Benchmarks for text analysis: A response to Budge and Pennings

Electoral Studies

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 130-135

  Benoit, Kenneth ^a   Laver, Michael ^b  

^a TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; TIME SERIES ANALYSIS;

EID: 33846796335     PISSN: 02613794     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2006.04.001     Document Type: Note

References (9)

1. Benoit K., and Laver M. Estimating party policy positions: comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies 26 1 (2007) 90-107
2. Budge I., Klingemann H.D., Volkens A., Bara J., Tannenbaum E., Fording R., Hearl D., Kim H.M., McDonald M., and Mendes S. Mapping Policy Preferences: Parties, Electors and Governments: 1945-1998: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments 1945-1998 (2001), Oxford University Press, Oxford
3. Budge I., and Pennings P. Do they work? Validating computerised word frequency estimates against policy series. Electoral Studies 26 1 (2007) 121-129
4. Gabel M., and Huber J. Putting parties in their place: inferring party left-right ideological positions from party manifesto data. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2000) 94-103
5. Inglehart R., and Huber J. Expert interpretations of party space and party locations. Party Politics 1 (1995) 73-112
6. Kim H., and Fording R.C. Voter ideology in western democracies, 1946-1989. European Journal of Political Research 33 1 (1998) 73-97
7. Laver M., Benoit K., and Garry J. Estimating the policy positions of political actors using words as data. American Political Science Review 97 (2003) 311-331
8. Laver M., and Budge I. Party Policy and Government Coalitions (1992), St. Martin's Press, New York
9. Volkens A. Strengths and weaknesses of approaches to measuring policy positions of parties. Electoral Studies 26 1 (2007) 108-120