Three sides of the same coin? comparing party positions in VAAs, expert surveys and manifesto data

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Frederico Ferreira da Silva ◽  
Andres Reiljan ◽  
Lorenzo Cicchi ◽  
Alexander H. Trechsel ◽  
Diego Garzia
Keyword(s):  
Party Positions ◽  
Expert Surveys

scholarly journals Estimating party positions on immigration: Assessing the reliability and validity of different methods

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Didier Ruedin ◽  
Laura Morales
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Systematic Assessment ◽  
Policy Domain ◽  
Party Manifestos ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Party Positions ◽  
Automated Coding ◽  
Expert Surveys

We provide a systematic assessment of various methods to position political parties on immigration, a policy domain that does not necessarily overlap with left–right and is characterized by varying salience and issue complexity. Manual and automated coding methods drawing on 283 party manifestos are compared – manual sentence-by-sentence coding using a conventional codebook, manual coding using checklists, automated coding using Wordscores, Wordfish and keywords. We also use expert surveys and the Comparative Manifesto Project (CMP), covering the main parties in Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, between 1993 and 2013. We find high levels of consistency between expert positioning, manual sentence-by-sentence coding and manual checklist coding and poor or inconsistent results with the CMP, Wordscores, Wordfish and the dictionary approach. An often-neglected method – manual coding using checklists – offers resource efficiency with no loss in validity or reliability.

scholarly journals From convergence to congruence: European integration and citizen–elite congruence

2021 ◽  
pp. 146511652110249
Author(s):  
Daniel Devine ◽  
Raimondas Ibenskas
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Party System ◽  
Political Representation ◽  
Party Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
State Party ◽  
The Public ◽  
Party Positions ◽  
Expert Surveys

Recent research argues that European integration has led to an ideological convergence of member state party systems, which is purported to have significant consequences for democratic representation. We argue that convergence of party positions is less problematic if congruence between governed and governing is maintained. We therefore turn to test whether integration has had an effect on congruence between the public and their governing elites. Using five measures of integration, two sources of public opinion data, and expert surveys on political parties, we find little evidence that integration into the European Union reduces congruence between the public and the national party system, government or legislature either ideologically or across five issue areas. These results should assuage concerns about integration’s effect on domestic political representation.

The Simplest Government Heuristic of All: Citizens Infer that Governing Parties are Pro-European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 001041402097022
Author(s):  
James Adams ◽  
Luca Bernardi ◽  
M. Christine Phillips
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Party Positions ◽  
Election Manifestos ◽  
Party Support ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
Expert Surveys ◽  
Opposition Parties

Previous research documents that citizens apply a “coalition heuristic” to infer that governing coalition partners share more similar policies and ideologies than are implied by the statements in their election manifestos. We propose even simpler government-related heuristics citizens can apply to infer party positions on European integration: the current government heuristic that currently governing parties are more pro-Europe than opposition parties, and the long-term opposition heuristic that opposition parties that have never governed are less pro-Europe than opposition parties with previous governing experience. We report theoretical and empirical analyses of survey data from 24 European Union member states, which substantiate that citizens apply these heuristics, which have consequences for citizens’ policy beliefs and their party support. We also find evidence that citizens respond to policy as measured through election manifestos and expert surveys.

scholarly journals Party Policy and Group Affiliation in the European Parliament

2010 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 377-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gail McElroy ◽  
Kenneth Benoit
Keyword(s):  
Multinomial Logit Model ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Mcmc Methods ◽  
Group Choice ◽  
Group Affiliation ◽  
Empirical Measures ◽  
Policy Positions ◽  
Party Positions ◽  
Political Groups ◽  
Expert Surveys

Systematic empirical research has yet to explain how national parties join political groups in the European Parliament. This article first demonstrates, using original empirical measures from expert surveys of party positions, that EP party groups consist of national parties sharing similar policy positions. Secondly, using Bayesian/MCMC methods, the paper estimates the policy determinants of group affiliation using a (conditional) multinomial logit model to explain that ‘party group’ choice is largely driven by policy congruence. Finally, predictions from the model identify national parties not in their ‘ideally congruent’ EP groups. The findings suggest that the organization of and switching between EP groups is driven mainly by a concern to minimize policy incongruence between national and transnational levels.

scholarly journals Party Positions from Wikipedia Classifications of Party Ideology

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Herrmann ◽  
Holger Döring
Keyword(s):  
Simple Model ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
High Stability ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Common Space ◽  
Party Positions ◽  
Measurement Strategy ◽  
Party Position ◽  
Party Ideology ◽  
Expert Surveys

We develop a new measure of party position based on a scaling of ideology tags supplied in infoboxes on political parties' Wikipedia pages. Assuming a simple model of tag assignment, we estimate the locations of parties and ideologies in a common space. We find that the recovered scale can be interpreted in familiar terms of 'left vs. right'. Estimated party positions correlate well with ratings of parties' positions from extant large-scale expert surveys, most strongly with ratings of general left-right ideology. Party position estimates also show high stability in a test-retest scenario. Our results demonstrate that a Wikipedia-based approach yields valid and reliable left-right scores comparable to scores obtained via conventional expert coding methods. It thus provides a measure with potentially unlimited party coverage. Our measurement strategy is also applicable beyond Wikipedia.

