Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T18:47:14.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Situating Politics: Spatial Heterogeneity and the Study of Political History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2022

Adam Slez Open the ORCID record for Adam Slez [Opens in a new window]
Adam Slez*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
*
Email: aslez@virginia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While quantitative methods are routinely used to examine historical materials, critics take issue with the use of global regression models that attach a single parameter to each predictor, thereby ignoring the effects of time and space, which together define the context in which historical events unfold. This problem can be addressed by allowing for parameter heterogeneity, as highlighted by the proliferation of work on the use of time-varying parameter models. In this article, I show how this approach can be extended to the case of spatial data using spatially varying coefficient models, with an eye toward the study of electoral politics, where the use of spatial data is especially common in historical settings. Toward this end, I revisit a critical case in the field of quantitative history: the rise of electoral Populism in the American West in the period between 1890 and 1896. Upending popular narratives about the correlates of third-party support in the late nineteenth century, I show that the association between third-party vote share and traditional predictors such as economic hardship and ethnic composition varied considerably from one place to the next, giving rise to distinct varieties of electoral Populism—a finding that is missed by global models, which mistake the mathematically particular for the historically general. These findings have important theoretical and empirical implications for the study of political action in a world where parameter heterogeneity is increasingly recognized as a standard feature of modern social science.

Keywords

Populismquantitative historyspatial data analysisspatially varying coefficient modelsrandom effects eigenvector spatial filtering
Type
Research Article
Information
Social Science History , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , Winter 2022 , pp. 719 - 750
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Social Science History Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Andrew (1988) “Transcending general linear reality.” Sociological Theory 6 (2): 169–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, Andrew (1991) “History and sociology: The lost synthesis.” Social Science History 15 (2): 201–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Kenneth T., and Seguin, Charles (2015) “Group threat and policy change: The spatial dynamics of prohibition politics, 1890–1919.” American Journal of Sociology 121 (2): 475–510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Argersinger, Peter H. (1974) Populism and Politics: William Alfred Peffer and the People’s Party. University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Bailey, Amy Kate, and Snedker, Karen A. (2011) “Practicing what they preach? Lynching and religion in the American South, 1890–1929.” American Journal of Sociology 117 (3): 844–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Donna A. (1984) Farmers in Rebellion: The Rise and Fall of the Southern Farmers Alliance and People’s Party in Texas. University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Donna A. (2011) The Louisiana Populist Movement, 1881–1900. Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, E. M., and Tolnay, Stewart E. (1990) “The killing fields of the Deep South: The market for cotton and the lynching of blacks, 1882–1930.” American Sociological Review 55 (4): 526–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Daniel (1955) The New American Right. Criterion Books.Google Scholar
Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N. (1954) Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bogue, Allan G. (1987) “Great expectations and secular depreciation: The first ten years of the Social Science History Association.” Social Science History 11 (3): 329–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogue, Allan G. (1990) “The quest for numeracy: Data and methods in American political history.” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 21 (1): 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. L., Durbin, J., and Evans, J. M. (1975) “Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 37 (2): 149–63.Google Scholar
Burnham, Kenneth P., and Anderson, David R. (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, 2nd ed. Springer.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Craig (1996) “The rise and domestication of historical sociology,” in Terrence J. McDonald (ed.) The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences. University of Michigan Press: 305–38.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. (1960) The American Voter. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Cherny, Robert W. (1981) Populism, Progressivism, and the Transformation of Nebraska Politics, 1885–1915. University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep, and Kollman, Ken (2004) The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Darmofal, David (2008) “The political geography of the New Deal realignment.” American Politics Research 36 (6): 934–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferkiss, Victor C. (1957) “Populist influences on American fascism.” Western Political Quarterly 10 (2): 350–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finley, Andrew O. (2011) “Comparing spatially-varying coefficients models for analysis of ecological data with non-stationary and anisotropic residual dependence.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2 (2): 143–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fotheringham, A. Stewart, Brunsdon, Chris, and Charlton, Martin (2002) Geographically Weighted Regression: The Analysis of Spatially Varying Relationships. