Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-s5tvr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-16T13:02:16.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating Party Positions across Countries and Time—A Dynamic Latent Variable Model for Manifesto Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Thomas König ,
Moritz Marbach  and
Moritz Osnabrügge
Thomas König*
Affiliation:
University of Mannheim, A5, 6, 68159 Mannheim, Germany
Moritz Marbach
Affiliation:
University of Mannheim, A5, 6, 68159 Mannheim, Germany e-mail: mmarbach@mail.uni-mannheim.de
Moritz Osnabrügge
Affiliation:
University of Mannheim, L13, 17, 68131 Mannheim, Germany e-mail: osnabruegge@uni-mannheim.de
*
e-mail: koenig@uni-mannheim.de (corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article presents a new method for estimating positions of political parties across country- and time-specific contexts by introducing a latent variable model for manifesto data. We estimate latent positions and exploit bridge observations to make the scales comparable. We also incorporate expert survey data as prior information in the estimation process to avoid ex post facto interpretation of the latent space. To illustrate the empirical contribution of our method, we estimate the left-right positions of 388 parties competing in 238 elections across twenty-five countries and over sixty years. Compared to the puzzling volatility of existing estimates, we find that parties more modestly change their left-right positions over time. We also show that estimates without country- and time-specific bias parameters risk serious, systematic bias in about two-thirds of our data. This suggests that researchers should carefully consider the comparability of party positions across countries and/or time.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , Autumn 2013 , pp. 468 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

Authors' note: For helpful comments and suggestions, we thank two anonymous reviewers, R. Michael Alvarez, Meghan Helsel, Carlo Horz, Dirk Junge, Sebastian Köhler, James Lo, Bernd Luig, Andrew D. Martin, Sven-Oliver Proksch, Zeynep Somer-Topcu, and the participants of the Finding Thetas Conference 2012 in Bern. Sophie Mathes provided excellent research assistance. All errors remain our responsibility. Replication data are available at http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/29312 (König, Marbach, and Osnabrügge 2013). Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

References

Adams, J., and Merrill, S. 2006. Why small, centrist third parties motivate policy divergence by major parties. American Political Science Review 100(3): 403–17.Google Scholar
Adams, J., Clark, M., Ezrow, L., and Glasgow, G. 2006. Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and the electoral consequences of western European parties' policy shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science 50: 513–29.Google Scholar
Adams, J., and Somer-Topcu, Z. 2009. Policy adjustment by parties in response to rival parties' policy shifts: Spatial theory and the dynamics of party competition in twenty-five post-war democracies. British Journal of Political Science 39: 825–46.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R., and Nagler, J. 2004. Party system compactness: Measurement and consequences. Political Analysis 12(1): 46–62.Google Scholar
Bailey, M. A. 2007. Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the court, Congress, and presidency. American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 433–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, R. 2009. Re-measuring left-right: A comparison of SEM and Bayesian measurement models for extracting left-right party placements. Electoral Studies 28(3): 413–21.Google Scholar
Bartolini, S., and Mair, P. 1990. Identity, competition, and electoral availability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benoit, K., and Laver, M. 2006. Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benoit, K., and Laver, M. 2007. Estimating party policy positions: Comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies 26(1): 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, K., and Laver, M. 2012. The dimensionality of political space: Epistemological and methodological considerations. European Union Politics 13(2): 194–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, K., Laver, M., and Mikhaylov, S. 2009. Treating words as data with error: Uncertainty in text statements of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 495–513.Google Scholar
Benoit, K., Laver, M., Lowe, W., and Mikhaylov, S. 2012. How to scale coded text units without bias: A response to Gemenis. Electoral Studies 31: 605–8.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, M., and Ingberman, D. 1985. Candidate reputations and the “incumbency effect”. Journal of Public Economics 27(1): 47–67.Google Scholar
Blais, A., Blake, D., and Dion, S. 1993. Do parties make a difference? Parties and the size of government in liberal democracies. American Journal of Political Science 37(1): 40–62.Google Scholar
Borella, F. 1990. Les Partis Politique Dans La France d'Aujord'hui. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Braun, D., Salzwedel, M., Stumpf, C., and Wüst, A. 2004. Euromanifesto Documentation.Google Scholar
Budge, I. 1994. A new spatial theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science 24(4): 443–67.Google Scholar
