Skip to main content Accessibility help

Measurement Uncertainty in Spatial Models: A Bayesian Dynamic Measurement Model

  • Sebastian Juhl (a1)


According to spatial models of political competition, parties strategically adjust their ideological positions to movements made by rival parties. Spatial econometric techniques have been proposed to empirically model such interdependencies and to closely convert theoretical expectations into statistical models. Yet, these models often ignore that the parties’ ideological positions are latent variables and, as such, accompanied by a quantifiable amount of uncertainty. As a result, the implausible assumption of perfectly measured covariates impedes a proper evaluation of theoretical propositions. In order to bridge this gap between theory and empirics, the present work combines a spatial econometric model and a Bayesian dynamic item response model. The proposed model accurately accounts for measurement uncertainty and simultaneously estimates the parties’ ideological positions and their spatial interdependencies. To verify the model’s utility, I apply it to recorded votes from the sixteen German state legislatures in the period from 1988 to 2016. While exhibiting a notable degree of ideological mobility, the results indicate only moderate spatial dependencies among parties of the same party family. More importantly, the analysis illustrates how measurement uncertainty can lead to substantively different results which stresses the importance of appropriately incorporating theoretical expectations into statistical models.


Corresponding author


Hide All

Author’s note: An earlier version of this work has been presented at the EPSA conference 2017 in Milan, Italy and the 2018 annual conference of the PSA Political Methodology Group in Essex, UK. I would like to thank Thomas Bräuninger, Heike Klüver, Roni Lehrer, the journal’s editor Jeff Gill, and four anonymous reviewers for valuable comments. I also thank Lea Manger and Oksana Basik for research assistance. Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis website and replication materials are retrievable from the Political Analysis Dataverse (Juhl 2018). This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) via the SFB 884 on “The Political Economy of Reforms” (Project C2) and the University of Mannheim’s Graduate School of Economic and Social Sciences (GESS).

