Book contents
- The Politics of Competence
- The Politics of Competence
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Conceptual Problems and Solutions
- 3 Three Concepts of Issue Competence
- 4 Explaining Issue Ownership Change
- 5 Government Performance and Oppositions
- 6 Generalised Competence and the Costs of Governing
- 7 Ownership, Performance, Generalised Competence and the Vote
- 8 Conclusion
- Appendices
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 September 2017
Book contents
- The Politics of Competence
- The Politics of Competence
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Conceptual Problems and Solutions
- 3 Three Concepts of Issue Competence
- 4 Explaining Issue Ownership Change
- 5 Government Performance and Oppositions
- 6 Generalised Competence and the Costs of Governing
- 7 Ownership, Performance, Generalised Competence and the Vote
- 8 Conclusion
- Appendices
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Politics of CompetenceParties, Public Opinion and Voters, pp. 257 - 293Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Adams, J., Merrill, S., Simas, E. N. and Stone, W. J. (2011). “When candidates value good character: A spatial model with applications to congressional elections.” Journal of Politics 73(1): 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. (1995). Blaming the government: Citizens and the economy in five European democracies. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, S. and Iyengar, S. (1994). “Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: The joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns.” Public Opinion Quarterly 58(3): 335–357.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, S. and Snyder, J. M. Jr (2000). “Valence politics and equilibrium in spatial election models.” Public Choice 103(3–4): 327–336.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, D. (1987). “Interest groups, campaign contributions, and pluralistic voting.” Public Choice 54(2): 123–137.Google Scholar
Bartels, L. M. (2002). “Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions.” Political Behavior 24(2): 117–150.Google Scholar
Bartle, J., Dellepaine-Avellaneda, S. and Stimson, J. (2011). “The moving centre: Preferences for government activity in Britain, 1950–2005.” British Journal of Political Science 41(2): 259–285.Google Scholar
Bechtel, M. M. and Hainmueller, J. (2011). “How lasting is voter gratitude? An analysis of the short- and long-term electoral returns to beneficial policy.” American Journal of Political Science 55(4): 852–868.Google Scholar
Beck, N. and Katz, J. N. (1995). “What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data.” American Political Science Review 89(3): 634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bélanger, É. (2003). “Issue ownership by Canadian political parties 1953–2001.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 36(3): 539–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bélanger, É. and Gélineau, F. (2010). “Does perceived competence matter? Political parties and economic voting in Canadian federal elections.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 20(1): 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bélanger, É. and Meguid, B. M. (2008). “Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice.” Electoral Studies 27(3): 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bélanger, É. and Nadeau, R. (2015). “Issue Ownership of the Economy: Cross-Time Effects on Vote Choice.” West European Politics 38(4): 909–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellucci, P. (2006). “Tracing the cognitive and affective roots of ‘party competence’: Italy and Britain, 2001.” Electoral Studies 25(3): 548–569.Google Scholar
Benoit, W. L. and Airne, D. (2005). “Issue ownership for non-presidential television spots.” Communication Quarterly 53(4): 493–503.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, M. D. and Ingerman, D. E. (1985). “Candidate reputations and the ‘incumbency effect’.” Journal of Public Economics 27(1): 47–67.Google Scholar
Bevan, G. and Hood, C. (2006). “What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system.” Public Administration 84(3): 517–538.Google Scholar
Blomqvist, P. and Green-Pedersen, C. (2004). “Defeat at home? Issue ownership and Social Democratic support in Scandinavia.” Government and Opposition 39(4): 587–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, G. E. and Tiao, G. C. (1975). “Intervention analysis with applications to economic and environmental problems.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 70(349): 70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M. and Smith, R. M. (1996). “The dynamics of aggregate partisanship.” American Political Science Review 90(3): 567–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasher, H. (2009). “The dynamic character of political party evaluations.” Party Politics 15(1): 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, R. A. and Page, B. I. (1975). “The impact of events on presidential popularity: The Johnson and Nixon administrations.” In Wildavsky, A. (Ed.). Perspectives on the Presidency. Boston: Little, Brown, pp. 136–148.Google Scholar
