IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v64y2020i3p649-663.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moderation and Competence: How a Party's Ideological Position Shapes Its Valence Reputation

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Johns
  • Ann‐Kristin Kölln

Abstract

We combine several strands of research from electoral behavior and party politics to suggest that ideological moderation will boost a party's perceived competence. Less radical parties are seen as readier to compromise, more realistic about what can be achieved, and less prone to simplistic solutions. The results of conjoint experiments with party profiles show that while an ideological leaning carries no cost, any appreciably left‐ or right‐wing position eroded a party's perceived competence among a representative sample of around 2,000 British citizens. This effect holds when controlling for respondents’ ideological proximity to the party in question, and it looks to operate through all three of the proposed mechanisms suggested above—especially willingness to compromise. These findings have important implications both for party strategy and for voting research, highlighting a key channel through which ideological moderation yields electoral gains.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Johns & Ann‐Kristin Kölln, 2020. "Moderation and Competence: How a Party's Ideological Position Shapes Its Valence Reputation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 649-663, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:64:y:2020:i:3:p:649-663
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12481
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12481
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12481?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. Jane Green, 2007. "When Voters and Parties Agree: Valence Issues and Party Competition," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(3), pages 629-655, October.
    2. Margaret Canovan, 1999. "Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 47(1), pages 2-16, March.
    3. Adams, James & Merrill III, Samuel, 2009. "Policy-Seeking Parties in a Parliamentary Democracy with Proportional Representation: A Valence-Uncertainty Model," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 539-558, July.
    4. Nannestad, Peter & Paldam, Martin, 1994. "The VP-Function: A Survey of the Literature on Vote and Popularity Functions after 25 Years," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 79(3-4), pages 213-245, June.
    5. Sarah Butt, 2006. "How Voters Evaluate Economic Competence: A Comparison between Parties In and Out of Power," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(4), pages 743-766, December.
    6. Benjamin Moffitt & Simon Tormey, 2014. "Rethinking Populism: Politics, Mediatisation and Political Style," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 62(2), pages 381-397, June.
    7. James Adams & Michael Clark & Lawrence Ezrow & Garrett Glasgow, 2006. "Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties' Policy Shifts, 1976–1998," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 513-529, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    10. Fortunato, David, 2019. "The Electoral Implications of Coalition Policy Making," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 59-80, January.
    11. Sarah Butt, 2006. "How Voters Evaluate Economic Competence: A Comparison between Parties In and Out of Power," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54, pages 743-766, December.
    12. Keman, Hans, 2011. "Third Ways and Social Democracy: The Right Way to Go?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 671-680, July.
    13. Miratrix, Luke W. & Sekhon, Jasjeet S. & Theodoridis, Alexander G. & Campos, Luis F., 2018. "Worth Weighting? How to Think About and Use Weights in Survey Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 275-291, July.
    14. Franchino, Fabio & Zucchini, Francesco, 2015. "Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(02), pages 221-241, May.
    15. Walter J. Stone & Elizabeth N. Simas, 2010. "Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 371-388, April.
    16. Jane Green, 2007. "When Voters and Parties Agree: Valence Issues and Party Competition," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 629-655, October.
    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. Eguia, Jon X. & Giovannoni, Francesco, 2019. "Tactical Extremism," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(1), pages 282-286, February.
    2. Jennings, Colin & Drinkwater, Stephen, 2012. "An Analysis of the Electoral Use of Policy on Law and Order by New Labour," SIRE Discussion Papers 2012-77, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    3. Luigi Curini, 2015. "Explaining party ideological stances," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 79-96, January.
    4. MIWA Hirofumi & KASUYA Yuko & ONO Yoshikuni, 2022. "Voters' Perceptions and Evaluations of Dynastic Politics in Japan," Discussion papers 22113, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    5. Werner, Annika & Giebler, Heiko, 2019. "Do Populists Represent? Theoretical Considerations on How Populist Parties (Might) Enact their Representative Function," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 55(4), pages 379-392.
    6. Stephen Drinkwater & Colin Jennings, 2017. "Expressive voting and two-dimensional political competition: an application to law and order policy by New Labour in the UK," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 79-96, March.
    7. Soorjith Illickal Karthikeyan & Stefan Jonsson & Filippo Carlo Wezel, 2016. "The Travails of Identity Change: Competitor Claims and Distinctiveness of British Political Parties, 1970–1992," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 106-122, February.
    8. Geys, Benny, 2012. "Success and failure in electoral competition: Selective issue emphasis under incomplete issue ownership," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship & Project "The Future of Fiscal Federalism" SP II 2012-102, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    9. 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.
    10. Timothy Besley & Anne Case, 2003. "Political Institutions and Policy Choices: Evidence from the United States," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(1), pages 7-73, March.
    11. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    12. Lasco, Gideon & Curato, Nicole, 2019. "Medical populism," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 1-8.
    13. Ruben Durante & Paolo Pinotti & Andrea Tesei, 2019. "The Political Legacy of Entertainment TV," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(7), pages 2497-2530, July.
    14. Wilde, Pieter de & Junk, Wiebke Marie & Palmtag, Tabea, 2016. "Accountability and opposition to globalization in international assemblies," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 22(4), pages 823-846.
    15. Chun‐ping Chang & Yung‐hsiang Ying & Meng‐chi Hsieh, 2009. "Impact Of Macroeconomic Conditions On Government Popularity: An Ecowas Investigation," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 77(1), pages 28-44, March.
    16. Gavoille, Nicolas & Verschelde, Marijn, 2017. "Electoral competition and political selection: An analysis of the activity of French deputies, 1958–2012," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 180-195.
    17. Price, Simon & Sanders, David, 1998. "By-Elections, Changing Fortunes, Uncertainty and the Mid-Term Blues," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(1-2), pages 131-148, April.
    18. Henrik Jordahl, 2006. "An economic analysis of voting in Sweden," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 251-265, June.
    19. Martins, Rodrigo & Veiga, Francisco José, 2014. "Does voter turnout affect the votes for the incumbent government?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 274-286.
    20. Gersbach, Hans & Tejada, Oriol, 2018. "A Reform Dilemma in polarized democracies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 148-158.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:amposc:v:64:y:2020:i:3:p:649-663. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.