SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Bélanger, É. & Meguid, B.M. (2008). Issue salience, issue ownership and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies 27(3): 477491.
  • Benoit, K. & Laver, M. (2006). Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.
  • Benoit, K. & Laver, M. (2007). Estimating party policy positions: Comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies 26(1): 90107.
  • Benoit, K., Laver, M. & Mikhaylov, S. (2009). Treating words as data with error: Uncertainty in text statements of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 495513.
  • Budge, I. (1982). Electoral volatility: Issue effects and basic change in 23 post-war democracies. Electoral Studies 1(2): 147168.
  • Budge, I. (2001a). Theory and measurement of party policy positions. In I. Budge et al. (eds), Mapping policy preferences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Budge, I. (2001b). Validating party policy placements. British Journal of Political Science 31(1): 210223.
  • Budge, I. & Farlie, D. (1977). Voting and party competition. London: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Budge, I. & Farlie, D. (1983a). Explaining and predicting elections. London: George Allen & Unwin.
  • Budge, I. & Farlie, D. (1983b). Party competition – selective emphasis or direct confrontation? An alternative view with data. In H. Daalder & P. Mair (eds), Western European party systems. London: Sage.
  • Budge, I. et al. (eds) (2001). Mapping policy preferences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Campbell, A. et al. (1964). The American voter: An abridgement. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co.
  • Converse, P.E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D.E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.
  • Curini, L. (2010). Experts' political preferences and their impact on ideological bias. Party Politics 16(3): 299321.
  • Dalton, R.J. (2008). Citizen politics, 5th edn. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
  • Damore, D.F. (2005). Issue convergence in presidential campaigns. Political Behavior 27(1): 7197.
  • Däubler, T. et al. (2012). Natural sentences as valid units for coded political texts. British Journal of Political Science 42(4): 937951.
  • Dinas, E. & Gemenis, K. (2011). Measuring parties' ideological positions with manifesto data. Party Politics 16(4): 427450.
  • Dolezal, M. et al. (2012). Analysing Manifestos in their Electoral Context: A New Approach with Application to Austria, 2002–2008. Paper presented at the 22nd World Congress of Political Science, Madrid, 8–12 July.
  • Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: HarperCollins.
  • Druckman, J.N. et al. (2012). Issue engagement on Congressional candidate websites, 2002–2006. Social Science Computer Review 28(1): 323.
  • Ekengren, A.-M. & Oscarsson, H. (2011). Party elites' perceptions of voting behaviour. Party Politics. DOI: 10.1177/1354068811407603.
  • Fournier, P. et al. (2003). Issue importance and performance voting. Political Behavior 25(1): 5167.
  • Franzmann, S. & Kaiser, A. (2006). Locating political parties in policy spaces: A reanalysis of party manifesto data. Party Politics 12(2): 163188.
  • Gabel, M.J. & Huber, J.D. (2000). Putting parties in their place: Inferring party left–right ideological positions from party manifestos data. American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 94103.
  • Gerring, J. & Thacker, S.C. (2008). A centripetal theory of democratic governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gordon, S.B. & Segura, G.M. (1997). Cross-national variation in the political sophistication of individuals: Capability or choice? Journal of Politics 59(1): 126147.
  • Green, J. & Hobolt, S.B. (2008). Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies 27(3): 460476.
  • Green-Pedersen, C. (2007). The growing importance of issue competition: The changing nature of party competition in Western Europe. Political Studies 55(3): 607628.
  • Hansen, M.E. (2008). Back to the archives? A critique of the Danish part of the Manifesto dataset. Scandinavian Political Studies 31(2): 201216.
  • Hooghe, L. et al. (2010). Reliability and validity of measuring party positions: The Chapel Hill expert surveys of 2002 and 2006. European Journal of Political Research 49(4): 684703.
  • Kaplan, N., Park, D.K & Ridout, T.N. (2006). Dialogue in American political campaigns? American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 724736.
  • Kleinnijenhuis, J. & Pennings, P. (2001). Measurement of party positions on the basis of party programmes, media coverage and voter perceptions. In M. Laver (ed.), Estimating the policy positions of political actors. London: Routledge.
  • Klingemann, H.-D. et al. (2006). Mapping policy preferences II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kriesi, H. et al. (2006). Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research 45(6): 921956.
  • Kriesi, H. et al. (2008). West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Kuklinski, J.H. & Peyton, B. (2007). Belief systems and political decision making. In R.J. Dalton & H.-D. Klingemann (eds), The Oxford handbook of political behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Laver, M. & Garry, J. (2000). Estimating policy positions from political texts. American Journal of Political Science 44(3): 619634.
  • Laver, M. & Hunt, W.B. (1992). Policy and party competition. New York: Routledge.
  • Lowe, W. et al. (2011). Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(1): 123155.
  • Luther, K.R. (1999). Must what goes up always come down? Of pillars and arches in Austria's political architecture. In K.R. Luther & K. Deschouwer (eds), Party elites in divided societies. London: Routledge.
  • McDonald, M.D. & Mendes, S.M. (2001). The policy space of party manifestos. In M. Laver (ed.), Estimating the policy positions of political actors. London: Routledge.
  • Meguid, B.M. (2005). Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review 99(3): 347359.
  • Meguid, B.M. (2008). Party competition between unequals: Strategies and electoral fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Müller, W.C. (2000). Wahlen und die Dynamik des österreichischen Parteiensystems seit 1986. In F. Plasser , P.A. Ulram & F. Sommer (eds), Das österreichische Wahlverhalten. Vienna: Signum.
  • Pelizzo, R. (2003). Party positions or party direction? An analysis of party manifesto data. West European Politics 26(2): 6789.
  • Petrocik, J.R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 825850.
  • Pomper, G.M. (1972). From confusion to clarity: Issues and American voters, 1956–1968. American Political Science Review 66(2): 415428.
  • Riker, W.H. (1993). Political interaction in the ratification campaigns. In Agenda formation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  • Robertson, D. (1976). A theory of party competition. London: Wiley.
  • Sides, J. (2006). The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science 36(3): 407436.
  • Sigelman, L. & Buell, E.H. Jr. (2004). Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in US presidential campaigns. American Journal of Political Science 48(4): 650661.
  • Stokes, D.E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review 57(2): 368377.
  • 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): 6488.