Suchergebnisse

AbstractEstimating the ideological positions of political actors is an important step toward answering a number of substantive questions in political science. Survey scales provide useful data for such estimation, but also present a challenge, as respondents tend to interpret the scales differently. The Aldrich–McKelvey model addresses this challenge, but the existing implementations of the model still have notable shortcomings. Focusing on the Bayesian version of the model (BAM), the analyses in this article demonstrate that the model is prone to overfitting and yields poor results for a considerable share of respondents. The article addresses these shortcomings by developing a hierarchical Bayesian version of the model (HBAM). The new version treats self-placements as data to be included in the likelihood function while also modifying the likelihood to allow for scale flipping. The resulting model outperforms the existing Bayesian version both on real data and in a Monte Carlo study. An R package implementing the models in Stan is provided to facilitate future use.

Information about the ideological positions of different political actors is crucial in answering questions regarding political representation, polarization, and voting behavior. One way to obtain such information is to ask survey respondents to place actors on a common ideological scale, but, unfortunately, respondents typically display a set of biases when performing such placements. Key among these are rationalization bias and differential item functioning (DIF). While Aldrich–McKelvey (AM) scaling offers a useful solution to DIF, it ignores the issue of rationalization bias, and this study presents Monte Carlo simulations demonstrating that AM-type models thus can give inaccurate results. As a response to this challenge, this study develops an alternative Bayesian scaling approach, which simultaneously estimates DIF and rationalization bias, and therefore performs better when the latter bias is present.

Information about the ideological positions of different political actors is crucial in answering questions regarding political representation, polarization, and voting behavior. One way to obtain such information is to ask survey respondents to place actors on a common ideological scale, but, unfortunately, respondents typically display a set of biases when performing such placements. Key among these are rationalization bias and differential item functioning (DIF). While Aldrich–McKelvey (AM) scaling offers a useful solution to DIF, it ignores the issue of rationalization bias, and this study presents Monte Carlo simulations demonstrating that AM-type models thus can give inaccurate results. As a response to this challenge, this study develops an alternative Bayesian scaling approach, which simultaneously estimates DIF and rationalization bias, and therefore performs better when the latter bias is present. ; acceptedVersion

The relationship between public opinion and public policy provides a potential criterion for assessing the democratic quality of the European Union. The few existing time series analyses in this area assume that there exists a European-wide public mood towards integration. Analyzing West-European series of public opinion from 1974 to 2011, this article finds considerable support for this assumption. However, the analysis also points towards a 'periphery-trend', driven by the UK, Ireland and Denmark, in contrast to a 'core-trend', driven by the founders of the European Economic Community (EEC). The analysis further shows that both opinion trends are cointegrated with public policy in this area: European integration appears to be significantly influenced, or constrained, by public opinion both in the core and periphery.

AbstractExisting studies imply a model of "thermostatic voting"—a phenomenon characterized by negative feedback from government policy to election outcomes, suggesting that a party's success in setting policy diminishes its electoral prospects. This phenomenon could give politicians an incentive to constrain the fulfillment of public demands, which would conflict with the notion of electoral accountability, which also forms part of the theoretical framework in question. This article addresses this paradox and provides new data that expand an existing time series of American policy liberalism. Employing the new data, the article identifies thermostatic voting in American presidential elections, but in light of the analysis, certain empirical features are also identified that reduce the possible incentive to withhold promised policy changes.

AbstractPreserving the trust of bond markets is crucial for the world's many indebted countries, but it is still unclear when and how national or international actors can contribute to this goal. We present a set of arguments addressing this question and test them on the case of the eurozone debt crisis. Distinguishing between actors' capacity and willingness to avoid defaults, we argue that the crisis was marked by a lack of capacity at the national level, and limited or uncertain willingness at the European level. Accordingly, we find that European‐level efforts to reassure markets had considerably stronger effects than similar efforts at the national level. Furthermore, national efforts appear to have mattered the least in countries with the least capacity. These findings are based on a comprehensive new dataset of political events and relevant news, and they hold across a number of robustness checks and placebo tests.

This article presents a categorization theory of spatial voting, which postulates that voters perceive political stances through coarse classifications. Because voters think in terms of categories defined by the ideological center, their behavior deviates from standard models of utility maximization along ideological continua. Their preferences are characterized by discontinuities, rewarding parties on their side of the ideological space more than existing spatial models would predict. While this study concurs with prior studies suggesting that voters tend to use a proximity rule, it argues that this rule mainly serves to distinguish among parties of the same side. Overall, the results suggest that voters' party evaluations are characterized by a nontrivial identity component, generating in-group biases not captured by the existing spatial models of voting.

We examine the impact of signals regarding the Eurozone's bail-out commitment on government bond spreads in the Eurozone's periphery, analysing the effect of positive, negative and mixed statements and decisions by the EU, the ECB and Germany. We construct a dataset of relevant events, and estimate their effects using distributed lag models, providing a number of robustness checks. Our main argument is that investors react to statements from credible actors, but largely ignore statements from less-credible actors, awaiting actual decisions. Accordingly, positive statements from the ECB have clear effects, while those from Germany and the EU do not. Furthermore, ECB decisions appear to be anticipated and thus have no short-term effects, while we find clear effects of positive decisions by Germany and the EU.

AbstractOne of the key motives behind recent reforms of the EU's legislative process has been to increase efficiency. This study examines whether the Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon treaties have successfully increased the speed with which the EU creates new laws. An interrupted time series approach is utilized to detect the total effects of treaty change on the decision‐making process. This study thus complements existing research on the effects of decision‐making rules, by employing a design more robust to the challenge of endogeneity. The findings suggest that the Amsterdam treaty was very successful at increasing legislative efficiency. In contrast, the Nice treaty does not appear to have had a notable impact, and, more interestingly, neither does the Lisbon treaty.

This study examines transparency and censorship in the Council of Ministers of the European Union from 1999 to 2009. We measure transparency by considering the timeliness of record release and the levels of censorship applied to records when (and if) they are released. We show that legislation introduced in 2001 (Regulation 1049) triggered a massive shift towards greater transparency, in line with its intention. However, we also show that the trend towards greater transparency has been interrupted by the enlargement rounds in 2004 and 2007. We attribute this fact to inexperience on the part of the new member states and the resulting need for censorship while these states adjusted to the negotiation styles in the Council.