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Freese, Jeremy, and Peterson, David (2017) “Replication in social science.” Annual Review of Sociology 43 (1): 147–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfand, Alan E., Kim, Hyon-Jung, Sirmans, C. F., and Banerjee, Sudipto (2003) “Spatial modeling with spatially varying coefficient processes.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 98 (462): 387–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew (2008) “Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations.” Statistics in Medicine 27 (15): 2865–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, Andrew (2015) “The connection between varying treatment effects and the crisis of unreplicable research: A Bayesian perspective.” Journal of Management 41 (2): 632–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerteis, Joseph (2007) Class and the Color Line: Interracial Class Coalition in the Knights of Labor and the Populist Movement. Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwyn, Lawrence (1976) Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gosnell, Harold F. (1937) Machine Politics: The Chicago Model. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gould, Roger V. (1991) “Multiple networks and mobilization in the Paris Commune, 1871.” American Sociological Review 56 (6): 716–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Roger V. (1998) “Political networks and the local/national boundary in the Whiskey Rebellion,” in Hanagan, Michael P., Moch, Leslie Page, and te Brake, Wayne (eds.) Challenging Authority: The Historical Study of Contentious Politics. University of Minnesota Press: 36–53.Google Scholar
Griffin, Larry J. (1992) “Temporality, events, and explanation in historical sociology: An introduction.” Sociological Methods and Research 20 (4): 403–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gullickson, Aaron (2010) “Racial boundary formation at the dawn of Jim Crow: The determinants and effects of black/mulatto occupational differences in the United States, 1880.” American Journal of Sociology 116 (1): 187–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hackney, Sheldon (1969) Populism to Progressivism in Alabama. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Haines, Michael R., and the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (2005) Historical, Demographic, Economic, and Social Data: The United States, 1790–2000 [Computer File]. Colgate University/Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Hays, Samuel P. (1957) The Response to Industrialism, 1885–1914. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hermansen, Gudmund Horn, Henrik Knutsen, Carl, and Mokleiv Nygård, Håvard (2021) “Characterizing and assessing temporal heterogeneity: Introducing a change point framework, with applications on the study of democratization.” Political Analysis 29 (4): 485–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, John D. (1931) The Populist Revolt: A History of the Farmers’ Alliance and the People’s Party. University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard (1955) The Age of Reform: From Bryan to FDR. Knopf.Google Scholar
Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (1999) Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. United States Historical Election Returns, 1824–1968 [Computer File]. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Isaac, Larry W., and Griffin, Larry J. (1989) “Ahistoricism in time-series analyses of historical process: Critique, redirection, and illustrations from U.S. labor history.” American Sociological Review 54 (6): 873–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Richard (1971) The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888–1896. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kane, Melinda D. (2007) “Timing matters: Shifts in the causal determinants of sodomy law decriminalization, 1961–1998.” Social Problems 54 (2): 211–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O. (1949) Southern Politics in State and Nation. Knopf.Google Scholar
King, Ryan D., Massoglia, Michael, and Uggen, Christopher (2012) “Employment and exile: U.S. criminal deportations, 1908–2005.” American Journal of Sociology 117 (6): 1786–1825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiser, Edgar, and Hechter, Michael (1991) “The role of general theory in comparative-historical sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleppner, Paul (1970) The Cross of Culture: A Social Analysis of Midwestern Politics, 1850–1900. Free Press.Google Scholar
Lin, Tse-min (1999) “The historical significance of economic voting, 1872–1996.” Social Science History 23 (4): 561–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin (1950) Agrarian Socialism: The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatchewan: A Study in Political Sociology. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin (1968) “History and sociology: Some methodological considerations,” in Seymour Martin Lipset and Richard Hofstadter (eds.) Sociology and History: Methods. Basic Books: 20–58Google Scholar
Luebke, Frederick C. (1977) “Ethnic group settlement on the Great Plains.” Western Historical Quarterly 8 (4): 405–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, John Levi (2003) “What is field theory?” American Journal of Sociology 109 (1): 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, John Levi, Slez, Adam, and Borkenhagen, Chad (2016) “Some provisional techniques for quantifying the degree of field effect in social data.” Socius 2: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCammon, Holly J. (1993) “From repressive intervention to integrative prevention: The U.S. state’s legal management of labor militancy, 1881–1978.” Social Forces 71 (3): 569–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNall, Scott G. (1988) The Road to Rebellion: Class Formation and Kansas Populism, 1865–1900. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Murakami, Daisuke, Kajita, Mami, and Kajita, Seiji (2020) “Scalable model selection for spatial additive mixed modeling: Application to crime analysis.