IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v34y2022i2p185-217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Party competition and the structuring of party preferences by the left-right dimension

Author

Listed:
  • Holger Reinermann

Abstract

There is a wide selection of theoretical approaches to explain preferences citizens have for political parties, among them the spatial model of party competition in which voters choose based on proximity in a policy space, such as the left-right dimension. However, it has not ultimately prevailed against its competitors. Thus, a literature has emerged that allows for heterogeneity, asking whose preferences follow this logic and whose do not. However, research on how context affects spatial structuring is still sparse. Therefore, I combine CSES survey data with manifesto data in a sample of established democracies to examine the effects of party competition structure, measured by the “effective†number of parties and the polarization and dimensionality of party positions, on left-right structuration of party preferences in a single model. While I do not find significant context effects with a conventional measure of proximity voting, I propose a different operationalization which shows that while there are systematic effects of the party system, party preferences are mostly quite strongly structured by the left–right dimension.

Suggested Citation

  • Holger Reinermann, 2022. "Party competition and the structuring of party preferences by the left-right dimension," Rationality and Society, , vol. 34(2), pages 185-217, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:34:y:2022:i:2:p:185-217
    DOI: 10.1177/10434631221087998
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10434631221087998
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10434631221087998?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jessee, Stephen A., 2009. "Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(1), pages 59-81, February.
    2. Leifeld, Philip, 2013. "texreg: Conversion of Statistical Model Output in R to LATEX and HTML Tables," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 55(i08).
    3. Brambor, Thomas & Clark, William Roberts & Golder, Matt, 2006. "Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 63-82, January.
    4. Kedar, Orit, 2005. "When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancingin Parliamentary Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(2), pages 185-199, May.
    5. Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve, 2015. "Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 67(i01).
    6. Shane P. Singh, 2015. "Compulsory Voting and the Turnout Decision Calculus," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63(3), pages 548-568, August.
    7. Rabinowitz, George & Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, 1989. "A Directional Theory of Issue Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(1), pages 93-121, March.
    8. François Facchini & Louis Jaeck, 2019. "Ideology and the rationality of non-voting," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(3), pages 265-286, August.
    9. Leader Maynard, Jonathan & Mildenberger, Matto, 2018. "Convergence and Divergence in the Study of Ideology: A Critical Review," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 563-589, April.
    10. Paul Pennings, 2002. "The Dimensionality of the EU Policy Space," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(1), pages 59-80, March.
    11. Taylor, Michael & Herman, V. M., 1971. "Party Systems and Government Stability," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(1), pages 28-37, March.
    12. Leader Maynard, Jonathan & Mildenberger, Matto, 2018. "Convergence and Divergence in the Study of Ideology: A Critical Review – ERRATUM," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 591-591, April.
    13. Elff, Martin & Heisig, Jan Paul & Schaeffer, Merlin & Shikano, Susumu, 2016. "No Need to Turn Bayesian in Multilevel Analysis with Few Clusters: How Frequentist Methods Provide Unbiased Estimates and Accurate Inference," SocArXiv z65s4, Center for Open Science.
    14. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135-135.
    15. de Vries, Catherine E. & Hakhverdian, Armen & Lancee, Bram, 2013. "The Dynamics of Voters’ Left/Right Identification: The Role of Economic and Cultural Attitudes," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 223-238, December.
    16. Carmines, Edward G. & Stimson, James A., 1986. "On the Structure and Sequence of Issue Evolution," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(3), pages 901-920, September.
    17. Steven Greene, 2004. "Social Identity Theory and Party Identification," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 85(1), pages 136-153, March.
    18. Lupia, Arthur, 1994. "Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 63-76, March.
    19. Duch, Raymond M. & Stevenson, Randy, 2005. "Context and the Economic Vote: A Multilevel Analysis," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 387-409.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Catherine E. de Vries, 2007. "Sleeping Giant: Fact or Fairytale?," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(3), pages 363-385, September.
    2. Enriqueta Aragonès & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2017. "Imperfectly Informed Voters And Strategic Extremism," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(2), pages 439-471, May.
    3. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa, 2019. "Simulations in Models of Preference Aggregation," Working Papers hal-02424936, HAL.
    4. Marc van de Wardt & Joost Berkhout & Floris Vermeulen, 2017. "Ecologies of ideologies: Explaining party entry and exit in West-European parliaments, 1945–2013," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 239-259, June.
    5. Jan Rovny, 2012. "Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(2), pages 269-292, June.
    6. Catherine E. De Vries & Sara B. Hobolt, 2012. "When dimensions collide: The electoral success of issue entrepreneurs," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(2), pages 246-268, June.
    7. Justin Buchler, 2011. "The proximity paradox: the legislative agenda and the electoral success of ideological extremists," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 1-19, July.
    8. van de Wardt, Marc & Berkhout, Joost & Vermeulen, Floris, 2017. "Ecologies of ideologies : Explaining party entry and exit in European parliaments, 1945-2013," Other publications TiSEM d22532a6-9e27-48cc-9644-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Alan Blinder & Alan Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Working Papers 875, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    10. Francisco Martínez-Mora & M. Socorro Puy, 2009. "Off-the-peak preferences over government size," Working Papers 2009-9, Universidad de Málaga, Department of Economic Theory, Málaga Economic Theory Research Center.
    11. Author-Name: Alan S. Blinder & Alan B. Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 35(1), pages 327-397.
    12. Reuven Y. Hazan, 1995. "Center Parties and Systemic Polarization," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 7(4), pages 421-445, October.
    13. Mikael Gilljam, 1997. "Symposium. The Directional Theory of Issue Voting: I," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 5-12, January.
    14. E. Keith Smith & Adam Mayer, 2019. "Anomalous Anglophones? Contours of free market ideology, political polarization, and climate change attitudes in English-speaking countries, Western European and post-Communist states," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 17-34, January.
    15. John Jackson, 2014. "Location, location, location: the Davis-Hinich model of electoral competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 197-218, April.
    16. Michal Tóth & Roman Chytilek, 2018. "Fast, frugal and correct? An experimental study on the influence of time scarcity and quantity of information on the voter decision making process," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 67-86, October.
    17. Kumlin, Staffan, 2000. "Ideology-driven public opinion formation in Europe: The case of third sector attitudes in Sweden," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions and Social Change FS III 00-202, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    18. Fabian Gouret & Guillaume Hollard & Stéphane Rossignol, 2011. "An empirical analysis of valence in electoral competition," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(2), pages 309-340, July.
    19. Michael K Miller, 2011. "Seizing the mantle of change: Modeling candidate quality as effectiveness instead of valence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(1), pages 52-68, January.
    20. Hessami, Zohal & Resnjanskij, Sven, 2019. "Complex ballot propositions, individual voting behavior, and status quo bias," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 82-101.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:34:y:2022:i:2:p:185-217. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.