Contributing Editor: Jeff Gill



Hide All
Adams, James. 2001. Party competition and responsible party government: a theory of spatial competition based upon insights from behavioral voting research . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Adams, James, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2009. Policy adjustment by parties in response to rival parties’ policy shifts: spatial theory and the dynamics of party competition in twenty-five post-war democracies. British Journal of Political Science 39(4):825846.
Bafumi, Joseph, Gelman, Andrew, Park, David K., and Kaplan, Noah. 2005. Practical issues in implementing and understanding Bayesian ideal point estimation. Political Analysis 13(2):171187.
Bailey, Michael A. 2007. Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the court, congress, and presidency. American Journal of Political Science 51(3):433448.
Bakker, Ryan. 2009. Re-measuring left–right: a comparison of SEM and Bayesian measurement models for extracting left–right party placements. Electoral Studies 28(3):413421, Special symposium: measurement methods for better longitudinal modelling.
Beck, Nathaniel, Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede, and Beardsley, Kyle. 2006. Space is more than geography: using spatial econometrics in the study of political economy. International Studies Quarterly 50(1):2744.
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2007. Estimating party policy positions: comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies 26(1):90107.
Benoit, Kenneth, Laver, Michael, and Mikhaylov, Slava. 2009. Treating words as data with error: uncertainty in text statements of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science 53(2):495513.
Blackwell, Matthew, Honaker, James, and King, Gary. 2017. A unified approach to measurement error and missing data: overview and applications. Sociological Methods and Research 46(3):303341.
Böhmelt, Tobias, Ezrow, Lawrence, Lehrer, Roni, and Ward, Hugh. 2016. Party policy diffusion. American Political Science Review 110(2):397410.
Bräuninger, Thomas, Müller, Jochen, and Stecker, Christian. 2016. Modeling preferences using roll call votes in parliamentary systems. Political Analysis 24(2):189210.
Bräuninger, Thomas, and Debus, Marc. 2012. Parteienwettbewerb in Deutschen Bundesländern . Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Busch, Kathrin Barbara. 2016. Estimating parties’ left–right positions: determinants of voters’ perceptions’ proximity to party ideology. Electoral Studies 41:159178.
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98(2):355370.
Crabtree, C. D., and Fariss, Christopher J.. 2015. Uncovering patterns among latent variables: human rights and de facto judicial independence. Research and Politics 2(3):19.
Dalton, Russell J., and McAllister, Ian. 2015. Random walk or planned excursion? Continuity and change in the left–right positions of political parties. Comparative Political Studies 48(6):759787.
Davis, Otto A., Hinich, Melvin J., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1970. An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review 64(2):426448.
Debus, Marc, and Müller, Jochen. 2013. The programmatic development of CDU and CSU since reunification: incentives and constraints for changing policy positions in the german multi-level system. German Politics 22(1–2):151171.
Denwood, Matthew J. 2016. runjags: An R package providing interface utilities, model templates, parallel computing methods and additional distributions for MCMC models in JAGS. Journal of Statistical Software 71(9):125.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy . New York, USA: Harper and Row.
Fariss, Christopher J. 2014. Respect for human rights has improved over time: modeling the changing standard of accountability. American Political Science Review 108(2):297318.
Franzese, R. J., and Hays, Jude C.. 2007. Spatial econometric models of cross-sectional interdependence in political science panel and time-series-cross-section data. Political Analysis 15(2):140164.
Franzese, R. J., and Hays, Jude C.. 2008. Interdependence in comparative politics. Comparative Political Studies 41(4–5):742780.
Fuller, Wayne A. 1987. Measurement error models . New York, USA: Wiley.
Grimmer, Justin. 2011. An introduction to Bayesian inference via variational approximations. Political Analysis 19(1):3247.
Hays, Jude C., Kachi, Aya, and Franzese, Robert J.. 2010. A spatial model incorporating dynamic, endogenous network interdependence: a political science application. Statistical Methodology 7(3):406428.
Herron, Michael C. 2004. Studying dynamics in legislator ideal points: scale matters. Political Analysis 12(2):182190.
Hix, Simon, and Noury, Abdul. 2016. Government-opposition or left–right? The institutional determinants of voting in legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods 4(2):249273.
Hug, Simon. 2013. Parliamentary voting. In Party governance and party democracy , ed. Müller, Wolfgang C. and Narud, Hanne M.. New York, USA: Springer, pp. 137157.
Jackman, Simon. 2001. Multidimensional analysis of roll call data via Bayesian simulation: identification, estimation, inference, and model checking. Political Analysis 9(3):227241.
Jessee, Stephen A. 2017. ‘Don’t know’ responses, personality, and the measurement of political knowledge. Political Science Research and Methods 5(4):711731.
Juhl, Sebastian. 2018 Replication data for: Measurement uncertainty in spatial models: A Bayesian dynamic measurement model, doi:10.7910/DVN/ICTG9Z, Harvard Dataverse, V2.
Kollman, Ken, Miller, John H., and Page, Scott E.. 1992. Adaptive parties in spatial elections. The American Political Science Review 86(4):929937.
König, Thomas, Marbach, Moritz, and Osnabrügge, Moritz. 2013. Estimating party positions across countries and time? A dynamic latent variable model for manifesto data. Political Analysis 21(4):468491.
Krehbiel, Keith, and Peskowitz, Zachary. 2015. Legislative organization and ideal-point bias. Journal of Theoretical Politics 27(4):673703.
Laver, Michael. 2005. Policy and the dynamics of political competition. American Political Science Review 99(2):263281.
Laver, Michael. 2006. Legislatures and parliaments in comparative context. In The Oxford handbook of political economy , ed. Weingast, Barry R. and Wittman, Donald A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 121140.
Laver, Michael, and Sergenti, Ernest. 2012. Party competition: an agent-based model . Princeton: Princeton 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):311331.
Loken, Eric, and Gelman, Andrew. 2017. Measurement error and the replication crisis. Science 355(6325):584585.
de Marchi, Scott, and Page, Scott E.. 2014. Agent-based models. Annual Review of Political Science 17(1):120.
Martin, A. D., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. supreme court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10(2):134152.
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: the electoral connection . New Haven, USA: Yale University Press.
McAvoy, Gregory E. 1998. Measurement models for time series analysis: estimating dynamic linear errors-in-variables models. Political Analysis 7(1):165186.
Neumayer, Eric, and Plümper, Thomas. 2016. W. Political Science Research and Methods 4(1):175193.
Park, Jong Hee. 2011. Modeling preference changes via a hidden Markov item response theory model . Chapman and Hall/CRC, pp. 479491.
Pemstein, Daniel, Meserve, Stephen A., and Melton, James. 2010. Democratic compromise: a latent variable analysis of ten measures of regime type. Political Analysis 18(4):426449.
Plummer, Martin. 2016. JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. Version 4.2.0.
Plümper, Thomas, and Neumayer, Eric. 2010. Model specification in the analysis of spatial dependence. European Journal of Political Research 49(3):418442.
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1985. A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science 29(2):357384.
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1991. Patterns of congressional voting. American Journal of Political Science 35(1):228278.
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. D-nominate after 10 years: a comparative update to congress: a political-economic history of roll-call voting. Legislative Studies Quarterly 26(1):529.
R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing . Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Schnakenberg, Keith E., and Fariss, Christopher J.. 2014. Dynamic patterns of human rights practices. Political Science Research and Methods 2(1):131.
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review 105(3):530551.
Stecker, Christian. 2015. How effects on party unity vary across votes. Party Politics 21(5):791802.
Theriault, Sean M., Hickey, Patrick, and Blass, Abby. 2011. Roll-call votes. In The Oxford handbook of the American congress , ed. Edwards III, George C., Lee, Frances E., and Schickler, Eric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 575597.
Treier, Shawn, and Jackman, Simon. 2008. Democracy as a latent variable. American Journal of Political Science 52(1):201217.
Williams, Laron K. 2015. It’s all relative: spatial positioning of parties and ideological shifts. European Journal of Political Research 54(1):141159.
Williams, L. K., and Whitten, Guy D.. 2015. Don’t stand so close to me: spatial contagion effects and party competition. American Journal of Political Science 59(2):309325.
Williams, Laron K., Seki, Katsunori, and Whitten, Guy D.. 2016. You’ve got some explaining to do the influence of economic conditions and spatial competition on party strategy. Political Science Research and Methods 4(1):4763.
MathJax is a JavaScript display engine for mathematics. For more information see


Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Juhl supplementary material
Juhl supplementary material

 Unknown (175 KB)
175 KB

Measurement Uncertainty in Spatial Models: A Bayesian Dynamic Measurement Model

  • Sebastian Juhl (a1)


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.