Bruter, M., Erikson, R. S. and Strauss, A. B. (2010). “Uncertain candidates, valence, and the dynamics of candidate position-taking.” Public Choice 144(1–2): 153–168.Google Scholar
Buchler, J. (2008). “The ‘V’ term: Unpacking the dimensions of valence and their policy consequences.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Budge, I. and Farlie, D. (1977). Voting and party competition: A theoretical critique and synthesis applied to surveys from ten democracies. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Budge, I. and Farlie, D. (1983). Explaining and predicting elections: Issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Budge, I. (2015). “Issue emphases, saliency theory and issue ownership: A historical and conceptual analysis.” West European Politics 38(4): 761–777.Google Scholar
Burden, B. C. (2004). “Candidate positioning in US congressional elections.” British Journal of Political Science 34(2): 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, S. (2006). “How voters evaluate economic competence: A comparison between parties in and out of power.” Political Studies 54(4): 743–766.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E. and Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Carmines, E. G. and Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carsey, T. M. and Layman, G. C. (2006). “Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. (2009). “Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998.” Electoral Studies 28(1): 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. (2014). “Understanding Parties’ Policy Shifts in Western Europe: The Role of Valence, 1976–2003.” British Journal of Political Science 44(2): 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, H. D. and Lebo, M. (2003). “Fractional (co) integration and governing party support in Britain.” British Journal of Political Science 33(2): 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, H. D. and Stewart, M. C. (1995). “Economic evaluations, prime ministerial approval and governing party support: Rival models reconsidered.” British Journal of Political Science 25(2): 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M. and Whiteley, P. (2004). Political choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M., Whiteley, P. (2006). “Taking the bloom off new labour’s rose: Party choice and voter turnout in Britain, 2005.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 16(1): 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M., Whiteley, P. (2009). Performance politics and the British voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Converse, P. (1964). “The nature of belief systems in mass publics.” In Apter, D. E. (Ed.). Ideology and discontent. London, ON: Macmillan, pp. 206–261.Google Scholar
Curini, L. and Martelli, P. (2010). “Ideological proximity and valence competition. Negative campaigning through allegation of corruption in the Italian legislative arena from 1946 to 1994.” Electoral Studies 29(4): 636–647.Google Scholar
Cuzán, A. G. (2015). “Five laws of politics.” PS: Political Science & Politics 48(3): 415–419.Google Scholar
Damore, D. F. (2004). “The dynamics of issue ownership in presidential campaigns.” Political Research Quarterly 57(3): 391–397.Google Scholar
Damore, D. F. (2005). “Issue convergence in presidential campaigns.” Political Behavior 27(1): 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boef, S. and Keele, L. (2008). “Taking time seriously.” American Journal of Political Science 52(1): 184–200.Google Scholar
Dewan, T. and Myatt, D. P. (2012). “Dynamic government performance: Honeymoons and crises of confidence.” American Political Science Review 106(1): 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Hennessy, C. L., Kifer, M. J. and Parkin, M. (2010). “Issue engagement on congressional candidate web sites, 2002–2006.” Social Science Computer Review 28(1): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duch, R. M. and Stevenson, R. T. (2006). “Assessing the magnitude of the economic vote over time and across nations.” Electoral Studies 25(3): 528–547.Google Scholar
Duch, R. M. and Stevenson, R. T. (2008). The economic vote: How political and economic institutions condition election results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duch, R. M. and Stevenson, R. (2010). “The global economy, competency, and the economic vote.” Journal of Politics 72(1): 105–123.Google Scholar
Duch, R. M. and Stevenson, R. T. (2013). “Voter perceptions of agenda power and attribution of responsibility for economic performance.” Electoral Studies 32(3): 512–516.Google Scholar
