. (Eds.). (2008). Demokratiemuster in den deutschen Bundesländern: Eine Einführung. In Die Demokratien der deutschen Bundesländer. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  34. Groseclose, T. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 862–886.Google Scholar
  35. Hansen, K. M., & Pedersen, R. T. (2014). Campaigns matter: How voters become knowledgeable and efficacious during election campaigns. Political Communication, 31(2), 303–324.Google Scholar
  36. Hinich, M. J., & Munger, M. C. (1994). Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hinich, M. J., & Munger, M. C. (1997). Analytical politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hinich, M. J., & Pollard, W. (1981). A new approach to the spatial theory of electoral competition. American Journal of Political Science, 25(2), 323–341.Google Scholar
  39. Hough, D., & Jeffery, C. (2006). Devolution and electoral politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hummel, P. (2010). On the nature of equilibria in a Downsian model with candidate valence. Games and Economic Behavior, 70(2), 425–445.Google Scholar
  41. Kam, C. D., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2013). Name recognition and candidate support. American Journal of Political Science, 57(4), 971–986.Google Scholar
  42. Käppner, K. & Shikano, S. (2015). A polytomous IRT unfolding model for the extraction of ideological space and valence factors from feeling thermometer ratings. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, April 16–19.Google Scholar
  43. Klingelhöfer, T. (2014). Ensuring consistency across levels? The delegation model of multi-level party politics and Spanish framework manifestos. Party Politics, 22(4), 452–464.Google Scholar
  44. König, P. D. & Nyhuis, D. (Forthcoming). Assessing the applicability of vote advice applications for estimating party positions. Party Politics.Google Scholar
  45. Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2006). Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research, 45(6), 921–956.Google Scholar
  46. Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2008). West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Laakso, M., & Taagepera, R. (1979). “Effective” number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12(1), 3–27.Google Scholar
  48. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971.Google Scholar
  49. Laver, M., & Sergenti, E. (2011). Party competition: An agent-based model. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Lodge, M., & Hamill, R. (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing. American Political Science Review, 80(2), 505–520.Google Scholar
  51. Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 309–326.Google Scholar
  52. Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(4), 331–361.Google Scholar
  53. McGraw, K. M., Lodge, M., & Stroh, P. (1990). On-line processing in candidate evaluation: The effects of issue order, issue importance, and sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(1), 41–58.Google Scholar
  54. Meirowitz, A. (2008). Electoral contests, incumbency advantages, and campaign finance. Journal of Politics, 70(3), 681–699.Google Scholar
  55. Mondak, J. J. (1995). Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. Journal of Politics, 57(4), 1043–1069.Google Scholar
  56. Müller, J. (2013). On a short leash? Sub-national party positions between regional context and national party unity. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 23(2), 177–199.Google Scholar
  57. Niedermayer, O. (2013). Die Parteiensysteme der Bundesländer. In Handbuch Parteienforschung (Ed.), Oskar Niedermayer (pp. 765–790). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Nyhuis, D. (2016). Electoral effects of candidate valence. Electoral Studies, 42, 33–41.Google Scholar
  59. Nyhuis, D. (2018). Separating candidate valence and proximity voting: Determinants of competitors’ non-policy appeal. Political Science Research and Methods, 6, 135–151.Google Scholar
  60. Nyhuis, D., & Plescia, C. (2018). The nonideological component of coalition preferences. Party Politics, 24(6), 686–697.Google Scholar
  61. Pappi, F. U., & Seher, N. M. (2009). Party election programmes, signalling policies and salience of specific policy domains: The German parties from 1990 to 2005. German Politics, 18(3), 403–425.Google Scholar
  62. Pardos-Prado, S. (2012). Valence beyond consensus: Party competence and policy dispersion from a comparative perspective. Electoral Studies, 31(2), 342–352.Google Scholar
  63. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472–496.Google Scholar
  64. Rattinger, H., Roßteutscher, S., Schmitt-Beck, R., Weßels, B., & Wolf, C. (2014). Langfrist-Online-Tracking zu den Landtagswahlen Nordrhein-Westfalen 2010, Baden-Württemberg 2011, Berlin 2011, Bremen 2011, Hamburg 2011, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 2011, Rheinland-Pfalz 2011, Nordrhein-Westfalen 2012, Schleswig-Holstein 2012, Bayern 2013, Hessen 2013, Niedersachsen 2013, Brandenburg 2014, Sachsen 2014, Thüringen 2014, Sachsen-Anhalt 2016, Baden-Württemberg 2016, Rheinland-Pfalz 2016, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 2016, Schleswig-Holstein 2017 und Nordrhein-Westfalen 2017 (GLES). Köln: GESIS Datenarchiv.Google Scholar
  65. Sahuguet, N., & Persico, N. (2006). Campaign spending regulation in a model of redistributive politics. Economic Theory, 28(1), 95–124.Google Scholar
  66. Sanders, D., Clarke, H. D., Stewart, M. C., & Whiteley, P. (2011). Downs, stokes and the dynamics of electoral choice. British Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 287–314.Google Scholar
  67. Schaffner, B. F., & Streb, M. J. (2002). The partisan heuristic in low-information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(4), 559–581.Google Scholar
  68. Schofield, N. (2003). Valence competition in the spatial stochastic model. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15(4), 371–383.Google Scholar
  69. Schofield, N. (2007). The mean voter theorem: Necessary and sufficient conditions for convergent equilibrium. Review of Economic Studies, 74(3), 965–980.Google Scholar
  70. Schofield, N., & Sened, I. (2005). Multiparty competition in Israel, 1988–1996. British Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 635–663.Google Scholar
  71. Shikano, S., & Käppner, K. (2016). Valenz und Ideologie im Parteienwettbewerb während des Bundestagswahlkampfes, 2013. In Harald Schoen & Bernhard Wessels (Eds.), Wahlen und Wähler Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 2013. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  72. Shikano, S. & Käppner, K. (2017). Identification of ideological space with valence based on feeling thermometer scores. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  73. Shor, B., Berry, C., & McCarty, N. (2010). A bridge to somewhere: Mapping state and congressional ideology on a cross-institutional common space. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 35(3), 414–448.Google Scholar
  74. Slapin, J. B., & Proksch, S.-O. (2008). A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 705–722.Google Scholar
  75. Stecker, C. (2015). Parties on the chain of federalism: Position-taking and multi-level party competition in Germany. West European Politics, 35(6), 1305–1326.Google Scholar
  76. Stone, W. J., & Simas, E. N. (2010). Candidate valence and ideological positions in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 371–388.Google Scholar
  77. Thorlakson, L. (2009). Patterns of party integration, influence and autonomy in seven federations. Party Politics, 15(2), 157–177.Google Scholar
  78. Winter, Ld, & Türsan, H. (1998). Regionalist parties in Western Europe. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Zakharov, A. (2009). A model of candidate location with endogenous valence. Public Choice, 138(3), 347–366.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and Public AdministrationUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Political ScienceLeibniz University HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations