1 / 11

Competitiveness on the Party System Level: Case Selection and Measurement Problems

Competitiveness on the Party System Level: Case Selection and Measurement Problems Nicole Bolleyer , University of Exeter CNNER Workshop, September 2011. Structure of Presentation. Competitiveness – Problems of Definition Competitiveness – On Which Level and Why?

harsha
Download Presentation

Competitiveness on the Party System Level: Case Selection and Measurement Problems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Competitiveness on the Party System Level: Case Selection and Measurement Problems Nicole Bolleyer, University of Exeter CNNER Workshop, September 2011

  2. Structure of Presentation • Competitiveness – Problems of Definition • Competitiveness – On Which Level and Why? • The Openness of the Party System and New Party Success • Sources of Selection Bias • Studying Short-term Success: Measuring Entry Barriers • Studying Long-term Success and the Timing of Events • Conclusions

  3. Competitiveness: Problems of Definition • Levels of uncertainty of electoral outcomes: ‘actual level’ (e.g. shaped by institutional features) vs. level of uncertainty ‘as perceived by voters/party elites’ • Which outcomes are the relevant ones? • Individual seat • Party entry • Party seat share • Party government entry

  4. Competitiveness on Different Levels and New Party Success Depending on ‘outcome’ whose uncertainty is relevant: • Measures on the level of voters • Measures on level of parties/parliamentary party systems • Fragmentation measures ; openness of party systems (new entries) • Measures on level of government • Simple measures: size of government support, fragmentation of opposition, alternation • Limited comparability across presidential and parliamentary regimes • What link between competitiveness on different levels? Desirability of high competitiveness on what level?

  5. The Openness of Party Systems and New Party Success The higher ‘openness’ the more likely newcomers are to succeed • How do we measure success? • Measuring the number of entries • Measuring aggregate vote share of new parties; aggregate vote share won by minor parties (= all parties except two biggest ones) (e.g. Gerring 2011) • Fragmentation of ‘new party vote’ • Capacity of newcomers to defend their niche over time  In cross-national designs, selection and measurement problems

  6. Sources of Selection Bias • Conceptual/Theoretical Sources: • Conceptions of newness shape relevant cases/rests on implicit assumptions on the conditions that facilitate entry which precludes them from being tested • Usual assumptions newcomers need new ideology  ex ante focus on particular party families (Green, new right), exclusion of majority of new entries • (Implicit/explicit) idea of ‘relevant’ or ‘significant cases’ • Practical sources: • Limitation of standard datasets: only parties that entered in national parliaments and won certain seat share

  7. Sources of Selection Bias • Methodological sources: • New entries = self-selected sample, if challenger taken as sample (expected success is part of explanation of new parties) • Example for censored data: study of success of the extreme right usually exclude countries without such a party  underrepresentation of factors discouraging success of such parties (Golder 2003) • Technical solution: selection models (Hug 2000; Selb and Pituctin 2010)

  8. Studying Short-term Success: Measuring Entry Barriers • Use of simple proxies: PR-SMD dichotomies, average/median district magnitudes  inclusive findings • Focus on one type of electoral system (e.g. SMD, Gerring 2011)  limits on generalization • Measuring thresholds on district level (Selb and Pituctin 2010)  generate data problem • Specifying national level electoral thresholds  contested

  9. Studying Short-term Success: Measuring Entry Barriers • Definition of national electoral threshold (e. g. Taagepera 1998, 2002, Bischoff 2009) • Example: Taagepera (1989, 2002)  new parties entering often below ‘minimum threshold’ • measuring effect of electoral institutions operating on district level at national level? • clear specification only on district level yet which national level factors (e.g. assembly size, geographical spread, upper tier corrections) should go in measure?

  10. Studying Long-term Success and Timing of Events • Is success mere entry into national parliament or is it defending one’s niche successfully over time? • Factors shaping short- and long-term party success differ • Support at breakthrough no good predictor for party sustainability • Idea of life-cycle: if all parties die (exit parliament) one day, timing of this event more important that its occurrence • Problems of regression models with duration as dv (e.g. Box-Steffensmeier and Bradford 1997) • Event history analysis as option?

  11. Conclusions • If competitiveness denote levels of uncertainty with regard to electoral outcome  how specify relevant outcome? • Trade-off between appropriateness of measures/method and data availability • Datasets shaped by ‘pragmatic’ relevance criteria  systematic exclusion of cases • Need to deal with problems of censored data

More Related