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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
To be sure, noting that voters are inclined to rely on heuristics in forming party perceptions does not invalidate the notion that parties engage in strategic attempts to tailor their messages to regional contexts. Indeed, while nuanced policy signals might well be picked up by competitors, we expect them to be fairly inconsequential for structuring citizen preferences and therefore ultimately unlikely to inform electoral decisions.
Although the literature primarily has considered candidates as objects with valence traits, the underlying ideas also apply to collective actors. On the one hand, an inherent valence surplus can be attributed to collective actors (Clark 2009, 2014; Clark and Leiter 2014; Nyhuis and Plescia 2018). On the other hand, valence perceptions of collective actors are structured by individual party representatives, particularly highly visible ones, like party leaders.
Neither the choice of the distance function, nor the assumption of a normal distribution affects the model estimates. As alternative model specifications yield similar results (Käppner and Shikano 2015), we opt for the simpler model.
One may be concerned that the statistical model cannot capture the variability in the feeling thermometer scores. However, we model the feeling thermometer scores as random variables, which allows other factors besides the spatial and non-spatial components, e.g., measurement error, to be captured by the random component. Indeed, the data show that the residuals are distributed independently and identically normal, as the model assumes.
To run the MCMC, we used JAGS (version 4.2.0) and R (version 3.3.2) for further analysis. All codes are available from the authors upon request. The identification strategies and priors are presented in Shikano and Käppner (2017).
We include data on all regional elections for which a GLES survey was fielded from 2010 until mid-2017.
The data were collected on an 11-point-scale. To ensure as little contamination between the two rating tasks as possible, the surveys typically place the item battery on the federal parties toward the beginning of the survey, and the item battery on the state-level parties toward the end.
We do not enforce strict comparability of the parameters between the regional elections because doing so would require observational bridges (cf. Bailey 2007; Shor et al. 2010). For example, we could link the disparate spaces by assuming common ideological preference values for the national party organizations. We refrain from doing so because that might bias the results in favor of the theoretical account.
Western states in the sample are Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Rheinland-Pfalz, and Schleswig–Holstein. All East German states are in the sample—Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt and Thüringen. Because of Germany’s post-war division, Berlin cannot be classified as either a West German or an East German state.
The reference category for the variable Government is no governmental function. Government (binary) indicates any governmental function—both as a senior or junior coalition partner. The variable Major party indicates CDU, CSU, or SPD. Major party (Left included) also considers DIE LINKE a major party in East Germany.
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.
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.
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.
Althaus, S. L. (1998). Information effects in collective preferences. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 545–558.
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.
Ansolabehere, S., & Snyder, J. M., Jr. (2000). Valence politics and equilibrium in spatial election models. Public Choice, 103(3/4), 327–336.
Aragones, E. (2002). Mixed equilibrium in a Downsian model with a favored candidate. Journal of Economic Theory, 103(1), 131–161.
Arceneaux, K. (2006). Do campaigns help voters learn? A cross-national analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 159–173.
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.
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.
Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194–230.
Bornschier, S. (2010). The new cultural divide and the two-dimensional political space in Western Europe. West European Politics, 33(3), 419–444.
Brancati, D. (2008). The origins and strengths of regional parties. British Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 135–159.
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.
Bräuninger, T., & Debus, M. (2012). Parteienwettbewerb in den deutschen Bundesländern. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Carrillo, J., & Castanheira, M. (2008). Information and strategic political polarisation. The Economic Journal, 118, 845–874.
Clark, M. (2009). Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998. Electoral Studies, 28(1), 111–122.
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.
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.
Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M. C., & Whiteley, P. (2009). Performance politics and the British voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Dalton, R. J., Beck, P. A., & Flanagan, S. C. (1984). Electoral change in advanced industrial democracies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Druckman, J. N., Jacobs, L. R., & Ostermeier, E. (2004). Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. Journal of Politics, 66(4), 1180–1202.
Easton, D. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5(4), 435–457.
Endersby, J. W. (1994). Nonpolicy issues and the spatial theory of voting. Quality & Quantity, 28, 251–265.
Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1982). Ideology, issues, and the spatial theory of elections. American Political Science Review, 76(3), 493–501.
Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Erikson, R., & Palfrey, T. (2000). Equilibria in campaign spending games: Theory and data. The American Political Science Review, 94(3), 559–609.
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.
Franzmann, S., & Kaiser, A. (2006). Locating political parties in policy space: A reanalysis of party manifesto data. Party Politics, 12(2), 163–188.
Freitag, M., & Vatter, A. (Eds.). (2008). Demokratiemuster in den deutschen Bundesländern: Eine Einführung. In Die Demokratien der deutschen Bundesländer. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Groseclose, T. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 862–886.
Hansen, K. M., & Pedersen, R. T. (2014). Campaigns matter: How voters become knowledgeable and efficacious during election campaigns. Political Communication, 31(2), 303–324.
Hinich, M. J., & Munger, M. C. (1994). Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hinich, M. J., & Munger, M. C. (1997). Analytical politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Hough, D., & Jeffery, C. (2006). Devolution and electoral politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Hummel, P. (2010). On the nature of equilibria in a Downsian model with candidate valence. Games and Economic Behavior, 70(2), 425–445.
Kam, C. D., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2013). Name recognition and candidate support. American Journal of Political Science, 57(4), 971–986.
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.
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.
König, P. D. & Nyhuis, D. (Forthcoming). Assessing the applicability of vote advice applications for estimating party positions. Party Politics.
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.
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.
Laakso, M., & Taagepera, R. (1979). “Effective” number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12(1), 3–27.
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.
Laver, M., & Sergenti, E. (2011). Party competition: An agent-based model. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lodge, M., & Hamill, R. (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing. American Political Science Review, 80(2), 505–520.
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.
Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(4), 331–361.
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.
Meirowitz, A. (2008). Electoral contests, incumbency advantages, and campaign finance. Journal of Politics, 70(3), 681–699.
Mondak, J. J. (1995). Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. Journal of Politics, 57(4), 1043–1069.
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.
Niedermayer, O. (2013). Die Parteiensysteme der Bundesländer. In Handbuch Parteienforschung (Ed.), Oskar Niedermayer (pp. 765–790). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Nyhuis, D. (2016). Electoral effects of candidate valence. Electoral Studies, 42, 33–41.
Nyhuis, D. (2018). Separating candidate valence and proximity voting: Determinants of competitors’ non-policy appeal. Political Science Research and Methods, 6, 135–151.
Nyhuis, D., & Plescia, C. (2018). The nonideological component of coalition preferences. Party Politics, 24(6), 686–697.
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.
Pardos-Prado, S. (2012). Valence beyond consensus: Party competence and policy dispersion from a comparative perspective. Electoral Studies, 31(2), 342–352.
Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472–496.
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.
Sahuguet, N., & Persico, N. (2006). Campaign spending regulation in a model of redistributive politics. Economic Theory, 28(1), 95–124.
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.
Schaffner, B. F., & Streb, M. J. (2002). The partisan heuristic in low-information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(4), 559–581.
Schofield, N. (2003). Valence competition in the spatial stochastic model. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15(4), 371–383.
Schofield, N. (2007). The mean voter theorem: Necessary and sufficient conditions for convergent equilibrium. Review of Economic Studies, 74(3), 965–980.
Schofield, N., & Sened, I. (2005). Multiparty competition in Israel, 1988–1996. British Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 635–663.
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.
Shikano, S. & Käppner, K. (2017). Identification of ideological space with valence based on feeling thermometer scores. Unpublished Manuscript.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thorlakson, L. (2009). Patterns of party integration, influence and autonomy in seven federations. Party Politics, 15(2), 157–177.
Winter, Ld, & Türsan, H. (1998). Regionalist parties in Western Europe. New York: Routledge.
Zakharov, A. (2009). A model of candidate location with endogenous valence. Public Choice, 138(3), 347–366.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Shikano, S., Nyhuis, D. The effect of incumbency on ideological and valence perceptions of parties in multilevel polities. Public Choice 181, 331–349 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00659-7
- Spatial models of party competition