Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:59:29.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconciling Individual and Aggregate Evidence Concerning Partisan Stability: Applying Time-Series Models to Panel Survey Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Donald P. Green  and
David H. Yoon
Donald P. Green
Affiliation:
Yale University, 77 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06520-8209. e-mail: [email protected]
David H. Yoon
Affiliation:
Yale University, 77 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06520-8209. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Party identification has been studied extensively using both individual- and aggregate-level data. This paper attempts to formulate a statistical model that can account for the range of empirical generalizations that have emerged from aggregate time series and panel surveys. Using Monte Carlo simulation, we show that only certain types of data generation processes can account for these empirical regularities. Deciding which of the remaining types best explains the data means investigating the ways in which individual-level partisanship behaves over time. Partisanship at the aggregate-level tends to be highly autocorrelated, reequilibrating slowly in the wake of each perturbation. Working downward from the analysis of aggregate data, previous researchers argued that aggregate partisanship is fractionally integrated and contended that dynamics at the individual level are therefore heterogeneous. Using data from three panel surveys, we present the first direct assessment of individual-level dynamics. We also investigate the hypothesis that these dynamics vary among individuals, a claim that motivates much recent work on fractionally integrated time series. The model that best explains the observed characteristics of party identification is one in which individuals respond in similar ways to external shocks, reequilibrate rapidly thereafter, and seldom change their equilibrium level of partisan attachment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Winter 2002 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2002 

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

Abramson, Paul R., and Ostrom, Charles W. Jr. 1991. “Macropartisanship: An Empirical Reassessment.” American Political Science Review 85:181–192.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response.” American Political Science Review 69:1218–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allsop, Dee, and Weisberg, Herbert F. 1988. “Measuring Change in Party Identification in an Election Campaign.” American Journal of Political Science 32:996–1017.Google Scholar
Anderson, T. W., and Hsiao, Cheng. 1982. “Formulation and Estimation of Dynamic Models Using Panel Data.” Journal of Econometrics 18:47–82.Google Scholar
Arellano, Manuel. 1989. “A Note on the Anderson-Hsiao Estimator for Panel Data.” Econometrics Letters 31:337–341.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 1991. “Comparing Dynamic Specifications: The Case of Presidential Approval.” In Political Analysis, Volume 3, ed. Stimson, James A. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 51–87.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Smith, Renee M. 1996. “The Dynamics of Aggregate Partisanship.” American Political Science Review 90:567–580.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Smith, Renee M. 1997. “Heterogeneity and Individual Party Identification.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Smith, Renee M. 1998. “Investigating Political Dynamics Using Fractional Integration Methods.” American Journal of Political Science 42:661–689.Google Scholar
Brown, Thad A. 1981. “On Contextual Change and Partisan Attitudes.” British Journal of Political Science 11:427–448.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., and McCutcheon, Allan L. 1998. “Mixed Markov Latent Class Models for the Dynamics of Party Identification.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1976. The Dynamics of Party Support. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cromwell, Jeff B., Hannan, Michael J., Labys, Walter C., and Terraza, Michel. 1994. Multivariate Tests for Time Series Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBoef, Suzanna, and Granato, Jim. 1997. “Near-Integrated Data and the Analysis of Political Relationships.” American Journal of Political Science 41:619–640.Google 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, pp. 29–46.Google Scholar
Doornik, Jurgen A., Arellano, Manuel, and Bond, Stephen. 1999. “Panel Data Estimation Using DPD for Ox,” Technical Report. Oxford: Nuffield College, Oxford University.Google Scholar
Doornik, Jurgen A., and Ooms, Marius. 1999. “A Package for Estimating, Forecasting and Simulating Arfima Models: Arfima Package 1.0 for Ox,” Technical Report. Oxford: Nuffield College, Oxford University.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1979. “SRC Panel Data and Mass Political-Attitudes.” British Journal of Political Science 9:89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A. 1996. “Party Identification and Macropartisanship: Resolving the Paradox of Micro-Level Stability and Macro-Level Dynamics.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A. 1998. “What Moves Macropartisanship? A Response to Green, Palmquist, and Schickler.” American Political Science Review 92:901–912.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H., and Jackson, John E. 1983. “The Dynamics of Party Identification.” American Political Science Review 77:957–973.Google Scholar
