Estimating party positions across countries and time- A dynamic latent variable model for manifesto data

Political Analysis

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 468-491

  König, Thomas ^a   Marbach, Moritz ^a   Osnabrügge, Moritz ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885705986     PISSN: 10471987     EISSN: 14764989     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpt003     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Adams, J., and S. Merrill. 2006. Why small, centrist third parties motivate policy divergence by major parties. American Political Science Review 100(3):403-17.
2. Adams, J., M. Clark, L. Ezrow, and G. Glasgow. 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.
3. Adams, J., and Z. Somer-Topcu. 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.
4. Alvarez, R., and J. Nagler. 2004. Party system compactness: Measurement and consequences. Political Analysis 12(1):46-62.
5. 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.
6. Bakker, R. 2009. Re-measuring left-right: A comparison of SEM and Bayesian measurement models for extracting leftright party placements. Electoral Studies 28(3):413-21.
7. Bartolini, S., and P. Mair. 1990. Identity, competition, and electoral availability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8. Benoit, K., and M. Laver. 2006. Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.
9. Benoit, K. 2007. Estimating party policy positions: Comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies 26(1):90-107.
10. Benoit, K. 2012. The dimensionality of political space: Epistemological and methodological considerations. European Union Politics 13(2):194-218.
11. Benoit, K., M. Laver, and S. Mikhaylov. 2009. Treating words as data with error: Uncertainty in text statements of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science 53(2):495-513.
12. Benoit, K., M. Laver, W. Lowe, and S. Mikhaylov. 2012. How to scale coded text units without bias: A response to Gemenis. Electoral Studies 31:605-8.
13. Bernhardt, M., and D. Ingberman. 1985. Candidate reputations and the "incumbency effect". Journal of Public Economics 27(1):47-67.
14. Blais, A., D. Blake, and S. Dion. 1993. Do parties make a difference? Parties and the size of government in liberal democracies. American Journal of Political Science 37(1):40-62.
15. Borella, F. 1990. Les Partis Politique Dans La France d'Aujord'hui. Paris: Seuil.
16. Braun, D., M. Salzwedel, C. Stumpf, and A. Wüst 2004. Euromanifesto Documentation.
17. 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.
18. Budge, I., H.-D. Klingemann, A. Volkens, J. Bara, and E. Tanenbaum. 2001. Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Canes-Wrone, B., and J.-K. Park. 2012. Electoral business cycles in OECD countries. American Political Science Review 106(1):103-22.
20. Corbett, R. 1998. The European parliaments role in closer EU integration. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press.
21. Dinas, E., and K. Gemenis. 2010. Measuring parties' ideological positions with manifesto data: A critical evaluation of the competing methods. Party Politics 16(4):427-50.
22. Döring, H., and P. Manow. 2012. Parliament and Government Composition Database (ParlGov): An infrastructure for empirical information on parties, elections and governments in modern democracies. Version 12/10.
23. Elff, M. 2013. A dynamic state-space model of coded political texts. Political Analysis 21(2):217-32.
24. Enelow, J., and M. Munger. 1993. The elements of candidate reputation: The effect of record and credibility on optimal spatial location. Public Choice 77:757-72.
25. 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.
26. Foldal, D. 1989. Sweden. In Western European political parties: A comprehensive guide, ed. F. Jacobs, 618-35. Harlow, UK: Longman.
27. Franzmann, S., and A. Kaiser. 2006. Locating political parties in policy space. Party Politics 12(2):163-88.
28. Gabel, M. J., and J. D. Huber. 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.
29. Gelman, A., and D. B. Rubin. 1992. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science 7(4):457-72.
30. Gelman, A., and J. Hill. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31. Gemenis, K. 2012. What to do (and not to do) with the comparative manifesto project data. Political Studies 61(S1):3-23.
32. Glasgow, G. 2001. Mixed logit models for multiparty elections. Political Analysis 9(2):116-36.
33. Golder, S. N. 2006. Pre-electoral coalition formation in parliamentary democracies. British Journal of Political Science 36:193-212.
34. Grimmer, J., and B. M. Stewart. 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).
35. Groseclose, T., S. D. Levitt, and J. M. Snyder. 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.
36. Gschwend, T., J. Lo, and S. O. Proksch. 2012. Europe's common ideological space. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
37. Hanley, D. 1999. France: Living with instability. In Changing party systems in Western Europe, eds. D. Broughton and M. Donovan, 48-70. London: Pinter.
38. Ho, D. E., and K. M. Quinn. 2008. Measuring explicit political positions of media. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3(4):353-77.
39. Hooghe, L., R. Bakker, A. Brigevich, C. De Vries, E. Edwards, G. Marks, J. Rovny, M. Steenbergen, and M. Vachudova. 2010. Reliability and validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill expert surveys on party positioning. European Journal of Political Research 49:687-703.
40. Hunt, B., and M. Laver. 1992. Party and policy competition. New York: Routledge.
41. Ingberman, D. 1989. Reputational dynamics in spatial competition. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 12(4):479-96.
42. Jackman, S. 2009. Bayesian analysis for the social sciences. New York: Wiley.
43. Jahn, D. 2009. Das politische System Schwedens. In Die politischen Systeme Westeuropas, ed. W. Ismayr, 107-50. Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