Dulio, D. A. and Trumbore, P. F. (2009). “Running on Iraq or running from Iraq? Conditional issue ownership in the 2006 midterm elections.” Political Research Quarterly 62(2): 230–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, P. and Husbands, C. T. (1985). British democracy at the crossroads: Voting and party competition in the 1980s. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Edwards, G. C. III, Mitchell, W. and Welch, R. (1995). “Explaining presidential approval: The significance of issue salience.” American Journal of Political Science 39(1): 108–134.Google Scholar
Edwards, G. C. III, Mitchell, W., Welch, R. (2008). “Issue ownership and representation: A theory of legislative responsiveness to constituency opinion.” New York University.Google Scholar
Edwards, G. C. III, Mitchell, W., Welch, R. (2013). Partisan priorities: How issue ownership drives and distorts American politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enelow, J. and Hinich, M. J. (1981). “A new approach to voter uncertainty in the Downsian spatial model.” American Journal of Political Science 25(3): 483–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, J. M. and Hinich, M. J. (1982). “Nonspatial candidate characteristics and electoral competition.” Journal of Politics 44(1): 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeli, I., Green-Pedersen, C., Thorup, L. L. (2012). Morality politics in Western Europe: Parties, agendas and policy choices. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Engle, R. (2002). “Dynamic conditional correlation: A simple class of multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity models.” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 20(3): 339–350.Google Scholar
Enns, P. K., Kelly, N. J., Masaki, T. and Wohlfarth, P. C. (2016). “Don’t jettison the general error correction model just yet: A practical guide to avoiding spurious regression with the GECM.” Research & Politics 3(2): doi: 10.1177/2053168016643345.Google Scholar
Erikson, R. S. (1989). “Economic conditions and the presidential vote.” American Political Science Review 83(2): 567–573.Google Scholar
Erikson, R. S. MacKuen, M. M. and Stimson, J. A. (2002). The macro polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, R. S. and Wlezien, C. (2012). The timeline of presidential elections: How campaigns do (and do not) matter. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. and Andersen, R. (2006). “The political conditioning of economic perceptions.” Journal of Politics 68(1): 194–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. and Chzhen, K. (2013). “Explaining voters’ defection from Labour over the 2005–10 electoral cycle: Leadership, economics and the rising importance of immigration.” Political Studies 61(S1): 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. and Chzhen, K. (2016). “Re-evaluating the valence model of political choice.” Political Science Research and Methods 4(1): 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. and Norris, P. (Eds). (1999). Critical elections: British parties and voters in long-term perspective. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. and Pickup, M. (2010). “Reversing the causal arrow: The political conditioning of economic perceptions in the 2000–2004 US presidential election cycle.” Journal of Politics 72(4): 1236–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. (1977). “An outline for a model of party choice.” American Journal of Political Science 21(3): 601–625.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. and Shepsle, K. A. (1989). “Is negative voting an artifact?” American Journal of Political Science 33(2): 423–439.Google Scholar
Galasso, V. and Nannicini, T. (2011). “Competing on good politicians.” American Political Science Review 105(1): 79–99.Google Scholar
Gasper, J. T. and Reeves, A. (2011). “Make it rain? Retrospection and the attentive electorate in the context of natural disasters.” American Journal of Political Science 55(2): 340–355.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. and Green, D. P. (1998). “Rational learning and partisan attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 42(3): 794–818.Google Scholar
Goodhart, C. A. E. and Bhansali, R. J. (1970). “Political economy.” Political Studies 18(1): 43–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. and Milazzo, C. (2015). UKIP: Inside the campaign to redraw the map of British politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, C. W. (1969). “Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods.” Econometrics 37(3): 424–438.Google Scholar
Granger, C. W. (1980). “Long memory relationships and the aggregation of dynamic models.” Journal of Econometrics 14(2): 227–238.Google Scholar
Granger, C. W. (1988). “Some recent developments in a concept of causality.” Journal of Econometrics 39(1): 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, C. W. and Joyeux, R. (1980). “An introduction to long‐memory time series models and fractional differencing.” Journal of Time Series Analysis 1(1): 15–29.Google Scholar
Grant, T. and Lebo, M. J. (2016). “Error correction methods with political time series.” Political Analysis 24(1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Green, D. P., Palmquist, B. and Schickler, E. (1998). “Macropartisanship: A replication and critique.” American Political Science Review 92(4): 883–899.Google Scholar
Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., Schickler, E.. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Green, J. (2007). “When voters and parties agree: Valence issues and party competition.” Political Studies 55(3): 629–655.Google Scholar
Green, J. (2011). “A test of core vote theories: The British Conservatives, 1997–2005.” British Journal of Political Science 41(4), 735–764.Google Scholar
Green, J. and Hobolt, S. B. (2008). “Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections.” Electoral Studies 27(3): 460–476.Google Scholar
Green, J. and Jennings, W. (2012a). “Valence as macro-competence: An analysis of mood in party competence evaluations in Great Britain.” British Journal of Political Science 42(2): 311–343.Google Scholar
Green, J. and Jennings, W. (2012b). “The dynamics of issue competence and vote for parties in and out of power: An analysis of valence in Britain, 1979–1997.” European Journal of Political Research 51(4): 469–503.Google Scholar
Green, J. and Jennings, W. (2017a). “Party reputations and policy priorities: How issue ownership shapes executive and legislative agendas”. British Journal of Political Science. Early View.Google Scholar
Green, J. and Jennings, W. (2017b). “Valence.” In Arzheimer, K., Evans, J. and Lewis-Beck, M. S. (Eds). The SAGE Handbook of Electoral Behavior. London: Sage., pp. 538-560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. and Prosser, C. (2016). “Party system fragmentation and single-party government: The British general election of 2015.” West European Politics 39(6): 11.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. and Mortensen, P. B. (2010). “Who sets the agenda and who responds to it in the Danish parliament? A new model of issue competition and agenda‐setting.” European Journal of Political Research 49(2): 257–281.Google Scholar
Grose, C. R. and Globetti, S. (2008). “Valence voters: Images, issues, and citizen vote choice in US Senate and Gubernatorial elections.” SSRN Working Paper Series (2008).Google Scholar
Groseclose, T. (2001). “A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 862–886.Google Scholar
Heath, A. F., Jowell, R. M. and Curtice, J. K. (2001). The rise of New Labour: Party policies and voter choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hellwig, T. (2001). “Interdependence, government constraints, and economic voting.” Journal of Politics 63(4): 1141–1162.Google Scholar
Hellwig, T. (2014). Globalization and mass politics: Retaining the room to maneuver. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellwig, T. and Samuels, D. (2007). “Voting in open economies: The electoral consequences of globalization.” Comparative Political Studies 40(3): 283–306.Google Scholar
Hinich, M. J. and Munger, M. (1989). “Political investment, voter perceptions, and candidate strategy: An equilibrium spatial analysis.” In Ordeshook, P. C. (Ed.). Models of strategic choice in politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 49–68.Google Scholar
Hinich, M. H. and Munger, M.C. (1995). Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Holian, D. B. (2004). “He’s stealing my issues! Clinton’s crime rhetoric and the dynamics of issue ownership.” Political Behavior 26(2): 95–124.Google Scholar
Holbein, J. (2016). “Left behind? Citizen responsiveness to government performance information.” American Political Science Review 110(2): 353–368.Google Scholar
Hollard, G. and Rossignol, S. (2008). “An alternative approach to valence advantage in spatial competition.” Journal of Public Economic Theory 10(3): 441–454.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (1991). “A public management for all seasons?” Public Administration 69(1): 3–19.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (1995). “The ‘New Public Management’ in the 1980s: Variations on a theme.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 20(2): 93–109.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (2002). “The risk game and the blame game.” Government and Opposition 37(1): 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. (2011). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hood, C., Jennings, W. and Copeland, P. (2016). “Blame avoidance in comparative perspective: Reactivity, staged retreat and efficacy.” Public Administration 94(2): 542–562.Google Scholar
Hood, C., James, O., Scott, C., Jones, G. W. and Travers, A. (1999). Regulation inside government: Waste watchers, quality police, and sleaze-busters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hood, C., Jennings, W., Hogwood, B., Dixon, R. and Beeston, C. (2009). “Testing times: Exploring staged responses and the impact of blame management strategies in two exam fiasco cases.” European Journal of Political Research 48(6): 695–722.Google Scholar
Ingberman, D. E. (1992). “Incumbent reputations and ideological campaign contributions in spatial competition.” Mathematical and Computer Modelling 16(8): 147–169.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. (1989). “How citizens think about national issues: A matter of responsibility.” American Journal of Political Science 33(4): 878–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S. and Simon, A. F. (1993). “News coverage of the Gulf War and public opinion: A study of agenda-setting, priming, and framing.” Communication Research 20(3): 365–383.Google Scholar
Jennings, W. and Wlezien, C. (2011). “Distinguishing between most important problems and issues?” Public Opinion Quarterly 75(3): 545–555.Google Scholar
Jennings, W. and Wlezien, C. (2015). “Problems, preferences and representation.” Political Science Research and Methods 3(3): 659–681.Google Scholar
Jennings, W. and Wlezien, C. (2016). “The timeline of elections: A comparative perspective.” American Journal of Political Science 60(1): 219–233.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). “Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 47(2): 263–292.Google Scholar
Kayser, M. A. and Peress, M. (2012). “Benchmarking across borders: Electoral accountability and the necessity of comparison.” American Political Science Review 106(3): 661–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayser, M. A. and Wlezien, C. (2011). “Performance pressure: Patterns of partisanship and the economic vote.” European Journal of Political Research 50(3): 365–394.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, K. M. (2004). “Disaggregating and reexamining issue ownership and voter choice.” Polity 36(2): 283–299.Google Scholar
Kernell, S. (1977). “Presidential popularity and negative voting: An alternative explanation of the midterm congressional decline of the president’s party.” American Political Science Review 71(1): 44–66.Google Scholar
Kernell, S. (1978). “Explaining presidential popularity. How ad hoc theorizing, misplaced emphasis, and insufficient care in measuring one’s variables refuted common sense and led conventional wisdom down the path of anomalies.” American Political Science Review 72(2): 506–522.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. and Cummings, M. C. (1966). The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting 1936–1960. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). “Policy-oriented voting in response to economic issues.” American Political Science Review 75(2): 448–459.Google Scholar
Kim, K. (2005). “Valence characteristics and entry of a third party.” Economics Bulletin 4(18): 1–9.Google Scholar
Kinder, D. R. and Kiewiet, D. R. (1979). “Economic discontent and political behavior: The role of personal grievances and collective economic judgments in congressional voting.” American Journal of Political Science 23(3): 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, A. and Wybrow, R. (2001). British political opinion, 1937–2000: The Gallup polls. London: Politico’s.Google Scholar
Klein, J. (1991). “Negativity effects in impression formation: A test in the political arena.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17(4): 412–418.Google Scholar
Klein, J. G. (1996). “Negativity in impressions of presidential candidates revisited: The 1992 election.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22(3): 288–295.Google Scholar
Lanz, S. and Sciarini, P. (2016). “The short-time dynamics of issue ownership and its impact on the vote.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 26(2): 212–231.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R. (1982). “Negativity in political perception.” Political Behavior 4(4): 353–377.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R. (1985). “Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior.” American Journal of Political Science 29(1): 119–138.Google Scholar
Lebo, M. J. and Box‐Steffensmeier, J. M. (2008). “Dynamic conditional correlations in political science.” American Journal of Political Science 52(3): 688–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1990). Economics and elections: The major Western democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. S. and Nadeau, R. (2011). “Economic voting theory: Testing new dimensions.” Electoral Studies 30(2): 288–294.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. S. and Paldam, M. (2000). “Economic voting: An introduction.” Electoral Studies 19(2): 113–121.Google Scholar
Lipset, S. M. and Rokkan, S. (1967). Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Macdonald, S. E. and Rabinowitz, G. (1998). “Solving the paradox of nonconvergence: Valence, position, and direction in democratic politics.” Electoral Studies 17(3): 281–300.Google Scholar
Mackie, T. and Rose, R. (1983). “Incumbency in government: Asset or liability?” In Daalder, H. and Mair, P. (Eds). Western European party systems: Continuity and change. London: Sage, pp. 115–38.Google Scholar
MacKuen, M. B. (1983). “Political drama, economic conditions, and the dynamics of presidential popularity.” American Journal of Political Science 27(2): 165–192.Google Scholar
MacKuen, M. B., Erikson, R. S. and Stimson, J. A. (1989). “Macropartisanship.” American Political Science Review 83(4): 1125–1142.Google Scholar
MacKuen, M. B., Erikson, R. S., Stimson, J. A.. (1992). “Peasants or bankers? The American electorate and the US economy.” American Political Science Review 86(3): 597–611.Google Scholar
Mair, P. (2013). Ruling the void: The hollowing of Western democracy. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Meguid, B. M. (2005). “Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success.” American Political Science Review 99(3): 347–359.Google Scholar
Meguid, B. M. (2010). Party competition between unequals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merrill, S., Groffman, B. and Brunell, T. L. (2008). “Cycles in American national electoral politics, 1854–2006: Statistical evidence and an explanatory model.” American Political Science Review 102(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Milazzo, C., Adams, J. and Green, J. (2012). “Are voter decision rules endogenous to parties’ policy strategies? A model with applications to elite depolarization in post-Thatcher Britain.” Journal of Politics 74(1): 262–276.Google Scholar
Miller, W. L. and Mackie, M. (1973). “The electoral cycle and the asymmetry of government and opposition popularity: An alternative model of the relationship between economic conditions and political popularity.” Political Studies 21(3): 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. H. and Wattenberg, M. P. (1985). “Throwing the rascals out: Policy and performance evaluations of presidential candidates, 1952–1980.” American Political Science Review 79(2): 359–372.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. E. (1970). “Presidential popularity from Truman to Johnson.” American Political Science Review 64(1): 18–34.Google Scholar
Nadeau, R. and Blais, A. (1990). “Do Canadians distinguish between parties? Perceptions of party competence.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 23(2): 317–333.Google Scholar
Nadeau, R. and Lewis‐Beck, M. S. (2001). “National economic voting in US presidential elections.” Journal of Politics 63(1): 159–181.Google Scholar
Nawara, S. P. (2015). “Who is responsible, the incumbent or the former president? Motivated reasoning in responsibility attributions.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 45(1): 110–131.Google Scholar
Nannestad, P. and Paldam, M. (2002). “The cost of ruling – a foundation stone for two theories.” In Dorussen, H. and Taylor, M. (Eds). Economic voting. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 17–44.Google Scholar
Norpoth, H. (1987). “Guns and butter and government popularity in Britain.” American Political Science Review 81(3): 949–959.Google Scholar
Norpoth, H. (2004). “Forecasting British elections: A dynamic perspective.” Electoral Studies 23(2): 297–305.Google Scholar
Ostrom, C. W. Jr and Simon, D. M. (1985). “Promise and performance: A dynamic model of presidential popularity.” American Political Science Review 79(2): 334–358.Google Scholar
Ostrom, C. W. and Smith, R. M. (1992). “Error correction, attitude persistence, and executive rewards and punishments: A behavioral theory of presidential approval.” Political Analysis 4(1): 127–183.Google Scholar
Paldam, M. (1986). “The distribution of election results and the two explanations of the cost of ruling.” European Journal of Political Economy 2(1): 5–24.Google Scholar
Paldam, M. (1991). “How robust is the vote function? A study of seventeen nations over four decades.” In Norpoth, H., Lewis-Beck, M. S. and Lafay, J.-D. (Eds). Economics and politics: The calculus of support. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 9–31.Google Scholar
Palmer, H. D. and Whitten, G. D. (2000). “Government competence, economic performance and endogenous election dates.” Electoral Studies 19(2): 413–426.Google Scholar
Peffley, M. and Sigelman, L. (1987). “Economic conditions and party competence: Processes of belief revision.” Journal of Politics 49(1): 100–121.Google Scholar
Petrocik, J. R. (1996). “Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study.” American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, J. R., Benoit, W. J. and Hansen, G. J. (2003). “Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000.” Political Science Quarterly 118(4): 599–626 (528).Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1995). Dismantling the welfare state? Reagan, Thatcher and the politics of retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Popkin, S. L. (1995). “Information shortcuts and the reasoning voter.” Information, participation and choice: An economic theory of democracy in perspective, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar
Powell, G. B. Jr and Whitten, G. D. (1993). “A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context.” American Journal of Political Science 37(2): 391–414.Google Scholar
Presser, S. and Converse, J. M. (1976–1977). “On Stimson’s interpretation of declines in presidential popularity.” Public Opinion Quarterly 40(4): 538–541.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A. and Sprague, J. D. (1988). Paper stones: A history of electoral socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1993). “Rhetorical interaction in the ratification campaigns.” In Riker, W. H., (Ed.). Agenda formation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 81–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H. W. and Webber, M. M. (1973). “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.” Policy Sciences 4(2): 155–169.Google Scholar
Sanders, D., Clarke, H. D., Stewart, M. C. and Whiteley, P. (2011). “Downs, Stokes and the dynamics of electoral choice.” British Journal of Political Science 41(2): 287–314.Google Scholar
Sanders, D., Ward, H., Marsh, D. and Fletcher, T. (1987). “Government popularity and the Falklands War: a reassessment.” British Journal of Political Science 17(3): 281–313.Google Scholar
Schofield, N. (2003). “Valence competition in the spatial stochastic model.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 15(4): 371–383.Google Scholar
Schofield, N. (2004). “Equilibrium in the spatial ‘valence’ model of politics.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 16(4): 447–481.Google Scholar
Seeberg, H. B. (2016a). “How stable is political parties’ issue ownership? A cross-time, cross-national Analysis.” Political Studies. Early view.Google Scholar
Seeberg, H. B. (2016b). “What can a government do? Government issue ownership and real world problems.” European Journal of Political Research. Early view.Google Scholar
Serra, G. (2010). “Polarization of what? A model of elections with endogenous valence.” Journal of Politics 72(2): 426–437.Google Scholar
Serra, G. (2011). “Why primaries? The party’s tradeoff between policy and valence.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 23(1): 21–51.Google Scholar
Sides, J. (2006). “The origins of campaign agendas.” British Journal of Political Science 36(3): 407–436.Google Scholar
Sigelman, L. and Knight, K. (1983). “Why does presidential popularity decline? A test of the expectation/disillusion theory.” Public Opinion Quarterly 47(3): 310–324.Google Scholar
Sigelman, L. and Knight, K. (1985). “Expectation/disillusion and presidential popularity: The Reagan experience.” Public Opinion Quarterly 49(2): 209–213.Google Scholar
Simon, A. F. (2002). The winning message: Candidate behavior, campaign discourse, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, J. M. (2010). “Does crime pay? Issue ownership, political opportunity, and the populist right in Western Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 43(11): 1471–1498.Google Scholar
Soroka, S. N. (2006). “Good news and bad news: Asymmetric responses to economic information.” Journal of Politics 68(2): 372–385.Google Scholar
Soroka, S. N. (2014). Negativity in democratic politics: Causes and consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, S. N. and Wlezien, C. (2010). Degrees of democracy: Politics, public opinion, and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Spanje, J. (2011). “Keeping the rascals in: Anti‐political‐establishment parties and their cost of governing in established democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 50(5): 609–635.Google Scholar
Spiliotes, C. J. and Vavreck, L. (2002). “Campaign Advertising: Partisan Convergence or Divergence?” Journal of Politics 64(1): 249–261.Google Scholar
Stimson, J. A. (1976a). “Public support for American presidents: A cyclical model.” Public Opinion Quarterly 40(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Stimson, J. A. (1976b). “On disillusion with the expectation/disillusion theory: A rejoinder.” Public Opinion Quarterly 40(4): 541–543.Google Scholar
Stimson, J. A. (1991). Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles, and swings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, J. A., MacKuen, M. B. and Erikson, R. S. (1995). “Dynamic representation.” American Political Science Review 89(3): 543–565.Google Scholar
Stokes, D. E. (1963). “Spatial models of party competition.” American Political Science Review 57(2): 368–377.Google Scholar
Stokes, D. (1992). “Valence politics.” In Kavanagh, D. (Ed.). Electoral politics. Oxford: Clarendon University Press, pp. 141–164.Google Scholar
Stone, W. J. and Simas, E. N. (2010). “Candidate valence and ideological positions in US House elections.” American Journal of Political Science 54(2): 371–388.Google Scholar
Stubager, R. and Slothuus, R. (2013). “What are the sources of political parties’ issue ownership? Testing four explanations at the individual level.” Political Behavior 35(3): 567–588.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. (1991). “Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis.” Psychological Bulletin 110(1): 67.Google Scholar
Therriault, A. (2015). “Whose issue is it anyway? A new look at the meaning and measurement of issue ownership.” British Journal of Political Science 45(4): 929–938.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. and Hobolt, S. B. (2011). “Is the government to blame? An experimental test of how partisanship shapes perceptions of performance and responsibility.” The Journal of Politics 73(2): 316–330.Google Scholar
Tresch, A., Lefevere, J. and Walgrave, S.. (2013). “‘Steal me if you can!’: The impact of campaign messages on associative issue ownership.” Party Politics 21(2): 198–208.Google Scholar
Tufte, E. (1978). Political control of the economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Brug, W. (2004). “Issue ownership and party choice.” Electoral Studies 23(2): 209–233.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. (2012). “When do parties emphasise extreme positions? How strategic incentives for policy differentiation influence issue importance.” European Journal of Political Research 51(1): 64–88.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. and Meyer, T. M. (2015). “Negative issue ownership.” West European Politics 38(4): 797–816.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. and Zeglovits, E. (2014). “Survey questions about party competence: Insights from cognitive interviews.” Electoral Studies 34: 280–290.Google Scholar
Walgrave, S., Lefevere, J. and Tresch, A. (2012). “The associative dimension of issue ownership.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76(4): 771–782.Google Scholar
Walgrave, S., Tresch, A. and Lefevere, J. (2015). “The conceptualisation and measurement of issue ownership.” West European Politics 38(4): 778–796.Google Scholar
Walgrave, S., Van Camp, K., Lefevere, J. and Tresch, A. (2016). “Measuring issue ownership with survey questions. A question wording experiment.” Electoral Studies 42: 290–299.Google Scholar
Ward, D., Kim, K. H., Graham, M. and Tavits, M. (2015). “How economic integration affects party issue emphases.” Comparative Political Studies 48(10): 1227–1259.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. K. (1986). “The politics of blame avoidance.” Journal of Public Policy 6(4): 371–398.Google Scholar
Whiteley, P., Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D. and Stewart, M. C. (2013). Affluence, austerity and electoral change in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whiteley, P., Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M. C. (2016). “Hunting the Snark: A reply to ‘re-evaluating valence models of political choice’.” Political Science Research and Methods 4(1): 221–240.Google Scholar
Whiteley, P., Stewart, M. C., Sanders, D. and Clarke, H. D. (2005). “The issue agenda and voting in 2005.” Parliamentary Affairs 58(4): 802–817.Google Scholar
Wittman, D. (2005). “Valence characteristics, costly policy and the median-crossing property: A diagrammatic exposition.” Public Choice 124(3–4): 365–382.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. (1995). “The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preferences for spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 981–1000.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. (1996). “Dynamics of representation: The case of U.S. spending on defence.” British Journal of Political Science 26(1): 81–103.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. (2004). “Patterns of representation: Dynamics of public preferences and policy.” Journal of Politics 66(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. (2005). “On the salience of political issues: The problem with ‘most important problem’.” Electoral Studies 24(4): 555–579.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. (2015). “The myopic voter? The economy and US presidential elections.” Electoral Studies 39: 195–204.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. (2016a). “On causality in the study of valence and voting behavior: An introduction to the symposium.” Political Science Research and Methods 4(1): 195–197.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. (2016b). “Policy (mis)representation and the cost of ruling: US presidential elections in comparative perspective.” Comparative Political Studies.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C., Franklin, M. and Twiggs, D. (1997). “Economic perceptions and vote choice: Disentangling the endogeneity.” Political Behavior 19(1): 7–17.Google Scholar
Zakharov, A. V. (2009). “A model of candidate location with endogenous valence.” Public Choice 138(3–4): 347–366.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. and Feldman, S. (1992). “A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36(3): 579–616.Google Scholar