Cross-national partisan effects on agenda stability

References

• Abou-Chadi, T. and Orlowski, M. (2016) ‘Moderate as necessary: the role of electoral competitiveness and party size in explaining parties’ policy shifts’, The Journal of Politics Online Version 78(3): 868–81. doi: 10.1086/685585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, J. (1999) ‘Policy divergence in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting’, Public Choice 100: 103–22. doi: 10.1023/A:1018301007077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, J. , Haupt, A. and Stoll, H. (2008) ‘What moves parties? The role of public opinion and global economic conditions in Western Europe’, Comparative Political Studies 42(5): 611–39. doi: 10.1177/0010414008328637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, J. , Merrill, S. and Grofman, B. (2005) A Unified Theory of Party Competition , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
   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): 441–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01980.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. and Jones, B. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics , Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. , Grossman, E. and Brouard, S. (2009) ‘Agenda-setting dynamics in France: revisiting the “Partisan Hypothesis”’, French Politics 7(2): 75–95. doi: 10.1057/fp.2009.7
   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(1): 49–72. doi: 10.1017/S175577391400040X
   Web of Science ®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. doi: 10.1017/S1755773910000433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boydstun, A. , Bevan, S. and Thomas III, H. (2014) ‘The importance of attention diversity and how to measure it’, Policy Studies Journal 42(2): 173–96. doi: 10.1111/psj.12055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bräuninger, T. and Debus, M. (2009) ‘Legislative agenda-setting in parliamentary democracies’, European Journal of Political Research 48(6): 804–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.00850.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budge, I. , Ezrow, L. and McDonald, M. (2010) ‘Ideology, party factionalism and policy change: an integrated dynamic theory’, British Journal of Political Science 40(04): 781–804. doi: 10.1017/S0007123409990184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, J. (2009) Legislative voting and accountability , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ceron, A. (2015) ‘Brave rebels stay home: assessing the effect of intra-party ideological heterogeneity and party whip on roll-call votes’, Party Politics 21(2): 246–58. doi: 10.1177/1354068812472581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, G. (1987) The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, G. (2000) ‘On the effects of legislative rules’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 25(2): 169–92. doi: 10.2307/440367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, G. and McCubbins, M. (1994) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, C. and Hobolt, S. (2012) ‘When dimensions collide: the electoral success of issue entrepreneurs’, European Union Politics 13: 246–68. doi: 10.1177/1465116511434788
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Döring, H. (2001) ‘Parliamentary agenda control and legislative outcomes in Western Europe’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 26: 145–65. doi: 10.2307/440407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Döring, H. (2003). ‘Party discipline and government imposition of restrictive rules’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 9(4): 147–63. doi: 10.1080/1357233042000306317
   Google Scholar
• Döring, H. and Manow, P. (2012) Parliament and government composition database (ParlGov): an infrastructure for empirical information on parties, elections and governments in modern democracies. available at http://www.parlgov.org/static/static-2012/stable/download.html (accessed 15 October 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Green, J. and Jennings, W. (2012a) ‘The dynamics of issue competence and vote for parties in and out of power: an analysis of valence in Britain, 1979–1997’, European Journal of Political Research 51: 469–503. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02004.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, J. and Jennings, W. (2012b) ‘Valence as macro-competence: an analysis of mood in party competence evaluations in Britain’, British Journal of Political Science 42: 311–43. doi: 10.1017/S0007123411000330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, Z. (2016a) ‘Competing on the issues how experience in government and economic conditions influence the scope of parties’ policy messages’, Party Politics 22(6): 809–22. doi: 10.1177/1354068814567026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, Z. (2016b) ‘Working through the issues: how issue diversity and ideological disagreement influence coalition duration’, European Political Science Review , doi:10.1017/S1755773916000114 (First View).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, Z. and Haber, M. (2016) ‘Leadership competition and disagreement at party national congresses’, British Journal of Political Science 46(3): 611–32. doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green-Pedersen, C. and Mortensen, P. (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): 257–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01897.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellwig, T. (2012) ‘Constructing accountability party position taking and economic voting’, Comparative Political Studies 45(1): 91–118. doi: 10.1177/0010414011422516
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hibbs, D.A., Jr. (1977) ‘Political parties and macroeconomic policy’, American Political Science Review 71: 1467–87. doi: 10.1017/S0003055400269712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, J. (1996) Rationalizing Parliament: Legislative Institutions and Party Politics in France , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jennings, W. , et al . (2011) ‘Effects of the core functions of government on the diversity of executive agendas’, Comparative Political Studies 44(8): 1001–30. doi: 10.1177/0010414011405165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, C. and Spoon, J. (2011) ‘Testing the ‘party matters’ thesis: explaining progress towards Kyoto Protocol targets’, Political Studies 59(1): 99–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00852.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, P. , Bevan, S. and Jennings, W. (2014) ‘Party politics and policy agendas: the case of the United Kingdom’, in C. Green-Pedersen and S. Walgrave (eds.), Agenda-setting from a Policy Theory to a Theory of Politics , Chicago : Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kam, C. (2009) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Democracies , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laver, M. (1999) ‘Divided Parties, Divided Government’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 24: 5–29. doi: 10.2307/440298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laver, M. and Shepsle, K. (1996) Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis-Beck, M. and Stegmaier, M. (2000) ‘Economic Determinates of Political Outcomes’, Annual Review of Political Science 3: 183–219. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, L. , and Vanberg, G. (2011) Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Governance , Oxford : Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meguid, B. (2008) Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mortensen, P. , et al . (2011) ‘Comparing government agendas executive speeches in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Denmark’, Comparative Political Studies 44(8): 973–1000. doi: 10.1177/0010414011405162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien, D. and Shomer, Y. (2013) ‘A cross-national analysis of party switching’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 38(1): 111–41. doi: 10.1111/lsq.12005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, B. and Whitten, G. (1993) ‘A cross-national analysis of economic voting: taking account of the political context’, American Journal of Political Science 37(2): 391–414. doi: 10.2307/2111378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher, G. , de Vries, C. and Vis, B. (2013) ‘Why do parties change position? Party organization and environmental incentives’, Journal of Politics 75(2): 464–77. doi: 10.1017/S0022381613000145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somer-Topcu, Z. (2009) ‘Timely decisions: the effects of past national elections on party policy change’, Journal of Politics 71: 238–48. doi: 10.1017/S0022381608090154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somer-Topcu, Z. (2015) ‘Everything to everyone: the electoral consequences of the broad-appeal strategy in Europe’, American Journal of Political Science 59(4): 841–54. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soroka, S. and Wlezien, C. (2010) Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spoon, J. (2011) Political Survival of Small Parties in Europe , Ann Arbor, MI : University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strøm, K. (1990) Minority Government and Majority Rule , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thomassen, J. and Andeweg, R. (2004) ‘Beyond collective representation: individual members of parliament and interest representation in the Netherlands’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 10(4): 47–69. doi: 10.1080/1357233042000322463
   Google Scholar
• Tsebelis, G. (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work , Princeton : Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Warwick, P. (1994) Government Survival in Parliamentary Democracies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whitten, G. and Palmer, H. (1999) ‘Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting’, Electoral Studies 18: 49–67. doi: 10.1016/S0261-3794(98)00043-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, L. , Seki, K. and Whitten, G. (2016) ‘You’ve got some explaining to do: the influence of economic conditions and spatial competition on party strategy’, Political Science and Research Methods 4(1): 47–63. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2015.13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar