Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-vjhkx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-01T19:33:10.681Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Estimating Uncertainty in Party Policy Positions Using the Confrontational Approach*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2015


This research note extends the confrontational approach to estimating party policy positions by providing a way to estimate uncertainty associated with the measurements. The confrontational approach is a flexible method of determining party policy positions, which is ideally suited to measure parties’ positions on issues that are specific to a country or period in time. We introduce a method of estimating the uncertainty of confrontational estimates by restating the approach as a special case of an item response theory, opening up the possibility of using the confrontational approach not only as a descriptive tool but also as a means of testing hypotheses on party policy preferences. We illustrate our model using analysis of the 2010 Dutch parliamentary election and the 2009 European elections.

Research Note
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

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.)



Tom Louwerse, Assistant Professor in Political Science, Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin, 3 College Green, Dublin 2, Ireland. ( Huib Pellikaan, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333 AK, Leiden, the Netherlands. The authors thank Franzisca Zanker for her research assistance in coding the European manifestos. An earlier version of this article was presented at the Politicologenetmaal, the Annual Meeting of Dutch and Flemish political scientists, 9 June 2011, in Amsterdam. The authors thank the participants for their useful comments. The authors also thank Will Lowe for his suggestions in an early stage of this project, as well as the two anonymous reviewers. All remaining errors are, of course, the authors’ own.


Bakker, Ryan, Vries, Catherine De, Edwards, Erica, Hooghe, Liesbeth, Jolly, Seth, Marks, Gary, Polk, Jonathan, Rovny, Jan, Steenbergen, Marco, and Vachudova, Milada Anna. 2015. ‘Measuring Party Positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File, 1999–2010’. Party Politics 21(1):143152.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael J.. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, Laver, Michael J., and Mikhaylov, Slava. 2009. ‘Treating Words as Data with Error: Uncertainty in Text Statements of Policy Positions’. American Journal of Political Science 53(2):95513.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian. 2001. ‘Theory and Measurement of Party Policy Positions’. In Ian Budge et al. (eds), Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments 1945–1998. 7592. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. ‘The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data’. American Political Science Review 98(2):355370.Google Scholar
Dolezal, Martin, Ennser-Jedenastik, Laurenz, Müller, Wolfgang C., and Winkler, Anna Katharina. 2014. ‘How Parties Compete for Votes: A Test of Saliency Theory’. European Journal of Political Research 53(1):5776.Google Scholar
Gemenis, Kostas, and Dinas, Elias. 2010. ‘Confrontation Still? Examining Parties’ Policy Positions in Greece’. Comparative European Politics 8(2):179201.Google Scholar
Simon, Jackman. 2009. Bayesian Analysis for the Social Sciences. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, Budge, Ian, and McDonald, Michael D.. 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.Google Scholar
Kriesi, Hanspeter, Grande, Edgar, Lachat, Romain, Dolezal, Martin, Bornschier, Simon, and Frey, Timotheos. 2006. ‘Globalization and the Transformation of the National Political Space: Six European Countries Compared’. European Journal of Political Research 45(6):921956.Google Scholar
Michael, Laver, and Ben Hunt, W.. 1992. Policy and party competition. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1982. ‘The Relative Salience of the Socio-Economic and Religious Issue Dimensions: Coalition Formations in Ten Western Democracies, 1919–1979’. European Journal of Political Research 10(3):201211.Google Scholar
Lowe, Will, Kenneth Benoit, Slava Mikhaylov, Michael Laver. 2011. Scaling Policy Positions From Coded Units of Political Texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(1):123155.Google Scholar
Pellikaan, Huib, De Lange, Sarah L., and Van der Meer, Tom. 2007. ‘Fortuyn’s Legacy: Party System Change in the Netherlands’. Comparative European Politics 5(3):282302.Google Scholar
Pellikaan, Huib, Van der Meer, Tom, and De Lange, Sarah L.. 2003. ‘The Road from a Depoliticized to a Centrifugal Democracy’. Acta Politica 38(1):2349.Google Scholar
Rohrschneider, Robert, and Whitefield, Stephen. 2012. ‘Institutional Context and Representational Strain in Party–Voter Agreement in Western and Eastern Europe’. West European Politics 35(6):13201340.Google Scholar
Rosas, Guillermo, Shomer, Yael, and Haptonstahl, Stephen. 2015. ‘No News is News: Nonignorable Nonresponse in Roll-Call Data Analysis’. American Journal of Political Science 59(2):511528.Google Scholar
Schattsneider, Elmer E. 1960. The Semisovereign People. A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 2008. The Spatial Model of Politics. London/New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Treier, Shawn, and Jackman, Simon. 2008. ‘Democracy as a Latent Variable’. American Journal of Political Science 52(1):201217.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Louwerse et al dataset