IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/statpp/v9y2018i1p57-86n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating the Conflict Dimensionality in the German Länder from Vote Advice Applications, 2014–2017

Author

Listed:
  • Nyhuis Dominic

    (Institute of Political Science, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany)

  • König Pascal

    (Department of Social Sciences, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany)

Abstract

Building on the spatial model of party competition, we investigate the structure of political conflict in German subnational politics. Little research has examined the conflict dimensionality at the Länder level. Moreover, the few studies which have done so predominantly rely on a deductive approach that pre-structures the conflict space using presumed conflict dimensions. In this paper, we put these dimensionality assumptions to the test with an inductive approach that capitalizes on parties’ preference expressions in vote advice applications. We circumvent the common concern that data from vote advice applications is too sparse for assessing political conflict structures by estimating a space that bridges multiple elections. Unlike previous research, we find that political conflict is defined by a comprehensive left-right dimension and a secondary dimension separating mainstream parties from fringe competitors. This anti-establishment dimension is characterized by diverging preferences over democratic institutions and policies considered consensual among the political mainstream.

Suggested Citation

  • Nyhuis Dominic & König Pascal, 2018. "Estimating the Conflict Dimensionality in the German Länder from Vote Advice Applications, 2014–2017," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 57-86, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:statpp:v:9:y:2018:i:1:p:57-86:n:3
    DOI: 10.1515/spp-2018-0007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2018-0007
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/spp-2018-0007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua D. Clinton & Anthony Bertelli & Christian R. Grose & David E. Lewis & David C. Nixon, 2012. "Separated Powers in the United States: The Ideology of Agencies, Presidents, and Congress," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(2), pages 341-354, April.
    2. Bafumi, Joseph & Herron, Michael C., 2010. "Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(3), pages 519-542, August.
    3. Enelow,James M. & Hinich,Melvin J., 1984. "The Spatial Theory of Voting," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521275156, October.
    4. Treier, Shawn, 2010. "Where Does the President Stand? Measuring Presidential Ideology," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 124-136, January.
    5. Hug, Simon, 2010. "Selection Effects in Roll Call Votes," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 225-235, January.
    6. Hix, Simon & Noury, Abdul & Roland, Gérard, 2005. "Power to the Parties: Cohesion and Competition in the European Parliament, 1979–2001," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 209-234, April.
    7. Abdul Ghafar Noury & Simon Hix & Gérard Roland, 2007. "Democratic politics in the European Parliament," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/7744, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Bräuninger, Thomas & Müller, Jochen & Stecker, Christian, 2016. "Modeling Preferences Using Roll Call Votes in Parliamentary Systems," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 189-210, April.
    9. Jonathan B. Slapin & Sven‐Oliver Proksch, 2008. "A Scaling Model for Estimating Time‐Series Party Positions from Texts," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 705-722, July.
    10. Laver, Michael & Benoit, Kenneth & Garry, John, 2003. "Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(2), pages 311-331, May.
    11. Bailey, Michael & Chang, Kelly H, 2001. "Comparing Presidents, Senators, and Justices: Interinstitutional Preference Estimation," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 477-506, October.
    12. Aldrich, John H. & Montgomery, Jacob M. & Sparks, David B., 2014. "Polarization and Ideology: Partisan Sources of Low Dimensionality in Scaled Roll Call Analyses," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 435-456.
    13. Simon Hix, 2001. "Legislative Behaviour and Party Competition in the European Parliament: An Application of Nominate to the EU," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 663-688, November.
    14. Kostas Gemenis, 2015. "An iterative expert survey approach for estimating parties’ policy positions," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 2291-2306, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David M Willumsen, 2018. "The Council’s REACH? National governments’ influence in the European Parliament," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 663-683, December.
    2. Simon Hix & Abdul Noury & Gerard Roland, 2018. "Is there a selection bias in roll call votes? Evidence from the European Parliament," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 211-228, July.
    3. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:48:y:2010:i::p:811-833 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Daniel Finke & Andreas Fleig, 2013. "The merits of adding complexity: non-separable preferences in spatial models of European Union politics," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(4), pages 546-575, October.
    5. Kaniovski, Serguei & Mueller, Dennis C., 2011. "How representative is the European Union Parliament?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 61-74, March.
    6. James Lo, 2018. "Dynamic ideal point estimation for the European Parliament, 1980–2009," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 229-246, July.
    7. Matteo Cavallaro & David Flacher & Massimo Angelo Zanetti, 2018. "Radical right parties and European economic integration: Evidence from the seventh European Parliament," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 321-343, June.
    8. André Krouwel & Annemarie Elfrinkhof, 2014. "Combining strengths of methods of party positioning to counter their weaknesses: the development of a new methodology to calibrate parties on issues and ideological dimensions," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 1455-1472, May.
    9. Bjørn Høyland & Indraneel Sircar & Simon Hix, 2009. "Forum Section," European Union Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 143-152, March.
    10. Anna A. Dekalchuk & Aleksandra Khokhlova & Dmitriy Skougarevskiy, 2016. "National or European Politicians? Gauging MEPs Polarity When Russia is Concerned," HSE Working papers WP BRP 35/PS/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    11. Born, Andreas & Janssen, Aljoscha, 2022. "Does a district mandate matter for the behavior of politicians? An analysis of roll-call votes and parliamentary speeches," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    12. Sara Hagemann & Bjørn Høyland, 2010. "Bicameral Politics in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 811-833, September.
    13. Edoardo Bressanelli & Christel Koop & Christine Reh, 2016. "The impact of informalisation: Early agreements and voting cohesion in the European Parliament," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 91-113, March.
    14. Pongsak Luangaram & Yuthana Sethapramote, 2016. "Central Bank Communication and Monetary Policy Effectiveness: Evidence from Thailand," PIER Discussion Papers 20, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research.
    15. Fraccaroli, Nicolò & Giovannini, Alessandro & Jamet, Jean-François & Persson, Eric, 2022. "Ideology and monetary policy. The role of political parties’ stances in the European Central Bank’s parliamentary hearings," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    16. Darko Cherepnalkoski & Andreas Karpf & Igor Mozetič & Miha Grčar, 2016. "Cohesion and Coalition Formation in the European Parliament: Roll-Call Votes and Twitter Activities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-27, November.
    17. Torsten J. Selck, 2005. "Improving the Explanatory Power of Bargaining Models," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 371-375, July.
    18. Fabio Sozzi, 2013. "National Parties, Political Processes and the EU democratic deficit: The Problem of Europarties Institutionalization," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 4, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    19. Hanna Bäck & Marc Debus & Wolfgang C. Müller, 2016. "Intra-party diversity and ministerial selection in coalition governments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 355-378, March.
    20. Christophe Crombez & Simon Hix, 2011. "Treaty reform and the Commission’s appointment and policy-making role in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(3), pages 291-314, September.
    21. Manuele Citi, 2015. "European Union budget politics: Explaining stability and change in spending allocations," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(2), pages 260-280, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:statpp:v:9:y:2018:i:1:p:57-86:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.