44. Kedar, O. 2005. How diffusion of power in parliaments affects voter choice. Political Analysis 13(4):410-29.
45. Kim, H., and R. C. Fording. 2002. Government partisanship in western democracies, 1945-1998. European Journal of Political Research 41(2):187-206.
46. Klingemann, H.-D., and A. Volkens. 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.
47. Knapp, A., and V. Wright. 2006. The government and politics of France. New York: Routledge.
48. König, T., and B. Luig. 2012. Party ideology and legislative agendas: Estimating contextual policy positions for the study of EU decision-making. European Union Politics 13:604-25.
49. König, T., M. Marbach, and M. Osnabrügge. 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.
50. Laver, M., and I. Budge. 1992. Party policy and government coalitions. Houndmills, UK: Macmillan.
51. Laver, M., K. Benoit, and J. Garry. 2003. Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review 97(2):311-31.
52. Lewis, J., and G. King. 1999. No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting. Political Analysis 8(1):21-33.
53. Lipset, S. M., and S. Rokkan. 1967. Cleavage structures, party systems and voter alignments. In Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives, eds. S. M. Lipset and S. Rokkan, 1-64. New York: Free Press.
54. Lowe, D. 1989. France. In Western European political parties, ed. F. Jacobs, 79-118. Essex, UK: Longman.
55. Lowe, W., and K. Benoit. Forthcoming 2013. Validating estimates of latent traits from textual data using human judgement as a benchmark. Political Analysis.
56. Lowe, W., K. Benoit, S. Mikhaylov, and M. Laver. 2011. Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(1):123-55.
57. Mair, P. 1999. Party system change: Approaches and interpretations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58. Mair, P. 2001. The freezing hypothesis: An evaluation. In Party systems and voter alignments revisited, eds. L. Karvonen and S. Kuhnle, 24-41. London: Routledge.
59. Maoz, Z., and Z. Somer-Topcu. 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.
60. Martin, A. D., and K. M. Quinn. 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999. Political Analysis 10(2):134-53.
61. Martin, L. W., and R. T. Stevenson. 2001. Government formation in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 45(1):33-50.
62. McDonald, M. D., and S. M. Mendes. 2001. The policy space of party manifestos. In Estimating the policy positions of political actors, ed. M. Laver, 90-114. New York: Routlegde.
63. McDonald, M. D., S. M. Mendes, and M. Kim. 2007. Cross-temporal and cross-national comparisons of party left-right positions. Electoral Studies 26(1):62-75.
64. Mikhaylov, S., M. Laver, and K. Benoit. 2012. Coder reliability and misclassification in the human coding of party manifestos. Political Analysis 20(1):78-91.
65. Milner, H. V., and B. Judkins. 2004. Partisanship, trade policy, and globalization: Is there a left-right divide on trade policy? International Studies Quarterly 48(1):95-119.
66. Nowak, M., and K. Sigmund. 1993. A strategy for win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the prisoner's dilemma. Nature 364(56):56-58.
67. Pierson, P. 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review 94(2):251-67.
68. 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.
69. Poole, K. T., and H. Rosenthal. 1985. A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science 29(2):357-84.
70. Powell, B. G. 2009. The ideological congruence controversy. Comparative Political Studies 42:1475-97.
71. Quinn, K. M. 2004. Bayesian factor analysis for mixed ordinal and continuous responses. Political Analysis 12(4):338-53.
72. R Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
73. Sartori, G. 1976. Parties and party systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
74. Schmitt, H., S. Evi, I. Leim, and M. Moschner. 2008. The Mannheim eurobarometer trendfile. European Commission [Principal investigator]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA3521 Data file Version 2.0.1.
75. Shor, B., and N. McCarty. 2011. The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review 105:530-51.
76. Slapin, J. B., and S.-O. Proksch. 2008. A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science 52:705-22.
77. Somer-Topcu, Z. 2009. Timely decisions: The effects of past national elections on party policy change. Journal of Politics 71(1):238-48.
78. Steenbergen, M. R., and G. Marks. 2007. Evaluating expert surveys. European Journal of Political Research 46(3):347-66.
79. Stoll, H. 2010. Elite-level conflict salience and dimensionality in Western Europe: Concepts and empirical findings. West European Politics 33(3):445-73.
80. Tavits, M. 2007. Principle vs. pragmatism: Policy shifts and political competition. American Journal of Political Science 51(1):151-65.
81. Tavits, M., and N. Letki. 2009. When left is right: Party ideology and policy in post-communist Europe. American Political Science Review 103:555-69.
82. Tsebelis, G. 1999. Veto players and law production in parliamentary democracies: An empirical analysis. American Political Science Review 93:591-608.
83. Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
84. Vedung, E. 1988. The Swedish five-party syndrome and the environmentalists. In When parties refuse to fail: the case of France, eds. P. H. Merkl and K. Lawson, 76-109. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
85. Volkens, A., O. Lacewell, P. Lehmann, S. Regel, H. Schultze, and A. Werner. 2012. The manifesto data collection. Manifesto project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
86. Warwick, P. V. 1998. Policy distance and parliamentary government. Legislative Studies Quarterly 23(3):319-45.
87. West, M., and J. Harrison. 1997. Bayesian forecasting and dynamic models. New York: Springer.
88. Wüst, A. M., and A. Volkens. 2003. Euromanifesto coding instructions. MZES Working paper 64.