Suchergebnisse

This book addresses the process of decentralization in Italy, examined from the perspective of political parties. In particular, it assesses whether and to what extent the dynamics of party competition are likely to shape policy agenda and affect policy change. The author starts by providing a thorough account of the process and history of Italian decentralization and the policy outcomes achieved over time, before discussing how party attention to an issue triggers related policy changes (manipulation of salience). Next, the focus shifts to the concrete positions adopted by parties on decentralization to assess whether the pattern of party competition has been consensual or adversarial, and how this pattern influenced the process of reform (manipulation of position). Finally, the author examines the role of frames in party competition. This volume offers essential research that will prove useful to a variety of audiences, ranging from scholars of territorial and Italian politics to those interested in agenda-setting, policy change, and party politics.--

AbstractThis paper sheds light on the role played by political parties in influencing policy change, by connecting literature on party competition and agenda-setting and focusing on a single-issue domain, namely decentralization in Italy from 1948 to 2013. The article argues that major decentralist reforms usually followed electoral campaigns in which most parties focused attention on the issue. Such shifts in attention are caused by, among other things, the issue entrepreneurship activity undertaken by individual parties that are trying to influence the party system agenda and obtain electoral, office, or policy advantage. Contrary to the expectations of the issue entrepreneurship model, however, the analyses reveal that the entrepreneurship role on decentralization in Italy was not played by those parties that can be classified as 'political losers' in the party system; rather, in the case of the policy of decentralization in Italy, issue entrepreneurship activity is mostly explained by strategic considerations other than purely electoral ones.

Scholars of party politics have recently examined the influence of niche parties on the dynamics of party competition. In particular, drawing on the 'Position, Salience and Ownership' (PSO) model, it has been argued that when a new niche actor enters the political arena, it seeks to introduce a new policy dimension into political debate and simultaneously affects the competitive strategies of mainstream actors. By using manifesto data, this article analyses the impact of the Lega Nord on political discourse in Italy relating to the territorial dimension. Its findings challenge the assumptions of the PSO theory on niche-mainstream dynamics of competition. The article argues that, firstly, niche parties can mobilise on a policy dimension that has long been present on the political agenda; secondly, that niche party influence on mainstream party strategies is limited, at least when compared with the influence of other systemic variables. Nevertheless, the role of niche parties can be re-evaluated by considering a further strategic tool that parties can use to define their strategies, namely framing. In particular, the article argues that the Lega Nord has introduced a new language into political debate on the territorial dimension, which has required rival parties to react by reframing and redefining these issues differently from the past. Using an original coding scheme for the measurement of party attitudes in party manifestos, the article provides empirical grounds for arguing that a consideration of rhetoric should be included in any analysis of the competitive strategies of political parties in a two-dimensional space.

In this editorial, we present the new guidelines for research transparency and open data when publishing in European Political Science. These standards are drawn from the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines. In introducing these guidelines, we take an opportunity to reflect on the importance of research transparency, the challenges that it faces, and offer a few suggestions to encourage and foster a culture of open data.

AbstractThis article looks at the relationship between conflicts of sovereignty and patterns of national party competition, by focusing on the electoral support for two Italian populist radical right parties (PRRPs), the Lega (the League, Lega) and Fratelli d'Italia (Brothers of Italy, FdI). Using public opinion data, the study finds that the conflicts of sovereignty represent a distinct and multidimensional set of attitudes related to voting preferences. Overall, these conflicts seem to provide some electoral advantage to the PRRPs over other competing parties in the electoral arena. However, they do not provide the same amount of gains to all PRRPs, since ideologies and party identities are important intervening factors in the relationship between conflicts of sovereignty, party mobilisation, and voting behaviour.

This article looks at the relationship between conflicts of sovereignty and patterns of national party competition, by focusing on the electoral support for two Italian populist radical right parties (PRRPs), the Lega (the League, Lega) and Fratelli d'Italia (Brothers of Italy, FdI). Using public opinion data, the study finds that the conflicts of sovereignty represent a distinct and multidimensional set of attitudes related to voting preferences. Overall, these conflicts seem to provide some electoral advantage to the PRRPs over other competing parties in the electoral arena. However, they do not provide the same amount of gains to all PRRPs, since ideologies and party identities are important intervening factors in the relationship between conflicts of sovereignty, party mobilisation, and voting behaviour.

AbstractNew divisions have emerged within the European Union over the handling of the recent migration crisis. While both frontline and favoured destination countries are called upon to deal with the number of migrants looking for international protection and better living conditions, no consensus has been reached yet on the quota‐based mechanisms for the relocation of refugees and financial help to exposed countries proposed by the EU. Such mechanisms pose a trade‐off for member states: the EU's response to the crisis offers help to countries under pressure, but it inevitably requires burden‐sharing among all EU members and a limitation of their national sovereignty. Within this scenario, the article compares how public opinion and political elites in ten different EU countries view a common EU migration policy grounded on solidarity and burden‐sharing. By tracing both within‐ and cross‐national patterns of convergence (and divergence), the article shows that contextual factors influence policy preferences, with support for solidarity measures being stronger in countries with higher shares of illegal migrants and asylum seekers. While individuals' predispositions, identity and ideological orientations account for both masses' and elites' attitudes towards burden‐sharing measures, subjective evaluations and beliefs concerning the severity of the crisis provide additional and alternative explanations when looking at the public's preferences. In particular, it is found that concern about the flow of migrants to Europe consolidates the impact of contextual factors, whereas the overestimation of the immigrant population fosters hostility against solidarity measures, with both effects more pronounced as the country's exposure to the crisis increases. In the light of these results, the main implication of this study is that EU institutions have to primarily address entrenched beliefs and misperceptions about immigrants to enhance public support for a joint approach to migration.