Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Ideological Clarity in Multiparty Competition: A New Measure and Test Using Election Manifestos

  • James Lo, Sven-Oliver Proksch and Jonathan B. Slapin
Abstract

Parties in advanced democracies take ideological positions as part of electoral competition, but some parties communicate their position more clearly than others. Existing research on democratic party competition has paid much attention to assessing partisan position taking in electoral manifestos, but it has largely overlooked how manifestos reflect the clarity of these positions. This article presents a scaling procedure that better reflects the data-generating process of party manifestos. This new estimator allows us to recover not only positional estimates, but also estimates for the ideological clarity or ambiguity of parties. The study validates its results using Monte Carlo tests, a manifesto-drafting simulation and a human coding exercise. Finally, the article applies the estimator to party manifestos in four multiparty democracies and demonstrates that ambiguity can enhance the appeal of parties with platforms that become more moderate, and lessen the appeal of parties with platforms that become more extreme.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

Princeton University; McGill University; University of Houston (emails: jameslo@princeton.edu, so.proksch@mcgill.ca, jslapin@uh.edu). We wish to thank the many individuals who commented on earlier drafts of this article, including Ken Benoit, Will Lowe, Shawn Treier, several anonymous reviewers, and seminar participants at the University of Mannheim, Nuffield College, Oxford and Rice University. James Lo and Sven-Oliver Proksch gratefully acknowledge financial support for this project from the SFB 884 on the Political Economy of Reforms at the University of Mannheim (project C4), funded by the German Research Foundation. Replication materials and an online appendix are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123414000192.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Glasgow, Garrett. 2006. Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):513529.
Adams, James, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2009. Moderate Now, Win Votes Later: The Electoral Consequences of Parties’ Policy Shifts in 25 Postwar Democracies. Journal of Politics 71 (2):678702.
Bawn, Kathleen, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2012. Government Versus Opposition at the Polls: How Governing Status Affects the Impact of Policy Positions. American Journal of Political Science 56 (2):433446.
Benoit, Kenneth, Bräuninger, Thomas, and Debus, Mark. 2009a. Challenges for Estimating Policy Preferences: Announcing an Open Access Archive of Political Documents. German Politics 18 (3):441454.
Benoit, Kenneth, Laver, Michael, and Mikhaylov, Slava. 2009b. Treating Words as Data with Error: Uncertainty in Text Statements of Policy Positions. American Journal of Political Science 53 (2):495513.
Budge, Ian, Robertson, David, and Hearl, Derek. 1987. Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Budge, Ian, Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, and Tanenbaum, Eric. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Budge, Ian, Ezrow, Lawrence, and McDonald, Michael. 2010. Ideology, Party Factionalism and Policy Change: An Integrated Dynamic Theory. British Journal of Political Science 40 (4):781804.
Campbell, James E. 1983. The Electoral Consequences of Issue Ambiguity: An Examination of the Presidential Candidates’ Issue Positions from 1968 to 1980. Political Behavior 5 (3):277291.
Carey, John M. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dewan, Torun, and Myatt, David P.. 2008. The Qualities of Leadership: Direction, Communication, and Obfuscation. American Political Science Review 102 (3):351368.
Diermeier, Daniel, Godbout, Jean-François, Yu, Bei, and Kaufmann, Stefan. 2012. Language and Ideology in Congress. British Journal of Political Science 42 (1):3155.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Duverger, Maurice. 1963. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: John Wiley.
Ezrow, Lawrence. 2005. Are Moderate Parties Rewarded in Multiparty Systems? A Pooled Analysis of Western European Elections, 1984–1998. European Journal of Political Research 44 (6):881898.
Ezrow, Lawrence. 2010. Linking Citizens and Parties: How Electoral Systems Matter for Political Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gabel, Matthew, and Huber, John. 2000. Putting Parties in their Place: Inferring Party Left-Right Ideological Positions from Party Manifestos Data. American Journal of Political Science 44 (1):94103.
Grimmer, Justin. 2010. A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases. Political Analysis 18 (1):135.
Heller, William, and Mershon, Carol. 2008. Dealing in Discipline: Party Switching and Legislative Voting in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1988–2000. American Journal of Political Science 52 (4):910925.
Hooghe, Liesbet, Bakker, Ryan, Brigevich, Anna, De Vries, Catherine, Edwards, Erica, Marks, Gary, Rovny, Jan, Steenbergen, Marco, and Vachudova, Milada. 2010. Reliability and Validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill Expert Surveys on Party Positioning. European Journal of Political Research 49 (5):687703.
Hopkins, Daniel J., and King, Gary. 2010. A Method of Automated Nonparametric Content Analysis for Social Science. American Journal of Political Science 54 (1):229247.
Kalandrakis, Tasos, and Spirling, Arthur. 2011. Radical Moderation: Recapturing Power in Two-Party Parliamentary Systems. American Journal of Political Science 56 (2):413432.
Kam, Christopher J. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, Budge, Ian, and McDonald, Michael. 2006. Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laver, Michael, and Garry, John. 2000. Estimating Policy Positions from Political Texts. American Journal of Political Science 44 (3):619634.
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laver, Michael, Benoit, Kenneth, and Garry, John. 2003. Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data. American Political Science Review 97 (2):311332.
Lowe, Will. 2008. Understanding Wordscores. Political Analysis 16 (4):356371.
Lowe, Will, Benoit, Kenneth, Mikhaylov, Slava, and Laver, Michael. 2011. Scaling Policy Preferences from Coded Political Texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36 (1):123155.
Marks, Gary, Hooghe, Liesbet, Steenbergen, Marco, and Bakker, Ryan. 2007. Crossvalidating Data on Party Positioning on European Integration. Electoral Studies 26 (1):2338.
Martin, Lanny, and Vanberg, Georg. 2011. Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Page, Benjamin I. 1976. The Theory of Political Ambiguity. American Political Science Review 70 (3):742752.
Petrocik, John. 1996. Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40 (3):825850.
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, Slapin, Jonathan, and Thies, Michael. 2011. Party System Dynamics in Post-War Japan: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Electoral Pledges. Electoral Studies 30 (1):114124.
Quinn, Kevin M., Monroe, Burt L., Colaresi, Michael, Crespin, Michael H., and Radev, Dragomir. 2010. How to Analyze Political Attention with Minimal Assumptions and Costs. American Journal of Political Science 54 (1):209228.
Riker, William. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sartori, Giovanni. 2005. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Essex: European Consortium for Political Research (first published in 1976).
Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 1972. The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition. American Political Science Review 66 (2):555568.
Slapin, Jonathan B., and Proksch, Sven-Oliver. 2008. A Scaling Model for Estimating Time-Series Party Positions from Texts. American Journal of Political Science 52 (3):705722.
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2013. Everything to Everyone: The Electoral Consequences of the Broad-Appeal Strategy in Europe. Unpublished manuscript, Vanderbilt University.
Spirling, Arthur. 2011. US Treaty Making with American Indians: Institutional Change and Relative Power, 1784–1911. American Journal of Political Science 56 (1):8497.
Tavits, Margit. 2009. The Making of Mavericks: Local Loyalties and Party Defection. Comparative Political Studies 42 (6):793815.
Tavits, Margit. 2011. Power Within Parties: The Strength of the Local Party and MP Independence in Postcommunist Europe. American Journal of Political Science 55 (4):923936.
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2009. The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity. American Political Science Review 103 (1):8398.
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Russell Sage/Princeton University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Lo Supplementary Material
Appendix

 PDF (618 KB)
618 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score