Scaling Policy Preferences from Coded Political Texts

Scholars estimating policy positions from political texts typically code words or sentences and then build left‐right policy scales based on the relative frequencies of text units coded into different categories. Here we reexamine such scales and propose a theoretically and linguistically superior alternative based on the logarithm of odds‐ratios. We contrast this scale with the current approach of the Comparative Manifesto Project (CMP), showing that our proposed logit scale avoids widely acknowledged flaws in previous approaches. We validate the new scale using independent expert surveys. Using existing CMP data, we show how to estimate more distinct policy dimensions, for more years, than has been possible before, and make this dataset publicly available. Finally, we draw some conclusions about the future design of coding schemes for political texts.     

Doubling Down: Inequality in Responsiveness and the Policy Preferences of Elected Officials

Is bias in responsiveness to constituents conditional on the policy preferences of elected officials? The scholarly conventional wisdom is that constituency groups who do not receive policy representation still obtain some level of responsiveness by legislators outside of the policy realm. In contrast, we present a theory of preference‐induced responsiveness bias where constituency responsiveness by legislators is associated with legislator policy preferences. Elected officials who favor laws that could disproportionately impact minority groups are also less likely to engage in nonpolicy responsiveness to minority groups. We conducted a field experiment in 28 US legislative chambers. Legislators were randomly assigned to receive messages from Latino and white constituents. If legislators supported voter identification laws, Latino constituents were less likely to receive constituency communications from their legislators. There are significant implications regarding fairness in the democratic process when elected officials fail to represent disadvantaged constituency groups in both policy and nonpolicy realms.     

Perceived Criminal Threat from Undocumented Immigrants: Antecedents and Consequences for Policy Preferences

Drawing on the group threat perspective, this paper examines the perception of criminal threat from undocumented immigrants and its relation to both contextual measures of threat and public support for enhanced controls against undocumented immigrants. With data from a national telephone survey of non-Latino adults (N?=?1,364), we estimate the predictors of perceived criminal threat as well as the effects of perceived threat and other factors on immigration policy preferences. Results indicate that political ideology and education are the strongest predictors of perceived criminal threat. Perceived criminal threat has the greatest influence on support for more punitive controls and partially mediates the effects of race, education, political ideology, and contextual threat on these control preferences. Future social threat research should consider the inclusion of perceptual threat measures instead of relying solely on contextual indicators of threat. In addition, contextual threat should be explored more often in dynamic, rather than static, terms.     

Affirmative Action in an Institutional Context: The Antecedents of Policy Preferences and Political Support

This study broadens the framework within which the psychology of support for affirmative action policies is examined to include the institutional framework within which such policies are developed and implemented. This broader framework includes concern with electoral support for those who implement affirmative action policies, as well as considering the impact of implementing such policies on the overall legitimacy of government. It also includes evaluations of the fairness of the two key social institutions shaping such policies—government authorities and markets. The results of a survey of Americans suggest that this institutional framework had an important influence on reactions to affirmative action policies that was distinct from direct reactions to policies themselves. In particular, people were more supportive of policies intervening in markets when they believed that markets represented unfair social allocation procedures. Those politicians who supported such policies received greater electoral support when people viewed market procedures as being unfair and when they felt that government decision-making procedures were fair. Evidence suggests that outcomes did not directly shape electoral support or judgments about the legitimacy of government.     

Exchanging Favours: The Predominance of Casework in Legislators' Behaviour in Jordan and Lebanon

Responsiveness to constituents' demands and needs is considered an essential element of representation. Responsiveness takes several forms – service, allocation (casework), policies, and symbolic responses – and legislators usually respond to constituents using a combination of these means. However, this article discusses a category of Jordanian and Lebanese legislators, called ‘Favours legislators’, who respond to their constituents only through casework. These legislators use all tools available to them (party/parliamentary bloc, bureaucracy, and fellow legislators) to improve their access to services important to successful casework. Favours legislators assume that by providing a successful favour, constituents who received the favour will reciprocate in kind and vote and/or encourage others to vote for them.     