Bridging the pond: measuring policy positions in the United States and Europe

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cory L. Struthers ◽  
Christopher Hare ◽  
Ryan Bakker
Keyword(s):  
Party Systems ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Positions ◽  
Party Positions ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
The Us ◽  
Ideological Space ◽  
American Party ◽  
Expert Surveys

AbstractRecent work has pioneered the use of expert surveys to estimate cross-national party positions in a common ideological space. In this paper, we report findings from an original dataset designed to evaluate bridging strategies between European and American party placements. Specifically, we compare the use of “anchoring vignettes” (fictional party platforms) with an alternative approach that asks comparativist scholars who live in the US (whom we call transatlantic or TA experts) to place parties and parties in their country of expertise on a series of issues scales. The results provide an optimistic assessment of the ability of TA experts to serve as valid bridges across the Atlantic. The resulting cross-comparable estimates of party positions show instances of both convergence and divergence between American and European party systems, including parallels between systems on the cross-cutting issue of international economic integration.

Dilemmas of Inclusion

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafaela M. Dancygier
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Electoral Politics ◽  
Party Systems ◽  
Political Incorporation ◽  
Party Positions ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Muslim Communities ◽  
Equality And Diversity

As Europe's Muslim communities continue to grow, so does their impact on electoral politics and the potential for inclusion dilemmas. In vote-rich enclaves, Muslim views on religion, tradition, and gender roles can deviate sharply from those of the majority electorate, generating severe trade-offs for parties seeking to broaden their coalitions. This book explains when and why European political parties include Muslim candidates and voters, revealing that the ways in which parties recruit this new electorate can have lasting consequences. The book sheds new light on when minority recruitment will match up with existing party positions and uphold electoral alignments and when it will undermine party brands and shake up party systems. It demonstrates that when parties are seduced by the quick delivery of ethno-religious bloc votes, they undercut their ideological coherence, fail to establish programmatic linkages with Muslim voters, and miss their opportunity to build cross-ethnic, class-based coalitions. The book highlights how the politics of minority inclusion can become a testing ground for parties, showing just how far their commitments to equality and diversity will take them when push comes to electoral shove. Providing a unified theoretical framework for understanding the causes and consequences of minority political incorporation, and especially as these pertain to European Muslim populations, the book advances our knowledge about how ethnic and religious diversity reshapes domestic politics in today's democracies.

Issue Dimensions and Cleavages: How the Russian Experience Helps Us to Look for Cross-Points

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 206-235
Author(s):  
Yury Korgunyuk
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
The Political ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Issue Salience ◽  
Empirical Base ◽  
Party Positions ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Weak Points ◽  
Alternative Methodology ◽  
Election Results

Abstract The article analyzes the weak points of the Manifesto Project’s methodology, such as its emphasis on issue salience, instead of issue positions; bringing the content of manifestos under too broad categories formulated at the beginning of the project; not quite the appropriate technique of factor analysis etc. An alternative methodology is proposed that focuses on party positions on issues which generate the largest polarization in the political space. It also enriches the empirical base of the studies and adjusts the technique of factor analysis. In order to reveal political cleavages inside these dimensions, the so called electoral cleavages (factors of territorial differences in voting for various parties) are taken as a starting point: factor loadings of parties in the electoral and political spaces are compared through correlation and regression analyses. The proposed methodology is applied to an analysis of election results in Russia (2016) and Germany (2017).

Public Opinion, Party Politics, and the Welfare State

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Lindvall ◽  
David Rueda
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Party System ◽  
Median Voter ◽  
Party Politics ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Party Positions ◽  
Long Run ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
The Welfare State

This chapter examines the long-run relationship between public opinion, party politics, and the welfare state. It argues that when large parties receive a clear signal concerning the median voter’s position on the welfare state, vote-seeking motivations dominate and the large parties in the party system converge on the position of the median voter. When the position of the median voter is more difficult to discern, however, policy-seeking motivations dominate, and party positions diverge. This argument implies that the effects of government partisanship on welfare state policy are more ambiguous than generally understood. The countries covered in the chapter are Denmark, France, Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom (going back to the 1960s). The number of observations is (necessarily) limited, but the diverse cases illustrate a common electoral dynamic centered around the position of the median voter.

Innovations in Objectively Measuring Corruption in Public Procurement

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mihály Fazekas ◽  
Luciana Cingolani ◽  
Bence Tóth
Keyword(s):  
Public Procurement ◽  
Risk Indicators ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Government Purchases ◽  
Micro Level ◽  
Supplier Risk ◽  
Expert Surveys ◽  
Do So

While there is continued interest in measuring governance, disagreement on how best to do so has only grown over time. To provide pointers at innovative and rigorous indicator building, this chapter documents innovations in measuring a particularly challenging governance dimension: corruption in public procurement. In hopes of inspiring future research, the chapter critically reviews objective corruption proxies using administrative data on government purchases falling in four broad categories: tendering risk indicators, political connections indicators, supplier risk indicators, and contracting body risk indicators. The findings indicate that the best measurement instruments focus on the transaction level (micro level) while allowing for consistent aggregations for time series and cross-country comparisons. Such actionable indicators capture behaviour as directly as possible rather than remaining at the country level. They also retain the relational or transactional aspects of governance, revealing a much more dynamic picture than widely used population and expert surveys.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document