Political Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 847–875 | Cite as

Immigration and Electoral Change in Mainstream Political Space

  • Sergi Pardos-PradoEmail author
  • Bram Lancee
  • Iñaki Sagarzazu
Original Paper


Research on radical right politics shows that the immigration issue can reshape electoral alignments and patterns of political competition in favor of anti-immigrant parties. However, we know surprisingly little about the capacity of the immigration issue to generate electoral change in systems where radical parties are absent. On the basis of issue ownership theory, we show with longitudinal data that concerns over immigration strengthen the identification with the centre-right party owning the immigration issue, especially when primed by the media. Our results, obtained using the German Socioeconomic Panel and media content analysis, confirm strong priming effects among previous non-identifiers and among supporters of the issue owner, and weaker effects among former mainstream left-wing leaners. The findings suggest that the immigration issue is a relevant trigger of electoral change in mainstream political space, but is less likely to generate transfers of party loyalty. Our analyses refine the test of priming effects as a mechanism for issue ownership theory.


Issue ownership Electoral change Immigration Priming Longitudinal analysis Content analysis 


  1. Adams, J., & Merrill, S., I. I. I. (2009). Policy-seeking parties in a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation: A valence–uncertainty model. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 539–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, J., & Neundorf, A. (2012). “What this Election is about”: Party competition and the reciprocal effects of German citizens’ issue priorities and party attachments, 1984–2009. In Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting, Chicago, 12–15 April.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, J., 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 Science, 50(3), 513–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adams, J., et al. (2010). Why candidate divergence should be expected to be just as great (or even greater) in competitive seats as in non-competitive ones. Public Choice, 145, 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Adams, J., et al. (2011). When candidates value good character: A spatial model with applications to congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 73(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alonso, S., & da Fonseca, S. C. (2012). Immigration, left and right. Party Politics, 18(6), 865–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anduiza, E. (2002). Individual characteristics, institutional incentives and electoral abstention in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 643–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arzheimer, K. (2009). Contextual factors and the extreme right vote in Western Europe, 1980–2002. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bale, T. (2003). Cinderella and her ugly sisters: The mainstream and extreme right in Europe’s bipolarising party systems. West European Politics, 26(3), 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bale, T. (2008). Turning round the telescope. Centre-right parties and immigration and integration policy in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 15, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bale, T., et al. (2013). In or out of proportion? Labour and social democratic parties responses to the radical right. In J. Rydgren (Ed.), Class politics and the radical right. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Bauder, H. (2008). Media discourse and the new German immigration law. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bélanger, É., & Meguid, B. M. (2008). Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies, 27(3), 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boomgarden, H. G., & Vliegenthart, R. (2009). How news content influences anti-immigration attitudes: Germany, 1993–2005. European Journal of Political Research, 48, 516–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bornschier, S. (2010). Cleavage politics and the populist right. The new cultural conflict in Western Europe. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Botterman, S., & Hooghe, M. (2012). Religion and voting behaviour in Belgium: An analysis of the relation between religious beliefs and Christian Democratic voting. Acta Politica, 47, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brighton, P., & Foy, D. (2007). News values. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Budge, I. (1987). The internal analysis of election programmes. In I. Budge, et al. (Eds.), Ideology, strategy and party change: Spatial analysis of post-war election programmes in 19 democracies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Budge, I., & Farlie, D. J. (1983). Explaining and predicting elections: Issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  20. Bundesagentur für Arbeit. (2011). Arbeitsmarktstatistik der Bundesagentur für Arbeit. Retrieved February 18, 2011, from
