IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v6y2005i3p353-376.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extracting Ideal Point Estimates from Actors’ Preferences in the EU Constitutional Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Hix

    (London School of Economics and Political Science, UK, s.hix@lse.ac.uk)

  • Christophe Crombez

    (Stanford University, USA, and University of Leuven, Belgium, Christophe.Crombez@econ.kuleuven.ac.be)

Abstract

This article uses the Domestic Structures and European Integration (DOSEI) data set of actors’ preferences on 65 issues in the 2003-4 Intergovernmental Conference to extract the underlying preferences of the governments, the Commission and the European Parliament on the main dimensions of conflict in the European Union’s constitutional negotiations. The analysis starts by comparing the ideal point estimates produced by three ‘inductive’ techniques: exploratory factor analysis, NOMINATE and Optimal Classification. The results are a series of ideal point estimates that do not correlate well with some simple a priori assumptions about key actors’ positions on the reform of the EU. The analysis then proceeds with a ‘mixed’ deductive/inductive method, in which responses to the survey questions relating to the two exogenous dimensions of constitutional design in a multi-level polity (the ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ allocation of power) are used to generate ideal point estimates on these two dimensions. The result is a more intuitive set of ideal point estimates for the 28 main actors in the negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Hix & Christophe Crombez, 2005. "Extracting Ideal Point Estimates from Actors’ Preferences in the EU Constitutional Negotiations," European Union Politics, , vol. 6(3), pages 353-376, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:6:y:2005:i:3:p:353-376
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116505054837
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116505054837
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116505054837?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rein Taagepera, 2003. "Arend Lijphart's Dimensions of Democracy: Logical Connections and Institutional Design," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(1), pages 1-19, March.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Tsebelis, George, 1995. "Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 289-325, July.
    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. Yonatan Lupu, 2016. "Why Do States Join Some Universal Treaties but Not Others? An Analysis of Treaty Commitment Preferences," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 60(7), pages 1219-1250, October.
    2. Hix, Simon & Noury, Abdul & Roland, Gerard, 2005. "Dimensions of Politics in the European Parliament," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4gb278j5, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    3. Pierre Hausemer, 2006. "Participation and Political Competition in Committee Report Allocation," European Union Politics, , vol. 7(4), pages 505-530, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Osterloh, Steffen & Debus, Marc, 2012. "Partisan politics in corporate taxation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 192-207.
    6. Simon Hug & Tobias Schulz, 2007. "Referendums in the EU’s constitution building process," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 177-218, June.
    7. Heike Klüver & Iñaki Sagarzazu, 2013. "Ideological congruency and decision-making speed: The effect of partisanship across European Union institutions," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(3), pages 388-407, September.
    8. Sanjeev Gupta & João Tovar Jalles, 2020. "On the Political Economy Determinants of Tax Reforms: Evidence from Developing Countries," Policy Papers 199, Center for Global Development.
    9. Sebastian Blesse & Pierre C Boyer & Friedrich Heinemann & Eckhard Janeba & Anasuya Raj, 2019. "European Monetary Union reform preferences of French and German parliamentarians," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(3), pages 406-424, September.
    10. Jacob M. Meyer, 2020. "Checks and Imbalances: Exploring the Links between Political Constraints and Banking Crises using Econometric Mediation," Journal of Economics and Econometrics, Economics and Econometrics Society, vol. 63(1), pages 71-96.
    11. Yang, Chao & Huang, Cui, 2022. "Quantitative mapping of the evolution of AI policy distribution, targets and focuses over three decades in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    12. André Kaiser, 1997. "Types of Democracy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(4), pages 419-444, October.
    13. Christian Bjørnskov & Axel Dreher & Justina Fischer, 2008. "Cross-country determinants of life satisfaction: exploring different determinants across groups in society," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(1), pages 119-173, January.
    14. Alvaro Forteza & Juan S. Pereyra, 2021. "Separation of powers with ideological parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(3), pages 333-382, July.
    15. Oliver Pamp, 2008. "Partisan Preferences and Political Institutions: Explaining Fiscal Retrenchment in the European Union," European Political Economy Review, European Political Economy Infrastructure Consortium, vol. 8(Spring), pages 4-39.
    16. Kyriaki Nanou & Galina Zapryanova & Fanni Toth, 2017. "An ever-closer union? Measuring the expansion and ideological content of European Union policy-making through an expert survey," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(4), pages 678-693, December.
    17. Jin Mun Jeong & Dursun Peksen, 2019. "Domestic Institutional Constraints, Veto Players, and Sanction Effectiveness," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(1), pages 194-217, January.
    18. repec:dgr:rugccs:200006 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Serguei Kaniovski, 2008. "The exact bias of the Banzhaf measure of power when votes are neither equiprobable nor independent," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 281-300, August.
    20. Ralf Meinhardt & Sebastian Junge & Martin Weiss, 2018. "The organizational environment with its measures, antecedents, and consequences: a review and research agenda," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 195-235, April.
    21. Torsten J. Selck, 2005. "Improving the Explanatory Power of Bargaining Models," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 371-375, July.

    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:sae:eeupol:v:6:y:2005:i:3:p:353-376. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.