Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T13:03:40.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Working through the issues: how issue diversity and ideological disagreement influence coalition duration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2016

Zachary Greene
Zachary Greene*
Affiliation:
School of Government and Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Issue salience and diversity direct a range of outcomes such as voting behavior and public policy. Studies, however, have yet to fully integrate theoretical or empirical expectations for the effect of issue salience on coalition stability. By focusing on the mechanism linking parties’ preferences to policy-making, I propose that parties with more diverse platforms provide coalitions greater room to negotiate, whereas parties focusing on a small number of issues exacerbate ideological tensions. Issue diversity becomes important once parties exhaust opportunities to make the initial, easy policy compromises. Using evidence from 299 coalitions in 24 European countries, I find that issue diversity in parties’ platforms moderates the effect of disagreement. Using a non-proportional hazard analysis, I find that the effect of issue diversity varies over the coalition’s lifecycle. Governments with parties willing to negotiate over a larger range of issues decrease the risk that disagreements will result in coalition termination.

Keywords

issue attentionissue diversitycoalition durationideological disagreementpolicy change
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , November 2017 , pp. 561 - 585
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. (1999), ‘Policy divergence in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting’, Public Choice 100: 103–122.Google Scholar
Adams, J. and Somer-Topçu, Z. (2009), ‘Policy adjustment by parties in response to rival parties’ policy shifts: spatial theory and the dynamics of party competition in twenty-five post-war democracies’, British Journal of Political Science 39: 825–846.Google Scholar
Adams, J., Clark, M., Ezrow, L. and Glasgow, G. (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 50: 513–529.Google Scholar
Andersson, S., Torbjörn, B. and Svante, E. (2014), ‘The European Representative Democracy Data Archive, Release 3’. Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (In2007-0149:1-E). Retrieved 9 February 2016 from www.erdda.se Google Scholar
Bäck, H., Debus, M. and Dumont, P. (2011), ‘Who gets what in coalition governments? Predictors of portfolio allocation in parliamentary democracies’, European Journal of Political Research 50(4): 441–478.Google Scholar
Bevan, S. and Greene, Z. (2016), ‘Looking for the party? The effects of partisan change on issue attention in UK acts of parliament’, European Political Science Review 8: 49–72.Google Scholar
Bevan, S., John, P. and Jennings, W. (2011), ‘Keeping party programmes on track: the transmission of the policy agendas of executive speeches to legislative outputs in the United Kingdom’, European Political Science Review 3(3): 395–417.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J.M. and Jones, B.S. (2004), Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boydstun, A.E., Bevan, D.S. and Thomas, H.F. (2014), ‘The importance of attention diversity and how to measure it’, Policy Studies Journal 42(2): 173–196.Google Scholar
Carey, J.M. (2008), Legislative Voting and Accountability , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dandoy, R. (2014), ‘The impact of government participation and prospects on party policy preferences in Belgium’, Government and Opposition 49(4): 630–657.Google Scholar
De Swaan, A. (1973), Coalition Theories and Cabinet Formations: A Study of Formal Theories of Coalition Formation Applied to Nine European Parliaments After 1918, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
De Vries, K. and Hobolt, S. (2012), ‘When dimensions collide: the electoral success of issue entrepreneurs’, European Union Politics 13: 246–268.Google Scholar
Diermeier, D. and Stevenson, R.T. (1999), ‘Cabinet survival and competing risks’, American Journal of Political Science 43: 1051–1068.Google Scholar
Döring, H. (2003), ‘Party discipline and government imposition of restrictive rules’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 9(4): 147–163.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Druckman, J.N. (2008), ‘Approaches to studying parliamentary coalitions’, Political Research Quarterly 61: 479–483.Google Scholar
Druckman, J.N. and Thies, M.F. (2002), ‘The importance of concurrence: the impact of bicameralism on government formation and duration’, American Journal of Political Science 46(4): 760–771.Google Scholar
Eichorst, J. (2014), ‘Explaining variation in coalition agreements: the electoral and policy motivations for drafting agreements’, European Journal of Political Research 53(1): 98–115.Google Scholar
Elgie, R. (2011), Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance, Oxford: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
Ezrow, L. (2007), ‘The variance matters: how party systems represent the preferences of voters’, Journal of Politics 69(1): 182–192.Google Scholar
Ezrow, L., De Vries, C., Steenbergen, M. and Edwards, E. (2011), ‘Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?’, Party Politics 17(3): 275–301.Google Scholar
Falcó-Gimeno, A. (2014), ‘The use of control mechanisms in coalition governments the role of preference tangentiality and repeated interactions’, Party Politics 20(3): 341–356.Google Scholar
Franchino, F. and Høyland, B. (2009), ‘Legislative involvement in parliamentary systems: opportunities, conflict, and institutional constraints’, American Political Science Review 103(4): 607–621.Google Scholar
Golder, S. (2006), The Logic of Pre-Electoral Coalition Formation, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Green, J. (2011), ‘A test of core vote theories: the British Conservatives, 1997--2005’, The British Journal of Political Science 41(4): 735–764.Google Scholar
Green, J. and Hobolt, S. (2008), ‘Owning the issue agenda: party strategies and vote choices in British elections’, Electoral Studies 27: 460–476.Google Scholar
Greene, Z. (2015), ‘Competing on the issues: how experience in government and economic conditions influence the scope of parties’ policy messages’, Party Politics 1–14, doi: 10.1177/1354068814567026.Google Scholar
Greene, Z. and Jensen, C. (2014), ‘Manifestos, salience and junior ministerial appointments’, Party Politics 1–11, doi: 1354068814549336.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. and Mortensen, P.B. (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
Hibbs, D.A. (1977), ‘Political parties and macroeconomic policy’, The American Political Science Review 71(4): 1467–1487.Google Scholar
Huber, J.D. (1996), Rationalizing Parliament: Legislative Institutions and Party Politics in France, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ibenskas, R. (2015), ‘Understanding pre-electoral coalitions in Central and Eastern Europe’, British Journal of Political Science, 1–19, doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000544. FirstView.Google Scholar
Jennings, W., Bevan, S., Timmermans, A., Breeman, G., Brouard, S., Chaques-Bonafont, L., Green-Pedersen, C., John, P., Mortensen, P. and Palau, A. (2011), ‘Effects of the core functions of government on the diversity of executive agendas’, Comparative Political Studies 44(8): 1001–1030.Google Scholar
John, P. and Jennings, W. (2010), ‘Punctuations and turning points in British politics: the policy agenda of the Queen’s speech’, British Journal of Political Science 40: 561–586.Google Scholar
Kam, C.J. (2009), Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
King, G.J.E.A., Burns, N.E. and Laver, M. (1990), ‘A unified model of cabinet dissolution in parliamentary democracies’, American Political Science Review 34: 846–871.Google Scholar
Kirchheimer, O. (1990), ‘The catch-all party’, in P. Mair (ed.), The West European Party System, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 50–60.Google Scholar
Laver, M. (2003), ‘Government termination’, Annual Review of Political Science 6: 23–40.Google Scholar
Laver, M. and Shepsle, K.A. (1996), Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Licht, A.A. (2011), ‘Change comes with time: substantive interpretation of nonproportional hazards in event history analysis’, Political Analysis 19: 227–243.Google Scholar
Lipsmeyer, C.S. and Pierce, H.N. (2011), ‘The eyes that bind: junior ministers as oversight mechanisms in coalition governments’, Journal of Politics 73: 1152–1164.Google Scholar
Lowe, W., Benoit, K., Mikhaylov, S. and Laver, M. (2011), ‘Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 26: 123–155.Google Scholar
Lupia, A. and Strøm, K. (1995), ‘Coalition termination and the strategic timing of parliamentary elections’, American Political Science Review 89(3): 648–665.Google Scholar
Maoz, Z. and Somer-Topçu, Z. (2010), ‘Political polarization and cabinet stability in multiparty systems: a social network analysis of European parliaments, 1945--98’, British Journal of Political Science 40: 805–833.Google Scholar
Martin, L.W. and Vanberg, G. (2003), ‘Wasting time? The impact of ideology and size on delay in coalition formation’, British Journal of Political Science 33(2): 323–332.Google Scholar
Martin, L.W. and Vanberg, G. (2005), ‘Coalition policymaking and legislative review’, The American Political Science Review 99(1): 93–106.Google Scholar
Martin, L.W. and Vanberg, G. (2008), ‘Coalition government and political communication’, Political Research Quarterly 61: 502–516.Google Scholar
Martin, L.W. and Vanberg, G. (2011), Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, L.W. and Vanberg, G. (2014), ‘Parties and policymaking in multiparty governments: the legislative median, ministerial autonomy, and the coalition compromise’, American Journal of Political Science 58(4): 979–996.Google Scholar
McCombs, M. and Zhu, J.-H. (1995), ‘Capacity, diversity, and volatility of the public agenda trends from 1954 to 1994’, Public Opinion Quarterly 59(4): 495–525.Google Scholar
Meguid, B. (2005), ‘Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success’, American Political Science Review 99: 347–359.Google Scholar
Meguid, B. (2008), Party Competition Between Unequals, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, T.M. and Wagner, M. (2013), ‘Mainstream or niche? Vote-seeking incentives and the programmatic strategies of political parties’, Comparative Political Studies 46(10): 1246–1272.Google Scholar
Meyer, T.M. and Miller, B. (2015), ‘The niche party concept and its measurement’, Party Politics 21(2): 259–271.Google Scholar
Müller, W.C. and Strøm, K. (eds) (1999), Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, W.C. and Strøm, K. (eds) (2003), Coalition Governments in Western Europe , Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nyblade, B. (2004), ‘The ‘Effective’ Number of issue dimensions: a measure with application to West Europe’. In Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April, p. 15–18.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John R. (1996), ‘Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study’, American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 825–850.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A. and Sprague, J.D. (1986), Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rovny, J. (2012), ‘Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition’, European Union Politics 13(2): 269–292.Google Scholar
Rovny, J. (2013), ‘Where do radical right parties stand? Position blurring in multidimensional competition’, European Political Science Review 5(1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Saalfeld, T. (2000), ‘Members of parliament and governments in Western Europe: agency relations and problems of oversight’, European Journal of Political Research 37(3): 353–376.Google Scholar
Saalfeld, T. (2008), ‘Institutions, chance, and choices’, in K. Strøm, W.C. Müller and T. Bergman (eds), Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 327–368.Google Scholar
Saalfeld, T. (2013), ‘Economic performance, political institutions and cabinet durability in 28 European parliamentary democracies, 1945–2011’, in W.C. Müller and H.M. Narud (eds), Party Governance and Party Democracy, New York: Springer, pp. 51–79.Google Scholar
Schleiter, P. and Morgan-Jones, E. (2009), ‘Constitutional power and competing risks: monarchs, presidents, prime ministers, and the termination of east and west European Cabinets’, American Political Science Review 103(3): 496–512.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K.A. (1972), ‘The strategy of ambiguity: uncertainty and electoral competition’, American Political Science Review 66(2): 555–568.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (2003), ‘Election timing in majoritarian parliaments’, British Journal of Political Science 33: 397–418.Google Scholar
Somer-Topçu, Z. (2009), ‘Timely decisions: the effects of past national elections on party policy change’, Journal of Politics 71: 238–248.Google Scholar
Somer-Topçu, Z. (2015), ‘Everything to everyone: the electoral consequences of the broad-appeal strategy in Europe’, American Journal of Political Science 59(4): 841–854.Google Scholar
Soroka, S. and Wlezien, C. (2010), Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spoon, J.-J. (2011), Political Survival of Small Parties in Europe, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Stoll, H. (2011), ‘Dimensionality and the number of parties in legislative elections’, Party Politics 17(3): 405–429.Google Scholar
Strøm, K. (1990), Minority Government and Majority Rule, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strøm, K. and Swindle, S.M. (2002), ‘Strategic parliamentary dissolution’, American Political Science Review 96: 575–591.Google Scholar
Strøm, K., Müller, W.C. and Bergman, T. (2008), Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thies, M. (2001), ‘Keeping tabs on partners: the logic of delegation in coalition governments’, American Journal of Political Science 45(3): 580–598.Google Scholar
Traynor, I. (2010), ‘Belgium’s five-party coalition government collapses: Bitter Linguistic and constitutional dispute over Brussels voting rights prompts administration’s fall after just five months’. The Guardian, April 26.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002), Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
van Roozendaal, P. (1997), ‘Government survival in western multi-party democracies’, European Journal of Political Research 32: 71–92.Google Scholar
Volkens, A., Lehmann, P., Matthieß, T., Merz, N., Regel, S. and Werner, A. (2015), The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2015a, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
Warwick, P. (1979), ‘The durability of coalition governments in parliamentary democracies’, Comparative Political Studies 11(4): 465–498.Google Scholar
Warwick, P. (1992), ‘Ideological diversity and government survival in Western European parliamentary democracies’, Comparative Political Studies 25: 332–361.Google Scholar
Warwick, P. (1994), Government Survival in Parliamentary Democracies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Greene supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Greene supplementary material(File)
File 152 KB