Explaining Left–Right Party Congruence Across European Party Systems

Abstract

Empirical studies on representation have been based mainly on the descriptive analysis of levels of political or ideological congruence between MPs and voters. Very few studies focus on explaining congruence and those which have done so do not explore all the explanatory dimensions. This article contributes to filling this gap by testing whether three theoretical models can explain left-right congruence among European parties. These models explore causality at the micro or individual level (the characteristics of voters and MPs), the meso level (party characteristics), and the macro or system level (party system and institutional characteristics). Based on data from the PIREDEU project, the study examines the party systems of the 27 countries of the European Union with reference to the 2009 European Parliament elections. The findings reveal that MP-voter congruence is best explained at the party level and by key MP (candidates) characteristics.

How well are citizens represented by their governments? Issue congruence and inequality in Europe

“…Most studies on congruence have looked at the match between voters and their parties (Dalton, 1985;Belchior, 2013;Ezrow and Xezonakis, 2011). This perspective is often linked to the "responsible party" or "party government" model of representation which assumes that parties propose coherent political platforms, from which voters chose according to their ideological proximity and that, once elected, parties will implement their political programs.…”

Political cleavages, party voter linkages and the impact of voters’ socio-economic status on vote-choice in Iceland, 1983-2016/17

“…Even if the left-right cleavage may not be as significant as it once was, it is still meaningful. It symbolically unites the elected and the electors (Belchior 2013), and there are differences in the political values of voters depending on whether they are on the left or the right (e.g. Jost et al 2008).…”

“…In our models, we combine the effects of respondent gender, age, marital status, education, occupation, income and rural or urban residency, as well as whether respondents work in the private sector or public sector, on party-choice into one y-hat. Given that voters of different parties may have different socio-economic backgrounds, with some parties mobilising a rural vote and others receiving more support from those who are more highly educated, we obtain a better estimate of the impact of voter socio-economic status on the vote by combining all socio-economic indicators into one y-hat instead of running them separately 6 . The results of these regressions can be seen in Appendix I.…”

“…. Multilevel binary logistic regression with income excluded from the indicator about the impact of voters' socio-economic status on vote-choice, 1983-2016 138.904 *** (41.732) Party sympathy 3 -165.395 *** (19.823) Socio-economic status (y-hats) 4 111.541 *** (39.690) Macro-level predictors: Year 5 -0.048 *** (0.008) Party age 6 0.008 *** (0.001) Cross-level interactions: Year*left-right distances -0.025 ** (0.010) Year*party identification -0.068 *** (0.021) Year*party sympathy 0.087 *** (0.010) Year*socio-economic status -0. Note: Multilevel binary logistic model.…”

“…A12. Impacts of separate indicators of voters' socio-economic status on votechoice, 1983 to 2016 -0.057 *** -0.057 *** -0.057 *** -0.057 *** -0.055 *** -0.053 *** -0.058 *** -0.058 *** (0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.007) Party age 6 0.008 *** 0.008 *** 0.008 *** 0.008 *** 0.008 *** 0.008 *** 0.008 *** 0.008 *** (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) Cross-level interactions: Year*left-right distances -0.027 *** -0.027 *** -0.027 *** -0.028 *** -0.027 *** -0.027 *** -0.026 *** -0.027 *** (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) Year*party identification -0.068 *** -0.068 *** -0.068 *** -0.068 *** -0.067 *** -0.068 *** -0.068 *** -0.067 *** (0.021) (0.021) (0.021) (0.021) (0.021) (0.020) (0.021) (0.020) Year*party sympathy 0.099 *** 0.099 *** 0.099 *** 0.098 *** 0.099 *** 0.098 *** 0.101 *** 0.100 *** (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) Year*gender ≈0.000 (≈0.000) Year*age ≈0.000 (≈0.000) Year*married ≈-0.000 (≈0.000) Year*education ≈-0.000 (≈0.000) Year*occupation ≈-0.000 *** (≈0.000) Year*sector ≈-0.000 *** (≈0.000) Year*income ≈-0.000 (≈0.000) Year*lives outside capital area ≈-0.005 (0 -13409.335 -13409.376 -13409.574 -13407.980 -13403.249 -13394.127 -13408.322 -13305.193 Note: Multilevel binary logistic model. Dependent variable is vote-choice.…”