  21. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Carmines, E., & Stimson, J. (1993). The two faces of issue voting. In R. Niemi & H. Weisberg (Eds.), Classics in voting behavior (pp. 114–119). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  23. Coenders, M., & Scheepers, P. (2008). Changes in resistance to the social integration of foreigners in Germany 1980–2000: Individual and contextual determinants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cole, A. (2005). Old right or new right? The ideological positioning of parties of the far right. European Journal of Political Research, 44(2), 203–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dancey, L., & Goren, P. (2010). Party identification, issue attitudes, and the dynamics of political debate. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 686–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De Vries, C. E., Hakhverdian, A., & Lancee, B. (2013). The dynamics of voters’ left/right identification: the role of economic and cultural attitudes. Political Science and Research Methods (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  27. Erikson, R. S., & Tedin, K. L. (1981). The 1928–1936 partisan realignment: The case for the conversion hypothesis. American Political Science Review, 75(4), 951–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Evans, G., & Pickup, M. (2010). Reversing the causal arrow: The political conditioning of economic perceptions in the 2000–2004 US presidential election cycle. The Journal of Politics, 72, 1236–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ford, R., et al. (2012). Strategic Eurosceptics and polite xenophobes: Support for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in the 2009 European Parliament elections. European Journal of Political Research, 51(2), 204–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Forschungsgruppe Wahlen, M. (2013). Partial Cumulation of Politbarometers West 1977–2011. ZA2391 Data file Version 3.0.0. Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.Google Scholar
  31. Franklin, M. (2004). Voter turnout and the dynamics of electoral competition in established democracies since 1945. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Franklin, M., & Ladner, M. (1995). The undoing of Winston Churchill: Mobilization and conversion in the 1945 realignment of British voters. British Journal of Political Science, 25(4), 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Franklin, M., et al. (1992). Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in Western countries. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Green, J. (2007). When voters and parties agree: Valence issues and party competition. Political Studies, 55(3), 629–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Green, J., & Hobolt, S. B. (2008). Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies, 27(3), 460–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Green, J., & Jennings, W. (2012). The dynamics of issue competence and vote for parties in and out of power: An analysis of valence in Britain, 1979–1997. European Journal of Political Research, 51, 469–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Green-Pedersen, C. (2007). The growing importance of issue competition: The changing nature of party competition in Western Europe. Political Studies, 55(3), 607–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Green-Pedersen, C., & Krogstrup, J. (2008). Immigration as a political issue in Denmark and Sweden. How party competition shapes political agendas. European Journal of Political Research, 47(5), 610–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Green-Pedersen, C., & Stubager, R. (2010). The political conditionality of mass media influence: When do parties follow mass media attention? British Journal of Political Science, 40, 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Haisken-DeNew, J. P., & Frick, J. (2005). DTC. Desktop companion to the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Berlin: Deutches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.Google Scholar
  41. Halaby, C. (2004). Panel models in sociological research. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 507–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ignazi, P. (1992). The silent counter revolution: Hypotheses on the emergence of the extreme right-wing parties in Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 22, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Jacobs, L., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1994). Issues, candidate image, and priming: The use of private polls in Kennedy’s 1960 presidential campaign. American Political Science Review, 88(3), 527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jensen, C., & Frølund Thomsen, J. P. (forthcoming). Can party competition amplify mass ideological polarization over public policy? The case of ethnic exclusionism in Denmark and Sweden. Party Politics.Google Scholar
  46. Joppke, C. (1998). Why liberal states accept unwanted immigration. World Politics, 50(2), 266–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. King, G., et al. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kitschelt, H. (1995). The radical right in Western Europe: A comparative analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  49. Knigge, P. (1998). The ecological correlates of right-wing extremism in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 34(2), 249–279.Google Scholar
  50. Kriesi, H., et al. (2008). West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kroh, M., & Spieß, M. (2008). Documentation of sample sizes and panel attrition in the German Socio Economic Panel (SOEP) (1984 until 2007). Data Documentation, No. 39. Berlin: DIW.Google Scholar
