Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-pcn4s Total loading time: 0.277 Render date: 2022-05-21T10:01:09.328Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Tracing the selection bias in roll call votes: party group cohesion in the European Parliament

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2014

Nikoleta Yordanova*
Affiliation:
School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
Monika Mühlböck
Affiliation:
Department of Economic Sociology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Abstract

Legislative politics scholars rely heavily on roll call vote (RCV) data. However, it has been claimed that strategic motives behind RCV requests lead to overestimating party group cohesion and, thus, biased findings on legislative behaviour. To explore this claim, we distinguish between two types of bias, a ‘behavioural bias’ and a ‘selection bias’. A recent rule change in the European Parliament, making RCVs mandatory on all final legislative votes, presents the unique opportunity to evaluate the latter. We compare party group cohesion in requested and mandatory RCVs by examining final legislative votes before and after the rule adoption using amendment RCVs (which still need to be requested) as a benchmark. The analysis shows that group cohesion is higher whenever RCVs are not just requested on some but mandatory on all votes. Hence, there is indeed a ‘selection bias’ in RCV data. Yet, somewhat contrary to former claims, relying on requested RCVs leads to underestimation of the cohesion party groups would have had were all votes automatically roll called. We argue that this is mainly because requests occur on more contentious votes.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

The order of the authors’ names reflects the principle of rotation. Both authors have contributed equally to all work.

References

Ainsley, C. and Maxwell, L. (2012), ‘What can we learn from roll call votes? Strategic signalling incentives and the decision to call roll call votes’, Working paper, Emory University.Google Scholar
Attina, F. (1990), ‘The voting behaviour of the European Parliament members and the problem of the Europarties’, European Journal of Political Research 18(4): 557579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambor, T., Clark, W.R. and Golder, M. (2005), ‘Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analyses’, Political Analysis 14(1): 6382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J.M. (2007), ‘Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting’, American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 92107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. (2009), Legislative Voting and Accountability, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carrubba, C., Gabel, M. and Hug, S. (2008), ‘Legislative voting behavior, seen and unseen: a theory of roll-call vote selection’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 33(4): 543572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrubba, C., Gabel, M. and Hug, S. (2009), ‘Voting at the surface: roll call votes in the European Parliament’. In 2nd Conference on the Political Economy of International Organizations, Geneva, Switzerland, January 29–31 .Google Scholar
Carrubba, C.J., Gabel, M., Murrah, L., Clough, R., Montgomery, E. and Rebecca, S. (2006), ‘Off the record: unrecorded legislative votes, selection bias and roll-call vote analysis’, British Journal of Political Science 36: 691704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G.W. and McCubbins, M.D. (2007), Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House, 2nd edn., New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Parliament (2009), Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. Retrieved 12 November 2014 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+RULES-EP+20100705+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN.Google Scholar
Finke, D. and Thiem, J. (2010), ‘Two principals, two motives: the amendment process and roll call votes in the European Parliament’. In Proceedings of the Fifth Pan-European Conference on EU Politics, June 23–26, Porto.Google Scholar
Hix, S. and Noury, A. (2009), ‘After enlargement: voting patterns in the sixth European Parliament’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(2): 159174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, S., Noury, A.G. and Roland, G. (2007), Democratic Politics in the European Parliament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, S., Noury, A. and Roland, G. (2014), Is there a strategic selection bias in roll call votes in the European Parliament?’, Manuscript. Retrieved 12 November 2014 from http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Working_Papers/Hix-Noury-Roland_Selection_EP_22July2014.pdf.Google Scholar
Ho, D., Imai, K., King, G. and Stuart, E. (2006), ‘Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference’, Political Analysis 15(3): 199236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Høyland, B. (2010), ‘Procedural and party effects in European Parliament roll-call votes’, European Union Politics 11(4): 597613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Høyland, B., Sircar, I. and Hix, S. (2009), ‘Forum section: an automated database of the European Parliament’, European Union Politics 10(1): 143152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, S. (2006), ‘Selection effects in roll call votes’, CIS Working Paper No. 15, 2006.Google Scholar
Hug, S. (2009), ‘Selection effects in roll call votes’, British Journal of Political Science 40(1): 225235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, S. (2012a), ‘Roll call votes in the European Parliament’. In Proceedings of the Sixth Pan-European Conference on EU Politics, September 13–15, Tampere.Google Scholar
Hug, S. (2012b), ‘The European Parliament after Lisbon (and before)’. In International Conference ‘Beyond Lisbon Treaty’, Institute of European and American Studies (IEAS), Academia Sinica, September 7–8, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Iacus, S.M., King, G. and Porro, G. (2009), ‘Cem: software for coarsened exact matching’, Journal of Statistical Software 30(9): 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacus, S.M., King, G. and Porro, G.(2011), ‘Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching’, Political Analysis 20(617): 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreppel, A. and Tsebelis, G. (1999), ‘Coalition formation in the European Parliament’, Comparative Political Studies 32: 933966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstadt, R., Slapin, J.B. and Vander Wielen, R.J. (2011), ‘Balancing competing demands: position taking and election proximity in the European Parliament’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(1): 3770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M.S. and Madonna, A.J. (2013), ‘Viva voce: implications from the disappearing voice vote’, Social Science Quarterly 94(2): 530550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D.R. (1974), Congress: The Electoral Connection, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Papke, L.E. and Wooldridge, J.M. (1996), ‘Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) Plan participation rates’, Journal of Applied Econometrics 11(6): 619632.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raunio, T. (1997), The European Perspective: Transnational Party Groups in the 1989–1994 European Parliament, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Ringe, N. (2010), Who Decides, and How? Preferences, Uncertainty, and Policy Choice in the European Parliament, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saalfeld, T. (1995), ‘On dogs and whips: recorded votes’, in H. Doring (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 528565.Google Scholar
Stecker, C. (2010), ‘Causes of roll-call votes supply: evidence from the German loander’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 16(4): 438459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stecker, C. (2011), ‘Bedingungsfaktoren der fraktionsgeschlossenheit. eine vergle-ichende analyse der deutschen loanderparlamente’, PVS 52(3): 424447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiem, J. (2006), ‘Explaining roll call vote request in the European Parliament’, Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung Working Paper No. 90.Google Scholar
Thiem, J. (2007), ‘A supranational elite (in the making)? Agency relations in the European Parliament and the role of national parties’. In ECPR Joint Sessions, May 7–12, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Yordanova, N. (2011), ‘The effect of inter-institutional rules on the division of power in the European Parliament: allocation of consultation versus codecision reports’, West European Politics 34(1): 97121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshinaka, A., McElroy, G. and Bowler, S. (2010), ‘The appointment of rapporteurs in the European Parliament’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 35(4): 457486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Tracing the selection bias in roll call votes: party group cohesion in the European Parliament
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Tracing the selection bias in roll call votes: party group cohesion in the European Parliament
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Tracing the selection bias in roll call votes: party group cohesion in the European Parliament
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *