Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T20:28:04.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Joint Scaling Methods to Study Ideology and Representation: Evidence from Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Sebastián M. Saiegh
Sebastián M. Saiegh*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this article, I use joint scaling methods and similar items from three large-scale surveys to place voters, parties, and politicians from different Latin American countries on a common ideological space. The findings reveal that ideology is a significant determinant of vote choice in Latin America. They also suggest that the success of leftist leaders at the polls reflects the views of the voters sustaining their victories. The location of parties and leaders reveals that three distinctive clusters exist: one located at the left of the political spectrum, another at the center, and a third on the right. The results also indicate that legislators in Brazil, Mexico, and Peru tend to be more “leftists” than their voters. The ideological drift, however, is not significant enough to substantiate the view that a disconnect between voters and politicians lies behind the success of leftist presidents in these countries. These findings highlight the importance of using a common-space scale to compare disparate populations and call into question a number of recent studies by scholars of Latin American politics who fail to adequately address this important issue.

Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , Summer 2015 , pp. 363 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

Authors' note: Supplementary Materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site. Replication files are available on the Political Analysis Dataverse at http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/29342. The research for this article was conducted while the author was a visiting research scholar at the Inter-American Development Bank's Research Department (RES).

References

Abrajano, Marisa. 2015. Reexamining the racial gap in political knowledge. Journal of Politics 77:44–54.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1977. Measuring representation: Perils of the correlation coefficient. American Journal of Political Science 21:805–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1978. Measuring representation. American Journal of Political Science 22:475–510.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and McKelvey, Richard. 1977. A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. American Political Science Review 71:111–30.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 2004. Party system compactness: Measurement and consequences. Political Analysis 12:46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, Dave, Bakker, Ryan, Carroll, Royce, Hare, Christopher, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2014a. Analyzing spatial models of choice and judgment with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, Dave, Bakker, Bakker, Carroll, Royce, Hare, Christopher, Poole, Keith T., and Howard, Rosenthal. 2014b. Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey scaling. Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia, Department of Political Science.Google Scholar
Arnold Jason, Ross, and Samuels, David J. 2011. Eividence from public opinion. In The resurgence of the Latin American left, eds. Levitsky, Steven and Roberts, M., 31–51. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C. 2010. Leapfrog representation and extremism. American Political Science Review 104:519–42.Google Scholar
Bakker, Ryan, Jolly, Jonathan Polk, Seth, and Poole, Keith. 2014. The European common space. Journal of Politics 76(4): 1089–1101.Google Scholar
Battista James, Coleman, Peress, Michael, and Richman, Jesse. 2013. Common-space ideal points, committee assignments, and financial interests in the state legislatures. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 13:70–87.Google Scholar
Blanco, Luisa, and Grier, Robin. 2013. Explaining the rise of the left in Latin America. Latin American Research Review 48:68–90.Google Scholar
Booth, John A., and Bayer Richard, Patricia. 2015. Latin American political culture: Public opinion and democracy. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Castañeda, Jorge, and Navia, Patricio. 2006. Latin America's left turn. Foreign Affairs 85:28–43.Google Scholar
Cleary, Matthew R. 2006. Explaining the left's resurgence. Journal of Democracy 17:35–49.Google Scholar
Colomer, Josep M. 2005. La dimensión izquierda-derecha en América Latina. Desarrollo Económico 45:123–36.Google Scholar
Coppedge, Michael 2010. Data on Latin American party systems. http://www.nd.edu/mcoppedg/crd/datalaps.htm (accessed September 11, 2013).Google Scholar
Debs, Alexandre, and Helmke, Gretchen. 2010. Inequality under Democracy: Explaining the Left Decade in Latin America. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5:209–241.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Lewis, Jeffrey B. 2004. Beyond the median: Voter preferences, district heterogeneity, and political representation. Journal of Political Economy 112:1364–1382.Google Scholar
Golder, Matt, and Stramski, Jacek. 2010. Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science 54:90–106.Google Scholar
Hare, Christopher, Armstrong, David A., Bakker, Ryan, Carroll, Royce, and Poole, Keith T. 2014. Using Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey scaling to study citizens’ ideological preferences and perceptions. American Journal of Political Science 10. 1111/ajps.12151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47:153–62.Google Scholar
Huber, John D., and Bingham Powell, G. 1994. Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics 46:291–326.Google Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2010. Partisan bias, political information, and spatial voting in the 2008 presidential election. Journal of Politics 72:327–40.Google Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A., and Malhotra, Neil. 2013. Public (mis)perceptions of Supreme Court ideology: A method for directly comparing the positions of citizens and justices. Public Opinion Quarterly 77:619–34.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark P. 2010. Beyond the electoral connection. In How democracy works, eds. Scartascini, Carlos, Stein, Ernesto, and Tommasi, Mariano, 19–46. Washington, DC: IDB-Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kam, Christopher. 2001. Do ideological preferences explain parliamentary behaviour? Evidence from Great Britain and Canada. Journal of Legislative Studies 7:89–126.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Murray, Christopher J. L., Salomon, Joshua A., and Tandon, Ajay. 2004. Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of survey research. American Political Science Review 97:4.Google Scholar
König, Thomas, Marbach, Moritz, and Osnabŕ'ugge, Moritz. 2013. Estimating party positions across countries and time—A dynamic latent variable model for manifesto data. Political Analysis 21:468–91.Google Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey, and Phillips, Justin H. 2012. The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science 56:148–66.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, Roberts, Kenneth M., eds. 2011. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B., and Tausanovitch, Chris 2013. Has joint scaling solved the Achen objection to Miller and Stokes? Mimeo, UCLA Department of Political Science.Google Scholar
Lo, James, Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Gschwend, Thomas. 2014. A common left-right scale for voters and parties in Europe. Political Analysis 22(2): 205–23.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam 2009. Electoral bases of leftist presidents in Latin America. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin, Department of Political Science.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam 2013. Party brands and partisanship: Theory with evidence from a survey experiment in Argentina. American Journal of Political Science 57:49–64.Google Scholar
Malhotra, Neil, and Jessee, Stephen A. 2014. Ideological proximity and support for the Supreme Court. Political Behavior 36:917–846.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael D., Mendes, Silvia M., and Budge, Ian. 2004. What are elections for? Conferring the median mandate. British Journal of Political Science 34:1–26.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. 1963. Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57:45–56.Google Scholar
Moreno, Alejandro. 2009. La desición electroral. Votantes, partidos, y democracia en México. Mexico, DF: Miguel Ángel Porrua.Google Scholar
Murillo María, Victoria, Oliveros, Virginia, and Vaishnav, Milan. 2010. Electoral revolution or democratic alternation? Latin American Research Review 45:87–114.Google Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas R., and Poole, Keith T. 1987. The relationship between information, ideology, and voting behavior. American Journal of Political Science 31:511–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 1998. Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science 42:954–93.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., Rosenthal, Howard, Lewis, Jeffrey, Lo, James, and Carroll, Royce. 2013. basicspace: a package to recover a basic space from issue scales. R package version 0.07. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=basicspace.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2004. Political representation in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science 7:273–96.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2009. The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative measures, data, and time periods on the effects of election rules. Comparative Political Studies 42:1475–1497.Google Scholar
Plummer, Martyn. 2003. JAGS: A Program for Analysis of Bayesian Graphical Models Using Gibbs Sampling. http://mcmc-jags.sourceforge.net/(accessed September 11, 2014).Google Scholar
Plummer, Martyn. 2013. rjags: Bayesian Graphical Models using MCMC. R package version 3–10. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rjags (accessed September 11, 2014).Google Scholar
Remmer, Karen L. 2012. The rise of leftist-populist governance in Latin America: The roots of electoral change. Comparative Political Studies 45:947–72.Google Scholar
Royston, Patrick, and Altman, Douglas. 1994. Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates. Applied Statistics 43(3): 429–67.Google Scholar
Saiegh, Sebastian M. 2015. Replication data for: Using joint scaling methods to study ideology and representation: Evidence from Latin America. doi:10.7910/DVN/29342.Google Scholar
Seligson, Mitchell A. 2007. The rise of populism and the left in Latin America. Journal of Democracy 18:81–95.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Robert Y. 2011. Public opinion and American democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly 75:982–1017.Google Scholar
Shor, Boris. 2011. All together now: Putting Congress, state legislatures, and individuals in a common ideological space to assess representation at the macro and micro levels. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1697352.Google Scholar
Shor, Boris, and Rogowski, Jon C. 2010. Congressional voting by spatial reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Smith, Peter H. 2012. Democracy in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan C. 2001. Mandates and democracy: Neoliberalism by surprise in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Martin. 1998. Los espejismos de la democracia: El colapso del sistema de partidos en el Perú, 1980–1995. Lima: IEP.Google Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2013. Measuring constituent policy preferences in Congress, state legislatures, and cities. Journal of Politics 75:330–42.Google Scholar
Varela, Helena. 2007. El día que Calderón ya no quiso dormir con el enemigo: Las relaciones del presidente y el PAN. EstePaís 197:31–33.Google Scholar
Weyland, Kurt. 2011. The left: Destroyer or savior of the market model? In The resurgence of the Latin American left, eds. Levitsky, Steven and Roberts, M., 71–92. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Whitefield, Stephen. 2006. Mind the representation gap. Comparative Political Studies 39:733–58.Google Scholar
Wiesehomeier, Nina, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2009. Presidents, parties, and policy competition. Journal of Politics 71:1435–1447.Google Scholar
Wiesehomeier, Nina, and Doyle, David. 2012. Attitudes, ideological associations, and the left-right divide in Latin America. Journal of Politics in Latin America 4:3–33.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Clyde, Sigelman, Lee, and Cook, Elizabeth. 1989. Some like it hot: Individual differences in responses to group feeling thermometers. Public Opinion Quarterly 53:246–57.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Rand R., Erceg-Hurn, David M., Clark, Florence, and Carlson, Michael. 2014. Comparing two independent groups via the lower and upper quantiles. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 84:1543–1551.Google Scholar
Zechmeister, Elizabeth, and Corral, Margarita. 2013. Individual and contextual constraints on ideological labels in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies 46:675–701.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Saiegh supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Saiegh supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 645.2 KB