The clash between political science and marketing voting

The Clash between Political Science and Marketing:

Voting Behaviour in the Belgian Federal Elections of 2007

of 27

The Clash between Political Science and Marketing:

Voting Behaviour in the Belgian Federal Elections of 2007

Soetkin Kesteloot, University of Ghent, Belgium

Philippe De Vries, University of Antwerp, Belgium

In general, three different approaches to voting behaviour processes can be distinguished. These approaches ensue from three different academic disciplines. According to social and political psychology reasoning, voting behaviour is determined by tradition and socialization. Individuals simply vote in accordance with their party identification. The second model introduces a more economic approach of voting behaviour. Rational voters are utility maximizing consumers and trade their votes in return for benefits received from the parties. The third model of voting behaviour represents the marketing consumer-voter model and emphasizes the importance of image and style (Bartle, J., & Griffith, D., 2002). This paper is aiming at confronting these three different models of voting behaviour within the frame of the Belgian federal elections of 2007 based on a post-electoral study by TNS Media. By analyzing voter motives it will be retrieved which model fits Belgian voting behaviour best.

Keywords: voting behaviour - Belgium - social psychology - rational voter - image

Soetkin Kesteloot holds a MA in political science and is currently a PhD candidate working on the political marketing of political parties in Belgium at the University of Ghent, Belgium.

[email protected] University of Ghent, Universiteitstraat 8, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

Philippe De Vries is a currently a guest lecturer at the University of Antwerp. He holds a MA in communication, a BA in law and a PhD in Political and Social Sciences. His research focuses on Political Impression Management and Perception Politics.

[email protected] University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium

of 27

Introduction

The true fundaments and determinants of voting behaviour have mesmerized numerous

scientists from several scientific disciplines over the past decades. Bartle and Griffiths (2002)

categorized the different approaches into three broader models of voting behaviour. More

precise the authors spoke of the social-psychological, economic and marketing model of

voting behaviour. Within, the scope of this paper, these three distinct approaches will be

discussed and investigated against the Belgian political background.

In the field of political marketing theory, the importance and dominance of marketing

reasoning and applications reigns supreme. Voters are presumed to be guided by campaign

tactics more so than by issue positions or ideology. Political scientists are nonetheless

significantly less convinced of this assertion and argue that voter decision-making processes

are still dominated by traditional motives, such as: party ideology and party identification. In

order to refute or support these assertions this paper will be confronting the political science

and the political marketing point of view based on a prominent post-electoral study by TNS

Media Belgium. Before addressing the post-electoral study, the three different approaches to

voting behaviour - as categorized by Bartle and Griffiths (2002) - will be mapped.

The social-psychological model

The traditional models of voting behaviour painted a picture of a very stable electorate.

Attention was fixed on long-term factors - like one’s position in the so-called social structure

and traditional loyalty - when explaining voter choices.

of 27

The Columbian School (Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee 1954, p.128; Lazarsfeld, Berelson,

and Gaudet 1948) applied a social deterministic view in which they tried to declare how

individual voters cast their votes. They concluded that the majority of voters has a stable

voting behaviour. These individuals made a choice long before the campaign started, and

rarely changed opinion during the campaign period. In other words: “The social group you

belong to - be it defined by class, religion, or race - determines whom you vote for, because

‘during the campaign social groups imbue their individual members with the accepted

political ideology of the group’ (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet 1948, p.147)” (Catt 1968,

p.4)

The Michigan School (Campbell et al. 1960) emphasized the stability of voting behaviour as

well. Their voting model is highlighting the concept of party identification. This party

identification must be interpreted as the affective or psychological affiliation between a party

and a voter, learned through socialization processes in childhood and strengthened by political

occasions. Once people identify themselves with a specific party, they are inclined to tune

their attitudes and points of view with the point of view of the party. The political world

became too complex for most voters who are not in the least politically interested. Therefore,

this orientation function must be considered vital. “Just as the religious adherent follows the

symbols of their church, so too the identifier follows the symbol of party. In both cases the

symbols suggest what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’.” (Bartle and Griffiths 2002: 19-38, p.21)

Notwithstanding the party identification of voters, modifications still seem possible.

