Search

Recent research has shown that niche parties are both increasing in importance in European party systems and behave differently than their more mainstream counterparts. Indeed, there is growing evidence that the dynamic between green parties and social democratic parties is especially nuanced. Regionalist parties differ from other niche parties in that they can be found on the left, right, and center of the ideological spectrum. We find that regionalist parties benefit from increasing the ideological distance between themselves and the mainstream party that most often wins at the national level. However, regionalist parties’ relationship with the mainstream party that most often wins in their home region is more nuanced. Regionalist parties must be distinct enough from the mainstream rival in their home region to be an alternative but close enough to serious compete for the same voters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present a formal model of party competition to explain differences in party ideological ambiguity. Existing works generally argue that parties are more or less ambiguous depending on whether their supporters are risk-acceptant or risk-averse. Our model explores more fully strategic choice of ambiguity by considering nonelectoral benefits to ambiguity--that is, party elite recruitment and retention. In terms of costs, we assume that all voters are risk-averse, who therefore prefer less ideological ambiguity. Explicitly considering both costs and benefits derives our hypotheses and highlights the importance of party competition--ambiguity is influenced by the proximity to a party's closest ideological competitor. An empirical analysis of twenty-eight European countries supports our hypotheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]