1. Introduction
In a famous critique of the use of spatial models to capture party competition,
Donald Stokes (1963) argued that it would not do to exclude what he termed “valence
issues” from the discussion.
1
These are issues, “on which parties or leaders are
differentiated not by what they advocate but by the degree to which they are linked in the
public’s mind with conditions or goals or symbols of which almost everyone approves or
disapproves.”
2
Since Stokes’ call for more attention to be paid to valence issues,
extensive research has emerged identifying the importance of different types of valence
issues in political settings. One strand of this research shows that valence issues can
advantage one party or candidate over another, while a second strand explores how
valence issues affect the strategic policy positioning of the candidates/parties (for
example Enelow and Hinich, 1982; Cameron and Enelow, 1992; Londregan and Romer,
1993, MacDonald and Rabinowitz, 1998; Adams, 1999; Ansolabehere and Snyder, 2000;
Groseclose, 2001; Schofield, 2003a, 2003b; Schofield and Sened, 2003, 2005; Adams
and Merrill, 2005). Some of the factors identified as giving one party or candidate a
valence advantage include the state of the economy (Butler and Stokes 1969; Alvarez and
Nagler 1995, 1998), party leaders’ personal images (King et al 2002), partisan
attachments by voters (Adams 1998); valued personal characteristics such as competence
and integrity (Mondak, 1995; McCurley and Mondak, 1995) and, particularly in the
American literature discussing valence issues, a number of benefits associated with
incumbency.
3
Despite the wide-ranging research on the role of valence factors, the American
perspective has been dominant. Aside from the literature examining the impact of
changing economic conditions, very little of the research done on the impact of valence
factors has examined European settings. Furthermore, there are few comparative studies
1
Stokes, Donald. 1963. ‘Spatial Models and Party Competition’, American Political Science Review, 57,
368-77.
2
Stokes, Donald. 1992. ‘Valence Politics’, in Dennis Kavanagh, ed., Electoral Politics (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1992), 143.
3
Such benefits include greater campaign funds (Harrington and Hess 1996), an ability to provide services
for constituents (Fiorina 1977, 1981; Enelow and Hinich 1982; Londregan and Romer 1993; Grose, 2005),
and also voter certainty regarding the incumbent’s position, which could give a candidate a valence
advantage assuming risk-averse voters (Austen-Smith 1987; Hinich and Munger 1989, 1996).
3
Convention