Especially changing political or economic situations can affect voter attitudes. Nevertheless,

these exceptional voting changes do not undermine the validity of the voting model. The

stability of both party system and voting behaviour still dominate.

of 27

In the sixties this loyal, traditional voting behaviour started to erode. The freezing hypothesis

- of Lipset and Rokkan (1967) - claimed that cleavages remained through the existence of the

institutions and parties on these cleavages, even if conflicts diminished. This model could no

longer sufficed to explain European voting behaviour. A dominant trend towards more

electoral volatility and weakening traditional cleavages became apparent (Lachat 2004, p.19).

Four different causes explaining these evolutions can be advanced: the decline of traditional

cleavages and the development of new issues, the process of cognitive mobilisation, the

transformation of the relationship between political parties, and the modernization of electoral

campaigns. The fragmentation of the traditional cleavages and the rising of new issues must

be considered a first plausible cause of the changing electoral behaviour was. The traditional

cleavages - like church-state or labour-capital - lost considerable power in most Western

democracies, also referred to as ‘dealignment-hypothesis’ (Crewe 1984; Dalton, McAllister,

and Wattenberg 2000: 37-61; Heath 1991; Särlvik and Crewe 1983; Zelle 1995, 27: 319-345).

‘Dealignment’ as in the weakening of the traditional party loyalty, meaning that less voters

identified with that party. Voting numbers diminished. Social and economical changes after

the second World War - like economic growth, more social and geographical mobility, a

higher level of education, an outdated party system and more information channel - lie at the

roots of this so-called dealignment (Dalton, Beck, and Flanagan 1984; Lachat 2004; Swanson

and Mancini 1996).

of 27

The weakening of the traditional cleavages - the class or the religious cleavage for instance -

gave rise to new cleavages. The old ones could not respond to actual societal problems,

causing the alienation of younger generations. Some political problems - like the Vietnam

War - only accelerated these developments. In the seventies a new material versus post-

material cleavage was created through a so-called ‘Silent Revolution’ (Inglehart

1977;Inglehart 1990; Inglehart 1997): “this involves a shift from a preoccupation with

physical sustenance and safety values, towards a greater emphasis on belongings, self-

expression, and quality-of-life.” (Knutsen and Kumlin 2005: 125-166, p.126) These

evolutions from material to post-material priorities had severe political consequences. The

most important conflicts no longer dealt with class-bound issues, instead they underlined

other non-economic issues, such as: life quality, self-realization or participation. New political

movements (e.g. the ecology movement, the women movements or the peace movement) and

new political parties (e.g. the Greens) emerged and positioned themselves specifically on

these new, post material issues. (Inglehart 2007: 223-239) Also the existing parties were

obliged to take up a clear and particular position on this new cleavage. Socialist parties

presented themselves as more ecological, pro-abortion, pro-emancipation of women, etc. On

the material side of the cleavage the New Right and the Extreme Right parties and movements

emerged.

The second cause of social mobilization and changing voting behaviour can be captured by

the term cognitive mobilization. In the past, voters were described as a group of uninterested

individuals. The electoral choice was more of a habit than a rational, well-reasoned choice.

(Campbell et al., 1960; Dahl, 1961) “Low levels of education and political information typical

of industrial society meant that the average elector relied on social and party cues – ‘external

mobilization’ – to manage the complexities of politics.” (Knutsen and Kumlin 2005: 125-166,

of 27

p.128) Increased educational levels and the spread of mass media allegedly changed all that.

The process of cognitive mobilization made voters more critical and less dependent of the

voting advice of ‘their’ traditional political party. “As they do not have a long-standing

attachment to a party, and as they have both the skills and interest to follow politics closely,

they should be more likely to base their electoral decision on political issues. Accordingly,

they should display a higher level of electoral volatility and be politically more active, beyond

the electoral context.” (Lachat 2004, p.29)

‘The decline of parties’ can be advanced as the third cause of the changing relation between

parties and their voters. Since the sixties different theories enlightening the crisis of political

parties arose. The decrease of party membership, the origin of new pressure groups, and the

information function of the emerging mass media can be considered symptoms of this

evolution. Daalder (1992, 15: 269-288; 2002: 39-57) found three broader categories handling

the decline of political parties. The first category considers parties as historically important

mobilizers in integrating new groups of citizens. Parties would disappear when their historical

role was fulfilled. The second category sees parties as part of the free market economy.

