Who's at the helm? When party organization matters for party strategy

References

• Adams, J., M. Clark, L. Ezrow, and G. Glasgow. 2004. “Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results?” British Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 589–610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, J., M. Clark, L. Ezrow, and G. 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 50 (3): 513–529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, J., A.B. Haupt, and H. Stoll. 2008. “What Moves Parties? The Role of Public Opinion and Global Economic Conditions in Western Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (5): 611–639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, J.F., S. Merrill, and B. Grofman. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Adams, J., and Z. Somer-Topcu. 2009. “Policy Adjustment by Parties in Response to Rival Parties' Policy Shifts: Spatial Theory and the Dynamics of Party Competition in Twenty-Five Democracies.” British Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 825–846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldrich, J.H. 1983. “A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism.” American Political Science Review 77 (4): 974–990.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, C.S. 2009. “‘Empty Nets’: Social Democracy and the ‘Catch-All Party Thesis’ in Germany and Sweden.” Party Politics 15 (5): 635–653.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, K., and M. Laver. 2007. “Estimating Party Policy Positions: Comparing Expert Surveys and Hand-coded Content Analysis.” Electoral Studies 26 (1): 90–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bille, L. 2001. “Democratizing a Democratic Procedure: Myth or Reality? Candidate Selection in Western European Parties, 1960–1990.” Party Politics 7 (3): 363–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bischof, D., and M. Wagner. 2017. “What Makes Parties Adapt to Voter Preferences? The Role of Party Organization, Goals and Ideology.” British Journal of Political Science 1–11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000357.
   Google Scholar
• Bruter, M., and S. Harrison. 2009. “Tomorrow's Leaders? Understanding the Involvement of Young Party Members in Six European Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (10): 1259–1290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budge, I. 1994. “A New Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally.” British Journal of Political Science 24 (4): 443–467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budge, I., L. Ezrow, and M.D. McDonald. 2010. “Ideology, Party Factionalism and Policy Change: An Integrated Dynamic Theory.” British Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 781–804.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budge, I., H.D. Klingemann, A. Volkens, J. Bara, and E. Tanenbaum. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Government, 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ceron, A. 2012. “Bounded Oligarchy: How and When Factions Constrain Leaders in Party Position-Taking.” Electoral Studies 31 (4): 689–701.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceron, A. 2016. “Inter-Factional Conflicts and Government Formation: Do Party Leaders Sort out Ideological Heterogeneity?.” Party Politics 22 (6): 797–808.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Alimonte, R. 1999. “Party Behavior in a Polarized System: The Italian Communist Party and the Historic Compromise.” In Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, edited by W. Müller and K. Strom, 141–171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, R.J. 2008. “The Quantity and the Quality of Party Systems: Party System Polarization, Its Measurement, and Its Consequences.” Comparative Political Studies 41 (7): 899–920.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalton, R.J., and I. McAllister. 2015. “Random Walk or Planned Excursion? Continuity and Change in Left-Right Positions of Political Parties.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (6): 759–787.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dejaeghere, Y., and R. Dassonneville. 2017. “A Comparative Investigation into the Effects of Party-System Variables on Party Switching using Individual-Level Data.” Party Politics 23 (2): 110–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Döring, H., and P. Manow. 2016. Parliaments and Governments Database (Parlgov). http://www.parlgov.org.
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Duverger, M. 1954. Political Parties. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, G., and J. Tilley. 2012a. “The Depoliticization of Inequality and Redistribution: Explaining the Decline of Class Voting.” Journal of Politics 74 (4): 963–976.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, G., and J. Tilley. 2012b. “How Parties Shape Class Politics: Explaining the Decline of the Class Basis of Party Support.” British Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 137–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ezrow, L. 2005. “Are Moderate Parties Rewarded in Multiparty Systems? A Pooled Analysis of Western European Elections, 1984-1998.” European Journal of Political Research 44 (6): 881–898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ezrow, L., C. De Vries, M. Steenbergen, and E. Edwards. 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabel, M.J., and J.D. Huber. 2000. “Putting Parties in Their Place: Inferring Party Left-Right Ideological Positions from Party Manifestos Data.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 94–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, M., and P. Mitchell. 2005. The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Green, J., and S.B. Hobolt. 2008. “Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections.” Electoral Studies 27 (3): 460–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, Z., and M. Haber. 2016. “Leadership Competition and Disagreement at Party National Congresses.” British Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 611–632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harmel, R., and K. Janda. 1994. “An Integrated Theory of Party Goals and Party Change.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 6 (3): 259–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haupt, A.B. 2010. “Parties' Responses to Economic Globalization.” Party Politics 16 (1): 5–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heidar, K., and J. Saglie. 2003. “A Decline of Linkage? Intra-Party Participation in Norway, 1991–2000.” European Journal of Political Research 42 (6): 761–786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, J.D. 1989. “Values and Partisanship in Left Right Orientations: Measuring Ideology.” European Journal of Political Research 17 (5): 599–621.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janda, K., R. Harmel, C. Edens, and P. Goff. 1995. “Changes in Party Identity: Evidence from Party Manifestos.” Party Politics 1 (2): 171–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janda, K., and D.S. King. 1985. “Formalizing and Testing Duverger's Theories on Political Parties.” Comparative Political Studies 18 (2): 139–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, R.S., and P. Mair. 1995. “Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy.” Party Politics 1 (1): 5–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, R.S., and P. Mair. 2009. “The Cartel Thesis: A Restatement.” Perspectives on Politics 7 (4): 753–766.