IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/279889.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communicating in an eventful campaign: A case study of party press releases during the German federal election campaign 2021

Author

Listed:
  • Ivanusch, Christoph
  • Zehnter, Lisa
  • Burst, Tobias

Abstract

Party competition during the German federal election campaign 2021 was marked by major external events and remarkable shifts in poll ratings. Existing literature argues that parties adjust their communication to such changing contexts and proposes three strategies: parties can respond to other parties, voter concerns or external events. In addition, these salience strategies are potentially moderated by further factors (e.g., poll ratings). The dynamic setting of the German federal election campaign 2021 provides an ideal case to bring together and test the outlined theories. We train a state-of-the-art model (BERT) on labeled manifestos and apply it for cross-domain topic classification of party press releases. The analysis shows that the parties used press releases for different purposes during the campaign and adjusted their issue communication to other parties and external events, but not to voter concerns. The use of different salience strategies was thereby unaffected by poll trends. These findings emphasize the influence of contextual changes on election campaigns and add important evidence to prominent theories of party competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivanusch, Christoph & Zehnter, Lisa & Burst, Tobias, 2023. "Communicating in an eventful campaign: A case study of party press releases during the German federal election campaign 2021," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 86.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:279889
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/279889/1/Full-text-article-Ivanusch-et-al-Communicating-in.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klüver, Heike & Spoon, Jae-Jae, 2016. "Who Responds? Voters, Parties and Issue Attention," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(3), pages 633-654, July.
    2. Grimmer, Justin, 2010. "A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 1-35, January.
    3. Mikhaylov, Slava & Laver, Michael & Benoit, Kenneth R., 2012. "Coder Reliability and Misclassification in the Human Coding of Party Manifestos," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 78-91, January.
    4. Lee Sigelman & Emmett H. Buell, 2004. "Avoidance or Engagement? Issue Convergence in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1960–2000," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(4), pages 650-661, October.
    5. Christoffer Green-Pedersen, 2007. "The Growing Importance of Issue Competition: The Changing Nature of Party Competition in Western Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 607-628, October.
    6. Noah Kaplan & David K. Park & Travis N. Ridout, 2006. "Dialogue in American Political Campaigns? An Examination of Issue Convergence in Candidate Television Advertising," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 724-736, July.
    7. Meyer, Thomas M. & Haselmayer, Martin & Wagner, Markus, 2020. "Who Gets into the Papers? Party Campaign Messages and the Media," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 281-302, January.
    8. Christoffer Green-Pedersen & Peter B. Mortensen, 2015. "Avoidance and Engagement: Issue Competition in Multiparty Systems," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63(4), pages 747-764, October.
    9. Meyer, Thomas M. & Wagner, Markus, 2016. "Issue Engagement in Election Campaigns The Impact of Electoral Incentives and Organizational Constraints," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 555-571, September.
    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. Schwarzbözl, Tobias & Fatke, Matthias & Hutter, Swen, 2020. "How party‒issue linkages vary between election manifestos and media debates," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 43(4), pages 795-818.
    2. Giebler, Heiko & Meyer, Thomas M. & Wagner, Markus, 2021. "The changing meaning of left and right: supply- and demand-side effects on the perception of party positions," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 31(2), pages 243-262.
    3. Denter, Philipp, 2020. "Campaign contests," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    4. Yamaguchi, Yohei, 2022. "Issue selection, media competition, and polarization of salience," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 197-225.
    5. Heike Klüver, 2015. "The promises of quantitative text analysis in interest group research: A reply to Bunea and Ibenskas," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 456-466, September.
    6. Merz, Nicolas, 2017. "Gaining voice in the mass media: The effect of parties’ strategies on party–issue linkages in election news coverage," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 52(4), pages 436-460.
    7. Chitralekha Basu & Matthew Knowles, 2021. "The Revelation Incentive for Issue Engagement in Campaigns," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 132, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    8. Salvador Barberà & Anke Gerber, 2022. "(Not) Addressing Issues in Electoral Campaigns," Working Papers 1353, Barcelona School of Economics.
    9. Silke Adam & Eva-Maria Antl-Wittenberg & Beatrice Eugster & Melanie Leidecker-Sandmann & Michaela Maier & Franzisca Schmidt, 2017. "Strategies of pro-European parties in the face of a Eurosceptic challenge," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 260-282, June.
    10. Merz, Nicolas & Regel, Sven & Lewandowski, Jirka, 2016. "The Manifesto Corpus: A new resource for research on political parties and quantitative text analysis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 3(2 (April-), pages 1-8.
    11. Mattia Zulianello, 2014. "Analyzing party competition through the comparative manifesto data: some theoretical and methodological considerations," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 1723-1737, May.
    12. Sandra Wankmüller, 2023. "A comparison of approaches for imbalanced classification problems in the context of retrieving relevant documents for an analysis," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 91-163, April.
    13. McCannon, Bryan & Zhou, Yang & Hall, Joshua, 2021. "Measuring a Contract’s Breadth: A Text Analysis," Working Papers 11013, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    14. Christoph Arndt, 2016. "Issue evolution and partisan polarization in a European multiparty system: Elite and mass repositioning in Denmark 1968–2011," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(4), pages 660-682, December.
    15. David Bholat & Stephen Hans & Pedro Santos & Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey, 2015. "Text mining for central banks," Handbooks, Centre for Central Banking Studies, Bank of England, number 33, April.
    16. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    17. Jelle Koedam, 2021. "Avoidance, ambiguity, alternation: Position blurring strategies in multidimensional party competition," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 655-675, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Pablo Amorós & M. Puy, 2013. "Issue convergence or issue divergence in a political campaign?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 355-371, June.
    20. Justin Wedeking, 2010. "Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 617-631, July.

    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:zbw:espost:279889. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.