Advertisement

Policy or Office? The determinants of programmatic change in West European political parties

  • Reimut ZohlnhöferEmail author
  • Frank Bandau
Chapter

Abstract

Although it is undisputed in the literature that parties’ policy positions move, it is much less clear what actually moves parties. In our paper, we seek to advance the debate on programmatic change in political parties theoretically as well as empirically. We start out by theoretically discussing the relevance of policy-seeking vs. office-seeking with regard to the programmatic positions of parties. This allows us to develop hypotheses regarding the timing and direction of programmatic change. We then move on to test these hypotheses empirically. We present results from comparative case studies of the two most important parties in four West European countries (Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom), which are characterized by dramatically different party systems. We show that in most cases considerations regarding office-seeking rather than lack of policy success drive programmatic change. This is because the incentives resulting from a (long-lasting) exclusion from government are usually much more unambiguous than a lack of policy success since a lack of success at elections or in the coalition game are directly related to a party’s programmatic position while the reasons for disappointing policy performances can usually be sought elsewhere.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, James, Michael Clark, Lawrence Ezrow, and Garrett Glasgow. 2004. “Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results?” British Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 589-610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, James, Michael Clark, Lawrence Ezrow, and Garrett Glasgow. 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 Science 50 (3): 513-529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams, James, Andrea B. Haupt, and Heather Stoll. 2009. “What Moves Parties? The Role of Public Opinion and Global Economic Conditions in Western Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (5): 611-639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armingeon, Klaus. 1989. “Sozialdemokratie am Ende? Die Entwicklung der Macht sozialdemokratischer Parteien im internationalen Vergleich 1945-1988.“ Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 18 (4): 321-345.Google Scholar
  5. Armingeon, Klaus. 2013. “Austeritätspolitik: Was Parteien bewirken und Märkte mögen.“ In Staatstätigkeiten, Parteien und Demokratie, edited by Klaus Armingeon, 113-137. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Armingeon, Klaus, Kai Guthmann, and David Weisstanner. 2016. “Choosing the Path of Austerity: How Parties and Policy Coalitions Influence Welfare State Retrenchment in Periods of Fiscal Consolidation.” West European Politics 39 (4): 628-647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bale, Tim. 2011. The Conservative Party. From Thatcher to Cameron. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Blake, Robert. 2010. The Conservative Party from Peel to Major. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  9. Budge, Ian, Lawrence Ezrow, and Michael D. McDonald. 2010. “Ideology, Party Factionalism and Policy Chance: An Integrated Dynamic Theory.” British Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 781-804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burgoon, Brian. 2012. “Partisan Embedding of Liberalism: How Trade, Investment, and Immigration Affect Party Support for the Welfare State.” Comparative Political Studies 45 (5): 606-635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crewe, Ivor, and Donald Searing. 1988. “Ideological Change in the British Conservative Party.” American Political Science Review 82 (2): 361-384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorey, Peter. 1999. The Major Premiership. Politics and Policies under John Major, 1990-97. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dorey, Peter, Mark Garnett, and Andrew Denham. 2011. From Crisis to Coalition. The Conservative Party, 1997-2010. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  15. Duncan, Fraser. 2007. “‘Lately, Things just don’t Seem the Same’. External Shocks, Party Change and the Adaptation of the Dutch Christian Democrats during ‘Purple Hague’ 1994-8.” Party Politics 13 (1): 69-87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ezrow, Lawrence, Catherine De Vries, Marco Steenbergen, and Erica Edwards. 2011. “Mean Voter Representation and Partisan Constituency Representation: Do Parties Respond to the Mean Voter Position or to Their Supporters?” Party Politics 17 (3): 275-301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fagerholm, Andreas. 2016. “Why Do Political Parties Change their Policy Positions? A Review.” Political Studies Review 14 (4): 501–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franzmann, Simon, and André Kaiser. 