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, H., and R.C. Fording. 1998. “Voter Ideology in Western Democracies, 1946-1989.” European Journal of Political Research 33 (1): 73–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirchheimer, O. 1966. “The Transformation of Western European Party Systems.” In Political Parties and Political Development, edited by J. LaPalombara and M. Weiner, 177–200. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kitschelt, H. 1989. “The Internal Politics of Parties: The Law of Curvilinear Disparity Revisited.” Political Studies 37 (3): 400–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitschelt, H. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kölln, A., and J. Polk. 2017. “Emancipated Party Members: Examining Ideological Incongruence within Political Parties.” Party Politics 23 (1): 18–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krouwel, A. 2012. Party Transformations in European Democracies. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laakso, M., and R. Taagepera. 1979. “Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 3–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lachat, R. 2008. “The Impact of Party Polarization on Ideological Voting.” Electoral Studies 27 (4): 687–698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laver, M. 2005. “Policy and the Dynamics of Political Competition.” American Political Science Review 99 (2): 263–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laver, M., and W.B. Hunt. 1992. Policy and Party Competition. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Layman, G.C., T.M. Carsey, J.C. Green, R. Herrera, and R. Cooperman. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics.” American Political Science Review 104 (2): 324–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R. 2012. “Intra-Party Democracy and Party Responsiveness.” West European Politics 35 (6): 1295–1319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowe, W., K. Benoit, S. Mikhaylov, and M. Laver. 2011. “Scaling Policy Preferences from Coded Political Texts.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 36 (1): 123–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks, G., L. Hooghe, M.R. Steenbergen, and R. Bakker. 2007. “Crossvalidating Data on Party Positioning on European Integration.” Electoral Studies 26 (1): 23–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, J.D. 1973. “Opinion Structures of Political Parties: The Special Law of Curvilinear Disparity.” Political Studies 21 (2): 135–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michels, R. 1962, 1911. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracies. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, G., and N. Schofield. 2003. “Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 97 (2): 246–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panebianco, A. 1988. Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen, H.H. 2010. “How Intra-Party Power Relations Affect the Coalition Behaviour of Political Parties.” Party Politics 16 (6): 737–754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen, H.H. 2012. “What Do Parties Want? Policy Versus Office.” West European Politics 35 (4): 896–910.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen, K., L. Bille, R. Buch, J. Elklit, B. Hansen, and H.J. Nielsen. 2004. “Sleeping or Active Partners? Danish Party Members at the Turn of the Millennium.” Party Politics 10 (4): 367–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riker, W.H. 1982. Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Rohrschneider, R., and S. Whitefield. 2012. The Strain of Representation. How Parties Represent Diverse Voters In Western and Eastern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sánchez-Cuenca, I. 2004. “Party Moderation and Politicians' Ideological Rigidity.” Party Politics 10 (3): 325–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarrow, S.E., and B. Gezgor. 2010. “Declining Memberships. Changing Members? European Political Party Members in a New Era.” Party Politics 16 (6): 823–843.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlesinger, J.A. 1994. Political Parties and the Winning of Office. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt, H., E. Scholz, I. Leim, and M. Moschner. 2008. The Mannheim Eurobarometer Trend File 1970–2002 (ed. 2.00). Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.
   Google Scholar
• Schofield, N., and I. Sened. 2005. “Modeling the Interaction of Parties, Activists, and Voters: Why Is the Political Center so Empty?.” European Journal of Political Research 44 (3): 355–390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher, G., C.E. De Vries, and B. Vis. 2013. “Why Do Parties Change Position? Party Organization and Environmental Incentives.” Journal of Politics 75 (2): 464–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher, G., and C. Elmelund-Præstekær. 2018. “Party Performance Explains Disagreement Between Politicians and Their Parties.” West European Politics 41 (2): 329–349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher, G., and N. Giger. 2017a. “Do Leadership-dominated Parties Change More?” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 28: 1–12. Published online
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher, G., and N. Giger. 2017b. “Who Leads the Party? On Membership Size, Selectorates and Party Oligarchy.” Political Studies 65 (1S): 162–181.
   Google Scholar
• Somer-Topcu, Z. 2009. “Timely Decisions: The Effects of Past National Elections on Party Policy Change.” Journal of Politics 71 (1): 238–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spoon, J.J., and C. Williams. 2017. “It Takes Two: How Eurosceptic Public Opinion and Party Divisions Influence Party Positions.” West European Politics 40 (4): 741–762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stimson, J.A., M.B Mackuen, and R.S. Erikson. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89 (3): 543–565.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strom, K. 1990. “A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 565–598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Heck, S. 2018. “Appealing Broadly or Narrowing Down? The Impact of Government Experience and Party Organization on the Scope of Parties' Issue Agendas.” Party Politics 24 (4): 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volkens, A., P. Lehmann, T. Matthiess, N. Merz, S. Regel, and A. Werner. 2015. “The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR).” Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, M. 2017. “Why Do Party Members Leave?” Parliamentary Affairs 70 (2): 344–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, M., and T.M. Meyer. 2014. “Which Issues Do Parties Emphasise? Salience Strategies and Party Organisation in Multiparty Systems.” West European Politics 37 (5): 1019–1045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteley, P.F. 2011. “Is the Party Over? The Decline of Party Activism and Membership Across the Democratic World.” Party Politics 17 (1): 21–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteley, P.F., and P. Seyd. 1998. “The Dynamics of Party Activism in Britain: A Spiral of Demobilization.” British Journal of Political Science 28 (1): 113–137.
   Google Scholar