Verschwinden die programmatischen Alternativen?

Die Qualität von Wahlprogrammen in 21 OECD-Ländern seit 1950
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Politischen Parteien wird in allen modernen Demokratien eine zentrale Rolle bei der Aggregation und Artikulation von Wählerpräferenzen (Webb et al. 2002) und der Umsetzung der Wählerinteressen in politische Entscheidungen (Pierce 1999; Kitschelt 2000; Montero und Gunther 2002; Lawson und Poguntke 2004) zugesprochen. In dieser Delegationskette kommt den Wahlprogrammen der Parteien eine besondere Bedeutung zu. Nur wenn die Bürger programmatische Angebote vorfinden, die ihren unterschiedlichen politischen Präferenzen entsprechen, können ihre Interessen im Parlament repräsentiert und, bei gegebenen Mehrheiten, von Regierungen umgesetzt werden. Und nur wenn das programmatische Angebot klar formuliert und sichtbar ist, können die Bürger das ihren Präferenzen entsprechende Programm identifizieren. Das Gelingen des repräsentativen Prozesses setzt daher auf der Angebotsseite demokratischer Wahlen voraus, dass die Parteien klare programmatische Alternativen anbieten.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Adams, James. 2012. Causes and Electoral Consequences of Party Policy Shifts in Multiparty Elections: Theoretical Results and Empirical Evidence. Annual Review of Political Science 15 (1): 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albright, Jeremy J. 2010. The Multidimensional Nature of Party Competition. Party Politics 16 (6): 699–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansalobehere, Stephen, Jonathan Rodden und James M. Snyder. 2008. The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting. American Political Science Review 102 (2): 215–232.Google Scholar
  4. Bartolini, Stefano. 1999. Collusion, Competition and Democracy: Part I. Journal of Theoretical Politics 11(4): 435–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartolini, Stefano. 2000. Collusion, Competition and Democracy: Part II. Journal of Theoretical Politics 12 (1): 33–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakker, Ryan, Seth Jolly und Jonathan Polk. 2012.Complexity in the European Party Space: Exploring Dimensionality with Experts. European Union Politics 13 (2): 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, Daniel. 1962. The End of Ideology. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Benoit, Kenneth und Michael Laver. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Benoit, Kenneth und Michael Laver. 2012. The dimensionality of the policy space: Epistemological and methodological considerations. European Union Politics 13 (2): 194–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bornschier, Simon. 2010.The New Cultural Divide and the Two-Dimensional Political Space in Western Europe. West European Politics 10 (3): 419–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooks, Clem, Paul Niewbeerta und Jeff Manza. 2006. Cleavage-based Voting Behaviour in Cross-National Perspective: Evidence from Six Post-War Democracies. Comparative Political Studies 28 (4): 88–128.Google Scholar
  12. van der Brug, Wouter. 1999. Voters’ Perceptions and Party Dynamics. Party Politics 5 (2): 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brunsbach, Sandra, Stefanie John, Andrea Volkens und Annika Werner. 2011. Wahlprogramme im Vergleich. In Superwahljahr 2009. Vergleichende Analysen aus Anlass der Wahlen zum Deutschen Bundestag und zum Europäischen Parlament, hrsg. Jens Tenscher, 41-64. (Hg.): Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  14. Brunsbach, Sandra, Stefanie John und Annika Werner. 2012. The Supply Side of Second Order Elections: Comparing German National and European Election Manifestos. German Politics 21 (1): 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Budge, Ian. 1993. Parties, Programs and Policies: A Comparative and Theoretical Perspective. The American Review of Politics 14, S. 695–716.Google Scholar
  16. Budge, Ian und Dennis Farlie. 1983. Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-three Democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  17. Budge, Ian, David Robertson und Derek Hearl. Hrsg. 1987. Ideology, Strategy and Party Change. Spatial Analysis of Post-war Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Budge, Ian, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara und Eric Tanenbaum with Richard C. Fording, Derek J. Hearl, Kim Hee Min, Michael McDonald und Silvia Mendez. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cochrane, Christopher. 2011. The Asymmetrical Structure of Left/Right Disagreement. Left-wing Coherence and Right-wing Fragmentation in Comparative Party Policy. Party Politics 19 (1): 104–121.Google Scholar
  20. Daalder, Hans. 2002. Parties: Denied, Dismissed, or Redundant? A Critique. In Political Parties. Old Concepts and New Challenges, hrsg. Richard Gunther, José Ramón Montero und Juan J. Linz, 39-57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dalton, Russell J. 1985. Political Parties and Political Representation: Party Supporters and Party Elites in Nine Nations. Comparative Political Studies 18 (3): 267–299.Google Scholar
  22. Dalton, Russell J. 1996. Citizen Politics. Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, 2. Aufl.Google Scholar
  23. Dalton, Russell J. 2002. Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Dalton, Russell J., Scott C. Flanagan und Paul A. Beck. 1984. Political Forces and Partisan Change. In Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, hrsg. Russell J. Dalton, Scott C. Flanagan und Paul A. Beck, 452-476. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dalton, Russell J., David M. Farrell und Ian McAllister. 2011. Political Parties and Democratic Linkage. How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  27. Druckman, James N. 2004. Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir) Relevance of Framing Effects. American Political Science Review 98 (4): 671–686.Google Scholar
  28. Eckstein, Harry. 1968. Party Systems. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 17, hrsg. David L. Sills, 436-453. New York: McMillan/Free Press.Google Scholar
  29. Elff, Martin. 2013. A Dynamic State-Space Model of Coded Political Texts. Political Analysis 21 (2): 217–232.Google Scholar
  30. Eulau, Heinz. 1987. The Congruence Model Revisited. Legislative Studies Quarterly 12 (2): 171–214.Google Scholar
  31. Evans, Geoffrey. 2010. Models, Measures and Mechanisms: An Agenda for Progress in Cleavage Research. West European Politics 33 (3): 634–647.Google Scholar
  32. Evans, Geoffrey und Dirk de Graaf. 2013. Political Choice Matters: Explaining the Strength of Class and Religious Cleavages in Cross-national Perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Franklin, Mark N, Thomas T. Mackie und Henry Valen. Hrsg. 1992. Electoral Change. Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Franzmann, Simon. 2008. Programmatische Heterogenität und ideologische Polarisierung in den europäischen Parteiensystemen, Beitrag für die gemeinsame Tagung der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft (DVPW), der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Politikwissenschaft (ÖGPW) und der Schweizerischen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft (SVPW) „Die Verfassung der Demokratien“, 21.-23 November 2008 an der Universität Osnabrück.Google Scholar
  35. Franzmann, Simon und André Kaiser. 2006. Locating Political Parties in Policy Space. A Reanalysis of Party Manifesto Data. Party Politics 12 (2): 163–188.Google Scholar
  36. Fuchs, Dieter und Hans-Dieter Klingemann. 1995. Citizens and the State: a Changing Relationship? In Citizens and the State, hrsg. Hans-Dieter Klingemann und Dieter Fuchs, 1-23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Green‐Pedersen, Christoffer. 2007. The Growing Importance of Issue Competition: The Changing Nature of Party Competition in Western Europe.Political Studies 55 (3): 607–628.Google Scholar
  38. Green-Pedersen, Christoffer und Peter B. Mortensen. 2010. Who Sets the Agenda and who Responds to it in the Danish Parliament? A New Model of Issue Competition and Agenda‐ setting. European Journal of Political Research 49 (2): 257–281.Google Scholar
  39. Heath, Anthony, Geoffrey Evans und Jean Martin. 1994. The Measurement of Core Beliefs and Values: The Development of Balanced Socialist/Laissez-Faire and Libertarian/Authoritarian Scales. British Journal of Political Science 24 (1): 115–132.Google Scholar
  40. Hooghe, Liesbet, Gary Marks und Carole J. Wilson. 2002. Does left/right structure party positions on European integration? Comparative Political Studies 35 (8): 965–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Inglehart, Ronald. 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Inglehart, Ronald und Christian Welzel. 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Iyengar, Shanto und Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News that Matters: Agenda-setting and Priming in a Television Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Katz, Richard S. und Peter Mair. 1995. Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy. Party Politics 1 (1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Keil, Silke I. 2003. Wahlkampfkommunikation in Wahlanzeigen und Wahlprogrammen, Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  46. Keil, Silke I. 2004. Parteiprogrammatik in Wahlkampfanzeigen und Wahlprogrammen 1957-2002: Und es gibt ihn doch – den (kleinen) Unterschied. In Die Bundestagswahl 2002. Analysen der Wahlergebnisse und des Wahlkampfes, hrsg. Frank Brettschneider, Jan van Deth und Edeltraud Roller, 353-388. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  47. Kim, Hee Min und Richard C. Fording. 2002. Government partisanship in Western democracies, 1945-1998. European Journal of Political Research 41 (2): 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kirchheimer, Otto. 1966. The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems’. In Political Parties and Political Development, hrsg. Joseph LaPalombara und Myron Weiner, 117-200. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Kitschelt, Herbert. 2000. Linkages between Citizens and Politicians in Democratic Polities. Comparative Political Studies 33 (6/7), 845–879.Google Scholar
  50. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Richard I. Hofferbert, Ian Budge with Hans Keman, François Pétry, Torbjorn Bergman und Kaare Strom. 1994. Parties, Policies, and Democracy. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  51. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, Ian Budge und Michael Macdonald. 2006. Mapping Policy Preference II: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments in Eastern Europe, the European Union and the OECD, 1990-2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. König Thomas, Moritz Marbach und Moritz Osnabrügge. 2013. Estimating Party Positions across Countries and Time – A Dynamic Latent Variable Model for Manifesto Data. Political Analysis, 21 (4): 468–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kriesi Hanspeter Edgar Grande Martin Dolezal Marc Helbling, Dominic Höglinger, Swen Hutter und Bruno Wüst. 2012. Political Conflict in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Laver, Michael und Ian Budge. Hrsg. 1992. Party Policy and Government Coalitions. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  55. Laver, Michael und John Garry. 2000. Estimating policy positions from political texts. American Journal of Political Science, 44 (3): 619–634.Google Scholar
  56. Lawson, Kay und Thomas Poguntke. Hrsg. 2004. How Political Parties Respond. Interest Aggregation Revisited. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Lehmbruch, Gerhard. 1992. Konkordanzdemokratie. In Lexikon der Politik, Bd. 3: Die westlichen Länder, hrsg. Manfred G. Schmidt, 206-211. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  58. Lijphart, Arend. 1989. From the Politics of Accommodation to Adversarial Politics in the Netherlands: A Reassessment. West European Politics 12 (1): 139–153.Google Scholar
  59. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance of Twenty-Seven Democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Lipset, Martin Seymour und Stein Rokkan. 1967.Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignements. An Introduction. In Party Systems and Voter Alignments. Cross-National Perspectives, hrsg. Seymour Martin Lipset und Stein Rokkan, 1-64. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  61. Mair, Peter. 2008. The Challenge to Party Government. West European Politics 31, 211–234.Google Scholar
  62. Mair, Peter, Wolfgang Müller und Fritz Plasser. Hrsg. 2004. Political Parties and Electoral Change. Party Responses to Electoral Markets. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Mansergh, Lucy und Robert Thomson. 2007. Election pledges, party competition, and policymaking. Comparative Politics, 39 (3): 311–329.Google Scholar
  64. Marcinkowski, Frank. 1998. Massenmedien und Politikinhalte. Empirische Fallstudie auf einem unterbelichteten Forschungsfeld. Duisburger Materialien zur Politik- und Verwaltungswissenschaft 19.Google Scholar
  65. Marshall, Stefan. 2011. Nutzer und Nutzen – Der Wahl-O-Mat zur Bundestagswahl 2009. In Das Internet im Wahlkampf, hrsg. Eva J. Schweitzer und Steffen Albrecht, 136-153. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  66. Maurer, Marcus. 2007. Fakten oder Floskeln? Die Inhalte der Wahlprogramme im Bundestagswahlkampf 2005 in der Tagespresse. Publizistik 52 (2), 174–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Maurer, Marcus. 2009. Wissensvermittlung in der Mediendemokratie: Wie Medien und politische Akteure die Inhalte von Wahlprogrammen kommunizieren. In Politik in der Mediendemokratie, hrsg. Frank Marcinkowski und Barbara Pfetsch, 151-173. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  68. Merkel, Wolfgang, Alexander Petring, Christian Henkes und Christoph Egle. 2008. Social Democracy in Power. The capacity to reform. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Merz, Nicolas und Sven Regel. 2013. Die Programmatik der Parteien. In Handbuch Parteienforschung, hrsg. Oskar Niedermayer, 212-238. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  70. Montero, José Ramón und Richard Gunther. 2002. Introduction: Reviewing and Assessing Parties. In Political Parties. Old Concepts and New Challenges, hrsg. Richard Gunther, José Ramón Montero und Juan J. Linz, 1-38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Nyblade, Benjamin. 2004. The Dynamics of Dominance, Manuskript.Google Scholar
  72. Pappi, Franz Urban. 2000. Zur Theorie des Parteienwettbewerbs. In 50 Jahre Empirische Wahlforschung in Deutschland. Entwicklung, Befunde, Perspektiven, Daten, hrsg. Markus Klein, Wolfgang Jagodzinski, Ekkehard Mochmann und Dieter Ohr, 86-105. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  73. Pappi, Franz Urban und Susumu Shikano. 2004. Ideologische Signale in den Wahlprogrammen der deutschen Bundestagsparteien 1980 bis 2002. Mannheim: MZES Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
  74. Pierce, Roy. 1999. Mass-Elite Linkages and the Responsible Party Model of Representation. In Policy Representation in Western Democracies, Warren E. Miller, Roy Pierce, Jacques J. A. Thomassen, Richard Herrera, Sören Holmberg, Peter Esaiasson und Bernhard Weßels, 9-32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Römmele, Andrea. 2012. Electronic campaigning. In Electronic Democracy. State of the Art and Future Perspectives, hrsg. Norbert Kersting, 103-124. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  76. Rohrschneider, Robert und Stephen Whitefield. 2007. Representation in New Democracies: Party Stances on European Integration in Post-Communist Eastern Europe. Journal of Politics 69 (4), 1133–1146.Google Scholar
  77. Rovny, Jan. 2012. Who Emphasizes and Who Blurs? Party Strategies in Multidimensional Competition. European Union Politics 13 (2): 269–292.Google Scholar
  78. Rovny, Jan und Erica E. Edwards. 2012. Struggle over Dimensionality. Party Competition in Western and Eastern Europe. East European Politics & Societies 26 (1): 56–74.Google Scholar
  79. Sani, Giacomo und Giovanni Sartori. 1983. Polarization, Fragmentation, and Competition in Western Democracies. InWestern European Party Systems. Continuity and Change, Hans Daalder und Peter Mair, 307-340. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  80. Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems. A Framework for Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Schmitt, Hermann. 2001. Politische Repräsentation in Europa. Eine empirische Studie zur Interessenvermittlung durch allgemeine Wahlen. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  82. Schmitt, Hermann und Jacques J. A. Thomassen. Hrsg. 1999. Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Shikano, Susumu und Franz Urban Pappi. 2004. The positions of parties in ideological and policy space: the perception of German voters of their party system. Mannheim: MZES Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
  84. Stokes, Donald E. 1963. Spatial Models of Party Competition. American Political Science Review 57, 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stoll, Heather. 2010. Elite-Level Conflict Salience and Dimensionality in Western Europe: Concepts and Empirical Findings. West European Politics 10 (3): 445–473.Google Scholar
  86. Thomassen, Jacques J. A. 1991. Empirical Research into Political Representation. A Critical Reappraisal. In Politische Klasse und politische Institutionen. Probleme und Perspektiven der Elitenforschung. Dietrich Herzog zum 60. Geburtstag, hrsg. Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Richard Stöss und Bernhard Weßels, 259-274. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  87. Thomassen, Jacques J. A. 1994. Empirical Research into Political Representation: Failing Democracy or Failing Models. In Elections at Home and Abroad: Essays in Honor of Warren E. Miller, hrsg. M. Kent Jennings und Thomas E. Mann, 237-264. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  88. Thomassen, Jacques J. A. 1999. Political Communication between Political Elites and Mass Public. The Role of Belief Systems. In Policy Representation in Western Democracies, Warren E. Miller, Roy Pierce, Jacques J. A. Thomassen, Richard Herrera, Sören Holmberg, Peter Esaiasson und Bernhard Weßels, 33-58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Thomassen, Jacques J. A. Hrsg. 2005. The European Voter. A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Volkens, Andrea. 2003. Parteiendemokratie in Europa: Die Frage des Politikangebots. In Entwicklung und Perspektiven der Demokratie in Ost und West. Abschlusskolloquium der Abteilung Institutionen und Sozialer Wandel mit einer Einführung von Jürgen Kocka, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, org. Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Edeltraud Roller, Andrea Volkens, Bernhard Weßels und Jens Alber, 23–28.Google Scholar
  91. Volkens, Andrea. 2007. Strengths and Weaknesses of Approaches to Measuring Policy Positions of Parties. Electoral Studies, Special Symposium: Comparing Measures of Party Positioning: Expert, Manifesto, and Survey Data 26, 108–120.Google Scholar
  92. Volkens, Andrea und Hans-Dieter Klingemann. 2002. Parties, Ideologies, and Issues. Stability and Change in Fifteen European Party Systems 1945-1998. In Political Parties in the New Europe. Political and Analytical Challenges, hrsg. Kurt Richard Luther und Ferdinand Müller-Rommel, 143-167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Volkens, Andrea, Judith Bara, Ian Budge., Michael McDonald und Hans-Dieter Klingemann Hrsg. 2013a. Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts III. Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Volkens, Andrea, Pola Lehmann, Nicolas Merz, Sven Regel, Annika Werner mit Onawa Promise Lacewell und Henrike Schultze. 2013b. The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2013b. Berlin: WZB Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
  95. De Vries, Catherine und Gary Marks. 2012. The struggle over dimensionality: A note on theory and empirics. European Union Politics 13 (2), 185–193.Google Scholar
  96. De Vries, Catherine und Sara B. Hobolt 2012. When dimensions collide: The electoral success of issue entrepreneurs. European Union Politics 13 (2), 246–268.Google Scholar
  97. Warwick, Paul V. 1998. Policy distance and parliamentary government. Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (3): 319–345.Google Scholar
  98. Warwick, Paul V. 2002. Towards a Common Dimensionality in West European Policy Spaces. Party Politics 8 (1), 101–122.Google Scholar
  99. Webb, Paul, David M. Farrell und Ian Holliday. Hrsg. 2002. Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abt. Demokratie und DemokratisierungWissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)BerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations