Navigating new realities: Explaining programmatic transitions of mainstream and niche parties
| Published date | 01 January 2025 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/01925121241237524 |
| Author | Jasmien Luypaert |
| Date | 01 January 2025 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121241237524
International Political Science Review
2025, Vol. 46(1) 125 –143
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/01925121241237524
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Navigating new realities: Explaining
programmatic transitions of
mainstream and niche parties
Jasmien Luypaert
Research Group GASPAR, Ghent University, Belgium
Abstract
Electoral competition is determined by the issues that parties choose to compete on and the stances they
adopt on these issues. However, little research has examined the trade-off between expanding a party’s
programmatic stances to secondary issues while maintaining ideological continuity on primary issues. This
article seeks to address this gap by examining programmatic transitions among mainstream and niche parties
and in which contexts these transitions are more frequent. The study analyses 47 parties in 10 established
democracies between 1986 and 2020 using multiple regression techniques. The results show that niche
parties are more likely to focus on secondary issues, and when they make such transitions, they tend to
be larger. The analysis also reveals that the length of niche competition influences mainstream parties’
programmatic transitions, while niche parties’ transitions are driven by their continuity in programmatic
transitions and governmental experience.
Keywords
Electoral competition, issue competition, programmatic transitions, mainstream parties, niche parties
Over the past few decades, the nature of electoral competition has undergone a radical transforma-
tion. Whereas mainstream parties held an undisputed governmental and electoral dominance for a
long time by competing on primary socioeconomic issues, they are now challenged by niche par-
ties who bring new issues to the forefront. Consequently, the electoral competition is not solely
determined by how parties align themselves on broad socioeconomic divisions but also by the
issues they choose to compete on.
Recent studies have explored the strategies used by niche parties to gain electoral traction by
focusing on wedge issues, such as multiculturalism and ecology (Van de Wardt et al., 2014), and
how mainstream parties respond to new issues introduced by their rivals (Abou-Chadi, 2016;
Abou-Chadi and Orlowski, 2016; De Vries and Hobolt, 2020; Meguid, 2005). In doing so, both
strands of literature mainly study changes in the programmatic profile of one party type. Some
studies have, for example, focused on the influences of successful niche parties’ influences on
Corresponding author:
Jasmien Luypaert, Research Group GASPAR, Ghent University, Sint-Pietersnieuwsstraat 41, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Email: Jasmien.Luypaert@UGent.be
1237524IPS0010.1177/01925121241237524International Political Science ReviewLuypaert
research-article2024
Original Research Article
126 International Political Science Review 46(1)
mainstream parties’ policies (Abou-Chadi, 2016; Abou-Chadi and Orlowski, 2016), whereas oth-
ers investigated the moderated economic position of radical right parties to promote welfare chau-
vinism (Attewell, 2021; De Lange, 2016).
The research in this field acknowledges that contemporary electoral competition is inherently
multidimensional. Nevertheless, the trade-off between expanding the party’s manifesto covering
new issues and maintaining ideological consistency by focusing on primary issues remains under-
studied. This article seeks to address this gap by examining substantial programmatic saliency
transitions, operationalized as the ratio of attention given to secondary (or non-core) issues versus
the primary (or core) issue of the party and measured by the use of MARPOR data (Volkens et al.,
2021). The following research questions are asked: how do programmatic transitions differ between
niche and mainstream parties (RQ1), and in which contexts are such transitions larger for main-
stream and niche parties (RQ2)? This article argues that both mainstream and niche parties are
willing to undergo these transitions under certain circumstances. However, the magnitude and
pathways leading to these transitions will differ between the two party types as they have differing
primary goals, levels of governmental experience and historical legacies.
An analysis of programmatic transitions among 47 parties in 10 established democracies in
1986–2019 (n = 399 cases) using multiple regression techniques confirms these expectations. The
results show that niche parties are more likely to focus on secondary issues, and when they make
such transitions, they tend to be larger. Additionally, the analysis reveals that the length of niche
parties’ competition influences mainstream parties’ programmatic transitions. In contrast, niche
parties’ transitions are driven by their continuity in programmatic transitions and governmental
experience.
The evolution of electoral competition and its players: from
dichotomous to dynamic approach
Traditional lines of political division are based on broad socioeconomic issues. For decades, party
families such as Christian democrats, social democrats, liberals and conservatives have offered
opposing positions on the socioeconomic cleavage. In this, Downs’ (1957) pioneering work on
spatial theory argues that parties’ policy positions can be ordered on a fault line, ranging from a left
to a right positioning, and that voters vote for the party whose position on the cleavage is closest to
their ideological beliefs. Over the years, many scholars built on this spatial theory to study party
policy position shifts that occur due to factors such as electoral decline (Somer-Topcu, 2009), pub-
lic opinion shifts (Adams et al., 2004), the success of shifting competitor parties (Van Spanje,
2011), the influence of governing status (Greene, 2016) or the influence of a bad economic climate
(Lupu, 2014). Since the 1980s, issue entrepreneurs have entered the political arena by introducing
new issues besides this socioeconomic one (De Vries and Hobolt, 2020). Since then, the nature of
competition has been measured not only by measuring not only positional change but also changes
in the saliency of specific issues. Scholars agree that ‘multidimensionality cannot be evaded in
political practice’ (De Sio and Weber, 2014: 870) but that the literature on political competition
‘rarely studies party strategies about multiple issue dimensions. Yet, multidimensionality likely
plays an important role in parties’ strategic calculus’ (Rovny, 2012: 269, italics added). To distin-
guish between diverse party strategies, scholars often differentiate between ‘mainstream parties’
and ‘niche parties’ in the political marketplace competing on different issues.
The distinction between mainstream and niche parties
Meguid (2005: 248) famously introduced the concept of ‘niche parties’. She defines niche parties
as those parties that: (a) reject traditional lines of political division; (b) emphasize novel issues; and
To continue reading
Request your trial