Dataset Information

How and why party position estimates from manifestos, expert, and party elite surveys diverge: A comparative analysis of the 'left-right' and the 'European integration' dimensions.

ABSTRACT: This paper examines the validity of three approaches to estimate party positions on the general left-right and EU dimensions. We newly introduce party elite data from the comprehensive IntUne survey and cross-validate it with existing expert survey and manifesto data. The general left-right estimates generated by elites and experts show a higher congruence than those derived from party manifestos; neither measure clearly materializes as more valid regarding EU positions. We identify which factors explain diverging estimates. For instance, disagreement among experts has greater impact than their mere number. The substantial centrist bias of the manifesto estimates persists even when alternative documents are used to substitute manifestos. Low response rates among elites have no systematic detrimental effect on the validity of party position estimates.

SUBMITTER: Ecker A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9036146 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How and why party position estimates from manifestos, expert, and party elite surveys diverge: A comparative analysis of the 'left-right' and the 'European integration' dimensions.

Ecker Alejandro A Jenny Marcelo M Müller Wolfgang C WC Praprotnik Katrin K

Party politics 20210210 3

This paper examines the validity of three approaches to estimate party positions on the general left-right and EU dimensions. We newly introduce party elite data from the comprehensive IntUne survey and cross-validate it with existing expert survey and manifesto data. The general left-right estimates generated by elites and experts show a higher congruence than those derived from party manifestos; neither measure clearly materializes as more valid regarding EU positions. We identify which factor ...[more]

PMID: 35493065

Similar Datasets

Project description:Established vaccine hesitancy measurement instruments, such as the Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants Matrix, are not sufficiently equipped to adequately and consistently measure political and ideological attitudes. Focusing on Germany, which is a particularly interesting case since it witnessed the establishment of the by far most well-organized and sustained 'anti-Covid' movement in Europe, this quantitative study explores the impact of political ideology and partisanship on the degree of vaccine hesitancy based on four surveys (February-October 2021) among more than 30,000 individuals. We demonstrate that party affiliation, political ideology and region of residence all impact vaccine hesitancy. In fact, they turn out to have a greater impact than two factors often analysed with respect to vaccine hesitancy: gender and educational background. Further interaction models show that the effect of political ideology on vaccine hesitancy is moderated by age, gender and region of residency. For instance, while the more rightwing a young individual is, the more hesitant they are towards SARS-CoV-2 vaccination-for older individuals, this is not the case. Our findings are relevant for future investigators measuring vaccine hesitancy and policy makers contemplating the differential impact of complex public health interventions: as the impact of political and ideological attitudes on vaccine hesitancy are not adequately captured by established vaccine hesitancy measurement instruments, we recommend its modification to include a clear and harmonised definition of the political-ideological dimension of vaccine hesitancy together with pre-validated measurement items that improve future studies. In addition, we reason that vaccine hesitancy, while being an outcome of complex socio-political factors, is in itself an indicator for societal cohesion and anomie, the degree of which is associated with trust in (health) policy makers, (public) health authorities, health service providers, etc. Therefore, we further recommend that vaccine hesitancy questions should be integrated in pertinent national surveys.

Project description:The integration of immigrant minorities is a major concern for diverse societies-with major implications for the well-being of those affected, social cohesion and group relations, and economic and social progress. In this paper, we give a comprehensive description of long-term migrant integration in Western Europe to investigate theories of migrant assimilation and integration. We take a multidimensional approach, looking at 10 indicators measuring social, structural, political, civic and cultural integration. We take an innovative approach to measuring minority background by using two complementary measures: generational status, distinguishing first and second-generation migrants from the third and higher up 'natives,' and self-reported ancestry, separating those with autochthonous-only ancestry from those with various kinds of allochthonous ancestry. Using interaction effects between these measures, we can test whether generational change is faster or slower for some ethnic groups than for others, i.e. whether different groups integrate at differing speeds. Using the pooled samples of all Western European countries included in the European Social Survey rounds 7 and 8, we run multivariate regression analyses to estimate the effects of migrant background on the 10 indicators of integration. Compared to migrants with autochthonous ancestry, respondents of Middle Eastern, North African & Central Asian as well as Sub-Saharan African ancestry are less integrated on all dimensions of integration except the political and civic ones. The South & South-East Asian group is also substantially less assimilated socially and culturally, but not so much structurally. They are closely followed by the South East and East European groups, following the same pattern except that the latter are less integrated politically as well. We only find substantial interaction effects between ethnic group and migrant generation for two integration indicators, namely citizenship and homophobia, for which speed of integration thus appears to differ across ethnic groups. For all other indicators, integration speed does not appear to differ across ethnic groups, supporting straight line assimilation theory, with social integration in terms of interethnic friendship potentially rather following a 'bumpy-line' pattern.

Dataset Information

How and why party position estimates from manifestos, expert, and party elite surveys diverge: A comparative analysis of the 'left-right' and the 'European integration' dimensions.

Publications

How and why party position estimates from manifestos, expert, and party elite surveys diverge: A comparative analysis of the 'left-right' and the 'European integration' dimensions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets