Interpersonal incomparability in citizens’ views of democracy: survey evidence from Ukraine

ABSTRACT

Do regional differences within a single country influence how survey respondents use response scales when evaluating concepts like democracy? Further, what determines how respondents will assess the level of democracy at home or abroad? We test three hypotheses to answer these questions. First, we hypothesize that differential item function (DIF) exists between regions that are most different along political, cultural, and historical dimensions. Second, we hypothesize that political attitudes will predict views about evaluations of the level of democracy domestically. Third, we hypothesize that regions with stronger ties to and greater affinity for a foreign state will rate that state as more democratic than other regions. We find support for all three hypotheses using a nationally representative survey of Ukraine, but correcting for DIF generates substantively important changes in our interpretations of the results. Specifically, it increases support for hypothesis two but leads to a more measured conclusion about hypothesis three. An analysis of the responses to anchoring vignettes to control for DIF provides some initial suggestive evidence that Ukrainians outside Kyiv may view democracy as more binary in nature than on a nuanced sliding scale. We conclude with recommendations for researchers on deploying anchoring vignettes in sub-national survey research.     

What Ordered Optimal Classification reveals about ideological structure,cleavages, and polarization in the American mass public

This paper develops an extension of Poole’s (Polit Anal 8(3):211–237, 2000) Optimal Classification (OC) scaling procedure to the analysis of polytomous or ordered choice data. This type of data is regularly encountered in public opinion and expert surveys, legislative and judicial bodies where abstention is relevant, and measures of policy that are coded along ordinal scales. OC is nonparametric and requires only minimal assumptions about voters’ utility functions and the error term. As such, Ordered Optimal Classification (OOC) provides a flexible modeling strategy to estimate latent ideological spaces from ordinal choice data. OOC is also easily estimated in multidimensional space without identifying restrictions. After describing the OOC procedure, we perform a series of Monte Carlo experiments and apply the method to analyze survey data from the 2015 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. We then conclude with a discussion of how scholars can utilize OOC in future work involving multidimensional spatial models of choice.     

Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe

This article focuses on whether the provision of 'objectively' correct information to voters about where parties stand on an issue affects their placement of the parties, and ultimately their own position, on that issue. Classic theories of how mass publics make voting decisions assume that voters are able relatively accurately to place themselves and the parties on various issue dimensions. While these assumptions have been challenged, it is generally assumed that the provision of new information makes voters' placements more informed. We explicitly test this idea using a survey experiment focusing on one political issue – European integration. In the experiment, all respondents were twice asked to place the three main British parties and themselves on a bipolar scale of European integration. This was done towards the beginning, and then at the end of the survey. Most respondents were also given information on the 'informed' positions of the parties, derived from expert survey placement. Our analyses indicate that individuals' placements did change, and the tendency was related to both political sophistication and the inherent difficulty of placing the party. Only less sophisticated voters updated their placements, and these changes are concentrated on the placement of the Labour party, where the elite stance on Europe has been more conflicted. For all respondents we do not detect any corresponding changes in self-placement that would be congruent with 'cueing' effects.     

Endogenous Credible Commitment and Party Competition over Redistribution under Alternative Electoral Institutions

Political parties competing in elections for the power to set public policy face the problem of making credible their policy promises to voters. I argue that this commitment problem crucially shapes party competition over redistribution. The model I develop shows that under majoritarian electoral rules, parties' efforts to achieve endogenous commitment to policies preferred by the middle class lead to different behavior and outcomes than suggested by existing theories, which either assume commitment or rule out endogenous commitment. Thus, left parties can have incentives to respond to rising income inequality by moving to the right in majoritarian systems but not under proportional representation. The model also generates new insights about the anti‐left electoral bias often attributed to majoritarian electoral rules, and the strategic use of parliamentary candidates as a commitment device. I find evidence for key implications of this logic using panel data on party positions in 16 parliamentary democracies.     

To the beat of a different drummer: Ideological nonconformity and issue scales

This study examines and tests assumptions about the dimensionality of issue scales commonly used in attitude research. Researchers assume that a respondent designation of his or her position on an issue represents an ideal point on a single-peaked preference scale. However, in comparing actual respondent preference orderings with the liberal-conservative ordering assumed by the scale, it is found that many respondents do not conform to the assumption. Furthermore, in a sample of relatively well-educated respondents, those who do not conform to the dominant scaling dimension are found to be as interested in politics, as efficacious, and as predictable in their voting as those who do conform. However, nonconformists do appear to be somewhat more internally directed and more dogmatic than conformist respondents.     

Evaluating the cross-national comparability of survey measures of political interest using anchoring vignettes

Making cross-groups comparisons by using survey instruments has raised substantial scholarly concerns due to the potential risk of incomparability resulting from differential item functioning (DIF). However, not every survey item necessarily suffers from DIF. In this paper, we argue that, unlike many other survey items (e.g., political efficacy), the usual question used to measure political interest is likely to be largely immune to DIF. Our theoretical argument centers on the relative specificity of the item and a corresponding cultural homogeneity (at least in advanced democracies) in what it means to be politically interested or not. Utilizing the anchoring vignettes technique (King et al., 2004; King and Wand, 2007) in our original surveys in the UK, France, and the Netherlands, we demonstrate the size of DIF is small for the standard political interest question.     

Causal Inference with Differential Measurement Error: Nonparametric Identification and Sensitivity Analysis

Political scientists have long been concerned about the validity of survey measurements. Although many have studied classical measurement error in linear regression models where the error is assumed to arise completely at random, in a number of situations the error may be correlated with the outcome. We analyze the impact of differential measurement error on causal estimation. The proposed nonparametric identification analysis avoids arbitrary modeling decisions and formally characterizes the roles of different assumptions. We show the serious consequences of differential misclassification and offer a new sensitivity analysis that allows researchers to evaluate the robustness of their conclusions. Our methods are motivated by a field experiment on democratic deliberations, in which one set of estimates potentially suffers from differential misclassification. We show that an analysis ignoring differential measurement error may considerably overestimate the causal effects. This finding contrasts with the case of classical measurement error, which always yields attenuation bias.     

Mokken Scale Analysis: Between the Guttman Scale and Parametric Item Response Theory

This article introduces a model of ordinal unidimensional measurementknown as Mokken scale analysis. Mokken scaling is based on principlesof Item Response Theory (IRT) that originated in the Guttmanscale. I compare the Mokken model with both Classical Test Theory(reliability or factor analysis) and parametric IRT models (especiallywith the one-parameter logistic model known as the Rasch model).Two nonparametric probabilistic versions of the Mokken modelare described: the model of Monotone Homogeneity and the modelof Double Monotonicity. I give procedures for dealing with bothdichotomous and polytomous data, along with two scale analysesof data from the World Values Study that demonstrate the usefulnessof the Mokken model.     

The Priming Effect of Corruption and Bureaucracy Bashing on Citizens’ Perceptions of an Agency’s Performance

Priming theories suggest that negative stories or events can affect how citizens feel about public organizations. However, research concerning the priming impact of both corruption and bureaucracy bashing—two relevant topics today—on how citizens perceive the performance of agencies is lacking. To close this lacuna in the literature, an experimental survey was conducted where respondents in the United States were randomly assigned to one of five performance vignettes. The results demonstrate that when participants were assigned to the vignettes containing the corruption and bureaucracy bashing cues, perceptions of performance were lower. This finding is consistent with priming theories. Moreover, differences within the corruption and bureaucracy bashing vignettes as well as between the corruption and bureaucracy bashing vignettes were not found. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed in the article.     

Is the Left-Right Scale a Valid Measure of Ideology?

In order to measure ideology, political scientists heavily rely on the so-called left-right scale. Left and right are, however, abstract political concepts and may trigger different associations among respondents. If these associations vary systematically with other variables this may induce bias in the empirical study of ideology. We illustrate this problem using a unique survey that asked respondents open-ended questions regarding the meanings they attribute to the concepts “left” and “right”. We assess and categorize this textual data using topic modeling techniques. Our analysis shows that variation in respondents’ associations is systematically related to their self-placement on the left-right scale and also to variables such as education and respondents’ cultural background (East vs. West Germany). Our findings indicate that the interpersonal comparability of the left-right scale across individuals is impaired. More generally, our study suggests that we need more research on how respondents interpret various abstract concepts that we regularly use in survey questions.     

The normalizing role of rationalist assumptions in the institutional embedding of neoliberalism

The political economy of Britain over the past three decades provides an interesting example of the consolidation, normalization and institutionalization of a new economic paradigm – neoliberalism. As such, it serves as a potentially instructive focus for debate both about the conditions under which economic paradigms are replaced and consolidated and the evolution of such paradigms through the process of institutionalization. In this paper I suggest that the institutionalization of this new economic paradigm has been associated with the shift from a normative to a normalized and necessitarian neoliberalism. I examine the role played by rationalist assumptions in this extended process of normalization-institutionalization. After presenting a stylized account of the evolution of British neoliberalism, I show how New Labour's monetary policy regime is the heir to the legacy of monetarism and its agenda of labour-market reform is the heir to Thatcherism's supply-side economics. I suggest that the time-inconsistency thesis and the business school globalization thesis have played an equivalent role, for New Labour, to that played for the new right by monetarism and supply-side economics in legitimating neoliberalism. In this way neoliberalism has been normalized. In the final sections of the paper I reflect on the implications of the normalized and necessitarian character of neoliberalism in Britain for its contestability and for democratic economic governance more broadly.     

“If it doesn't make sense it's not true”: how Judge Judy creates coherent stories through “common-sense” reasoning according to the neoliberal agenda

This study examines the American court show Judge Judy. Drawing on both conversation analysis and critical discourse analysis, this paper aims to show how ideological assumptions about how to be a “good citizen” manifest themselves at a turn-by-turn level in the interactions on Judge Judy and how they contribute to the co-construction of a new version of events. The microanalyses reveal how Sheindlin's strategic use of “common-sense reasoning” sets up a context and characterization of the opposing litigants. Sheindlin reframes complex issues as simple black-and-white stories. These new stories have a plain narrative line without the contingencies of everyday life and with clearly moral and immoral characters allowing her to pass a judgment that only seems fair.     

The politics of requesting: Strategic behavior and public utility regulation

Extant models of public utility regulation assume that regulated firms make the same rate adjustment requests regardless of the political environment they will face during the rate case. Focusing on information asymmetries, the repeated interaction between the firm and the regulatory commission, and behavioral assumptions about the goals of regulators, a new model is proposed that assumes firms strategically and rationally plan their requests to respond to political and agency, as well as standard economic factors. An implication of the new model is that the effect of political factors, such as grassroots advocacy and regulator election, should be observed in request equations rather than in award equations where they are traditionally sought. This new model is tested using data from 54 telephone rate cases. The results indicate that firms do respond strategically to political factors (especially to regulator elections), and also to agency factors (such as workload), by increasing their requests. This partially explains a puzzling result in the literature and has implications for regulatory policy, interest group behavior, democratic institutions, and public management.     

Three-Fifths a Racist: A Typology for Analyzing Public Opinion About Race

Is race politics primarily about symbolic racism, principled conservatism, or group conflict? After almost three decades, this debate among some of our best scholars seems scarcely closer to resolution, yet the theoretical, empirical, and normative issues at stake remain enormous. All three parties to the debate falsely assume that the causal structure driving opinion about race policy is homogenous. I reorient and advance the debate by showing how a methodological shift to a data-driven taxonomy of subjects can elucidate how race politics really is complex. I use this taxonomy to run new analyses, and to explain and assess the seemingly contradictory results of previous contributions to the debate. Each of the major parties to the debate is partially right in their account of public opinion about race politics, but about independently identifiable sub-sets of subjects.     

Monotone Comparative Statics for Models of Politics

We elucidate a powerful yet simple method for deriving comparative statics conclusions for a wide variety of models: Monotone Comparative Statics ( Milgrom and Shannon 1994 ). Monotone comparative static methods allow researchers to extract robust, substantive empirical implications from formal models that can be tested using ordinal data and simple nonparametric tests. When these methods apply, they can replace a diverse range of more technically difficult mathematics (facilitating richer, more realistic models), assumptions that are hard to understand or justify substantively (highlighting the political intuitions underlying a model's results), and a complicated set of methods for extracting implications from models. We present an accessible introduction to the central monotone comparative statics results and a series of practical tools for using these techniques in applied models (with reference to original sources, when relevant). Throughout we demonstrate the techniques with examples drawn from political science .     

Disagreeing about Disagreement: How Conflict in Social Networks Affects Political Behavior

At the center of debates on deliberative democracy is the issue of how much deliberation citizens experience in their social networks. These “disagreements about disagreement” come in a variety of forms, with scholars advocating different empirical approaches (e.g., Huckfeldt, Johnson, and Sprague 2004 ; Mutz 2006 ) and coming to different substantive conclusions. We address these discrepancies by going back to the basics: investigating the consequences of conceptual and measurement differences for key findings relating interpersonal political disagreement to political attitudes and behaviors. Drawing on the 2008–2009 ANES panel study, we find evidence that different measures of disagreement have distinct effects when it comes to individuals’ preferences, patterns of engagement, and propensities to participate. We discuss the implications for the study of social influence; as interpersonal disagreement can mean different things, scholars should think carefully about how to study it and should exercise caution when making pronouncements about its empirical and democratic consequences.     

The communicative constitution of representation and exclusion

In the light of current debate on representation, specifically engaging with literature showing how representation is communicatively constituted, this paper empirically shows how exclusion also can be seen as communicatively constituted. The interpretive approach toward communication employed in this study presents new insights on how, for citizens, government communicates its responsiveness, and how citizens' interpretations that arise from these communications make sense. Dutch citizens who evaluate government responsiveness as low were interviewed to explore their views. The respondents evaluate government responsiveness on the basis of a set of engagements with government. These engagements are conceptualized in terms of four types of encounter – forms in which government manifests itself to citizens. By ‘thinking with’ these encounters, citizens relegate institutions and processes of representative democracy to the margins of political reality. Situating citizens outside of democratic politics, these interpretations imply the experience of exclusion, despite apparently functioning democratic institutions and processes.     

Can Charitable Donations Compensate for a Reduction in Government Funding? The Role of Information

Are private donors willing to replace cuts in government funding? The authors conducted a survey experiment (n = 2,458) to examine how information about government funding affected decisions to donate money to a large charitable organization in the Netherlands. Providing information about actual budget cuts increased the number of donors. Most new donors were recruited among respondents who had processed the information correctly, underlining the importance of effective communication. The magnitude of the information effect was stronger for citizens with lower levels of empathic concern, who are less likely to donate but can be converted into donors. The authors conclude that policy information shapes not only attitudes but also civic engagement outside the political sphere.     

The Priority of Receptivity to Creativity (Or: I trusted you with the idea of me and you lost it)

Abstract

In this paper I address what Arendt called the “problem of the new”, or, as Castoriadis put it, the problem of how to make the new “the object of our praxis”. I argue that the problem of the new requires thinking about receptivity in a new way, making it normatively and epistemically prior to creativity. I illuminate my new approach to receptivity through detailed engagement with Russell Hoban’s brilliant novel, The Medusa Frequency     

Constituents’ Responses to Congressional Roll‐Call Voting

Do citizens hold their representatives accountable for policy decisions, as commonly assumed in theories of legislative politics? Previous research has failed to yield clear evidence on this question for two reasons: measurement error arising from noncomparable indicators of legislators’ and constituents’ preferences and potential simultaneity between constituents’ beliefs about and approval of their representatives. Two new national surveys address the measurement problem directly by asking respondents how they would vote and how they think their representatives voted on key roll‐call votes. Using the actual votes, we can, in turn, construct instrumental variables that correct for simultaneity. We find that the American electorate responds strongly to substantive representation. (1) Nearly all respondents have preferences over important bills before Congress. (2) Most constituents hold beliefs about their legislators’ roll‐call votes that reflect both the legislators’ actual behavior and the parties’ policy reputations. (3) Constituents use those beliefs to hold their legislators accountable.