B) Party type

General discussion

Using the definition of SWPs and regionalist parties contained in the conceptual framework above, this control variable is expected to shape party competition on the centre-periphery cleavage in the following way. Having the core level and main organisation in the centre for SWPs (Massetti 2009: 503), or

DISTANCE FRAGMENTATION POLYCENTRICITY POLITICAL PARTIES CENTRE-PERIPHERY CLEAVAGE PARTY TYPE State-wide parties Regionalist parties PARTY IDEOLOGY Left parties Right parties PARTY STRUCTURE More Integrated Less Integrated IDENTITY LANGUAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

112

in the region for regionalist parties (Brancati 2005: 143-145), is assumed to make a difference in the position that parties have on the centre-periphery cleavage. SWPs tend to articulate a discourse that reinforces the centre by undermining a possible strong periphery that is articulated as a threat to the former, but without having pro-centre positions per se. This has to be put in context of decentralised states. The more decentralised the state is, the more important and complex the regional level becomes (Hopkins 2003: 227-230), and SWPs accommodate to this new political arena accordingly (Pallarés and Keating 2003: 243). These parties have the responsibility of maintaining a state-wide cohesion across all regions (Fabre and Swenden 2013: 343), so going against the interest of the regions in regional elections might make this task difficult and counterproductive for their electoral perspectives. To avoid a negative reaction from the regional population and maintain their project as state-wide and inclusive, they are expected to emphasise, to some extent, pro-periphery positions. In contrast, regionalist parties, because they are seen as the main instrument to defend the region (De Winter 1998: 204-205), articulate a discourse that strengthens the periphery vis-à-vis the centre. Therefore, regionalist parties are expected to have stronger pro-periphery positions than SWPs.

An important consequence that party type has on the centre-periphery cleavage taken into consideration here is when SWPs face regionalist parties in regional elections. In regions where SWPs face regionalist parties, the former need to adapt to an even more complex competition to attract votes in comparison to a scenario where SWP, although in regional elections, compete between each other with no third actor (Alonso and Gómez 2011: 187-188). In this sense, SWPs, when competing with strong regionalist parties, try to adapt more pro-periphery positions to avoid ownership of territorial issues from the latter (Swenden and Toubeau 2013: 253). For example, Meguid (2005) refers to this interaction as pro-decentralisation strategies. Despite this, adopting this agenda by SWPs might not always grant them the credibility from the voters that they initially intended (Alonso 2012: 182-191). Leaving aside the possible strategies that SWPs can undertake (Elias et al. 2015), the key point is that not all SWPs adapt in the same way. Not all SWPs have the same behaviour when competing with regionalist parties, adapting with different intensity on the centre-periphery

113

cleavage. Some limitations can be, for example, ideology and structure (Meguid 2008; Swenden and Maddens 2009; van Houten 2009).

With this in mind, on one hand, facing regionalist parties might pose pressure on the SWPs to regionalise even more their positions on the centre- periphery cleavage in order to still benefit from electoral competition (Alonso et

al. 2015: 855) through grating more autonomy to their regional branches (Hopkin

2003: 233). On the other hand, not facing regionalist parties might benefit the SWPs by taking ownership of the territorial dimension of party competition to prevent a strong regionalist party to consolidate (Alonso and Gómez 2011: 189). For example, a SWP that faces a regionalist party in a region where a regional language is an important distinctiveness marker is expected to adapt differently than when the same party competes in a region with a lesser degree of regional identification (Libbrecht et al. 2011: 628). This behaviour can be also observed in regionalist parties. Their behaviour is expected to change when facing SWPs in order to adapt to the behaviour of the latter (Elias 2015: 94-95).

In light of the above theorisation of how party type might affect party competition along the centre-periphery cleavage, the general hypothesis is as follows:

H7-SWPs have milder pro-periphery positions than regionalist parties

Party type applied to all the regions of Spain

In order to avoid the missing data from the RMP in relation to the regionalist parties, the hypotheses designed for this control variable are focused on the PSOE and the PP, both SWPs, with very consistent electoral performance in all regions across the vast majority of electoral periods. With this in mind, the hypotheses are:

H7.A-SWPs emphasise less the regional level than regionalist parties

H7.B-SWPs call for less competences than regionalist parties

114

Following with the focus on SWPs, and as theorised above, one of the consequences of this factor is that the presence of a regional competitor might make SWPs change their behaviour. The expected behaviour is that SWPs, in order to present themselves as parties that are able to defend the interests of the region to the same extent as regionalist parties, adopt stronger pro-periphery positions. In order to be able to test this, the hypotheses are:

H7.D-SWPs emphasise more the regional level when facing regionalist parties

H7.E-SWPs call for more competences when facing regionalist parties

H7.F-SWPs emphasise more positive attitudes towards multiculturalism when

facing regionalist parties

Party type applied to Castilla-La Mancha, Andalusia, and the Canary Islands

In comparison to all the regions of Spain, the regionalist parties in Andalusia and the Canary Islands allows to extent the hypotheses to the PA/CA and CC, further testing the theorised expectations. To test this, the hypotheses are:

H7.G-the PA/CA and CC emphasise more the regional level than the PSOE and

the PP

H7.H-the PA/CA and CC emphasise more a differentiated constitutional status

of the region than the PSOE and the PP

H7.I-the PA/CA and CC emphasise more the devolution of competences to the

region in comparison to the PSOE and the PP

H7.J-the PA/CA and CC emphasise a stronger regional identity in comparison

to the PSOE and the PP