Search results

Abstract. Discrepant findings in electoral studies, particularly in relation to the importance of class, have re‐opened the issue of micro‐ versus macro‐levels of analysis. The 'ecological' and 'individualist' fallacies are again the subject of discussion. This article considers how similar issues arise in other sciences, natural as well as social, and shows how in many cases they are not resolved but lead to the development of sub‐sciences. It argues that beyond the micro/macro distinction lies another, that between 'molecular' and 'structural' approaches, which exist in parallel in most sciences. The corresponding types of data ‐ aggregate and integral ‐ are found at both levels of analysis. Thus we have to contend not with two distinct types of data, but with four: micro‐ and macro‐molecular, and micro‐ and macro‐structural. In electoral studies, as well as 'individual' and 'ecological', there are also 'personal' and 'structural' types of data to be considered, though the latter have largely been neglected in recent times. Drawing valid inferences between any two types of data is difficult. Even if fallacies are avoided, intractable problems may remain. On the experience of other sciences, electoral studies may well continue to develop along parallel but in some ways discrepant lines.

A discussion of how issues of micro- vs macrolevels of analysis are reflected in natural as well as social sciences, demonstrating that such issues are often unresolved, leading to the development of subsciences. It is contended that a distinction between "molecular" & "structural" approaches also exists in parallel in most sciences; eg, while an integral may have any number of components, it is a single entity & can be examined as such from the structural point of view. The molecular perspective statistically treats all integrals as aggregates, & virtually all aspects of structure become obscured in the process. In electoral studies, personal & structural types of data must be considered, in addition to individual & ecological data. The experience of other sciences suggests the development of a parallel structural political science that transcends the notion that only one kind of approach is legitimate. While the two would remain distinct & reflect their own limitations, both approaches would add to the knowledge base. 1 Figure, 17 References. S. Millett

ABSTRACTThis article argues that the responses of political parties to social change are mediated by ideology, which offers only a limited range of options. What these are, how and why they are limited, and in what ways they may account for recent political developments are the main themes of the article. They are treated in the context of a general review of the relations between ideologies, parties and change, using a modified model of the traditional Left–Right spectrum based on the concept of a 'relative and dynamic Centre'. The resulting mode of analysis, here called 'idealectics', is illustrated with reference to Western and especially British experience over the last two decades.

It is argued that the responses of political parties to social change are mediated by ideology, which offers only a limited range of options. What these options are, how & why they are limited, & how they may account for recent political developments are discussed in the context of a general review of the relations between ideologies, parties, & change. A modified model of the traditional Left-Right spectrum based on the concept of a "relative & dynamic center" is used. The resulting mode of analysis, here called "idealectics," is illustrated with reference to Western, especially British, experience over the last two decades. 3 Figures, 5 References. HA

SCHOLARLY UNDERSTANDING OF THE BEHAVIOR OF ELECTORS REMAINS STRAIT-JACKETED BY THE NATURE OF THE DATA. ON ONE HAND, SCHOLARS HAVE EXTENSIVE DATA ABOUT INDIVIDUAL ELECTORS, COLLECTED IN NATIONAL ELECTION SURVEYS. ON THE OTHER, THEY HAVE DATA ABOUT COLLECTIVITIES, DERIVED FROM SUCH OFFICIAL SOURCES AS NATIONAL CENSUSES AND CONSTITUENCY ELECTION RETURNS. THUS, ELECTORAL RESEARCHERS WOULD APPEAR TO ENJOY A SURFEIT OF RICHES. THE REALITY, HOWEVER, IS A PERSISTING DIVIDE BETWEEN TWO MODES OF EXPLANATION: MICRO-LEVEL MODELS USING SURVEY DATA AND MACRO-LEVEL MODELS USING ECOLOGICAL DATA. READ ALONGSIDE EACH OTHER, THESE MODELS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ANALYSIS YIELD DIVERGENT RATHER THAN COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNTS OF ELECTORAL BEHAVIOR.