2006. “Locating Political Parties in Policy Space. A Reanalysis of Party Manifesto Data.” Party Politics 12 (2): 163-181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gray, John, and David Willetts. 1997. Is Conservatism Dead? London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  20. Green-Pedersen, Christoffer. 2002. The Politics of Justification. Party Competition and Welfare-State Retrenchment in Denmark and the Netherlands from 1982 to 1998. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, and Kees van Kersbergen. 2002. “The Politics of the ‘Third Way’. The Transformation of Social Democracy in Denmark and the Netherlands.” Party Politics 8 (5): 507-524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall, Peter A. 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State. The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain.” Comparative Politics 25 (3): 275-296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall, Peter A. 2003. “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, 373-404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Harmel, Robert, and Kenneth Janda. 1994. “An Integrated Theory of Party Goals and Party Change.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 6 (3): 259-287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hassel, Anke, and Christof Schiller. 2010. Der Fall Hartz IV. Frankfurt/New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  26. Haupt, Andrea B. 2010. “Parties’ Responses to Economic Globalization. What is Left for the Left and Right for the Right?” Party Politics 16 (1): 5-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heffernan, Richard. 2001. New Labour and Thatcherism. Political Change in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  28. Hillebrand, Ron, and Galen A. Irwin. 1999. “Changing Strategies: The Dilemma of the Dutch Labour Party.” In Policy, Office, or Vote? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, edited by Wolfgang C. Müller and Kaare Strøm, 112-140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hoogerwerf, Andries. 1999. “Policy Successes and Failures of the First Purple Cabinet.” Acta Politica 34 (2-3): 158-177.Google Scholar
  30. Jahn, Detlef. 2011. “Conceptualizing Left and Right in Comparative Politics: Towards a Deductive Approach.” Party Politics 17 (6): 745-765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kavanagh, Dennis. 1997. The Reordering of British Politics. Politics after Thatcher. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Keman, Hans. 2011. “Third Ways and Social Democracy: The Right Way to Go?” British Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 671-680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. King, Anthony. 1981. “Politics, Economics, and the Trade Unions, 1974-1979.” In Britain at the Polls, 1979. A Study of the General Election, edited by Howard Penniman, 30-94. Washington/London: AEI.Google Scholar
  34. Kitschelt, Herbert. 2001. “Partisan Competition and Welfare State Retrenchment. When Do Politicians Choose Unpopular Policies?” In The New Politics of the Welfare State, edited by Paul Pierson, 265-302. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Laver, Michael, and Peter Mair. 1999. “Party Policy and Cabinet Portfolios in the Netherlands, 1998: Results from an Expert Survey.” Acta Politica 34 (1): 49-66.Google Scholar
  36. Lawson, Nigel. 1992. The View from No. 11. Memoirs of a Tory Radical. London: Bantam Press.Google Scholar
  37. Meguid, Bonnie M. 2008. Party Competition between Unequals Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Meyer, Thomas M. 2013. Constraints on Party Policy Change. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  39. Norris, Pippa, and Joni Lovenduski. 2004. “Why Parties Fail to Learn. Electoral Defeat, Selective Perception and British Party Politics.” Party Politics 10 (1): 85-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Norton, Philip. 1993. “The Conservative Party from Thatcher to Major.” In Britain at the Polls 1992, edited by Anthony King, Philip Norton, David Denver, Patrick Seyd, and Ivor Crewe, 29-69. Chatham: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  41. Pedersen, Helene H. 2012. “What do Parties Want? Policy versus Office.” West European Politics 35 (4): 896-910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raschke, Joachim. 2010. “Zerfallsphase des Schröder-Zyklus. Die SPD 2005-2009.” In Die zweite Große Koalition. Eine Bilanz der Regierung Merkel, 2005-2009, edited by Christoph Egle and Reimut Zohlnhöfer, 69-98. Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Riker, William H. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Schmid, Josef. 2007. “Die CDU nach 2005: Von Wahl zu Wahl – und doch kein Wandel?” In Parteien nach der Bundestagswahl 2005, edited by Oskar Niedermayer, 67-82. Opladen: VS.Google Scholar
  45. Schumacher, Gijs, and Nathalie Giger. 2017. “Do Leadership-dominated Parties Change More?” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 28 (3): 349-360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schumacher, Gijs, Catherine E. de Vries, and Barbara Vis. 2013. “Why Do Parties Change Position? Party Organization and Environmental Incentives.” Journal of Politics 75 (2): 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schumacher, Gijs, Marc van de Wardt, Barbara Vis, and Michael Baggesen Klitgaard. 2015. “How Aspiration to Office Conditions the Impact of Government Participation on Party Platform Change.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 1040–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scruton, Roger. 1996. The Conservative Idea of Community. London: Conservative 2000 Foundation.Google Scholar
  49. Seyd, Patrick. 1993. “Labour. The Great Transformation.” In Britain at the Polls 1992, edited by Anthony King, Philip Norton, David Denver, Patrick Seyd, and Ivor Crewe, 70-100. Chatham: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  50. Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2009. “Timely Decisions: The Effects of Past National Elections on Party Policy Chance.” Journal of Politics 71 (1): 238-248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strøm, Kaare, and Wolfgang C. Müller. 1999. “Political Parties and Hard Choices.” In Policy, Office, or Vote? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, edited by Wolfgang C. Müller and Kaare Strøm, 1-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Tavits, Margit. 2007. “Principle vs. Pragmatism: Policy Shifts and Political Competition.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 151-165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Timmermans, Arco, and Rudy B. Andeweg. 2000. “The Netherlands. Still the Politics of Accommodation?” In Coalition Governments in Western Europe, edited by Wolfgang C. Müller and Kaare Strøm, 356-398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. van Holsteyn, Joop J.M., and Galen A. Irwin. 2003. “Never a Dull Moment: Pim Fortuyn and the Dutch Parliamentary Election of 2002.” West European Politics 26 (2): 41-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Kersbergen, Kees. 2008. “The Christian Democratic Phoenix and Modern Unsecular Politics.” Party Politics 14 (3): 259-279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Kersbergen, Kees, and André Krouwel. 2006. “De veranderde beleidsfilosofie van het CDA van Balkenende.” In Vier jaar Balkenende, edited by Frans Becker, Wim van Hennekeler, and Menno Hurenkamp, 38-53. Amsterdam: Mets & Schilts.Google Scholar
  57. von Alemann, Ulrich, and Tim Spier. 2008. ”Doppelter Einsatz, halber Sieg? Die SPD und die Bundestagswahl 2005.“ In Die Parteien nach der Bundestagswahl 2005, edited by Oskar Niedermayer, 37-65. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  58. Walgrave, Stefaan, and Michiel Nuytemans. 2009. “Friction and Party Manifesto Change in 25 Countries, 1945-98.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (1): 190-206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ward, Hugh, Lawrence Ezrow, and Han Dorussen. 2011. “Globalization, Party Positions, and the Median Voter.” World Politics 63 (3): 509–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Widfeldt, Anders. 2007. “The Swedish Parliamentary Election of 2006.” Electoral Studies 26 (4): 820-823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Widfeldt, Anders, and Jon Pierre. 1995. “Sweden.” European Journal of Political Research 28 (3-4): 477-485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wolinetz, Steven B. 1995. “Internal Politics and Rates of Change in the Partij van de Arbeid, 1957-1994.” Jaarboek Documentatiecentrum Nederlands Politieke Partijen 1995: 113-126.Google Scholar
  63. Zohlnhöfer, Reimut. 2003. “Partisan Politics, Party Competition and Veto Players: German Economic Policy in the Kohl Era.” Journal of Public Policy 23 (2): 123-156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zohlnhöfer, Reimut. 2004. “Destination Anywhere? The German Red-Green Government’s Inconclusive Search for a Third Way in Economic Policy.” German Politics 13 (1): 106-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zohlnhöfer, Reimut. 2010. “New Possibilities or Permanent Gridlock? The Policies and Politics of the Grand Coalition.” In Germany after the Grand Coalition. Governance and Politics in a Turbulent Environment, edited by Silvia Bolgherini, and Florian Grotz, 15-30. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zolleis, Udo, and Julia Bartz. 2010. “Die CDU in der Großen Koalition – Unbestimmt erfolgreich.“ In Die zweite Große Koalition. Eine Bilanz der Regierung Merkel, 2005-2009, edited by Christoph Egle and Reimut Zohlnhöfer, 51-68. Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Universität BambergBandauGermany

Personalised recommendations