  52. Krosnick, J. A., & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Krouwel, A. (2012). Party transformations in European democracies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lancee, B., & Pardos-Prado, S. (2013). Group conflict theory in a longitudinal perspective: Analysing the dynamic side of ethnic competition. International Migration Review, 47(1), 106–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lenz, G. (2009). Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the priming hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 821–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Stegmaier, M. (2009). Economic models of the vote. In R. Dalton & H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 518–537). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Lubbers, M., et al. (2002). Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 41(3), 345–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mayer, N. (2002). Ces Français qui votent Le Pen. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  59. Mayhew, D. R. (2002). Electoral realignments. A critique of an American genre. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Meguid, B. (2005). Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meuleman, B., et al. (2009). Changing attitudes toward immigration in Europe, 2002–2007: A dynamic group conflict approach. Social Science Research, 38(2), 352–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mudde, C. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mudde, C. (2010). The populist radical right: A pathological normalcy. West European Politics, 33(6), 1167–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Neundorf, A., et al. (2011). The individual-level dynamics of bounded partisanship. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 458–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Norpoth, H., & Rusk, J. G. (2007). Electoral myth and reality: Realignments in American politics. Electoral Studies, 26(2), 392–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Norris, P. (2005). Radical right: Voters and parties in the electoral market. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Perlmutter, T. (1996). Bringing parties back in: Comments on ‘Modes of immigration politics in liberal democratic societies’. International Migration Review, 30, 375–388.Google Scholar
  68. Perrineau, P. (2004). L’extrême droite populiste: comparaisons européennes. In P. A. Taguieff (Ed.), Le retour du populisme: un défi pour les démocraties européennes. Paris: Universalis.Google Scholar
  69. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Petrocik, J. R., et al. (2003). Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly, 118(4), 599–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  72. Rattinger, H., et al. (2011). Pre-election cross-section (GLES 2009). ZA5300 Data file Version 5.0.0. Cologne: GESIS Data Archive. doi: 10.4232/1.10997.
  73. Riker, W. H. (1993). Agenda formation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  74. Robertson, D. (1976). A theory of party competition. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  75. Rydgren, J. (2005). Is extreme right-wing populism contagious? Explaining the emergence of a new party family. European Journal of Political Research, 44(3), 413–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schattschneider, E. E. (1975). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  77. Schneider, S. L. (2008). Anti-immigrant attitudes in Europe: Outgroup size and perceived ethnic threat. European Sociological Review, 24(1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. (2009). Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit Ausländische Bevölkerung. Ergebnisse des Ausländerzentralregisters. Fachserie 1, Reihe 2. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
  79. Stokes, D. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57(2), 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stokes, D. (1992). Valence politics. In D. Kavanagh (Ed.), Electoral politics (pp. 141–164). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  81. Sundquist, J. L. (1973). Dynamics of the party system: Alignment and realignment of political parties in the United States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  82. Taguieff, P. A. (2004). Le retour du populisme. Un défi pour les démocraties européennes. Paris: Encyclopaedia Universalis France.Google Scholar
  83. Van der Brug, W. (2004). Issue ownership and party choice. Electoral Studies, 23(2), 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Van der Brug, W., & Fennema, M. (2003). Protest or mainstream? How the European anti-immigrant parties developed into two separate groups by 1999. European Journal of Political Research, 42(1), 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Van der Brug, W., et al. (2000). Anti-immigrant parties in Europe: Ideological or protest vote? European Journal of Political Research, 37(1), 77–102.Google Scholar
  86. Van der Brug, W., et al. (2007). The economy and the vote: Effects of economic conditions on voter preferences and election outcomes in fifteen countries. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Van Spanje, J. (2011). Keeping the rascals in. Anti-political-establishment parties and their cost of governing in established democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 50(5), 609–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Volkens, A., et al. (2012). The manifesto data collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
  89. Wagner, G. G., et al. (1993). The English language public use file of the German Socio-Economic Panel. Journal of Human Resources, 28(2), 429–433.Google Scholar
  90. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergi Pardos-Prado
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bram Lancee
    • 2
  • Iñaki Sagarzazu
    • 3
  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB)BerlinGermany
  3. 3.University of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations