No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Popular Evaluation of German Chancellors, 1950–66: An Investigation of the Chancellor Effect
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2009
Extract
The first twenty years of the Federal Republic of Germany afford a particularly interesting context for the study of popular evaluation of executive figures. The importance of popular perceptions of executive political authorities has been dramatically demonstrated in contemporary German political history. The role of attitudes toward the leading executive figure in the current democratic regime has been the subject of much speculation. A well-established view suggests that the étatist and authoritarian attitudes that supported previous regimes have been very important in establishing the new one. Most important in this regard is the part played by Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic, in shaping party and electoral politics in the new regime's early years.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977
References
1 For a discussion of the literature and empirical findings, see Wildenmann, Rudolf, ‘Germany 1930–1970: The Empirical Findings’, in Sozialwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch für Politik, 2 vols. (Munich: Günter Olzog Verlag, 1971), Vol. 2, pp. 32–41.Google Scholar
2 Heidenheimer, Arnold J., ‘The Chancellor Effect in the Federal Republic’, in Schoonmaker, Donald, ed., German Politics (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1971), pp. 100–8Google Scholar; also in Politische Vierteljahresschrift (02, 1961).Google Scholar
3 For another influential analysis of this question, see Verba, Sidney, ‘Germany: The Remaking of Political Culture’, in Pye, L. W. and Verba, Sidney, eds., Political Culture and Political Development (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965).Google Scholar
4 The analysis in this section follows closely from Heidenheimer's article; see Heidenheimer, , ‘The Chancellor Effect’.Google Scholar
5 Heidenheimer, , ‘The Chancellor Effect’, p. 103.Google Scholar
6 The American Gallup question reads, ‘Do you approve or disapprove of the way (the incumbent) is handling his job as President?’
7 The question in German is in the form: ‘Sind sie im grossen und gansen mit der Politik Adenauer einverstanden oder nicht einverstanden?’
8 In German this question reads, ‘Können sie mir sagen, welche Partei Ihren Ansichten am nächsten steht?’
9 The parliamentary support item is ‘In your opinion could one get along with fifty deputies?’ The validation and use of the item was undertaken by Boynton, G. R. and Loewenberg, Gerhard in ‘The Development of Public Support for Parliament in Germany, 1951–1959’, British Journal of Political Science, III (1973), 169–89, pp. 172–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The party competition item is ‘Do you think it is better for a country to have one party, so that there is as much unanimity as possible, or several parties, so that various opinions can be represented freely?’ It is validated by G. R. Boynton and Gerhard Loewenberg in their paper, ‘The Development of Public Support for Party Competition in Postwar Germany’ prepared for delivery at the 1973 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association in Chicago.
10 The item ascertains whether the respondent knows that a member of parliament represents his particular constituency. A discussion of its face validity is found in Boynton, and Loewenberg, , ‘The Development of Public Support for Parliament’, p. 24.Google Scholar
11 This is based on a question asking respondents whether they could speak freely about political matters or whether it was better to exercise some restraint. This item is discussed in Boynton, and Loewenberg, , ‘The Development of Public Support for Party Competition’, p. 18.Google Scholar
12 This is based on a question asking respondents whether they had attended any political meetings. This item is discussed by Boynton, and Loewenberg, in ‘The Development of Public Support for Party Competition’, p. 18.Google Scholar
13 Heidenheimer, , ‘The Chancellor Effect’, p. 103.Google Scholar
14 Grosser, Alfred, The Federal Republic of Germany (New York: Praeger, 1964), Chap. IVGoogle Scholar; and Grosser, Alfred, Germany in Our Time (New York: Praeger, 1971), Chap. 7.Google Scholar
15 Heidenheimer, , ‘The Chancellor Effect’, p. 106.Google Scholar
16 For a discussion of levels of analysis see Eulau's, Heinz, ‘On Units and Levels of Analysis’, in Eulau, Heinz, ed., Micro-Macro Political Analysis (Chicago: Aldine, 1969), pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
17 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1968 edn., s.v. ‘Time Series: General’, by Gerhard Tinter, pp. 47–9.Google Scholar
18 Ezekiel, Mordecai and Fox, Karl A., Methods of Correlation and Regression Analysis (New York: Wiley, 1959), pp. 325–30.Google Scholar
19 Russett, Bruce M., ‘Some Decisions in the Regression of Time Series Data’, in Herndon, James and Bernd, Joseph L., eds., Mathematical Application in Political Science, 5 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1971), p. 34.Google Scholar
20 Russett, , ‘Some Decisions in the Regression of Time Series Data’.Google Scholar
21 For the Durbin-Watson test and tables see Durbin, J. and Watson, G. S., ‘Testing for Serial Correlation in Least Squares Regression’, parts 1 and 2, Biometrika XXXVII (1950), 409–28; and (1951), pp. 159–78.Google Scholar
22 ‘Some Decisions in the Regression of Time Series Data’, pp. 35–6.Google Scholar
23 Ezekiel, and Fox, , Methods of Correlation and Regression Analysis, pp. 341–2.Google Scholar
24 Pride, Richard A., ‘Pattern Analysis: An Alternative Approach to Quantitative Historical Data’, Comparative Political Studies, IV (1971), pp. 361–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 Ezekiel, and Fox, , Methods of Correlation and Regression Analysis, pp. 343–4.Google Scholar
26 Another problem of time-series regression is the possibility that there is a time delay in the influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable. For this reason I conducted several regression analyses which assumed three-month, six-month and one-year delayed effects. In no case did ‘lagging’ the time series improve regression results.
27 Loewenberg, and Boynton, , ‘The Development of Public Support for Parliament’, pp. 11–13.Google Scholar
28 Loewenberg, and Boynton, , ‘The Development of Public Support for Parliament’.Google Scholar
29 In symbolic form the differential equation is
Dt = total change in Chancellor evaluation between time t – 1 and time t; xt =% of sample in first subgroup at time t; dPf = change in Chancellor evaluation in first subgroup between time t – 1 and time t; dPo = change in Chancellor evaluation in second subgroup between time t – 1 and time t; 1 – x =% of sample in second subgroup at time t; Pf = Chancellor evaluation in first subgroup at time t; Po =% Chancellor evaluation in second subgroup at time t; dx = change in size of first subgroup between time t = 1 and time t.
30 Dahrendorf, Ralf, Society and Democracy in Germany (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor-Doubleday, 1969), p. 193.Google Scholar
31 Pinson, Koppel S., Modern Germany (New York: Macmillan, 1966), Chaps. 8–10.Google Scholar
32 Bracher, K. D., The German Dictatorship (New York: Praeger, 1972), pp. 168–98Google Scholar; Stürmer, Michael, ‘Parliamentary Government in Weimar Germany, 1924–1928’, in Nicholls, Anthony, ed., German Democracy and the Triumph of Hitler (London: Allen and Unwin, 1971), pp. 59–76Google Scholar; and Matthias, Erich, ‘German Social Democracy in the Weimar Republic’, in German Democracy and the Triumph of Hitler, pp. 47–57.Google Scholar
33 Dahrendorf, , Society and Democracy in Germany, pp. 314–27.Google Scholar
34 See fns. 9–12.
35 Kaase, Max, ‘The Determinants of Voting Behavior in the West German General Election’, Mannheim, Germany, 1972 (mimeographed).Google Scholar
36 Schleth, Uwe and Weede, Erich, ‘Causal Models of West German Voting behavior’, Sozialwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch für Politik, vol. 2, pp. 73–96.Google Scholar
37 For a description of the critical change in the SPD see Childs, David, From Schumacher to Brandt (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1966), Chap. 6.Google Scholar
38 Wildemann, , ‘Germany 1930–1970’, p. 43.Google Scholar