Campaigning on behalf of the party? Party constraints on candidate campaign personalisation
Corresponding Author
TROELS BØGGILD
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark
Address for correspondence: Troels Bøggild, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorHELENE HELBOE PEDERSEN
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
TROELS BØGGILD
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark
Address for correspondence: Troels Bøggild, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorHELENE HELBOE PEDERSEN
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
This article analyses what makes political candidates run a party-focused or personalised election campaign. Prior work shows that candidates face incentives from voters and the media to personalise their campaign rhetoric and promises at the expense of party policy. This has raised concerns about the capacity of parties to govern effectively and voters’ ability to hold individual politicians accountable. This article builds on the literature on party organisation and considers the possible constraints candidates face from their party in personalising their election campaigns. Specifically, it is argued that party control over the candidate nomination process and campaign financing constrains most political candidates in following electoral incentives for campaign personalisation. Using candidate survey data from the 2009 EP election campaign in 27 countries, the article shows how candidates from parties in which party officials exerted greater control over the nomination process and campaign finances were less likely to engage in personalised campaigning at the expense of the party programme. The findings imply that most parties, as central gatekeepers and resource suppliers, hold important control mechanisms for countering the electoral pressure for personalisation and advance our understanding of the incentives and constraints candidates face when communicating with voters. The article discusses how recent democratic reforms, paradoxically, might induce candidate personalisation with potential negative democratic consequences.
Supporting Information
Filename | Description |
---|---|
ejpr12256-sup-0001-Appendix.docx70.6 KB | Appendix A: Full overview and operationalisations of control variables Appendix B: Analyses rerun after data imputation, replacing missing values with means from other candidates within the candidate's party Appendix C: Effects of Party nomination power and Party financing on Campaign personalisation moderated by incumbency of candidate at EU and national levels (control variables included but not reported) Appendix D: Analyses rerun without using weight variable to correct for non-response bias across parties (control variables included but not reported) Appendix E: Analyses rerun using two-limit Tobit regression models with censoring at different levels of the Campaign personalisation variable (control variables included but not reported) Appendix F: Analyses rerun with random effects models, controlling for relevant country-level variables Appendix G: Population lists of countries and political parties |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- Accetti, C.I. & Wolkenstein, F. (2016). The crisis of party democracy, cognitive mobilization and the case for making parties more deliberative. American Political Science Review 111(1): 97–109.
- André, A., Freire, A. & Papp, Z. (2014). Electoral rules and legislator's personal vote-seeking. In K. Deschouwer & S. Depauw (eds), Representing the people: A survey among members of statewide and sub-state parliaments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684533.003.0005 Google Scholar
- Balmas, M., Rahat, G., Sheafer, T. & Shenhav, S.R. (2014). Two routes to personalized politics: Centralized and decentralized personalization. Party Politics 20(1): 37–51.
- Bauman, Z. (2001). The individualized society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Bille, L. (2001). Democratizing a democratic procedure: Myth or reality? Candidate selection in Western European parties, 1960–1990. Party Politics 7(3): 363–380.
- Bøggild, T. (2016). How politicians’ reelection efforts can reduce public trust, electoral support and policy approval. Political Psychology 37(6): 901–919.
- Campbell, R., Cowley, P., Vivyan, N. & Wagner, M. (2016). Legislator dissent as a valence signal. British Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000223.
10.1017/S0007123416000223 Google Scholar
- Carey, J.M. & Shugart, M.S. (1995). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies 14(4): 417–439.
- Carson, J.L., Koger, G., Lebo, M.J. & Young, E. (2010). The electoral costs of party loyalty in Congress. American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 598–616.
- Converse, P.E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.
- Cox, G.W. & McCubbins, M.D. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
- Cross, W.P. & Katz, R.S. (2013). The challenges of intra-party democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199661879.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Czesnik, M., Kotnarowski, M. & Markowski, R. (2010), EES (2009) contextual dataset codebook, advance release, 16/05/2010. Available online at: www.piredeu.eu
- Dalton, R.J. (1985). Political parties and political representation: Party supporters and party elites in nine nations. Comparative Political Studies 18(3): 267–299.
- Depauw, S. & Martin, S. (2009). Legislative party discipline and cohesion in comparative perspective. In D. Giannetti & K. Benoit (eds), Intra-party politics and coalition governments in parliamentary democracies. London: Routledge.
- K. Deschouwer & S. Depauw (eds) (2014). Representing the people: A survey among members of statewide and sub-state parliaments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684533.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Deschouwer, K., Depauw, S. & André, A. (2014). Representing the people in parliaments. In K. Deschouwer & S. Depauw (eds), Representing the people: A survey among members of statewide and sub-state parliaments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684533.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy 65(2): 135–150.
- Druckman, J.N., Kifer, M.J. & Parkin, M. (2009). Campaign communications in US Congressional elections. American Political Science Review 103(3): 343–366.
- Faas, T. (2003). To defect or not to defect? National, institutional and party group pressures on MEPs and their consequences for party group cohesion in the European Parliament. European Journal of Political Research 42(6): 841–866.
- Ferrara, F. & Weishaupt, T. (2004). Get your act together: Party performance in European Parliament election. European Union Politics 5(3): 283–306
- Gallagher, M. & Marsh, M. (1988). Candidate selection in comparative perspective. London: Sage.
- Gauja, A. (2015). The individualisation of party politics: The impact of changing internal decision-making processes on policy development and citizen engagement. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 17(1): 89–105.
- Giebler, H. & Wessels, B. (2010). 2009 European election candidate study: Methodological annex. Berlin: WZB Berlin Social Science Centre.
- Giebler, H. & Wessels, B. (2013). Campaign foci in European parliamentary elections: Determinants and consequences. Journal of Political Marketing 12(1): 53–76.
10.1080/15377857.2013.752230 Google Scholar
- Giebler, H. & Wüst, A.M. (2011). Campaigning on an upper level? Individual campaigning in the 2009 European Parliament elections in its determinants. Electoral Studies 30(1): 53–66.
- Grynaviski, J.D. (2010). Partisan bonds: Political reputations and legislative accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Hazan, R.Y. & Rahat, G. (2010). Democracy within parties: Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572540.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Heitshusen, V., Young G. & Wood, D. (2005). Electoral context and MP constituency focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science 49: 32–45.
- Hix, S. & Høyland, B. (2011). The political system of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.1007/978-0-230-34418-1 Google Scholar
- Hix, S. & Lord, C. (1997). Political parties in the European Union. New York: St Martin's Press.
10.1007/978-1-349-25560-3 Google Scholar
- Kam, C.J. (2009). Party discipline and parliamentary politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511576614 Google Scholar
- Karvonen, L. (2007). The Personalization of Politics: What Does Research Tell Us So Far, and What Further Research is in Order? Paper presented at the ECPR conference, Pisa, 6–8 September.
- Karvonen, L. (2010). The personalization of politics: A study of parliamentary democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.
- Katz, R.S. (2013). Should we believe that improved intra-party democracy would arrest party decline? In W.P. Cross & R.S. Katz (eds), The challenges of intra-party democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199661879.003.0004 Google Scholar
- Katz, R.S. & Mair, P. (1995). Changing models of party organization and party democracy: The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics 1(1): 5–28.
- Kiewiet, R. & McCubbins, M. (1991). The logic of delegation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Koss, M. (2010). The politics of party funding: State funding to political parties and party competition in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572755.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Kruikemeier, S., Noort, G. van, Vliegenthart, R. & De Vreese, C.H. (2013). Getting closer: The effects of personalized and interactive online political communication. European Journal of Communication 28(1): 53–66.
- Manin, B. (1997). The principles of representative government. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511659935 Google Scholar
- McAllister, I. (2007). The personalization of politics. In R.J. Dalton & H.D. Klingemann (eds), The handbook of political behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Müller, W. & Strøm, K. (2000). Conclusion: Coalition governance in Western Europe. In Coalitional governments in Western Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communications in postindustrial societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511609343 Google Scholar
- Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.4159/9780674041660 Google Scholar
- Oliver, P. (1980). Rewards and punishments as selective incentives for collective action: Theoretical investigations. American Journal of Sociology 85: 1356–1375.
- Önnudóttir, E.H. (2016). Political parties and styles of representation. Party Politics 22(6): 732–745.
- Papp, Z. & Zorigt, B. (2016). Party-directed personalisation: The role of candidate selection in campaign personalisation in Hungary. East European Politics 32(4): 466–486.
- Rahat, G., Hazan, R. & Katz, R. (2008). Democracy and political parties: On the uneasy relationships between participation, competition and representation. Party Politics 14(6): 663–683.
- Rashkova, E.R. & Van Biezen, I. (2014). The legal regulation of political parties: Contesting or promoting legitimacy. International Political Science Review 35(3): 265–274.
- Raunio, T. (2000). Losing independence or finally gaining recognition? Contacts between MEPs and national parties. Party Politics 6(2): 211–223.
- Scarrow S. (2005). Political parties and democracy in theoretical and practical perspectives: Implementing intra-party democracy. Washington, DC: National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI). Available online at: www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/1951_polpart_scarrow_110105_5.pdf
- Scarrow, S. (2013). Intra-party democracy and party finance. In W. Cross & S. Katz (eds), The challenges of intra-party democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199661879.003.0010 Google Scholar
- Scarrow, S. (2014). Beyond party members: Changing approaches to partisan mobilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199661862.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Schattschneider, E.E. (1942). Party government. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
- Shenhav, S.R. & Sheafer, T. (2008). From inter-party debate to inter-personal polemic: Media coverage of internal and external party. Party Politics 14(6): 706–725.
- Strøm, K. (2012). Roles as strategies: Towards a logic of legislative behaviour. In M. Blomgren & O. Rozenberg (eds), Parliamentary roles in modern legislatures. London: Routledge.
- Strömbäck, J. (2005). In search of a standard: Four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies 6(3): 331–345.
10.1080/14616700500131950 Google Scholar
- Swanson, D.L. & Mancini, P. (1996). Politics, media and modern democracy: An international study of innovations in electoral campaigning and their consequences. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
- Van Biezen, I.C. (2010). Campaign and party finance. In L. LeDuc, R.G. Niemi & P. Norris (eds), Comparing democracies: Elections and voting in global perspective, 3rd edn. London: Sage.
10.4135/9781446288740.n4 Google Scholar
- Van Biezen, I. & Kopecký, P. (2007). The state and the parties: Public funding, public regulation and rent-seeking in contemporary democracies. Party Politics 13(2): 235–254.
- Van Biezen, I. & Piccio, D.R. (2013). Shaping intra-party democracy: On the legal regulation of internal party organizations. In W.P. Cross & R.S. Katz (eds), The challenges of intra-party democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199661879.003.0003 Google Scholar
- Ware, A.J. (1979). The logic of party democracy. London: Macmillan
10.1007/978-1-349-04621-8 Google Scholar
- Webb, P. (1996). Apartisanship and anti-party sentiment in the United Kingdom: Correlates and constraints. European Journal of Political Research 29(3): 365–382.
- Wessels, B. (2011). European Parliament Election Study 2009, Candidate Study. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5048 Data file Version 2.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.11323.
- Wolfsfeld, G. (2011). Making sense of media and politics: Five principles in political communication. New York: Routledge.
10.4324/9780203839874 Google Scholar
- Zittel, T. & Nyhuis, D. (2017). The Legislative Effects of Individualized Campaigns: A Text-based Analysis on the Behaviors of German Legislators. Paper presented at the international workshop on personalisation, Aarhus, 3–4 April.