Measuring Policy Positions of Veto Players in Parliamentary Democracies

  • Thomas König
  • Bernd Luig
  • Sven-Oliver Proksch
  • Jonathan B. Slapin
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Public Choice book series (SIPC, volume 16)

Abstract

Testing veto players theory in parliamentary systems requires researchers to have accurate estimates of policy preferences of political parties. In empirical studies, however, political scientists use remarkably context-free and invariant estimates of party positions. As a consequence, they must make assumptions about the nature of policy conflict. In the extreme, the lack of accurate estimates reduces sample sizes and increases the risk of selection bias in studies that use the ideological range among veto players as a key explanatory variable. We introduce a new automated method to identify policy relevant content in political texts. Our method “smart tags” sentences in election manifestos using portfolio-specific keywords from a legislative database. Policy positions can then be estimated on the tagged subset of relevant sentences. We apply our method to analyze the legislative positions of political parties for several portfolios in the German parliament. We show that these estimates vary over time and across portfolios – variation which cannot be produced using existing methods. We believe our method simplifies preference estimation and increases construct validity of policy preference measures used to evaluate policy-focused theories.

References

  1. .
    Adams J, Somer-Topcu Z (2009) Do parties adjust their policies in response to rival parties’ policy shifts? Br J Political Sci 39(4):825–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. .
    Adams J, Clark M, Ezrow L, Glasgow G (2006) Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? the causes and the electoral consequences of western european parties’ policy shifts, 1976–1998. Am J Political Sci 50(3):513–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. .
    Alt JE, Lassen DD (2006) Transparency, political polarization, and political budget cycles in oecd countries. Am J Political Sci 50(3):530–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. .
    Bawn K, Rosenbluth F (2006) Short versus long coalitions: electoral accountability and the size of the public sector. Am J Political Sci 50(2):251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. .
    Benoit K, Laver M (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. .
    Benoit K, Laver M, Mikhaylov S (2009) Treating words as data with error: uncertainty in text statements of policy positions. Am J Political Sci 53(2):495–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. .
    Blanpain R (ed) (1995) International encyclopedia for labour law and industrial relations. Kluwer, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. .
    Browne EC, Gleiber DW, Mashoba CS (1984) Evaluating conflict of interest theory: Western European cabinet coalitions, 1945–1980. Br J Political Sci 14(1):1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. .
    Budge I (2000) Expert judgements of party policy positions: uses and limitations in political research. Eur J Political Res 37:103–113Google Scholar
  10. .
    Budge I, Robertson D, Hearl D (1987) Ideology, strategy, and party change: spatial analyses of post-war election programmes in 19 democracies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. .
    Budge I, Klingemann HD, Volkens A, Bara J, Tanenbaum E (2001) Mapping policy preferences: estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945–1998. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. .
    Castles FG, Mair P (1984) Left-right political scales: some expert judgements. Eur J Political Res 12(1):73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. .
    Crombez C (1996) Minority governments, minimal winning coalitions and surplus majorities in parliamentary systems. Eur J Political Res 29(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. .
    Davi A, Haughton D, Nasr N, Shah G, Skaletsky M, Spack R (2005) A review of two text-mining packages: Sas textmining and wordstat. Am Statist 59(1):89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. .
    Dodd L (1976) Coalitions in parliamentary government. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  16. .
    Döring H (ed) (1995) Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe. St. Martin’s Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  17. .
    Druckman JN, Thies MF (2002) The importance of concurrence: The impact of bicameralism on government formation and duration. Am J Political Sci 46(4):760–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. .
    Eyheramendy S, Lewis D, Madigan D (2003) On the naive bayes model for text categorization. Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Artificial IntelligenceGoogle Scholar
  19. .
    Gabel MJ, Huber JD (2000) Putting parties in their place: inferring left-right ideological positions from party manifestos data. Am J Political Sci 44(1):94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. .
    Hooghe L, Bakker R, Brigevich A, de Vries C, Edwards E, Marks G, Rovny J, Steenbergen M (2010) Reliability and validity of measuring party positions: The Chapel Hill expert surveys of 2002 and 2006. Eur J Political ResGoogle Scholar
  21. .
    Hopkins D, King G (2010) A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. Am J Political Sci 54(1):229–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. .
    Huber JD, McCarty N (2001) Cabinet decision rules and political uncertainty in parliamentary bargaining. Am Political Sci Rev 95(2):345–360Google Scholar
  23. .
    Johnson T (2007) Review of wordstat 5.1, simstat 2.5 and qda miner 2.0. Political Methodol 15(1):11–14Google Scholar
  24. .
    Klingemann H-D, Volkens A, Bara J, Budge I, McDonald M (2006) Mapping policy preferences II: estimates for parties, electors and governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990-2003. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. .
    König T, Bräuninger T (2005) Gesetzgebung im Föderalismus. Speyerer Forschungsberichte 237, Forschungsinstitut für Öffentliche Verwaltung, SpeyerGoogle Scholar
  26. .
    König T, Luig B (2009) German ‘lexiconspace’: policy positions and their legislative context. German Politics 18(3):345–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. .
    König T, Finke D, Daimer S (2005) Ignoring the non-ignorables?: missingness and missing positions. Eur Union Politics 6(3):269–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. .
    Laver M, Garry J (2000) Estimating policy positions from political texts. Am J Political Sci 44(3):619–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. .
    Laver M, Hunt WB (1992) Policy and party competition. Routledge, Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. .
    Laver M, Schofield N (1998) Multiparty government: the politics of coalition in Europe, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. .
    Laver M, Shepsle KA (1996) Making and breaking governments: cabinets and legislatures in parliamentary democracies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. .
    Laver M, Benoit K, Garry J (2003) Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. Am Political Sci Rev 97(2):311–332Google Scholar
  33. .
    Lewis DD (1998) Naive (bayes) at forty: the independence assumption in information retrieval. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Machine Learning pp. 4–15Google Scholar
  34. .
    Lijphart A (1999) Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  35. .
    Lowe W (2008) Understanding wordscores. Political Anal 16(4):356–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. .
    Mair P (2001) Searching for positions of political actors: a review of approaches and a critical evaluation of expert surveys. In: Laver M (ed) Estimating the policy positions of political actors, pp. 10–30. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. .
    Martin LW, Stevenson RT (2001) Government formation in parliamentary democracies. Am J Political Sci 45(1):33–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. .
    Martin LW, Vanberg G (2003) Wasting time? the impact of ideology and size on delay in coalition formation. Br J Political Sci 33(2):323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. .
    Martin LW, Vanberg G (2004) Policing the bargain: coalition government and parliamentary scrutiny. Am J Political Sci 48(1):13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. .
    Martin LW, Vanberg G (2005) Coalition policymaking and legislative review. Am Political Sci Rev 99(1):93–106Google Scholar
  41. .
    Mikhaylov S, Laver M, Benoit K (2008) Coder reliability and misclassification in comparative manifesto project codings. Paper presented at the 66th MPSA Conference, 3–6 April 2008Google Scholar
  42. .
    Miller G (1956) Magical number seven, plus or minus two. Psychol Rev 63(2):81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. .
    Monroe BL, Maeda K (2004) Talk’s cheap: text-based estimation of rhetorical ideal-points. Paper presented at the 21st PolMeth Conference, 29–31 July 2004Google Scholar
  44. .
    Proksch SO, Slapin JB (2006) Institutions and coalition formation: the german election of 2005. West Eur Politics 29(3):540–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. .
    Proksch SO, Slapin JB (2009) How to avoid pitfalls in statistical analysis of political texts: the case of germany. German Politics 18(3):323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. .
    Proksch SO, Slapin JB (2010) Position Taking in European Parliament Speeches. Br J Political Sci 40(3):587–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. .
    Quinn KM, Monroe BL, Colaresi M, Crespin MH, Radev D (2010) How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs. Am J Political Sci 54(1):209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. .
    Rohrschneider R, Whitefield S (2007) Representation in new democracies: party stances on european integration in post-communist eastern europe. J Politics 69(4):1133–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. .
    Roozendaal PV (1992) The effect of dominant and central parties on cabinet composition and durability. Legis Stud Quart 17(1):5–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. .
    Santoni M, Zucchini F (2004) Does policy stability increase the constitutional court’s independence? the case of italy during the first republic (1956–1992). Public Choice 120(3/4):439–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. .
    Scholtz E, Trantas G (1995) Legislation on benefits and on regulatory matters: social security and labor matters. In: Döring H (ed) Parliaments and majority rule in western Europe. St. Martin’s Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. .
    Slapin JB, Proksch SO (2008) A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. Am J Political Sci 52(3):705–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. .
    Steenbergen MR, Marks G (2007) Evaluating expert judgments. Eur J Political Res 46(3):347–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. .
    Strøm K, Leipart JY (1993) Policy, institutions, and coalition avoidance: Norwegian governments, 1945–1990. Am Political Sci Rev 87(4):870–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. .
    Tsebelis G (1995) Decision-making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism, and multipartyism. Br J Political Sci 25(3):289–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. .
    Tsebelis G (1999) Veto players and law production in parliamentary democracies: an empirical analysis. Am Political Sci Rev 93(3):591–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. .
    Tsebelis G (2002) Veto players: how political institutions work. Russell Sage/Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  58. .
    Tsebelis G, Money J (1997) Bicameralism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. .
    Volden C, Carrubba CJ (2004) The formation of oversized coalitions in parliamentary democracies. Am J Political Sci 48(3):521–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. .
    Warwick P (1994) Government survival in west European parliamentary democracies. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. .
    Warwick P (1996) Coalition government membership in west european parliamentary democracies. Br J Political Sci 26(4):471–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. .
    Warwick P (1998) Policy distance and parliamentary government. Legis Stud Quart 23(3):319–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. .
    Warwick P (2005) When far apart becomes too far apart: evidence for a threshold effect in coalition formation. Br J Political Sci 35(3):383–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas König
    • 1
  • Bernd Luig
    • 1
  • Sven-Oliver Proksch
    • 1
  • Jonathan B. Slapin
    • 2
  1. 1.University of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.University of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations