Adams et al. (2004) Flashcards
Empirical memorisation.
What is the research objectives of Adams et al. (2004)?
To determine whether political parties respond to current public opinion or past election results.
There are 3 main hypotheses in Adams et al. (2004), what is Hypothesis 1?
H1 is the General Dynamic Representation hypothesis: this is an application of spatial modelling in that politicians are opportunistic and aim to maximise their chance of office by locating at the political equilibrium, the Median Voter.
There are 3 main hypotheses in Adams et al. (2004), what is Hypothesis 2?
H2 is the Dynamics of Disadvantaged Parties hypothesis: this posits that parties systematically adjust their ideologies in response to public opinion shifts that are disadvantageous to the party.
There are 3 main hypotheses in Adams et al. (2004), what is Hypothesis 3?
H3 is the Past Election Results hypothesis: this is associated with the idea that parties adjust their ideologies in response to the electoral gains and losses of previous elections.
What are the findings of Adams et al. (2004) concerning shifts in public opinion?
Parties do indeed shift their ideology in response to public opinion. Their findings support H2 in that parties systematically shift their political location in response to disadvantageous public opinion shifts.
Right-wing parties only shift their stance when public opinion becomes more left and vice versa for Left-wing parties.
What are the findings of Adams et al. (2004) concerning past election results?
There is no evidence that parties shift ideology in response to past election results.
Specifically, parties that shifted to the left (right) in the last election and lost votes showed no systematic tendency to reverse direction and shift to the right (left) for the current election.
According to Adams et al. (2004), are parties willing to change their ideology?
No. Parties tend to stick to their roots. This follows from the finding that parties don’t respond to public opinion shifts except when disadvantaged.
What are the two main models mentioned in Adams et al. (2004)? Briefly describe them.
Two main models are the Comparative Manifesto Project and Spatial Modelling.
CMP is concerned with determining the content of part policy proposals. SM assumes politicians are opportunistic and aim to maximise chance of office by locating optimally on the Left-Right spectrum.
Theoretically, why might H1: General Dynamic Representation, not hold up?
Spatial modellers have developed results suggesting it is not always a rational choice for policy-motivated (partisan) politicians to adjust their stance in response to public opinion. This could be seen as weak leadership.
Empirically, why might H1: General Dynamic Representation, not hold up?
It is often concluded that party elites are almost always policy-motivated (partisan). Some studies show party elites prize ‘ideological purity’ over competing purely for office.
Also, it is hard to pinpoint the Median Voter in practice. As such, there’s risk of locating in a sub-optimal position and losing votes.
What reason does Adams et al. (2004) propose as to why parties only react to disadvantageous public opinion shifts?
In the case of a favourable public opinion shift, party radicals may suggest this is an opportunity to locate closer to the party’s bliss point.
However, party elites may see this as squandering the benefit. If public opinion shifts by x in your favour, then shifting by x towards your bliss point just leaves you as far from the Median Voter as you were before.