Budge, I., Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J., and Tanenbaum, E. 2001. Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, B., and Park, J.-K. 2012. Electoral business cycles in OECD countries. American Political Science Review 106(1): 103–22.Google Scholar
Corbett, R. 1998. The European parliaments role in closer EU integration. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
Dinas, E., and Gemenis, K. 2010. Measuring parties' ideological positions with manifesto data: A critical evaluation of the competing methods. Party Politics 16(4): 427–50.Google Scholar
Döring, H., and Manow, P. 2012. Parliament and Government Composition Database (ParlGov): An infrastructure for empirical information on parties, elections and governments in modern democracies. Version 12/10.Google Scholar
Elff, M. 2013. A dynamic state-space model of coded political texts. Political Analysis 21(2): 217–32.Google Scholar
Enelow, J., and Munger, M. 1993. The elements of candidate reputation: The effect of record and credibility on optimal spatial location. Public Choice 77: 757–72.Google Scholar
Ezrow, L. 2008. Parties' policy programmes and the dog that didn't bark: No evidence that proportional systems promote extreme party positioning. British Journal of Political Science 38(3): 479–97.Google Scholar
Foldal, D. 1989. Sweden. In Western European political parties: A comprehensive guide, ed. Jacobs, F., 618–35. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Franzmann, S., and Kaiser, A. 2006. Locating political parties in policy space. Party Politics 12(2): 163–88.Google Scholar
Gabel, M. J., and Huber, J. D. 2000. Putting parties in their place: Inferring party left-right ideological positions from party manifestos data. American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 94–103.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., and Rubin, D. B. 1992. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science 7(4): 457–72.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., and Hill, J. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gemenis, K. 2012. What to do (and not to do) with the comparative manifesto project data. Political Studies 61 (S1): 3–23.Google Scholar
Glasgow, G. 2001. Mixed logit models for multiparty elections. Political Analysis 9(2): 116–36.Google Scholar
Golder, S. N. 2006. Pre-electoral coalition formation in parliamentary democracies. British Journal of Political Science 36: 193–212.Google Scholar
Grimmer, J., and Stewart, B. M. 2013. Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis published online (doi:10.1093/pan/mps028).Google Scholar
Groseclose, T., Levitt, S. D., and Snyder, J. M. 1999. Comparing interest group scores across time and chambers: Adjusted ADA scores for the U.S. Congress. American Political Science Review 93(1): 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gschwend, T., Lo, J., and Proksch, S. O. 2012. Europe's common ideological space. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hanley, D. 1999. France: Living with instability. In Changing party systems in Western Europe, eds. Broughton, D. and Donovan, M., 48–70. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Ho, D. E., and Quinn, K. M. 2008. Measuring explicit political positions of media. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3(4): 353–77.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L., Bakker, R., Brigevich, A., De Vries, C., Edwards, E., Marks, G., Rovny, J., Steenbergen, M., and Vachudova, M. 2010. Reliability and validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill expert surveys on party positioning. European Journal of Political Research 49: 687–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, B., and Laver, M. 1992. Party and policy competition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ingberman, D. 1989. Reputational dynamics in spatial competition. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 12(4): 479–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, S. 2009. Bayesian analysis for the social sciences. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Jahn, D. 2009. Das politische System Schwedens. In Die politischen Systeme Westeuropas, ed. Ismayr, W., 107–50. Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Kedar, O. 2005. How diffusion of power in parliaments affects voter choice. Political Analysis 13(4): 410–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H., and Fording, R. C. 2002. Government partisanship in western democracies, 1945–1998. European Journal of Political Research 41(2): 187–206.Google Scholar
Klingemann, H.-D., and Volkens, A. 2007. Mapping policy preferences II: Estimates for parties, electors and governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knapp, A., and Wright, V. 2006. The government and politics of France. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, T., and Luig, B. 2012. Party ideology and legislative agendas: Estimating contextual policy positions for the study of EU decision-making. European Union Politics 13: 604–25.Google Scholar
König, T., Marbach, M., and Osnabrügge, M. 2013. Replication data for: Estimating party positions across countries and time—a dynamic latent variable model for manifesto data. http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/29312 (accessed February 28, 2013) IQSS Dataverse Network.Google Scholar
Laver, M., and Budge, I. 1992. Party policy and government coalitions. Houndmills, UK: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, M., Benoit, K., and Garry, J. 2003. Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review 97(2): 311–31.Google Scholar
