Party competition and positions on immigration: Strategic advantages and spatial locations

Abstract

The literature on party competition suggests that traditional conflict lines have either become obsolete or been replaced by new, less stable, ones. This development points to how political conflict has changed but also to how certain policy positions can be problematic to explain when these are linked to parties' location on 'Old' and 'New' conflict dimensions. A particularly difficult issue has been party position(s) on immigration. Solely focusing on parties' spatial locationon either conflict dimension -is insufficient for understanding the position that parties adopt. The article argues that a more fruitful approach is to simultaneously consider the degree of ownership -the strategic advantage -that parties have on particular conflict dimensions and parties' spatial location therein. Comparing parties in Britain and Sweden, the article explores the extent to which this framework explains party positioning in two institutionally different contexts.

Immigration into the mainstream: Conflicting ideological streams, strategic reasoning and party competition

“…That said, a party that 'owns' immigration (Odmalm, 2014;2012;2011, van der Brug, 2004Petrocik, 1996) is thus likely to emphasise the issue whereas a party that does not and/or performs relatively worse will downplay or ignore it. Green and Hobolt (2008) identify a link between issue ownership and how parties strive to raise the salience level of that particular issue.…”

“…Immigration poses just as many dilemmas for the centre-left (see Bale et al, 2010 and2012). For Social Democratic and reformed Left parties, limiting it can easily be seen as vital in order to retain collective power and good terms and conditions in the labour market (see Hinnfors et al 2011).…”

Getting the Balance Right? Party Competition on Immigration and Conflicting Ideological ‘Pulls’

“…We follow De Lange's () operationalisation (see also Pellikaan et al. ) and Odmalm's () subsequent scoring adjustments to capture parties' expressed stances on the SI/FM and GAL/TAN dimensions.…”

“…And none of the categories cover the, arguably, central ‘new’ politics concern of environmental protection versus economic growth. The scale was therefore adjusted so it clearly captures statements relating to ‘National Identity’ (indicator 5), ‘Integration’ (indicator 6) and ‘the Environment’ (indicator 7) (Odmalm ). Diversity of Lifestyles: Positive (−1), or Negative (+1) Favours Individual Freedom (−1), or a Moral Government (+1) Favours Direct (−1), or Appointed (+1) Representation Favours More Individual Participation in Decision Making (−1), or More Hierarchical Decision‐making Procedures (+1) National Identity: Less Important (or Inclusive) (−1), or More Important (or Exclusive) (+1) Integration: Inclusive and Universalistic (−1), or Exclusive and Particularistic (+1) More Important: Environmental Protection (−1), or Economic Growth (+1) …”

“…But as the 'final word' prior to an election, manifestos are nevertheless what parties present to the electorate and often provide the framework for subsequent policy proposals (Walgrave & Nuytemans 2009). We follow De Lange's (2007) operationalisation (see also Pellikaan et al 2007) and Odmalm's (2012) subsequent scoring adjustments to capture parties' expressed stances on the SI/FM and GAL/TAN dimensions.…”