Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Using Joint Scaling Methods to Study Ideology and Representation: Evidence from Latin America

  • Sebastián M. Saiegh (a1)

Abstract

In this article, I use joint scaling methods and similar items from three large-scale surveys to place voters, parties, and politicians from different Latin American countries on a common ideological space. The findings reveal that ideology is a significant determinant of vote choice in Latin America. They also suggest that the success of leftist leaders at the polls reflects the views of the voters sustaining their victories. The location of parties and leaders reveals that three distinctive clusters exist: one located at the left of the political spectrum, another at the center, and a third on the right. The results also indicate that legislators in Brazil, Mexico, and Peru tend to be more “leftists” than their voters. The ideological drift, however, is not significant enough to substantiate the view that a disconnect between voters and politicians lies behind the success of leftist presidents in these countries. These findings highlight the importance of using a common-space scale to compare disparate populations and call into question a number of recent studies by scholars of Latin American politics who fail to adequately address this important issue.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Using Joint Scaling Methods to Study Ideology and Representation: Evidence from Latin America
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Using Joint Scaling Methods to Study Ideology and Representation: Evidence from Latin America
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Using Joint Scaling Methods to Study Ideology and Representation: Evidence from Latin America
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

e-mail: ssaiegh@ucsd.edu (corresponding author)

Footnotes

Hide All

Authors' note: Supplementary Materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site. Replication files are available on the Political Analysis Dataverse at http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/29342. The research for this article was conducted while the author was a visiting research scholar at the Inter-American Development Bank's Research Department (RES).

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Abrajano, Marisa. 2015. Reexamining the racial gap in political knowledge. Journal of Politics 77:4454.
Achen, Christopher H. 1977. Measuring representation: Perils of the correlation coefficient. American Journal of Political Science 21:805–15.
Achen, Christopher H. 1978. Measuring representation. American Journal of Political Science 22:475510.
Aldrich, John H., and McKelvey, Richard. 1977. A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. American Political Science Review 71:111–30.
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 2004. Party system compactness: Measurement and consequences. Political Analysis 12:4662.
Armstrong, Dave, Bakker, Ryan, Carroll, Royce, Hare, Christopher, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2014a. Analyzing spatial models of choice and judgment with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Armstrong, Dave, Bakker, Bakker, Carroll, Royce, Hare, Christopher, Poole, Keith T., and Howard, Rosenthal. 2014b. Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey scaling. Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia, Department of Political Science.
Arnold Jason, Ross, and Samuels, David J. 2011. Eividence from public opinion. In The resurgence of the Latin American left, eds. Levitsky, Steven and Roberts, M., 3151. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C. 2010. Leapfrog representation and extremism. American Political Science Review 104:519–42.
Bakker, Ryan, Jolly, Jonathan Polk, Seth, and Poole, Keith. 2014. The European common space. Journal of Politics 76(4): 10891101.
Battista James, Coleman, Peress, Michael, and Richman, Jesse. 2013. Common-space ideal points, committee assignments, and financial interests in the state legislatures. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 13:7087.
Blanco, Luisa, and Grier, Robin. 2013. Explaining the rise of the left in Latin America. Latin American Research Review 48:6890.
Booth, John A., and Bayer Richard, Patricia. 2015. Latin American political culture: Public opinion and democracy. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
Castañeda, Jorge, and Navia, Patricio. 2006. Latin America's left turn. Foreign Affairs 85:2843.
Cleary, Matthew R. 2006. Explaining the left's resurgence. Journal of Democracy 17:3549.
Colomer, Josep M. 2005. La dimensión izquierda-derecha en América Latina. Desarrollo Económico 45:123–36.
Coppedge, Michael 2010. Data on Latin American party systems. http://www.nd.edu/mcoppedg/crd/datalaps.htm (accessed September 11, 2013).
Debs, Alexandre, and Helmke, Gretchen. 2010. Inequality under Democracy: Explaining the Left Decade in Latin America. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5:209241.
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Lewis, Jeffrey B. 2004. Beyond the median: Voter preferences, district heterogeneity, and political representation. Journal of Political Economy 112:13641382.
Golder, Matt, and Stramski, Jacek. 2010. Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science 54:90106.
Hare, Christopher, Armstrong, David A., Bakker, Ryan, Carroll, Royce, and Poole, Keith T. 2014. Using Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey scaling to study citizens’ ideological preferences and perceptions. American Journal of Political Science 10. 1111/ajps.12151.
Heckman, James J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47:153–62.
Huber, John D., and Bingham Powell, G. 1994. Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics 46:291326.
Jessee, Stephen A. 2010. Partisan bias, political information, and spatial voting in the 2008 presidential election. Journal of Politics 72:327–40.
Jessee, Stephen A., and Malhotra, Neil. 2013. Public (mis)perceptions of Supreme Court ideology: A method for directly comparing the positions of citizens and justices. Public Opinion Quarterly 77:619–34.
Jones, Mark P. 2010. Beyond the electoral connection. In How democracy works, eds. Scartascini, Carlos, Stein, Ernesto, and Tommasi, Mariano, 1946. Washington, DC: IDB-Harvard University Press.
Kam, Christopher. 2001. Do ideological preferences explain parliamentary behaviour? Evidence from Great Britain and Canada. Journal of Legislative Studies 7:89126.
King, Gary, Murray, Christopher J. L., Salomon, Joshua A., and Tandon, Ajay. 2004. Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of survey research. American Political Science Review 97:4.
König, Thomas, Marbach, Moritz, and Osnabŕ'ugge, Moritz. 2013. Estimating party positions across countries and time—A dynamic latent variable model for manifesto data. Political Analysis 21:468–91.
Lax, Jeffrey, and Phillips, Justin H. 2012. The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science 56:148–66.
Levitsky, Steven, Roberts, Kenneth M., eds. 2011. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lewis, Jeffrey B., and Tausanovitch, Chris 2013. Has joint scaling solved the Achen objection to Miller and Stokes? Mimeo, UCLA Department of Political Science.
Lo, James, Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Gschwend, Thomas. 2014. A common left-right scale for voters and parties in Europe. Political Analysis 22(2): 205–23.
Lupu, Noam 2009. Electoral bases of leftist presidents in Latin America. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin, Department of Political Science.
Lupu, Noam 2013. Party brands and partisanship: Theory with evidence from a survey experiment in Argentina. American Journal of Political Science 57:4964.
Malhotra, Neil, and Jessee, Stephen A. 2014. Ideological proximity and support for the Supreme Court. Political Behavior 36:917–846.
McDonald, Michael D., Mendes, Silvia M., and Budge, Ian. 2004. What are elections for? Conferring the median mandate. British Journal of Political Science 34:126.
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. 1963. Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57:4556.
Moreno, Alejandro. 2009. La desición electroral. Votantes, partidos, y democracia en México. Mexico, DF: Miguel Ángel Porrua.
Murillo María, Victoria, Oliveros, Virginia, and Vaishnav, Milan. 2010. Electoral revolution or democratic alternation? Latin American Research Review 45:87114.
Palfrey, Thomas R., and Poole, Keith T. 1987. The relationship between information, ideology, and voting behavior. American Journal of Political Science 31:511–30.
Poole, Keith T. 1998. Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science 42:954–93.
Poole, Keith T., Rosenthal, Howard, Lewis, Jeffrey, Lo, James, and Carroll, Royce. 2013. basicspace: a package to recover a basic space from issue scales. R package version 0.07. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=basicspace.
Powell, G. Bingham. 2004. Political representation in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science 7:273–96.
Powell, G. Bingham. 2009. The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative measures, data, and time periods on the effects of election rules. Comparative Political Studies 42:14751497.
Plummer, Martyn. 2003. JAGS: A Program for Analysis of Bayesian Graphical Models Using Gibbs Sampling. http://mcmc-jags.sourceforge.net/(accessed September 11, 2014).
Plummer, Martyn. 2013. rjags: Bayesian Graphical Models using MCMC. R package version 3–10. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rjags (accessed September 11, 2014).
Remmer, Karen L. 2012. The rise of leftist-populist governance in Latin America: The roots of electoral change. Comparative Political Studies 45:947–72.
Royston, Patrick, and Altman, Douglas. 1994. Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates. Applied Statistics 43(3): 429–67.
Saiegh, Sebastian M. 2015. Replication data for: Using joint scaling methods to study ideology and representation: Evidence from Latin America. doi:10.7910/DVN/29342.
Seligson, Mitchell A. 2007. The rise of populism and the left in Latin America. Journal of Democracy 18:8195.
Shapiro, Robert Y. 2011. Public opinion and American democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly 75:9821017.
Shor, Boris. 2011. All together now: Putting Congress, state legislatures, and individuals in a common ideological space to assess representation at the macro and micro levels. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1697352.
Shor, Boris, and Rogowski, Jon C. 2010. Congressional voting by spatial reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
Smith, Peter H. 2012. Democracy in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stokes, Susan C. 2001. Mandates and democracy: Neoliberalism by surprise in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tanaka, Martin. 1998. Los espejismos de la democracia: El colapso del sistema de partidos en el Perú, 1980–1995. Lima: IEP.
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2013. Measuring constituent policy preferences in Congress, state legislatures, and cities. Journal of Politics 75:330–42.
Varela, Helena. 2007. El día que Calderón ya no quiso dormir con el enemigo: Las relaciones del presidente y el PAN. EstePaís 197:3133.
Weyland, Kurt. 2011. The left: Destroyer or savior of the market model? In The resurgence of the Latin American left, eds. Levitsky, Steven and Roberts, M., 7192. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Whitefield, Stephen. 2006. Mind the representation gap. Comparative Political Studies 39:733–58.
Wiesehomeier, Nina, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2009. Presidents, parties, and policy competition. Journal of Politics 71:14351447.
Wiesehomeier, Nina, and Doyle, David. 2012. Attitudes, ideological associations, and the left-right divide in Latin America. Journal of Politics in Latin America 4:333.
Wilcox, Clyde, Sigelman, Lee, and Cook, Elizabeth. 1989. Some like it hot: Individual differences in responses to group feeling thermometers. Public Opinion Quarterly 53:246–57.
Wilcox, Rand R., Erceg-Hurn, David M., Clark, Florence, and Carlson, Michael. 2014. Comparing two independent groups via the lower and upper quantiles. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 84:15431551.
Zechmeister, Elizabeth, and Corral, Margarita. 2013. Individual and contextual constraints on ideological labels in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies 46:675701.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Analysis
  • ISSN: 1047-1987
  • EISSN: 1476-4989
  • URL: /core/journals/political-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
MathJax
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Saiegh supplementary material
Supplementary Material

 PDF (645 KB)
645 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed