Cleavage Theory and Theory of Issue Dimensions:

Korgunyuk Yu.G.,

Leading Researcher, INION RAN,

elibrary_id: 36510894 |

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2019.06.08

For citation:

Korgunyuk Yu.G. Cleavage Theory and Theory of Issue Dimensions: Cross-Points. – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No. 6. P. 95-112. (In Russ.).


The article analyzes drawbacks of the methodology behind the project “Manifesto”, which make it reveal the structure of party documents over issue dimensions and political cleavages. These drawbacks are: its emphasis on issue salience instead of parties' issue positions; bringing the content of party manifestos under broad categories formulated at the beginning of the project and little adapted to situations in non-Western countries; a somewhat inappropriate technique for factor analysis. An alternative methodology is proposed that shifts the focus to parties' positions on issues which cause the biggest polarization. It also expands the range of studied documents at the expense of interviews and transcripts of debates, limits the study to a single election campaign, and makes adjustments to the procedure of factor analysis. As a result, it allows identification of the structure of issue dimensions, not of manifestos. In order to reveal political cleavages inside these dimensions, starting from so called electoral cleavages is proposed; these are detected by a factor analysis of the vote shares received by parties in different territorial units. Factor loadings of parties in the electoral space are compared through correlation analysis with their factor loadings in the political space; for more accurate results parties' issue positions in separate issue domains are analyzed. The proposed methodology is applied to the analysis of the elections to the Russian State Duma (2016) and German Bundestag (2017). It revealed that the Russian political space is structured by three conflict dimensions: systemic, authoritarian-democratic, and socioeconomic; the German one, however, is structured by only two: systemic (GAL/TAN with dominance of the transnational cleavage) and socioeconomic. With all this, the electoral space of Russia is dominated by the authoritarian-democratic cleavage, whereas the second electoral cleavage has a combined nature (socioeconomic + systemic). In Germany, the first electoral cleavage is systemic while the second one is socioeconomic.

political parties, cleavage theory, issue dimensions theory, conflict dimensions, electoral cleavages, political cleavages, Russia, Germany.


Albright J.J. 2010. The Multidimensional Nature of Party Competition. – Party Politics. Vol. 16. No. 6. P. 699-719.

Bornschier S. 2010. Cleavage Politics and the Populist Right: The New Cultural Conflict in Western Europe. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 345 p.

Budge I. 1987. The internal analysis of election programmes. – Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies, Budge I., Robertson D., Hearl D. (eds.). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. P. 15-38.

Budge I., Homola J. 2012. How Far Have European Political Parties Followed the Americans to the Right in the Later Post-War Period? – Cambio. Rivista sulle Trasformazioni Sociali. No. 2 (4). P. 71-86.

Butler D., Stokes D.E. 1971. Political Change in Britain. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 516 p.

Coman E. 2017. Dimensions of political conflict in West and East: An application of vote scaling to 22 European parliaments. – Party Politics. Vol. 23. No. 3. P. 248-261.

Franklin M. 1992. The decline of cleavage politics. – Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in Western countries. Franklin M., Mackie T., Valen H. (eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. P. 381-402.

Ginsberg B. 1976. Elections and Public Policy. – American Political Science Review. Vol. 70, N. 1. P. 41-49.

Häusermann S., Kriesi H. 2015. What do voters want? Dimensions and configurations in individual-level preferences and party choice. – The Politics of Advanced Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 202-230.

Hooghe L., Marks G., Wilson C.J. 2002. Does left/right structure party positions on European integra­tion? – Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 35. No. 8. P. 965-989.

Hooghe L., Marks G. 2018. Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transna­tional cleavage. – Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 25, № 1. P. 109-135. 01763.2017.1310279

Huber J., Inglehart R. 1995. Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. – Party Politics. Vol 1. No.1 P. 73-111.

Inglehart R. 1990. Cultural shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 484 p.

Irvine W.P. 1987. Canada 1945-1980: party platforms and campaign strategies. – Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies, Budge I., Robertson D., Hearl D. (eds.). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. P. 73-94.

Kriesi H., Grande E., Lachat R., Dolezal M., Bornschier S., Frey T. 2006. Globalization and the Transformation of the National Political Space: Six European Countries Compared. – European Journal of Political Research. Vol. 45. No. 6. P. 921-956.

Kriesi H. et al. 2012. Political Conflict in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 349 p.

Lachat R. 2018. Which Way from Left to Right? On the Relation Between Voters’ Issue Preferences and Left–Right Orientation in West European Democracies. – International Political Science Review. Vol. 39. No. 4. P. 419-435.

Lijphart A. 2012. Patterns of democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven & London, Yale University Press. XX, 348 p.

Lipset S.-M., Rokkan S. 1967. Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: an Introduction. – Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspective, Lipset S.-M., Rokkan S. (eds.). New York, Free Press. P. 1-61.

Marcinkiewicz K. 2018. The Economy or an Urban–Rural Divide? Explaining Spatial Patterns of Voting Behaviour in Poland. – East European Politics and Societies and Cultures. Vol. 32. No. 4. P. 693-719.

Matiuta C. 2018. Political cleavages in post-communist Europe. Romania as a case study. – Yearbook of the Institute of East-Central Europe. Vol. 16. No. 3. P. 147-164.

Namenwirth J.Z., Lasswell H. 1970. The Changing Language of American Values: A Computer Study of Selected Party Platforms. Beverly Hills: Sage. 68 p.

New politics in Western Europe: The rise and success of Green Parties and alternative lists. 1989. Ed. by F. Müller-Rommel. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Nagel J. 2006. Occam no, Archimedes yes. – Democratic Politics and Party Competition. Essays in honour of Ian Budge, Bara J., Weale A. (eds.). London and New York, Routledge. P. 143-158.

Robertson D. 1976. A Theory of Party Competition. London & New York: Wile. 210 p.

Rovny J., Polk J. 2019. New wine in old bottles: Explaining the dimensional structure of European party systems. – Party Politics. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 12-24.

Rovny J., Whitefield S. 2019. Issue dimensionality and party competition in turbulent times. – Party Politics. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 4-11.

Schneider W. 1974. Issues, Voting, and Cleavages. A Methodology and Some Tests. – American Behavioral Scientist. Vol. 18 No. 1. P. 111-146.

Stanley B. 2019. A New Populist Divide? Correspondences of Supply and Demand in the 2015 Polish Parliamentary Elections. – East European Politics and Societies and Cultures. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 17-43.

Stoll H. 2004. Social Cleavages, Political Institutions and Party Systems: Putting Preferences Back into the Fundamental Equation of Politics. A Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Political Science and the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Santa Barbara: University of California. URL: (accessed 27.04.2019).

Teney C., Lacewell O.P., de Wilde P. 2014. Winners and losers of globalization in Europe: attitudes and ideologies. – European Political Science Review. Vol. 6. No. 4. P. 575-595.

Torcal M., Mainwaring S. 2002. The Political Recrafting of Social Bases of Party Competition: Chile, 1973-95. – British Journal of Political Science. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 55-84.

Warwick P.V. 2002. Toward a common dimensionality in West European policy space. – Party Politics. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 101-122.

Whitefield S., Rohrschneider R. 2019. Embedding integration: How European integration splits main­stream parties. – Party Politics. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 25-35.

Korgunyuk Yu.G. 2017. Election by proportional system as a mass opinion poll. – Political Science (RU). No. 1. P. 90-119. (In Russ.)

Korgunyuk Yu. 2019. New Instruments for Measuring Electoral Cleavages: from macro- to micro-level. – Electoral Politics. No. 1. (In Russ.) URL: (accessed 08.07.2019).

Content No. 6, 2019

See also:

Korgunyuk Yu.G.,
The 2012-2014 Party Reform and the Structure of the Electoral Divides in Russia’s Regions. – Polis. Political Studies. 2015. No4

Semenenko I.S., Lapkin V.V., Pantin V.I.,
Social Cleavages and Political Divides in a Theoretical Perspective: Criteria for Assessment and Classification. – Polis. Political Studies. 2021. No5

Suvakovic U.,
Political parties as traditional mechanisms of representation in modern societies. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No2

Gelman V.Ya.,
Political Parties in Russia: from Competition – to Hierarchy. – Polis. Political Studies. 2008. No5

Bardin A.L.,
Digital Divide in the Modern Megapolis: Political Aspects. – Polis. Political Studies. 2021. No6



Introducing an article

Polis. Political Studies
1 2002

Kudryashova I.V.
Fundamentalism within the Dimensions of the Modern World

 The article text (электронная версия)


   2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991