Suchergebnisse

The paper applies & extends insights from Mancur Olson's study of state making to the Vikings. In a world of roving bandits, a sub-optimal provision of public goods exists, most notably of security. Roving banditry leads to over-plundering & zero profits for the plunderers, which makes stationary banditry profitable. The most efficient bandits monopolize violence, begin to tax, & provide some amounts of public goods in order to stimulate economic growth. The analysis demonstrates how the Vikings' activities & settlements are consistent with such an explanation, with the dynamics of the process being reflected in the variation in the number of raids & the amount of wealth extracted. 2 Tables, 2 Figures, 34 References. Adapted from the source document.

I et demokratisk system kan vælgerpræferencer aggregeres til en samlet kollektiv præference på et utal af forskellige måder, hvorefter en specifik aggregeringsmetode fordeler det samlede antal mandater mellem partierne. Hvis metoden producerer resultater,som divergerer fra vælgernes underliggende præferencer, opstår der såkaldte valgparadokser. De kendes fra flertalsvalgsystemer (f.eks. amerikanske og britiske valg), men det er generelt overset, at de også kan forekomme under forholdstalsvalg. Ved brug af data fra valgundersøgelserne ifm. folketingsvalgene 2007, 2011 og 2015 analyseres den mulige empiriske forekomst af fire teoretisk udledtevalgparadokser fra social choice-teori. Vi viser, at alle fire valgparadokser forekommer empirisk. Dermed sættes der spørgsmålstegn ved, i hvilket omfang folketingsvalgs udfald kan udlægges som en afspejling af folkets vilje.

Finding reliable and valid positions for political actors is of key importance to political scientists. In this paper we compare estimates obtained using the automated Wordscores and Wordfish techniques with estimates from the widely-used Comparative Manifesto Project (CMP) as well as voter and expert placements. We estimate the positions of 254 manifestos across 33 elections in Germany and Denmark, two cases with very different textual data available. The paper contributes to the literature on automated content analysis by providing a comprehensive test of convergent validation, both in terms of number of cases analyzed and number of validation measures. In both cases, Wordscores approximately replicates the CMP, voter and expert assessments of party positions, whereas Wordfish replicates the positions in the German manifestos. The results demonstrate that automated methods can produce valid estimates of party positions, but also that the appropriateness of each method hinges on the quality of the textual data. Additional analyses suggest that Wordfish requires both longer texts and a more ideologically charged vocabulary in order to produce estimates comparable to Wordscores.

Assigning political actors positions in ideological space is a task of key importance to political scientists. In this paper we compare estimates obtained using the automated Wordscores and Wordfish techniques, along with estimates from voters and the Comparative Manifesto Project (CMP), against expert placements. We estimate the positions of 254 manifestos across 33 elections in Germany and Denmark, two cases with very different textual data available. We find that Wordscores approximately replicates the CMP, voter, and expert assessments of party positions in both cases, whereas Wordfish replicates the positions in the German manifestos only. The results demonstrate that automated methods can produce valid estimates of party positions, but also that the appropriateness of each method hinges on the quality of the textual data. Additional analyses suggest that Wordfish requires both longer texts and a more ideologically charged vocabulary in order to produce estimates comparable to Wordscores. The paper contributes to the literature on automated content analysis by providing a comprehensive test of convergent validation, in terms of both number of cases analyzed and number of validation measures.