Dimensionality of Policy Space in Consociational Northern Ireland

13Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

A criticism of consociational power sharing as an institutional response to violent conflict is that it buttresses rather than ameliorates the underlying (linguistic, religious or ethno-national) divide, hence prohibiting the emergence of new dimensions of political competition (such as economic left-right or moral liberal-conservative dimensions) that are characteristic of ‘normal’ societies. We test this argument in the context of the illustrative Northern Ireland case, using data from expert coding of party policy documents and opinion data derived from two Voter Advice Applications (VAAs). We find evidence for a moral liberal-conservative dimension of politics in addition to the ethno-national dimension. Hence, we caution against assuming that consociational polities are unidimensional.

References Powered by Scopus

Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared

1112Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Party policy in modern democracies

1095Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Consociational Democracy

1044Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

How power-sharing includes and excludes non-dominant communities: Introduction to the special issue

29Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Beyond the core: Do ethnic parties ‘reach out’ in power-sharing systems?

19Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Myth of Power-Sharing and Polarisation: Evidence from Northern Ireland

9Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Garry, J., Matthews, N., & Wheatley, J. (2017). Dimensionality of Policy Space in Consociational Northern Ireland. Political Studies, 65(2), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321716658917

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 4

57%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

29%

Researcher 1

14%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 12

75%

Arts and Humanities 2

13%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 1

6%

Psychology 1

6%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free