Congruence in the European Parliament has been analyzed in terms of agreement between voters and national candidates/parties. The question whether voters and Europarties are congruent on major dimensions of contestation (left-right and European Union) remains unanswered. Acknowledging the ‘split-level’ structure of preference aggregation in the European Parliament, we theorize the interrelationships between these levels. Our model incorporates a typically neglected factor: the interplay between national parties and Europarties. We establish that voter–Europarty congruence is different from, and determined by, voter–national party congruence; moreover, national party–Europarty congruence moderates this relationship. Our findings shed new light on the quality of representation in the European Parliament and have key implications for understanding transnational democracy in the European Union.
Bright J, Garzia D, Lacey J, et al. (2013) Trans-nationalising Europe's Voting Space. In: 3rd Annual General Conference of the European Political Science Association, Barcelona, 20–22 June.
5.
EzrowLXezonakisG (2011) Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies44(9): 1152–1178.
6.
GabelMJAndersonCJ (2002) The structure of citizen attitudes and the European political space. Comparative Political Studies35(8): 893–913.
7.
GabelMJHixS (2002) Defining the EU political space: An empirical study of the European elections manifestos, 1979-1999. Comparative Political Studies35(8): 934–994.
8.
Gemenis K (2013) Estimating parties' policy positions through voting advice applications: Some methodological considerations. Acta politica 48(3): 268–295.
9.
GieblerHWeßelsB (2010) 2009 European Election Candidate Study – Methodological Annex, Berlin: WZB.
10.
GolderMStramskiJ (2010) Ideological congruence and electoral institutions: Conceptualization and measurement. American Journal of Political Science54(1): 90–106.
11.
GrönlundKSetäläM (2011) In honest officials we trust: Institutional confidence in Europe. The American Review of Public Administration. Epub ahead of print 23 June 2011. DOI:10.1177/0275074011412946.
12.
GschwendTLeuffenD (2005) Divided we stand – unified we govern? Cohabitation and regime voting in the 2002 French elections. British Journal of Political Science35(4): 691–712.
13.
HixS (2002) Parliamentary behavior with two principals: Preferences, parties, and voting in the European parliament. American Journal of Political Science46(3): 688–698.
14.
HixSLordC (1997) Political Parties in the European Union, London: Macmillan.
15.
HixSNouryARolandG (2009) Voting patterns and alliance formation in the European Parliament. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society364(1518): 821–831.
16.
KreppelA (2002) The European Parliament and the Supranational Party System: A Study of Institutional Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
KreppelAHixS (2003) From grand coalition to left-right confrontation: Explaining the shifting structure of party competition in the European Parliament. Comparative Political Studies36(1––2): 75–96.
18.
Kritzinger S and McElroy, G (2012) Meaningful Choices? Voter perceptions of party positions in European Elections. In: Banducci S, Franklin M, Giebler H, et al. (eds) An Audit of Democracy in the EU, Florence: European University Institute, pp. 169-192. Available at:
http://www.piredeu.eu/Database/DOCS/PIREDEU_Audit_of_Democracy_2012.pdf
.
19.
LefkofridiZCasado-AsensioJ (2012) European Vox Radicis: Representation & policy congruence on the extremes. Comparative European Politics11(1): 93–118.
20.
LefkofridiZKritzingerS (2008) Battles fought in the EP arena: Developments in national parties’ Euro-manifestos. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft (ÖZP)37(3): 273–296.
21.
LinL (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics45(1): 255–268.
22.
LordC (2004) A Democratic Audit of the European Union, London: Macmillan.
23.
MairP (2007) Political opposition and the European Union. Government and Opposition42(1): 1–17.
24.
MansbridgeJ (2009) ‘Selection Model’ of political representation. Journal of Political Philosophy17(4): 369–398.
25.
MarksGSteenbergenM (2004) European Integration and Political Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
MarksGHoogheLNelsonM (2006) Party competition and European integration in the East and West: Different structure, same causality. Comparative Political Studies39(2): 155–175.
27.
MarksGHoogheLSteenbergenMR (2007) Crossvalidating data on party positioning on European integration. Electoral Studies26(1): 23–38.
28.
Marsh M and Mikhaylov S (2010) European Parliament elections and EU governance. Living Reviews in European Governance 5(4). Available at:
http://www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2010-4
(accessed 25 May 2012).
29.
MattilaMRaunioT (2006) Cautious voters and supportive parties: Opinion congruence between voters and parties on the EU dimension. European Union Politics7(4): 427–449.
30.
MattilaMRaunioT (2012) Drifting further apart: National parties and their electorates on the EU dimension. West European Politics35(3): 589–606.
31.
McElroyG (2009) Intra-Party politics at the transnational level: Party switching in the European Parliament. In: BenoitKGianettiG (eds) Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 205–226.
32.
McElroyGBenoitK (2007) Party groups and policy positions in the European Parliament. Party Politics13(1): 5–28.
33.
McElroyGBenoitK (2010) Party policy and group affiliation in the European Parliament. British Journal of Political Science40(2): 377–398.
34.
McElroyGBenoitK (2012) Policy positioning in the European Parliament. European Union Politics13(1): 150–167.
35.
McEvoyC (2012) Unequal representation in the EU: A multi-level analysis of voter-party congruence in EP Elections. Representation48(1): 83–99.
36.
MühlböckM (2012) National versus European: Party control over members of the European Parliament. West European Politics35(3): 607–631.
37.
PitkinHF (1967) The Concept of Representation, Berkeley: University of California Press.
38.
PowellGBJr (2009) The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative conceptualizations and data on the effects of election rules. Comparative Political Studies49(12): 1475–1497.
39.
ReifKSchmittH (1980) Nine second-order national elections – a conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research8(1): 3–44.
40.
RosemaMde VriesCE (2011) Assessing the quality of European democracy: Are voters voting correctly? In: RosemaMDentersBAartsK (eds) How Democracy Works. Political Representation and Policy Congruence in Modern Societies, Amsterdam: Pallas, pp. 199–219.
41.
SartoriG (1976) Parties and Party Systems, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
SchmidtVA (2006) Democracy in Europe: The EU and National Polities, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
SchmidtVA (2009) Re-envisioning the European Union: Identity, democracy, economy. Journal of Common Market Studies47(1): 17–42.
44.
Schmitt H and Pütz C (2009) Zur Stellung der deutschen Parteien im Europäischen Parteiensystem. Politische Bildung 1: 90-112. Reprinted in: Anderson U (ed) (2009) Parteien in Deutschland. Krise oder Wandel?. Schwalbach: Wochenschau-Verlag.
45.
SnijdersTABBoskerRJ (2012) Multilevel Analysis. An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling, London: Sage.
46.
ThomassenJ (1994) Empirical research into political representation: Failing democracy or failing models? In: JenningsMKMannET (eds) Elections at Home and Abroad, Essays in Honour of J. Warren Miller, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 237–265.
47.
ThomassenJSchmittH (1997) Policy representation. European Journal of Political Research32(2): 165–184.
48.
ThomassenJSchmittH (1999) Issue congruence. In: SchmittHThomassenJ (eds) Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 186–208.
49.
ThorlaksonL (2005) Federalism and the European party system. Journal of European Public Policy12(3): 468–487.
50.
Trechsel A (2009) EU-Profiler: Positioning of the parties in the European Elections. Available at:
http://data.eui.eu/RSCAS/EUDO/euprofiler/10008
UNF:5:CiKB9yRITG9VSXFTlNNMCQ== European University Institute [Distributor] V5 [Version] (accessed 14 October 2010).
51.
Trechsel AH and Mair P (2011) When parties (also) position themselves: An introduction to the EU Profiler. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 8(1): 1–20.
52.
Van der EijkCFranklinM (1996) Choosing Europe? The European electorate and national politics in the face of union, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
53.
Van Egmond M, Van der Brug W, Hobolt S, et al. (2011) European Parliament Election Study 2009, Voter Study. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5055 Data file Version 1.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.10202.
54.
WagnerMRuusuvirtaO (2011) Matching voters to parties: Voting advice applications and models of party choice. Acta politica47(4): 400–422.
55.
WeberT (2007) Campaign Effects and Second-Order Cycles A Top-Down Approach to European Parliament Elections. European Union Politics8(4): 509–536.
56.
Wittenberg J (2011) How similar are they? Rethinking electoral congruence. Quality & Quantity. Published Online 7 October 2011, doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9620-0.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