Lewis, J., and King, G. 1999. No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting. Political Analysis 8(1): 21–33.Google Scholar
Lipset, S. M., and Rokkan, S. 1967. Cleavage structures, party systems and voter alignments. In Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives, eds. Lipset, S. M. and Rokkan, S., 1–64. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, D. 1989. France. In Western European political parties, ed. Jacobs, F., 79–118. Essex, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Lowe, W., and Benoit, K. Forthcoming 2013. Validating estimates of latent traits from textual data using human judgement as a benchmark. Political Analysis.Google Scholar
Lowe, W., Benoit, K., Mikhaylov, S., and Laver, M. 2011. Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(1): 123–55.Google Scholar
Mair, P. 1999. Party system change: Approaches and interpretations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, P. 2001. The freezing hypothesis: An evaluation. In Party systems and voter alignments revisited, eds. Karvonen, L. and Kuhnle, S., 24–41. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maoz, Z., and Somer-Topcu, Z. 2010. Political polarization and cabinet stability in multiparty systems: A social networks analysis of European parliaments, 1945–98. British Journal of Political Science 40: 805–33.Google Scholar
Martin, A. D., and Quinn, K. M. 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10(2): 134–53.Google Scholar
Martin, L. W., and Stevenson, R. T. 2001. Government formation in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, M. D., and Mendes, S. M. 2001. The policy space of party manifestos. In Estimating the policy positions of political actors, ed. Laver, M., 90–114. New York: Routlegde.Google Scholar
McDonald, M. D., Mendes, S. M., and Kim, M. 2007. Cross-temporal and cross-national comparisons of party left-right positions. Electoral Studies 26(1): 62–75.Google Scholar
Mikhaylov, S., Laver, M., and Benoit, K. 2012. Coder reliability and misclassification in the human coding of party manifestos. Political Analysis 20(1): 78–91.Google Scholar
Milner, H. V., and Judkins, B. 2004. Partisanship, trade policy, and globalization: Is there a left-right divide on trade policy? International Studies Quarterly 48(1): 95–119.Google Scholar
Nowak, M., and Sigmund, K. 1993. A strategy for win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the prisoner's dilemma. Nature 364(56): 56–58.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review 94(2): 251–67.Google Scholar
Plummer, M. 2003. JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Poole, K. T., and Rosenthal, H. 1985. A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science 29(2): 357–84.Google Scholar
Powell, B. G. 2009. The ideological congruence controversy. Comparative Political Studies 42: 1475–97.Google Scholar
Quinn, K. M. 2004. Bayesian factor analysis for mixed ordinal and continuous responses. Political Analysis 12(4): 338–53.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. 1976. Parties and party systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, H., Evi, S., Leim, I., and Moschner, M. 2008. The Mannheim eurobarometer trendfile. European Commission [Principal investigator]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA3521 Data file Version 2.0.1.Google Scholar
Shor, B., and McCarty, N. 2011. The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review 105: 530–51.Google Scholar
Slapin, J. B., and Proksch, S.-O. 2008. A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science 52: 705–22.Google Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Z. 2009. Timely decisions: The effects of past national elections on party policy change. Journal of Politics 71(1): 238–48.Google Scholar
Steenbergen, M. R., and Marks, G. 2007. Evaluating expert surveys. European Journal of Political Research 46(3): 347–66.Google Scholar
Stoll, H. 2010. Elite-level conflict salience and dimensionality in Western Europe: Concepts and empirical findings. West European Politics 33(3): 445–73.Google Scholar
Tavits, M. 2007. Principle vs. pragmatism: Policy shifts and political competition. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 151–65.Google Scholar
Tavits, M., and Letki, N. 2009. When left is right: Party ideology and policy in post-communist Europe. American Political Science Review 103: 555–69.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. 1999. Veto players and law production in parliamentary democracies: An empirical analysis. American Political Science Review 93: 591–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vedung, E. 1988. The Swedish five-party syndrome and the environmentalists. In When parties refuse to fail: the case of France, eds. Merkl, P. H. and Lawson, K., 76–109. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Volkens, A., Lacewell, O., Lehmann, P., Regel, S., Schultze, H., and Werner, A. 2012. The manifesto data collection. Manifesto project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
Warwick, P. V. 1998. Policy distance and parliamentary government. Legislative Studies Quarterly 23(3): 319–45.Google Scholar
West, M., and Harrison, J. 1997. Bayesian forecasting and dynamic models. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Wüst, A. M., and Volkens, A. 2003. Euromanifesto coding instructions. MZES Working paper 64.Google Scholar