Parties are no longer ideological groups, but organizations aiming to maximize their votes.

Therefore they could no longer be called ‘parties’. Finally, the last category does not

emphasize the role of parties itself, but rather underlines the increasing importance of other

agencies, like interest groups, taking over functions originally belonging to political parties.

In spite of these pessimistic views, parties did not seem at death’s door. “Party organizations

have adapted to the changes in the electorate and society. [...] in some ways the typical

political party has become stronger as a political institution by marshalling more resources in

the national party office, by hiring more professionalized and technically skilled staffers, and

of 27

by maintaining the national party office as the locus for political control.” (Dalton and

Wattenberg 2000: 261-285, p.269).

Lachat (2004) argued that the changing relations between parties and their electorate can be

explained by the changing political campaigns. The modernization (Swanson and Mancini

1996) or so-called Americanization - new techniques were first used in the USA - was seen as

the last cause of the weakening role of parties (Baines, Plasser, and Scheucher 1999; Farrell,

Kolodny, and Medvic 2001, 6: 11-30; Gibson and Römmele 2001, 6: 31-43; Harris 2001, 2:

35-53; Negrine and Papathanassoloulos 1996, 1: 45-62; Plasser 2000, 5: 33-54; Scammell

1998, 20: 251-275). Emerging mass media, the personalization of politics, the introduction of

professionals, and consultants alienated parties from their traditional electorate.

These evolutions had a significant impact on voting behaviour. The weakening of party

identification and the effect of cognitive mobilization resulted into voters who did no longer

remain loyal to their party. Voting behaviour became unpredictable by possibly changing

political preferences in every election.

Rational choice model

Since the sixties issue voting theories explained the changing electoral behaviour. These

theories presented the electorate as a rational electorate, reasonably comparing government

and opposition achievements before casting their vote. Franklin, Mackie and Valen concluded

“if all the issues of importance to voters had been measured and given their due weight, then

the rise of issue voting would have compensated more or less precisely the decline in cleavage

politics.” (Franklin 1992: 383-405, p.400) The increasing importance of issues and the

of 27

decreasing importance of party identification must be therefore considered communicating

vessels.

These issue-voting models are based on rational choice theory. This economic theory focuses

on the homo economicus: a rational man seeking specific and predetermined goals with the

lowest possible cost. Downs (1957) applied this theory to voting behaviour. Voters try to

maximize their own benefits by casting their vote. Therefore, the rational voter compares the

expected performances of the different parties. The party that seems to perform best will get

his vote. A rational voter will only record his vote after a calculus of the expected utility and

cost. This leads to the so-called ‘paradox of voting’: rational voters – to act in a rational way –

would not cast their vote, for it requires a too great effort to obtain the necessary information

and because they can hardly weigh on the result. Therefore voting would not be rational or

efficient (Pellikaan and Hout 1998). However in practice voters do cast their vote. Rational

choice theorists explained this paradox by declaring that obtaining all the necessary

information and taking all the possible alternatives into consideration, would not be rational.

Voters will only inform themselves if the marginal benefits exceeded the marginal costs. To

reduce the costs, they do not search all the information themselves but they also appeal to the

media drawing a clear picture of the different alternatives. Heuristics will be involved to

simplify the world as well: voters will use ideologies to decide which party bears most

resemblance to their own ideas. Consequentially, voters can be called “rationally ignorant”

(Downs 1957).

Different academics explained voting behaviour based on economic circumstances.

Governments are held responsible for harsh economic times, high inflation rates and

disappointing economic growth translates into electoral defeat (Dorussen and Taylor 2002;

of 27

Fair 1988, 10: 168-179; Hibbs 1977, 71: 1467-1487; Lewis-Beck 1988; Nadeau and Lewis-

Beck 2001, 63: 159-181; Tufte 1978). Economic voters endorse this reasoning: “First, voters

attribute to the incumbent responsibility for managing the economy. Second, they judge

economic conditions. Third, they blame or praise accordingly with their vote.” (Lewis-Beck

and Stegmaier 2007: 518-537, p.530) By optimize their self-interest and financial situation,

the rational choice voter achieves the so-called pocketbook voting or egocentric voting

(Feldman 1982, 26: 446-466; Kinder and Kiewiet 1979, 23: 495-527;Kinder and Kiewiet

1981, 11:129-161; Lewis-Beck and Stegmaier 2007: 518-537). If voters consider national

economic situations and evolutions when casting their vote, their voting behaviour is called

sociotropic (Kinder and Kiewiet 1979, 23: 495-527; Kinder and Kiewiet 1981, 11: 129-161).

Based on multivariate analyses - in which the personal financial situation and the national

economic situation are included - the appreciation of national economy was found to be the

most important indicator of voting behaviour (Van der Brug, Van der Eijk, and Franklin

2007).

Parties spend increasingly more time and means to map out the rational voters’ concerns

(Plasser, Scheucher, and Senft 1999: 89-112). By using new marketing techniques - e.g.

opinion polls and focus groups - parties and candidates can move from a reasoned guess

towards a scientific and representative study of public opinion (Butler 1996). These marketing

research techniques can unravel different aspects of voting behaviour: which issues are most

important for citizens, which position do they take on controversial issues, how do voters

think of different candidates, which party will they vote for, etc. For some authors, these polls

support a democratic society: “Political leaders can consult polls in order to emphasize with

and gauge the needs, interest and demands of their citizens. Opinion polling […] is suggested

to be more than just a means of reporting opinion and instead becomes the link between the

of 27

electorate and the elected representatives.” (Acton and Lilleker 2004, p.5) Voters are

considered consumers, striving a product that fits their needs best (Scullion 2006: 185-205;

Sussman and Galizio 2003, 20: 309-328). Parties try to respond to these needs by spreading a

message that fits the wishes of the voters.

Nonetheless, these rational choice theories were received both positively and negatively. They

were considered positive, because now issues important to voters set the political and

electoral agenda, making candidates and parties more responsible on the long term. On the

other hand, the growth of issue voting exerts pressure on democracy. The different questions

and views of the population could emanate into contradictions, which can not be reconciled.

Participation within such a sophistic society is too difficult and too demanding for most

citizens. “An individual with the basic equipment for rational political participation is the

exception rather than the rule.” (Moodie and Studdert-Kennedy 1970) Well-informed voters

or pressure groups could exploit this situation to mobilize the less informed, especially since

the introduction of television (Dalton 2006).

Marketing Model

The so-called marketing models are advancing that most political systems have evolved to

systems driven by marketing strategies with a clear emphasis on image over substance, on

personality over issues, on 30-second sound bites over meaningful dialogue (Newman, 1999).

A substantial amount of research in the domain of political marketing is focusing on image.

Newman (1999) stated that a political image or impression is created through the use of visual

of 27

impressions, communicated by the candidates’ physical presentation, media appearances and

experiences, and record as a political leader as that information is integrated in the minds of

citizens (Maarek, 1995; Newman, 1999; Schwartzenberg, 1977). These aspects have been

mostly neglected and form the backbone of the third approach of voter decision-making

addressed by Bartle and Griffith (2002).

The introduction of marketing applications is about political organizations adapting

techniques and concepts originally used in the business world in order to achieve specific

goals. Studying the relationship between a political organization or individual and its market,

its use of marketing activities (market intelligence, product design, communication, and

delivery), its product, and its overall attitude (product, sales or market-oriented) is therefore

considered vital and underlines the important role played by image. Whether it is a product, a

candidate, or an issue, marketing has become an indispensable aspect to understand what

voters want and need. According to Newman (1999b) the marketing research applied within

the political arena includes various tactics, such as: benchmark surveys used after a candidate

has decided to run for office, trial heat surveys used to group candidates in hypothetical match

ups early in the campaign, tracking polls conducted on daily basis near election day, cross-

sectional and panel surveys conducted to find out where the electorate stands on certain points

and issues, and exit polls carried out after the votes have been cast.