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 9 (10): 577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murakami, Daisuke, Binbin Lu, Paul Harris, Chris Brunsdon, Martin Charlton, Nakaya, Tomoki, and Griffith, Daniel A. (2019) “The importance of scale in spatially varying coefficient modeling.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 109 (1): 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murakami, Daisuke, Takahiro Yoshida, Hajime Seya, Griffith, Daniel A., and Yamagata, Yoshiki (2017) “A Moran coefficient-based mixed effects approach to investigate spatially varying relationships.” Spatial Statistics 19: 68–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nugent, Walter T. K. (1963) The Tolerant Populists: Kansas Populism and Nativism. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ostler, Jeffrey (1993) Prairie Populism: The Fate of Agrarian Radicalism in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa, 1880–1892. University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Owens, Kenneth N. (1970) “Pattern and structure in western territorial politics.” Western Historical Quarterly 1 (4): 373–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Stanley B. (1973) The Populist Context: Rural Versus Urban Power on a Great Plains Frontier. Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Stanley B., Toombs Parsons, Karen, Killilae, Walter, and Borgers, Beverly (1983) “The role of cooperatives in the development of the movement culture of Populism.” Journal of American History 69 (4): 866–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pescosolido, Bernice A., Grauerholz, Elizabeth, and Milkie, Melissa A. (1997) “Culture and conflict: The portrayal of blacks in U.S. children’s picture books through the mid- and late-twentieth century.” American Sociological Review 62 (3): 443–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, Norman (1962) The Populist Response to Industrial America: Midwestern Populist Thought. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Raftery, Adrian E. (1995) “Bayesian model Selection in social research.” Sociological Methodology 25: 111–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. (2000) Fuzzy-Set Social Science. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Robertson, David Brian (1994) “Politics and the past: History, behavioralism, and the return to institutionalism in American political science,” in Eric H. Monkkonen (ed.) Engaging the Past: The Uses of History across the Social Sciences. Duke University Press: 113–53.Google Scholar
Rogin, Michael Paul (1967) The Intellectuals and McCarthy: The Radical Specter. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ruggles, Steven (2021) “The revival of quantification: Reflections on old new histories.” Social Science History 45 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, Elizabeth (1999) Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877–1917. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Michael (1976) Radical Protest and Social Structure: The Southern Farmers’ Alliance and Cotton Tenancy, 1880–1890. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sewell, William H. (2001) “Space in contentious politics,” in Ronald R. Aminzade, Jack A. Goldstone, Doug McAdam, Elizabeth J. Perry, William H. Sewell, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly (eds.) Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics. Cambridge University Press: 51–88.Google Scholar
Siczewicz, Peter (2011) U.S. Historical Counties (Generalized. 05 Deg). Dataset. Emily Kelley, digital comp. Atlas of Historical County Boundaries, ed. by John H. Long. The Newberry Library, www.digital.newberry.org/ahcb/.Google Scholar
Slez, Adam, O’Connell, Heather A., and Curtis, Katherine J. (2017) “A note on the identification of common geographies.” Sociological Methods and Research 46 (2): 288–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smångs, Mattias, and Redding, Kent (2019) “A match made in heaven? Southern evangelicalism and the rise and fall of agrarian Populism in the 1890s.” Social Science History 43 (1): 63–86.Google Scholar
Tiefelsdorf, Michael, and Griffith, Daniel A. (2007) “Semiparametric filtering of spatial autocorrelation: The eigenvector approach.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 39 (5): 1193–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilly, Charles (1977) “Historical analysis of political processes.” CRSO Working Paper 149. University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles (1981) As Sociology Meets History. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles (1984) Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles (2000) “Spaces of contention.” Mobilization 5 (2): 135–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolnay, Stewart E., Deane, Glenn, and Beck, E. M. (1996) “Vicarious violence: Spatial effects on southern lynching, 1890–1919.” American Journal of Sociology 102 (3): 788–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wawro, Gregory J., and Katznelson, Ira (2014) “Designing historical social scientific inquiry: How parameter heterogeneity can bridge the methodological divide between quantitative and qualitative Approaches.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 526–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Western, Bruce, and Kleykamp, Meredith (2004) “A Bayesian change point model for historical time series analysis.” Political Analysis 12 (4): 354–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, David C., and Calder, Catherine A. (2007) “An assessment of coefficient accuracy in linear regression models with spatially varying coefficients.” Journal of Geographical Systems 9 (2): 145–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, B. Dan (2000) “Weak theories and parameter instability: Using flexible least squares to take time varying relationships seriously.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (3): 603–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, James E. (1974) The Politics of Populism: Dissent in Colorado. Yale University Press.Google Scholar