IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v22y2014i02p205-223_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Common Left-Right Scale for Voters and Parties in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Lo, James
  • Proksch, Sven-Oliver
  • Gschwend, Thomas

Abstract

This article presents a scaling approach to jointly estimate the locations of voters, parties, and European political groups on a common left-right scale. Although most comparative research assumes that cross-national comparisons of voters and parties are possible, few correct for systematic biases commonly known to exist in surveys or examine whether survey data are comparable across countries. Our scaling method addresses scale perception in surveys and links cross-national surveys through new bridging observations. We apply our approach to the 2009 European Election Survey and demonstrate that the improvement in party estimates that one gains from fixing various survey bias issues is significant. Our scaling strategy provides left-right positions of voters and of 162 political parties, and we demonstrate that variables based on rescaled voter and party positions on the left-right dimension significantly improve the fit of a cross-national vote choice model.

Suggested Citation

  • Lo, James & Proksch, Sven-Oliver & Gschwend, Thomas, 2014. "A Common Left-Right Scale for Voters and Parties in Europe," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 205-223, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:22:y:2014:i:02:p:205-223_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700013693/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Markku Kaustia & Samuli Knüpfer & Sami Torstila, 2016. "Stock Ownership and Political Behavior: Evidence from Demutualizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 945-963, April.
    2. Greene, Zac & Ceron, Andrea & Schumacher, Gijs & Fazekas, Zoltan, 2016. "The Nuts and Bolts of Automated Text Analysis. Comparing Different Document Pre-Processing Techniques in Four Countries," OSF Preprints ghxj8, Center for Open Science.
    3. Saiegh, Sebastián, 2014. "Partisanship, Ideology, and Representation in Latin America," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 6607, Inter-American Development Bank.
    4. Sebastián Saiegh, 2014. "Partisanship, Ideology, and Representation in Latin America," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 86258, Inter-American Development Bank.
    5. Nunnari, Salvatore & Zápal, Jan, 2017. "Dynamic Elections and Ideological Polarization," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(4), pages 505-534, October.
    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. Royce Carroll & Hiroki Kubo, 2018. "Polarization and ideological congruence between parties and supporters in Europe," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 247-265, July.
    8. Petersen, Thies & Denker, Tom & Koppenberg, Maximilian & Hirsch, Stefan, 2024. "Meat Substitute Consumption and Political Attitudes – Testing the Left-Right and Environmental Concerns Frameworks," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343692, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Miriam Barnum & James Lo, 2020. "Is the NPT unraveling? Evidence from text analysis of review conference statements," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 740-751, November.
    10. Jet G Sanders & Rob Jenkins, 2016. "Weekly Fluctuations in Risk Tolerance and Voting Behaviour," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-12, July.
    11. Christopher J Fariss & James Lo, 2020. "Innovations in concepts and measurement for the study of peace and conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 669-678, November.

    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:cup:polals:v:22:y:2014:i:02:p:205-223_01. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    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.