Search

New parties are a key mechanism behind party system innovation as voters are offered new choices. To explain party entry (i.e. participation in a lower house election for the first time), the state-of-the-art has typically focused on domestic determinants. This, however, assumes that party entry takes place in an international vacuum. Building on the policy diffusion literature, we explore how party family members abroad influence party entry in the focal country. Based on a new dataset on the evolution of each party family in 17 Western European party systems between 1961 and 2016, including 2191 new parties, our mixed-methods approach combining spatial econometric models with pathway case analysis demonstrates that party entry is influenced by the entry and electoral success of their party family abroad. This has important implications for the literature on party entry and the international diffusion of policy platforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why and how parties continue contesting elections ("repeated entry") is an underresearched question despite its essence for party survival and party‐system stability. We study repeated entry in three decades of elections in 10 Central and Eastern European countries using a new dataset that records almost 1,000 entry decisions. Our findings underline the importance of separating between first‐ and second‐league parties based on whether in the previous election a party could obtain representation alone. First‐league parties (those that could gain representation alone) almost always contest the next election. Second‐league parties (those that could not win representation alone) exit electoral competition quite frequently and adopt more diverse repeated‐entry strategies. We find that second‐league parties' repeated entry depends on their closeness to the representation threshold, access to resources, and the number of competitors in their niche, but not on institutional constraints or voter dissatisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Swiss Political Science Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article examines to what extent ideological incongruence (i.e., mismatch between policy positions of voters and parties) increases the entry of new parties in national parliamentary elections and their individual‐level electoral support. Current empirical research on party entry and new party support either neglects the role of party–voter incongruence, or it only examines its effect on the entry and support of specific new parties or party families. This article fills this lacuna. Based on spatial theory, we hypothesise that parties are more likely to enter when ideological incongruence between voters and parties is higher (Study 1) and that voters are more likely to vote for new parties if these stand closer to them than established parties (Study 2). Together our two studies span 17 countries between 1996 and 2016. Time‐series analyses support both hypotheses. This has important implications for spatial models of elections and empirical research on party entry and new party support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines whether (and how) parties adapt to party system saturation (PSS). A party system is oversaturated when a higher effective number of parties contests elections than predicted. Previous research has shown that parties are more likely to exit when party systems are oversaturated. This article examines whether parties will adapt by increasing the nicheness of their policy platform, by forming electoral alliances or by merging. Based on time-series analyses of 522 parties contesting 357 elections in twenty-one established Western democracies between 1945 and 2011, the study finds that parties are more likely to enter – and less likely to leave – electoral alliances if PSS increases. Additionally, a small share of older parties will merge. The results highlight parties' limited capacity to adapt to their environments, which has important implications for the literature on party (system) change and models of electoral competition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study introduces a population-ecological approach to the entry and exit of political parties. A primary proposition of population ecology is that organizational entry and exit depends on the number of organizations already present: that is, density. We propose that political parties mainly experience competition from parties in the same ideological niche (left, centre, right). Pooled time-series analyses of 410 parties, 263 elections and 18 West-European countries largely support our expectations. We find that political parties are more likely to exit when density within their niche increases. Also there is competition between adjacent ideological niches, i.e. between centrist and right-wing niches. In contrast to our expectations, neither density nor institutional rules impact party entry. This raises important questions about the rationale of prospective entrants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores agenda-setting dynamics between mainstream and niche parties on two issues owned by niche parties: immigration and European integration. It proposes an analytical distinction between opposition and government parties to understand which mainstream parties will engage in dialogue on these issues. Building on prospect theory, mainstream opposition parties (MOPs) are expected to be risk-acceptant and inclined to follow the agenda of niche competitors. Conversely, mainstream government parties (MGPs) are risk-averse, will systematically ignore shifts in the agenda of niche parties and only increase their attention in response to MOPs. Time-series analyses between 1974 and 2003 on the case of Denmark confirm the hypotheses. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Do parties de-emphasize issues in response to internal divisions among their supporters, and are niche parties more likely to do so than mainstream parties? This study builds on previous research demonstrating that parties change their issue positions in response to their supporters. Simultaneously, a number of studies have emerged arguing that the linkage between parties and citizens is moderated by the type of party (mainstream versus niche). By means of a pooled time-series analysis of 197 parties in 14 West European countries between 1986 and 2006, this study provides convincing empirical evidence that parties downplay issues in response to internal divisions among their supporters. There are, however, no differences between niche and mainstream parties in their responsiveness to internal disagreement. This study has important implications for the literature on responsiveness between parties and their supporters, as well as for our understanding of the strategic behaviour of niche vis-à-vis mainstream parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]