Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:00:09.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bridging the pond: measuring policy positions in the United States and Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2019

Cory L. Struthers ,
Christopher Hare  and
Ryan Bakker
Cory L. Struthers
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN55455, United States Department of Political Science, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA95616, United States
Christopher Hare*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA95616, United States
Ryan Bakker
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Georgia, 104 Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA30606, United States
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: cdhare@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent work has pioneered the use of expert surveys to estimate cross-national party positions in a common ideological space. In this paper, we report findings from an original dataset designed to evaluate bridging strategies between European and American party placements. Specifically, we compare the use of “anchoring vignettes” (fictional party platforms) with an alternative approach that asks comparativist scholars who live in the US (whom we call transatlantic or TA experts) to place parties and parties in their country of expertise on a series of issues scales. The results provide an optimistic assessment of the ability of TA experts to serve as valid bridges across the Atlantic. The resulting cross-comparable estimates of party positions show instances of both convergence and divergence between American and European party systems, including parallels between systems on the cross-cutting issue of international economic integration.

Keywords

Ideal point estimationideologydifferential item functioningparty positions
Type
Original Article
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 677 - 691
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2019

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

Adams, J, Ezrow, L and Somer-Topcu, Z (2011) Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties' policy statements during elections. American Journal of Political Science 55, 370–382.Google Scholar
Albright, JJ (2010) The multidimensional nature of party competition. Party Politics 16, 699–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, JH and McKelvey, RD (1977) A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. American Political Science Review 71, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, DA, Bakker, R, Carroll, R, Hare, C, Poole, KT and Rosenthal, H (2014) Analyzing Spatial Models of Choice and Judgment with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, R, Jolly, S and Polk, J (2012) Complexity in the European party space: exploring dimensionality with experts. European Union Politics 13, 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, R, Jolly, S, Polk, J and Poole, K (2014) The European common space: extending the use of anchoring vignettes. Journal of Politics 76, 1089–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, BN, Rooduijn, M and Schumacher, G (2016) The psychological roots of populist voting: evidence from the United States, the Netherlands and Germany. European Journal of Political Research 55, 302–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, K and Laver, M (2007) Estimating party policy positions: comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies 26, 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, A (2013) Ideology and interests in the political marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 57, 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, HE (2011) The art of political science: spatial diagrams as iconic and revelatory. Perspectives on Politics 9, 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, I (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments, 1945–1998. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, R, Lewis, JB, Lo, J, Poole, KT and Rosenthal, H (2013) The structure of utility in spatial models of voting. American Journal of Political Science 57, 1008–1028.Google Scholar
Caughey, D and Warshaw, C (2015) Dynamic estimation of latent opinion using a hierarchical group-level IRT model. Political Analysis 23, 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, J, Simon, J and Rivers, D (2004) The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, CE and Edwards, EE (2009) Taking Europe to its extremes: extremist parties and public Euroscepticism. Party Politics 15, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, T and Hare, C (2016) Moral epistemology and ideological conflict in American political behavior. Social Science Quarterly 97, 1157–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, C, Armstrong, DA, Bakker, R, Carroll, R and Poole, KT (2015) Using Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey scaling to study citizens' ideological preferences and perceptions. American Journal of Political Science 59, 759–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartz, L (1955) The Liberal Tradition in America. New York: Hartcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Hix, S, Noury, A and Roland, G (2006) Dimensions of politics in the European parliament. American Journal of Political Science 50, 494–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, L, Marks, G and Wilson, CJ (2002) Does left/right structure party positions on European integration? Comparative Political Studies 35, 965–989.CrossRefGoogle 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
Inglehart, R and Norris, P (2017) Trump and the Xenophobic populist parties: the silent revolution in reverse. Perspectives on Politics 15, 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, WG (1991) Data Theory and Dimensional Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, S (2016) (How) Can we estimate the ideology of citizens and political elites on the same scale? American Journal of Political Science 60, 1108–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, SA (2009) Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. American Political Science Review 103, 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G and Wand, J (2007) Comparing incomparable survey responses: evaluating and selecting anchoring vignettes. Political Analysis 15, 46–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G, Murray, CJ, Salomon, JA and Tandon, A (2004) Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review 98, 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, T, Marbach, M and Osnabrügge, M (2013) Estimating party positions across countries and time—a dynamic latent variable model for manifesto data. Political Analysis 21, 468–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, GC (2001) The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lipset, SM (1977) Why no socialism in the United States? In Bialar, S and Sluzar, S (eds), Sources of Contemporary Radicalism Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 31–149.Google Scholar
Lo, J, Proksch, S-O and Gschwend, T (2014) A common left-right scale for voters and parties in Europe. Political Analysis 22, 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, P (2003) Searching for the positions of political actors: a review of approaches and a critical evaluation of expert surveys. In Laver, M (ed.), Estimating the Policy Position of Political Actors London: Routledge, pp. 30–50.Google Scholar
Marks, G, Hooghe, L, Nelson, M and Edwards, E (2006) Party competition and European integration in the East and West. Comparative Political Studies 39, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, G, Hooghe, L, Steenbergen, MR and Bakker, R (2007) Crossvalidating data on party positioning on European integration. Electoral Studies 26, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, AD and Quinn, KM (2002) Dynamic ideal point estimation via markov chain monte carlo for the U.S. supreme court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10, 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, MD and Budge, I (2005) Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, MD, Mendes, SM and Kim, M (2007) Cross-temporal and cross-national comparisons of party left-right positions. Electoral Studies 26, 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikhaylov, S, Laver, M and Benoit, KR (2012) Coder reliability and misclassification in the human coding of party manifestos. Political Analysis 20, 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polk, J, Rovny, J, Bakker, R, Edwards, E, Hooghe, L, Jolly, S, Koedam, J, Kostelka, F, Marks, G, Schumacher, G, Steenbergen, M, Vachudova, M and Zilovic, M (2017) Explaining the salience of anti-elitism and reducing political corruption for political parties in Europe with the 2014 chapel hill expert survey data. Research and Politics 4, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, KT (1998) Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science 42, 954–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, KT (2005) Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, KT (2017) The scientific status of geometric models of choice and similarities judgment. Public Choice 171, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, KT and Rosenthal, H (1997) Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ray, L (1999) Measuring party orientation towards European integration: results from an expert survey. European Journal of Political Research 36, 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saiegh, SM (2009) Recovering a basic space from elite surveys: evidence from Latin America. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34, 117–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saiegh, SM (2015) Using joint scaling methods to study ideology and representation: evidence from Latin America. Political Analysis 23, 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, SP (2010) Contextual influences on the decision calculus: a cross-national examination of proximity voting. Electoral Studies 29, 425–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenbergen, MR and Marks, G (2007) Evaluating expert judgments. European Journal of Political Research 46, 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoll, H (2010) Elite-level conflict salience and dimensionality in Western Europe: concepts and empirical findings. West European Politics 33, 445–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, WJ and Simas, EN (2010) Candidate valence and ideological positions in U.S. house elections. American Journal of Political Science 54, 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillman, ER (2013) Authoritarianism and citizen attitudes towards European integration. European Union Politics 14, 566–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitefield, S, Vachudova, MA, Steenbergen, MR, Rohrschneider, R, Marks, G, Loveless, MP and Hooghe, L (2007) Do expert surveys produce consistent estimates of party stances on European integration? Comparing expert surveys in the difficult case of central and Eastern Europe. Electoral Studies 26, 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Struthers et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Struthers et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 160.5 KB