Fuller, Wayne A. 1996. Introduction to Statistical Time Series, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan, and Green, Donald P. 1998. “Rational Learning and Partisan Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 42:794–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P. 1999. “Misperceptions About Perceptual Bias.” Annual Review of Political Science 2:189–210.Google Scholar
Geweke, John, and Porter-Hudak, Susan. 1983. “The Estimation and Application of Long Memory Time Series Models.” Journal of Time Series Analysis 4:221–238.Google Scholar
Gourierioux, Christian, and Monfort, Alain. 1997. Time Series and Dynamic Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, C. W. J. 1980. “Long Memory Relationships and the Aggregation of Dynamic Models.” Journal of Econometrics 14:227–238.Google Scholar
Granger, C. W. J., and Morris, M. 1976. “Time-Series Modeling and Interpretation.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser A 139:246–257.Google Scholar
Green, Donald Philip. 1991. “The Effects of Measurement Error on Two-Stage, Least Squares Estimates.” In Political Analysis, Volume 2, ed. Stimson, James A. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 57–74.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Palmquist, Bradley. 1990. “Of Artifacts and Partisan Instability.” American Journal of Political Science 34:872–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Palmquist, Bradley. 1994. “How Stable Is Party Identification?” Political Behavior 43:437–466.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 1998. “Macropartisanship: A Replication and Critique.” American Political Science Review 92:883–899.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University (in press).Google Scholar
Hamilton, James D. 1994. Time Series Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hsiao, Cheng. 1986. Analysis of Panel Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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 54:159–178.Google Scholar
Lebo, Matthew J., Walker, Robert W., and Clarke, Harold D. 2000. “You Must Remember This: Dealing with Long Memory in Political Analysis.” Electoral Studies 19:31–48.Google Scholar
Lee, K., Pesaran, M. H., and Smith, R. 1997. “Growth and Convergence in a Multi-Country Empirical Stochastic Solow Model.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 12(4):357–392.Google Scholar
MacKuen, Michael B., Erikson, Robert S., and Stimson, James A. 1989. “Macropartisanship.” American Political Science Review 83:1125–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKuen, Michael B., Erikson, Robert S., and Stimson, James A. 1992. “Question Wording and Macropartisanship.” American Political Science Review 86:475–486.Google Scholar
McCleary, Richard, and Hay, Richard A. Jr. 1981. Applied Time Series Analysis for the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E. 1991. “Party Identification, Realignment, and Party Voting: Back to Basics.” American Political Science Review 85:557–568.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Election Studies, National. 1982. American National Election Study, 1980, 2nd ICPSR ed., ICPSR No. 7763. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Election Studies, National. 1995. American National Election Study, 1994: Post-Election Survey [Enhanced with 1992 and 1993 Data], ICPSR No. 6507. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., Kinder, Donald R., Rosenstone, Steven J., and Election Studies, National. 1993. American National Election Study, 1990-1992: Full Panel Survey, ICPSR No. 6230. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Jones, Calvin C. 1979. “Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties, and the Vote.” American Political Science Review 73:1071–1089.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Palmquist, Bradley, and Green, Donald P. 1992. “Estimation of Models with Correlated Measurement Errors from Panel Data.” In Sociological Methodology 1992, ed. Marsden, Peter V. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association, pp. 119–146.Google Scholar
Patterson, Thomas E. 1982. Presidential Campaign Impact on Voters: 1976 Panel, Erie, Pennsylvania and Los Angeles, ICPSR No. 7990. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Pesaran, M. H., and Smith, R. 1995. “Estimating the Long-Run Relationships from Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels.” Journal of Econometrics 68(1): 79–113.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric, and Philip Green, Donald. 1995. “Issue Preferences and the Dynamics of Party Identification: A Methodological Critique.” In Political Analysis, Volume 5, ed. Freeman, John R. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 151–179.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric, and Green, Donald P. 1997. “The Stability of Party Identification in Western Democracies: Results from Eight Panel Surveys.” Comparative Political Studies 30:450–483.Google Scholar
Sowell, Fallaw. 1992. “Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Stationary Univariate Fractionally Integrated Time Series Models.” Journal of Econometrics 53:165–188.Google Scholar
Theil, H. 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 53:1077–1092.Google Scholar
Whitely, Paul F. 1988. ”The Causal Relationship Between Issues, Candidate Evaluations, Party Identification, and Vote Choice—The View from ‘Rolling Thunder.’” Journal of Politics 50:961–984.Google Scholar
Wiley, David E., and Wiley, James A. 1970. “The Estimation of Measurement Error in Panel Data.” American Sociological Review 35:112–117.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Green and Yoon supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Green and Yoon supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 34.8 KB