Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-qls9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-07T11:04:42.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dynamics of Aggregate Partisanship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier  and
Renée M. Smith
Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Renée M. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Rochester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite extensive research on party identification, links between partisanship at the individual and aggregate level have largely been ignored. This leaves a gap in our understanding of the dynamics of aggregate partisanship. To remedy this, we identify a set of ideal types that capture the essential arguments made about individual-level party identification. We then combine the behavioral assumptions for each type with existing results on statistical aggregation to deduce the specific temporal pattern that each type implies for aggregate levels of partisanship. Using new diagnostic tests and a highly general time series model, we find that aggregate measures of partisanship from 1953 through 1992 are fractionally integrated. Our evidence that the effects of a shock to aggregate partisanship last for years—not months or decades—challenges previous work by party systems theorists and students of “macropartisanship.” Our arguments and empirical evidence provide a conceptually richer and more precise basis for theories of issue evolution or endogenous preferences—in which partisanship plays a central role.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 567 - 580
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1996

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Abramson, Paul R. 1975. Generational Change in American Politics. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Abramson, Paul R. 1983. Political Attitudes in America. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John, and Rohde, David W.. 1995. Change and Continuity in the 1992 Elections. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Abramson, Paul R., and Ostrom, Charles W.. 1991. “Macropartisanship: An Empirical Reassessment.” American Political Science Review 85 (03):181–92.Google Scholar
Abramson, Paul R., and Ostrom, Charles W.. 1992. “Question Wording and Macropartisanship: Response.” American Political Science Review 86 (03):481–6.Google Scholar
Abramson, Paul R., and Ostrom, Charles W.. 1994. “Question Form and Context Effects in the Measurement of Partisanship: Response.” American Political Science Review 88 (12):955–8.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1992. “Social Psychology, Demographic Variables, and Linear Regression: Breaking the Iron Triangle in Voting Research.” Political Behavior 14 (09):195–211.Google Scholar
Allsop, Dee, and Weisberg, Herbert F.. 1988. “Measuring Change in Party Identification in an Election Campaign.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (11):996–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Paul A. 1974. “A Socialization Theory of Partisan Realignment.” In The Politics of Future Citizens, ed. Niemi, Richard G. et al. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Reprinted in Classics in Voting Behavior, ed. Richard G.|Niemi and Herbert F.|Weisberg. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, George F., Tuchfarber, Alfred J., and Smith, Andrew E.. 1994. “Question Form and Context Effects in the Measurement of Partisanship: Experimental Tests of the Artifact Hypothesis.” American Political Science Review 88 (12):945–54.Google Scholar
Burger, Thomas. 1976. Max Weber's Theory of Concept Formation: History, Laws, and Ideal Types. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1970. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cavanagh, Thomas E., and Sundquist, James L.. 1985. “The New Two-Party System.” In The New Directions in American Politics, ed. Chubb, John E. and Peterson, Paul E.. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Cheung, Yin-Wong. 1993. “Long Memory in Foreign-Exchange Rates” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 11 (01):93–101.Google Scholar
Clubb, Jerome M., Flanigan, William H., and Zingale, Nancy H.. 1980. Partisan Realignment: Voters, Parties and Government in American History. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Cochrane, John H. 1988. “How Big Is the Random Walk in GNP?” Journal of Political Economy 96 (10):893–920.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1962. “Information Flow and the Stability of Partisan Attitudes.” Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (Winter):578–99.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1966. “The Concept of a Normal Vote.” In Elections and the Political Order, ed. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip, Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1969. “Of Time and Partisan Stability.” Comparative Political Studies 2 (07):139–71.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., and Wattenberg, Martin P.. 1993. “The Not So Simple Act of Voting.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, ed. Finifter, Ada W.. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
DeBoef, Suzanna, and Granato, Jim. 1995. “Near-Integration, Cointegration, and Error Correction Models.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Political Methodology Section, American Political Science Association, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
DeBoef, Suzanna, and Granato, Jim. N.d. “Equation Balance and Causal Inference: The Case of Near-Integrated Data” American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Dickey, D. A., and Fuller, W. A.. 1981. “Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root” Econometrica 49 (07):1057–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diebold, Francis X. 1989. “Random Walks versus Fractional Integration: Power Comparisons of Scalar and Joint Tests of the Variance-Time Function.” In Advances in Econometrics and Modeling, ed. Raj, Raldev. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Diebold, Francis X., and Rudebusch, Glenn D.. 1989. “Long Memory and Persistence in Aggregate Output.” Journal of Monetary Economics 24 (09):189–209.Google Scholar
Durr, Robert. 1993. “An Essay on Cointegration and Error Correction Models.” Political Analysis 4:185–228.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles. 1984. “Issue Preferences, Socialization, and the Evolution of Party Identification.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (08):459–78.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H., and Jackson, John E.. 1983. “The Dynamics of Party Identification.” American Political Science Review 77 (12):957–71.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Jackson, John E.. 1993. “Endogous Preferences and the Study of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 87 (09):639–56.Google Scholar
Geweke, John, and Porter-Hudak, Susan. 1983. “The Estimation and Application of Long Memory Time Series Models.” Journal of Time Series Analysis 4 (4):221–38.Google Scholar
Granger, C. W. J. 1980. “Long Memory Relationships and the Aggregation of Dynamic Models.” Journal of Econometrics 14 (10):227–38.Google Scholar
Granger, C. W. J. 1987. “Implications of Aggregation with Common Factors.” Econometric Theory 3 (08):208–22.Google Scholar
Granger, C. W. J., and Joyeux, Roselyn. 1980. “An Introduction to Long-Memory Time Series Models and Fractional Differencing.” Journal of Time Series Analysis 1 (1):15–29.Google Scholar
Granger, C. W. J., and Newbold, Paul. 1977. Forecasting Economic Time Series. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald Philip, and Palmquist, Bradley. 1990. “Of Artifacts and Partisan Stability.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (08):872–902.Google Scholar
Hamilton, James D. 1994. Time Series Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hosking, J. R. M. 1981. “Fractional Differencing.” Biometrika 68 (04):165–76.Google Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1975. “Issues, Party Choices, and Presidential Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 19 (05):161–85.Google Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H. 1983. “The Ecological Fallacy Revisited: Aggregate- versus Individual-level Findings on Economics and Elections and Sociotropic Voting.” American Political Science Review 77 (03):92–111.Google Scholar
Kwiatkowski, Denis, Phillips, Peter C. B., Schmidt, Peter, and Shin, Yongcheol. 1992. “Testing the Null Hypothesis of Stationarity Against the Alternative of a Unit Root.” Journal of Econometrics 54 (October–December):159–78.Google Scholar
Lo, Andrew. 1991. “Long-Term Memory in Stock Market Prices.” Econometrica 59 (09):1279–1313.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, James G. 1991. “Critical Values for Cointegration Tests.” In Long Run Relationships: Readings in Cointegration, ed. Engle, Robert and Granger, C. W. J.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacKuen, Michael B., Erikson, Robert S., and Stimson, James A.. 1989. “Macropartisanship.” American Political Science Review 83 (12):1125–42.Google Scholar
MacKuen, Michael B., Erikson, Robert S., and Stimson, James A.. 1992. “Question Wording and Macropartisanship.” American Political Science Review 86 (06):475–81.Google Scholar
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E.. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 73 (12):1055–70.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E. 1991. “Party Identification, Realignment, and Party Voting: Back to the Basics.” American Political Science Review 85 (06):557–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nardulli, Pete. 1995. “The Concept of a Critical Realignment, Electoral Behavior, and Political Change.” American Political Science Review 89 (03):10–22.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Charles W. Jr., and Smith, Renée M.. 1993. “Error Correction, Attitude Persistence, and Executive Rewards and Punishments: A Behavioral Theory of Presidential Approval.” Political Analysis 4:127–84.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Jones, Calvin C.. 1979. “Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties, and the Vote.” American Political Science Review 73 (12):1071–89.Google Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 1988. “Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (08):737–57.Google Scholar
Runkle, David E. 1987. “Vector Autoregressions and Reality.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 5 (10):437–42.Google Scholar
Shively, W. Phillips. 1979. “The Relationship between Age and Party Identification: A Cohort Analysis.” Political Methodology 6 (4):437–46.Google Scholar
Smelser, Neil J. 1976. Comparative Methods in the Social Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Sowell, Fallaw. 1992a. “Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Stationary Univariate Fractionally Integrated Time Series Models.” Journal of Econometrics 53 (July–September):165–88.Google Scholar
Sowell, Fallaw. 1992b. “Modeling Long-Run Behavior with the Fractional ARIMA Model.” Journal of Monetary Economics 29 (04):277–302.Google Scholar
Sundquist, James L. 1983. Dynamics of the Party System. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Theil, Henri. 1954. Linear Aggregation of Economic Relations. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F., and Smith, Charles E. Jr. 1991. “The Influence of the Economy on Party Identification in the Reagan Years.” Journal of Politics 53 (November): 1077–92.Google Scholar
Williams, John T. 1993. “What Goes Around Comes Around: Unit Root Tests and Cointegration” Political Analysis 3:229–36.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.