Friction and Party Manifesto Change in 25 Countries, S. Walgrave and M. Nuytemans Francesco Russo Comparative Politics A.Y

Framework Introduction Agenda-setting approach and notions of cognitive and institutional friction Seven hypotheses in party program change Presentation of data (L-Kurtosis) Empirical analysis testing Results and perspectives

Introduction 1 If society changes  politics must change i.e. the political agenda must react to the societal agenda BUT Capacity of political systems to respond to societal demands is limited  Political agendas are not in tune with the outside world

Introduction 2 Jones and Baumgartner in the Politics of Alternative (2005) introduce the notion of Friction: political institutions are affected by resistance to change leading to a situation of limited change or incrementalism alternating with short burst of intense and dramatic change.

Introduction 3 Argument: adaptation process of party preferences 3 questions: 1.To what extent do party preferences change over time? 2.Are trere any differences between parties in the way they adapt to changing demands? 3.What determines change pattern differences?

Introduction 4 Empirical data are produced by the Manifesto Research Group (MRG) To what extent the emphasis of party manifestos on policy issues changes between elections? What are the features of parties and party systems that account for differences between parties?

Political Parties and Party Manifestos: change and friction Parties are central political actors because they link citizens’ preferences with policies Although manifestos are not well known they form the core of a party’s plan  party manifestos matter for policy making because they affect the political agenda and steer policy attention on certain issues

Change and friction- Downs How parties make the difference in the representation process? 1. Parties try to convince the voters without adapting their programmes according to their preferences 2. Parties shift positions and try to get closer to the electorate  dynamic representation: electoral competition + need of extra votes may lead to constant and smooth adaptation of parties (Downs et alii)

Change and friction- Budge Parties have no or imperfect information about whether they will win or not the elections, nor about the median voter’s position  move little or incrementally because they do not want to loose votes  No smooth adaptation but hardly changeable and incremental party manifestos (Budge)

Change and Friction 3 From a rationalist point of view, party manifestos tend to maximize voters  they are expected to change smoothly BUT in reality they are not flexbile and changeable. Why? Because of friction in political institutions (Jones and Baumgartner)

Friction and change4 Stimuli from the outside are filtred or ignored  policies slowly drift away from reality and loose their adequacy Incrementalism: policies get locked into closed policy subsystems with a monopoly Extreme change (lagging behind&catching up)

Friction and change5 Does this process characterize only insitutions or political parties and party manifestos too? 1. Cognitive limitations: lack of time and information  priorities are determined by emotions/ideologies 2. Institutional limitations: party programmes are the only authoritative policy statement wholly accepted by memebers  changing programmes is very difficult and very often not convenient

Friction and change6 Are there any differences? 1. Compared to other political institutions party programme change are expected to be moderately punctuated 2. Parties have very strong incentives for adapting swiftly to incoming signals. It is a matter of survival for parties

Causes of party manifesto change 1 Why are some parties capable of responding smoothly and moderately to changing incoming information while others are not? Is it because of the parties or of the political system? Literature on party manifesto change can be summarised in 7 testable hypotheses:

Causes of party manifesto change: hypotheses 1. in a two-party system or in a system with limited party systemfractionalization, party manifesto changes will be less characterized by friction and punctuations than in a multiparty system 2. opposition parties’ manifestos adapt smoother and are less characterized by friction and punctuations than government party programs 3. parties with a central ideological position adapt smoother and their program changes are less characterized by friction and punctuations than ideologically extreme parties 4. parties losing elections change their program more smoothly and in a less punctuated way than parties winning elections

Causes of party manifesto change: hypotheses 5. small parties change their manifestos more smoothly and are less hindered by friction than large parties 6. party systempolarization leads tomore friction and punctuations in manifesto changeswhile less polarized party systems are characterized by smooth and nonfrictional adaptation 7. manifesto change in the first half of the postwar era is characterized by a punctuated patternwhile manifesto change from the 1970s onwards is a smoother and less frictional process

Data and Methods Dataset provided by the MRG countries in 50 years ( ) 2. Countries were all Western European democrecies (+ others) different issue codes (informative and directional) 4. Total number of parties: 288 for 364 different national elections 5. 2 periods: / Only parties that took part in 4 competitions were included

Data and Methods Dependent variable: the study of Manifesto party changes Independent variables: party system fractionalisation, opposition vs. Government, ideological position of a party,electoral fate of a party, party size, party system polarisation Distributive index: L-Kurtosis If change is punctuated the LK will be high If change is not punctuated the LK is low

Analysis LK scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 means that the distribution of changes is leptokurtotik in the middle of the distribution (many extreme changes) and few cases in the shoulder of the distribution (moderate changes) Manifesto change is punctuated (0.41): parties do not change smoothly their manifestos. They tend to stick the status quo and shift their programmatic issues attention incrementally. Central peak: frequent no change. Weak shoulders: infrequent moderate change Long tails: frequent extreme change  most of the parties hardly adapt their attention to issues T1: differences between countries are substantial and significant T2: differences between party types are bigger between countries

Bivariate analyses H7: in recent years party manifestos have become more flexible. The evidence shows the opposite. They are more punctuated and characterized by friction than before.  Parties became more rigid and firm while voters less rigid and free floating (T4)

Multivariate analysis Are there any other robust patterns of party manifesto change that apply to the whole post-war period? Can we measure the impact of the different explainingh variables? (T5)

Conclusion and Discussion Party programmes change incrementally or dramaticcally and moderate changes are exceptional There is a tremendous resistance to change (frictions) Differences between parties are substantial: some have more smoothly shifting manifestos, others hardly change it Party manifestos are influenced by feautures of parties and political system in which the party operates

Conclusion and Discussion Party leadership change: long-standing leadershiop can be expected to be characterized by a punctuated manifesto change pattern Causal link b/w the independent (parties, party siystems) and dependent variables (party change)  associations can be up side down Party programs are not flexible Party role in democracy? Should parties adapt smoothly to the environment or should they offer stable choices?