The previous paragraph is indicating how political marketing is about selling the political

candidate, by emphasizing the right image. Market segmentation and targeting are eagerly

applied to discover what citizens need and how - or with which tools - they are preferably

addressed (Baines, 1999). Once these segments have been unveiled political candidates can be

of 27

positioned in the marketplace. Political marketing theory advances that image plays a

prominent role in this candidate positioning. The political candidate needs to convey a

preferable image in order to appeal (Campbell, 1983; Nimmo, 1970). According to Newman

this image can be crafted by emphasizing certain personality traits of the candidate, as well as

by stressing various issues. The retained image is of immense importance, precisely because it

is assumed to steer voter attitudes and ultimately even voter decision-making. (Newman,

1994; 1999a; 1999b)

Political marketeers argue that political images are extremely similar to brand images for

products. These brand images contain - and especially represent - the overall perceptions and

impressions of the brand as such. Each particular brand image is based on information

gathered by the consumer in addition to his or her previously held believes and personal

experiences. The political image must therefore be understood as a two-sided concept. In

other words, as a combination of pre-existing representations held by the voter and new

information received concerning a particular political candidate. Political marketing theory is

thereby underlining that the political image is composed of subjective elements of voter

understanding, or as what a particular individual likes and dislikes about a particular political

candidate (Newman, 1999a; 1999b; Lilleker & Lees-Marshment, 2005).

Similar to brand images, political images do not exist on their own. According to political

marketing theory, these images are part of the political objects influencing feelings and

attitudes towards political candidates. Newman (1999) stated that a politicians’ image consists

of several distinct - yet intertwined - aspects, such as: how people perceive the politician

based on his or her characteristics, leadership potential, and surrounding messages conveyed

of 27

through mass media, friends, and family. Newman continued by arguing that a political image

is created through the use of visual impressions, communicated by the candidates’ physical

presence, media appearance, experience, and record as a political leader. In order to be

successful, political candidates need to project a clear image - conveying just one message -

thereby underlining his or her assets (Newman, 1999a; 1999b). Political marketing theory

furthers that citizens no longer act as just voters, but somewhere along the road became

political consumers.

According to Hacker (1995) voters are receiving information about political candidates and

their behaviour mostly through mass media. Based on the retained information, individual

voters engage in conversations, discussing what they learned about the candidates. When

combining these elements, an overall image of a specific candidate or party arises.

Furthermore, that image is based on the pre-existing political schemata held by the individual

voter, and on exchanged information. These construed images are strong contributors to

candidate preference and voter decision-making (Davis, 1992; Hacker, 1995; Nimmo et al,

1976; De Landtsheer, 2004). The author reasoned that candidate image involves the collection

of impressions amongst a set of evaluated dimensions (Hacker, 1995 & 2004). Hackers’

interpretation must be considered appealing as well as crude and oversimplified.

Several prominent scholars have - nonetheless - indicated the importance of image research,

thereby unveiling the role of perceptions underlying voter impressions and opinions (Denton

& Woodward, 1990; Trent, Mongeau, Trent, Kendall, & Cushing, 1993). Voters are believed

to be particularly and increasingly interested in candidate characteristics in opposition to party

identification or specific party issues. Consequently, these assumptions are implying that

of 27

voters are more likely to base their opinions and decisions on candidate images (Miller,

Wattenberg, & Malanchuk, 1985).

Methodology

Overall 2057 respondents filled out the questionnaire in the self-completion study of TNS

Media/Dimarso (sample of 2902 with a response rate of 71%). All respondents were Flemish

or Brussels citizens. The questionnaire was presented to the respondents in a hard copy or

electronically in the period between July 17th and August 16th. The questions on voter

intentions and motives must be considered of particular interest to this research and will be

analyzed and interpreted against the theoretical approaches elaborately discussed over the

previous sections.

The three models compared: empirical analysis

Based on the findings from the post-electoral research by TNS Media/Dimarso, the Belgian

voter motivations can be investigated. Figure 1 below is graphically demonstrating the most

decisive voter motivations.

of 27

Figure 1: Voting motives

84% of the interviewees noted that party program and positioning on certain issues plays a

considerable role in the voting decision. The performance of the party - in government or

opposition - is considered important for 72% of the respondents as well. These results clearly

underline the importance of the rational choice model.

Nonetheless, significant support can also be noted for the traditional social-psychological

model by emphasizing party identification. Second most important motivator for the

respondents’ electoral choice is ‘the promotion of their own interest’ (83%). Despite the fact

that it is publicly considered socially unacceptable, more than half of the electorate (52%)

indicated tradition and habit as and important factor in their voting choice.

The marketing model of voting choice was made operational by asking respondents the

importance of ‘image and appearance of the party’ and ‘communication of the party before

of 27

and during the campaign’. Image and appearance of the party played a considerable role for

57% of the voters. ‘Communication of the party in the campaign’ was considered important

for a mere 47% of the questioned individuals.

Based on these data one may conclude that the voting motives representing the essence of the

rational choice model and the social-psychological model are still dominant factors in

nowadays-Belgian voter behaviour. Image and communication - elements at the core of the

marketing model - seem to be decisive factors of voting behaviour for a significantly smaller

group of respondents.

The noted moments of decision are supporting these assertions as well. No less than 58% of

Flemish voters decided for which party to vote more than a month before the actual elections.

Especially men, elderly, and voters belonging to lower social classes made up their mind long

before election time.

When taking a closer look at party loyalty between elections, one may conclude that 73% of

the Flemish electorate remained loyal to their party (between the elections of 2004 and 2007).

Especially youngsters and individuals belonging to the higher social classes can be

categorized as so-called floating voters. Furthermore, these data confirm the analysis of the

ISPO-results1 (from 1991-2003) in which it was concluded that on average 25,8% of the

Flemish voters switched parties between two successive elections.

1 The Institute of Social and Political Opinion Research (ISPO) executed a survey after every Belgian election since 1991.

of 27

Split ticket voting is the last parameter investigating the loyalty of the electorate. Because the

members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are elected on the same day, Belgian

voters can split their vote between political parties. Nevertheless, a significant majority of

88% of the Flemish electorate voted for the same party for both the House of Representatives

and the Senate. In other words, only 12% of split-ticket voters could be noted.

These results - once more - support the assertion that party identification and voter habit still

play a decisive role in Belgian voting behaviour. Furthermore, these variables must be

considered a more objective operationalization of voting behaviour than the list of voting

motives represented in figure 1 which might well only represent socially desirable answers.

The numbers visualized in figure 2 - presented below - are indicating the restricted role played

by image and marketing in Belgian voting behaviour. Figure 2 is containing data representing

the influences of different information channels within the 2007 elections. Surprisingly, in

average 78,27% of the included media applications has no influence on the voting decision.

Only 13% of the respondents stated that television played a decisive role in their decision

making process. All other information channels included in the post-electoral study even had

a less significant impact. These data are thereby translating the minor role played by different

information channels according to the interviewees. Moreover, Internet, polling results, and

posters had no decisive influence on the questioned voter audience what so ever. Furthermore,

the different media even had a smaller impact on voter behaviour in 2007 than they did in the

elections of 2004.

of 27

Figure 2: Impact of the media

Conclusion

Overall it can be concluded that the three models advanced by Bartle and Griffiths (2002) can

be retrieved within Belgian voting behaviour processes. Based on the post-electoral study

especially the Rational Choice model and the Social-Psychology model seem to explain

Belgian voter behaviour best. Image - as an aspect of the Marketing model - must be

considered of marginal importance within the Belgian context. These findings might well be

explained by the still significantly segregated - or pillarized - Belgian society, dominated by

strong institutions. The Belgian political system is - furthermore - embedded in a seriously

scattered political landscape dominated by strong political parties, assumed to be obstructing

the breakthrough of national political personalities. The influence of mass media, personality,

and image as such, is therefore in no way comparable to the American or even the British

political system.

of 27

Discussion

Nevertheless, several objections need to be raised. Firstly, measuring voter motives is no

sinecure. Socially desirable answers will automatically - even subconsciously - arise. Voting

decisions should indeed be based on serious and rational considerations and argumentations,

more so than on aspects of political image and personality. It can be argued that individual

voters genuinely believe they base their vote choice on rational arguments even if they may

well be significantly steered by impressions and perceptions - subliminally or not - especially

diffused by mass media.

Longitudinal research in which different election cycles can be investigated and compared is

vital in order to determine the impact of these different models of voting behaviour. The clash

between political science and political marketing within voter decision-making research

seems to be legitimate, at least in the case of Belgium. Although it must be underlined that the

results presented in this paper plead for a close collaboration between theory development and

campaign research.

of 27

Reference list

Acton T, and Lilleker D. 2004. Listening to the public? The influence of opinion polls on MPs.

Baines P, Plasser F, and Scheucher C. 1999. Operationalising political marketing: a comparison of US

and Western European consultants and managers.

Bains, P. 1999. Voter Segmentation and Candidate Positioning. In Handbook of Political Marketing,

eds. B. Newman, 402-423. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Bartle J, and Griffiths D. 2002. Social-psychological, economic and marketing models of voting

behaviour compared. In The Idea of Political Marketing, eds N O'Shaughessy and S

Henneberg, 19-38. Westport: Praeger.

Berelson B, Lazarsfeld P, and McPhee W. 1954. Voting: a studie of opinion formation in a

presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Butler D. 1996. Polls and elections. In Comparing democracies. Elections and voting in global

perspective., eds LeDuc Lawrence, Niemi Richard and Norris Pippa Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Campbell A, Converse P, Miller W, and Stokes D. 1960. The American voter. New York: John Wiley.

Campbell, J.E. 1983. Candidate Image Evaluations: Influences and Rationalizations in presidential

primaries, American Politics Quarterly, 11/3, 293-313.

Catt H. 1968. Voting behaviour: a radical critique.: Leicester university press.

Crewe I. 1984. The electorate: partisan dealignment ten years on. In Change in British Politics, ed H

Berington London: Frank Cass.

Daalder H. 1992. A crisis of party? Scandinavian Political Studies, 1992, 269-288.

of 27

-----. 2002. Parties: denied, dismissed, or redundant? A critique. In Political parties. Old concepts and

new challenges, eds R Gunther, JR Montero and J Linz, 39-57. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Dalton R. 2006. Citizen politics. Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial

democracies. Washington: CQPress.

Dalton R, Beck PA, and Flanagan S. 1984. Electoral change in advanced industrial societies.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Dalton R, and Wattenberg M. 2000. Partisan change and the democratic process. In Parties without

partisans, eds R Dalton and M Wattenberg, 261-285. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dalton R, McAllister I, and Wattenberg M. 2000. The consequences of partisan dealignment. In

Parties without partisans. Political change in advanced industrial democracies., eds R Dalton

and M Wattenberg, 37-61. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davis, R. 1992. The press and American politics. New York: Longman

De Landtsheer, C. 2004. Politiek impressiemanagement in Vlaanderen en Nederland [Political

Impression Management in Flanders and the Netherlands]. Leuven: Acco.

Denton, R.E., & Woodward, G.C. 1990. Political Communication in America. Westport: Praeger.

Dorussen H, and Taylor M. 2002. Economic voting. London: Routledge.

Downs A. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Fair R. 1988. The effect of economic events on the vote for president. Political Behaviour, 1988, 168-

179.

Farrell D, Kolodny R, and Medvic S. 2001. Parties and campaign professionals in a digital age:

Political consultants in the United States and their counterparts overseas. The Harvard

International Journal of Press/Politics, 2001, 11-30.

of 27

Feldman S. 1982. Economic self-interest and political behaviour. American Journal of Political

Science, 1982, 446-466.

Franklin M. 1992. The decline of cleavage politics. In Electoral change, eds M Franklin, T Mackie

and H Valen, 383-405. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gibson R, and Römmele A. 2001. A party-centered theory of professionalized campaigning. Harvard

International Journal of Press/Politics 6 (4): 31-43.

Hacker, K.L. 1992. Candidate Images in Presidential Elections. London: Praeger Series in Political

Communication.

Harris P. 2001. To spin or not to spin, that is the question: the emergence of modern political

marketing. The Marketing Review 2: 35-53.

Heath A. 1991. Understanding political change. The British voter 1964-1987. Oxford: Pergamon

Press.

Hibbs D. 1977. Political parties and macroeconomic policy. American Political Science Review, 1977,

1467-1487.

Inglehart R. 1977. The Silent Revolution: changing values and political styles among Western publics.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

-----. 1990. Cultural shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

-----. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization. Cultural, economic and political change in 43

societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

-----. 2007. Postmaterialist values and the shift from survival to self-expression values. In The Oxford

handbook of political behaviour, eds R Dalton and H Klingemann, 223-239. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

of 27

Kinder D, and Kiewiet R. 1979. Economic discontent and political behaviour: the role of personal

grievances and collective economic judgments in congressional voting. American Journal of

Political Science, 1979, 495-527.

-----. 1981. Sociotropic politics: the American case. British Journal of Political Science, 1981, 129-

161.

Knutsen O, and Kumlin S. 2005. Value orientations and party choice. In The European Voter, ed J

Thomassen, 125-166. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lachat R. 2004. A heterogeneous electorate. Individual-level differences in the process of formation of

voting choices in Germany and Switzerland. Zürich: Institut für Politikwissenschaft.

Lazarsfeld P, Berelson B, and Gaudet H. 1948. The people's choice: how the voter makes up his mind

in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lewis-Beck M. 1988. Economics and elections: the major Western democracies. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press.

Lewis-Beck M, and Stegmaier M. 2007. Economic models of voting. In The Oxford Handbook of

Political Behaviour, eds R Dalton and H Klingemann, 518-537. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Lilleker, D.G., & Lees-Marshment, J. 2005. Political Marketing: A Comparative Perspective.

Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Lipset S, and Rokkan S. 1967. Party systems and voter alignments. New York: The Free Press.

Maarek, P. 1995. Politieke Marketing en Communicatie [Political marketing and communication].

Brussel: VUB Press.

of 27

Miller, A.H., Wattenberg, M.P., & Malanchuck, O. 1985. Cognitive Representations of Candidate

Assessments. In Political Communication Yearbook 1984, eds. K.R. Sanders, L.L. Kaid & D.

Nimmon, 183-210. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Moodie G, and Studdert-Kennedy G. 1970. Opinions, publics and pressure groups. London: Allen &

Unwin.

Nadeau R, and Lewis-Beck M. 2001. National economic voting in US Presidential elections. Journal

of Politics, 2001, 159-181.

Negrine R, and Papathanassoloulos S. 1996. The "Americanization" of political communications: a

critique. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 1996, 45-62.

Newman, B 1994. The Marketing of the President: Political Marketing as Campaign Strategy. Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

---- 1999a. The Mass Marketing of Politics. Democracy in an Age of Manufactured Images. Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

---- 1999b. Handbook of Political Marketing. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

Nimmo, D.D. 1970. The Political Persuaders. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nimmo, D.D., & Savage, R.L. 1976. Candidates and their images : concepts methods and findings.

Pacific Palisades: Goodyear.

Pellikaan H, and Hout W. 1998. Economische modellen en politieke besluitvorming. Inleiding in de

rationele-keuzetheorie. Brussel: Uitgeverij Coutinho.

Plasser F. 2000. American campaign techniques worldwide. The Harvard International Journal of

Press/Politics, 2000, 33-54.

of 27

Plasser F, Scheucher C, and Senft C. 1999. Is there a European style of political marketing? A survey

of political managers and consultants. In Handbook of political marketing, ed B Newman, 89-

112. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Särlvik B, and Crewe I. 1983. Decade of dealignment. London: Cambridge University Press.

Scammell M. 1998. The wisdom of the war room. Media, culture and society, 1998, 251-275.

Schwartzenberg, R. 1977. Politieke superstars. Vedettencultus in de politiek [Political Superstars.

Celebrities in Politics]. Brussel: Standaard uitgeverij, 355p.

Scullion R. 2006. Investigating electoral choice throug a 'consumer as choice-maker' lens. In The

marketing of political parties, eds D Lilleker, N Jackson and R Scullion, 185-205.

Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Sussman G, and Galizio L. 2003. The global reproduction of american politics. Political

Communication 20: 309-328.

Swanson D, and Mancini P. 1996. Politics, media and modern democracy. An international study of

innovations in electoral campaigning and their consequences. Westport: Praeger.

Trent, J., Mongeau, P., Trent, J. Kendall, K., & Cushing, R. 1993. The Ideal Candidate: A Study of the

Desired Attributes of the Public and the media Across Two Presidential Campaigns, American

Behavior Scientist, 31, 225-239.

Tufte E. 1978. Political control of the economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Van der Brug W, Van der Eijk C, and Franklin M. 2007. The economy and the vote. Economic

conditions and elections in fifteen countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zelle C. 1995. Social dealignment versus political frustration: contrasting explanations of the floating

vote in Germany., 319-345.

The clash between political science and marketing voting

Documents

Transcript of The clash between political science and marketing voting