Advertisement

Comparative European Politics

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

Party competition and positions on immigration: Strategic advantages and spatial locations

  • Pontus Odmalm
Original Article

Abstract

The literature on party competition suggests that traditional conflict lines have either become obsolete or been replaced by new, less stable, ones. This development points to how political conflict has changed but also to how certain policy positions can be problematic to explain when these are linked to parties’ location on ‘Old’ and ‘New’ conflict dimensions. A particularly difficult issue has been party position(s) on immigration. Solely focusing on parties’ spatial location – on either conflict dimension – is insufficient for understanding the position that parties adopt. The article argues that a more fruitful approach is to simultaneously consider the degree of ownership – the strategic advantage – that parties have on particular conflict dimensions and parties’ spatial location therein. Comparing parties in Britain and Sweden, the article explores the extent to which this framework explains party positioning in two institutionally different contexts.

Keywords

issue ownership party competition immigration comparative manifestos 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research support under the Economic and Social Research Council's First Grant Scheme (Grant reference: RES-061-25-0195) is gratefully acknowledged. The author would also like to thank Mark Aspinwall, Wilfried Swenden, Martin Schain, Tariq Modood, Paul Statham and the two anonymous referees for their extensive comments which greatly improved the article's focus and analysis.

References

  1. Adams, J., Clark, M., Ezrow, L. and Glasgow, G. (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, J. and Merrill, S. (1999) Modelling party strategies and policy representation in multiparty elections: Why are strategies so extreme? American Journal of Politics Science 43 (3): 765–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker, R., Edwards, E. and de Vries, C. (2006) Fickle Parties of Changing Dimensions? Testing the Comparability of the Party Manifesto Data Across Time and Space. Paper presented at the MPSA Conference, Chicago.Google Scholar
  4. Bartolini, S. and Mair, P. (1990) Policy competition, spatial distance and electoral instability. West European Politics 13 (4): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benoit, K. and Laver, M. (2007) Estimating party policy positions: Comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies 26 (1): 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benoit, K., Laver, M. and Mikhaylov, S. (2008) Treating words as data with error: Uncertainty in text statements of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 495–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breunig, C. and Luedtke, A. (2008) What motivates the gatekeepers? Explaining governing party preferences on immigration. Governance 21 (1): 123–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Budge, I. (1994) A new spatial theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science 24 (4): 443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Budge, I. (2001) Validating the manifesto research group approach. Theoretical assumptions and empirical confirmations. In: M. Laver (ed.) Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Budge, I. and Farlie, D.J. (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections. Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-three Democracies. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  11. Budge, I. et al (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Budge, I. and Pennings, P. (2007) Do they work? Validating computerised word frequency estimates against policy series. Electoral Studies 26 (1): 121–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, M. (2009) Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998. Electoral Studies: 28 (1): 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalton, R. (2002) Political cleavages, issues and electoral change. In: L. LeDuc, R.G. Niemi and P. Norris (eds.) Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting. London: Sage, pp. 189–209.Google Scholar
  15. De Lange, S.L. (2007) A new winning formula? The programmatic appeal of the radical right. Party Politics 13 (4): 411–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dinas, E. and Gemenis, K. (2010) Measuring parties’ ideological positions with manifesto data: A critical evaluation of the competing methods. Party Politics 16 (4): 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  18. Dummett, A. (2005) United Kingdom. In: R. Baubock, E. Ersboll, K. Groendijk and H. Waldrauch (eds.) Acquisition and Loss of Nationality, Volume 2: Comparative Analyses. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: University of Amsterdam Press, pp. 551–580.Google Scholar
  19. Franzmann, S. and Kaiser, A. (2006) Locating political parties in policy space: A reanalysis of party manifesto data. Party Politics 12 (2): 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman, G. (1997) Immigration as a source of political discontent and frustration in Westerns democracies. Studies in Comparative International Development 32 (3): 42–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Golder, M. (2003) Explaining variation in the success of extreme right parties in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies 36 (4): 432–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Green, J. (2007) When voters and parties agree: Valence issues and party competition. Political Studies 55 (3): 629–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Green, J. and Hobolt, S.B. (2008) Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies 27 (3): 460–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Green-Pedersen, C. and Krogstrup, J. (2008) Immigration as a political issue in Denmark and Sweden. European Journal of Political Research 47 (5): 610–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grofman, B. (2004) Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review of Political Science 7 (25): 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hobolt, S., Klemmensen, R. and Pickup, M. (2008) The Dynamics of Issue Diversity in Party Rhetoric. OCSID Working Paper OCSID_03, http://ocsid.politics.ox.ac.uk/publications/index.asp.
  28. Hobolt, S.B. and Klemmemsen, R. (2005) Responsive government? Public opinion and government policy preferences in Britain and Denmark. Political Studies 53 (2): 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holmberg, S., Gilljam, M. and Oscarsson, H. (1991) Svensk Valundersökning, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
  30. Holmberg, S., Gilljam, M. and Oscarsson, H. (1994) Svensk Valundersökning, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
  31. Holmberg, S., Gilljam, M. and Oscarsson, H. (1998) Svensk Valundersökning, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
  32. Holmberg, S., Gilljam, M. and Oscarsson, H. (2002) Svensk Valundersökning, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
  33. Holmberg, S., Gilljam, M. and Oscarsson, H. (2006) Svensk Valundersökning, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
  34. Hooghe, L., Marks, G. and Wilson, C. (2002) Does left/right structure party positions on European integration? Comparative Political Studies 35 (8): 965–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Inglehart, I. (1971) The silent revolution in post-industrial societies. American Political Science Review 65: 991–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Inglehart, R. (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Inglehart, R. (1987) Value change in industrial societies. American Political Science Review 81 (4): 1290–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Inglehart, R. (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Jennings, W. (2009) The public thermostat, political responsiveness and error-correction: Border control and asylum in Britain, 1994–2007, Brirish Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 847–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jennings, W. and Green, J. (2009) Macro-competence: A Measurement of Mood in Issue Competence and a Test of Its Effects on Party Support. Paper prepared for the European Consortium for Political Research Conference; 9–12 September 2009, Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
  42. Jones, B. and Baumgartner, F. (2005) The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Attention. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. King, G. (1990) On political methodology. Political Analysis 2: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kitschelt, H. (2004) Diversification and Reconfiguration of Party Systems in Postindustrial Democracies. Bonn, Germany: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar
  45. Kitschelt, H. and McGann, A.J. (1995) The Radical Right in Western Europe. A Comparative Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  46. Klingemann, H.-D. (1987) Electoral programmes in West Germany 1949–1980: Explorations in the nature of political controversy. In: I. Budge, D. Robertson and D. Heard (eds.) Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 294–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J., Budge, I. and Macdonald, M. (2006) Mapping Policy Preference II: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments in Eastern Europe, the European Union and the OECD, 1990–2000. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S. and Frey, T. (2006) Globalisation and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared, European Journal of Political Research 45 (6): 921–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lahav, G. (1997) Ideological and party constraints on immigration attitudes in Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies 35 (3): 307–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Laver, M. and Hunt, B. (1992) Party and Policy Competation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Pelizzo, R. (2003) Party positions or party direction? An analysis of party manifesto data. West European Politics 26 (2): 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pellikaan, H., an der Meer, T. and de Lange, S.L. (2003) The road from a depoliticized to a centrifugal democracy. Acta Politica 38 (1): 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Petrocik, J. (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rabinowitz, G. and Macdonald, S.E. (1989) A directional theory of issue voting. The American Political Science Review 83 (1): 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Riker, W. (1996) The Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Rydgren, J. (2005) Movements of Exclusion: Radical Right-wing Populism in the Western World. New York: Nova Science.Google Scholar
  57. Schattschneider, E. (1960) The Semi-sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  58. Somerville, W. (2007) Immigration under New Labour. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  59. Spencer, S. (2007) Immigration. In: A. Seldon (ed.) Blair's Britain 1997–2007. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 341–360Google Scholar
  60. Stokes, D.E. (1963) Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review 57: 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van der Brug, W. (2004) Issue ownership and party choice. Electoral Studies 23 (2): 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walgrave, S. and Nuytemans, M. (2009) Friction and party manifesto change in 25 countries. American Journal of Political Science 53 (1): 190–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pontus Odmalm
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Social and Political Science, University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations