Abstract
AbstractResearch on party differences in environmental policy, so far, has developed ambiguous results. While we, generally, assume parties to make a difference in policy-making, some scholars point to party indifferences in environmental issues. Thus, whether and how parties take different positions on the issue and whether their positions impact environmental policy output and outcome is still up for debate. To further our knowledge of party positions in this area, we propose to include parties’ perceptions of environmental problems when analysing their general stances. Based on pertinent policy analysis literature, we differentiate seven dimensions of environmental problems and develop an approach that we apply to party manifestos. By analysing the platforms of 20 parties from three European countries, we illustrate its potential contributions to established measurements based on CHES and CMP data. The analysis indicates that parties differ considerably concerning their problem perception ranging from simple to holistic views on environmental policy. Importantly, we can highlight some differences between parties otherwise omitted in existing measurements. Overall, our inquiry shows that some parties, e.g., Green parties, coherently show a holistic problem perception while others, e.g., Liberals, differ considerably, casting doubt on the assumption of clear-cut party family positions.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Sociology and Political Science
Reference59 articles.
1. Abou-Chadi, T. 2016. Niche Party Success and Mainstream Party Policy Shifts – How Green and Radical Right Parties Differ in Their Impact. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 46:417–436.
2. Adcock, Robert, and David Collier. 2001. Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review 95(3):529–546.
3. Bäck, Hanna, Marc Debus, and Jale Tosun. 2015. Partisanship, ministers, and biotechnology policy. Review of Policy Research 32(5):556–575.
4. Bakker, Ryan, Liesbet Hooghe, Seth Jolly, Gary Marks, Jonathan Polk, Jan Rovny, Marco Steenbergen, and Milada Vachudova. 2020. 1999–2019 Chapel Hill expert survey trend file. Version 1.0.
5. Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1991. Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics 53(4):1044–1074.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献