Rules and Speeches: How Parliamentary Rules Affect Legislators' Speech‐Making Behavior

By extending existing theories of legislative speech making, this study explores the importance of parliamentary rules governing floor debates for government and opposition parties. An original data set including speeches of members of the Italian Chamber of Deputies between 2001 and 2006 is used to test two hypotheses under different institutional scenarios, that is, rules either restricting or granting open access to the floor. Parliamentary rules are found to affect allocation of speaking time within both governing and opposition parties. Governing parties' leaders exploit their agenda control to a higher degree when allocating speaking time. Under restrictive rules, government party leaders control their MPs by essentially limiting the number of speeches and allocating them to frontbenchers. Restrictive rules give opposition party leaders an important chance to select MPs who are closer to their own position.     

The Complexity of Policy Preferences: Examining Self-interest,Group-Interest,and Race Consciousness Across Race and Political Ideology

Social Justice Research - Research on attitudes toward racial policies has often been limited to a single racial group (e.g., either Whites or Blacks). These studies often focus on the role of...     

Public Support for Punishment and Progressive Criminal Justice Policy Preferences: The Role of Symbolic Racism and Negative Racial Stereotype

Prior studies have found that symbolic racism and negative African-American stereotypes are linked to public preferences for punitive criminal justice policy. But prior studies have mostly focused attention on White respondents and have not adequately examined whether the effects of symbolic racism and negative African American stereotypes are the same across race and ethnicity. This study used the 2000 American National Election Study data to fill this gap in the empirical literature. The study found that the effects of symbolic racism were broad and generally impact Whites, African-Americans, and members of other races/ethnicities the same. The effects of negative African-American stereotype were more limited. This variable predicted punishment policy preference for members of other races/ethnicities and there were significant differences in how stereotypes impacted policy preferences across race and ethnicity. Implications for theory are discussed.     

Taxes and Transnational Treaties: Responsive Regulation and the Reassertion of Offshore Sovereignty

Regulatory dialogue between states with widely diverging tax systems has emerged as a key feature of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and European Union (EU) initiatives on Offshore Finance Centers (OFCs) or tax havens. This has brought together states of differing dimensions in size, population, economy, and power. Where there is such a discrepancy in power between states there is often a temptation to assert a command-and-control regulatory approach. This was the initial reading of the OECD's Harmful Tax Practices Project that demanded tax havens—mostly small states in Europe, the Pacific, Indian Ocean, and the Caribbean—repeal financial secrecy legislation and commit to Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs). As these initiatives have unfolded there has been a transition away from regulation by command-and-control towards responsive regulatory dialogue in which tax havens have been encouraged to cooperate through engagement and active participation. Based on qualitative research with key stakeholders in OFC jurisdictions and multilateral organizations, this article explores this transition towards meta-principles of responsive regulation. The preservation of tax bilateralism has limited the capacity of multilateral organizations to deploy the full range of regulatory techniques, particularly those involving penalty and coercion. Instead all parties, tax haven states and multilateral institutions alike, have been confined to the broadest base of the regulatory pyramid. Responsive regulation can end up having the opposite effect from what is intended where the enforcement peak of the regulatory pyramid is absent. This has resulted in strengthening the sovereignty of small OFC states and has increased international tax competition, rather than reduced it.     

外汇储备:幻觉、偏好与陷阱

发展中国家由于长期受制于外汇短缺,因而特别注重外汇储备的累积,过分看重外汇储备的作用,从而形成了"外汇储备幻觉"和"外汇储备偏好",进而落入"外汇储备陷阱".中国在这一方面的问题尤其突出,这需要从国内和国外两种渠道寻求有效的途径来加以解决.     

Preferences and agreement in legislative parties: testing the causal chain

This research note focuses on two specific dimensions of legislative cohesion: the homogeneity of preferences within a party and party agreement. Although these two dimensions have often been considered as synonyms, it is argued that these two concepts refer to different realities. The authors therefore develop distinct measurements for these two concepts. The authors then examine their statistical relationship, putting to the test the widespread assumption that heterogeneous preferences increase the probability of disagreement. The authors do so by testing the effect of different measures of a member of parliament’s ideological distance to her/his party on her/his self-reported frequency of disagreement with her/his party. It is demonstrated that the causal chain linking both concepts is only verified in the case of a conscious ideological distance. The results have crucial theoretical and methodological implications for future research on party cohesion and party unity.     

Ideology and Representation in the US Senate: Roll Calls v. Constituent Assessments

Most research on representation in the US Congress examines the relationship between the voting behaviour of legislators and citizens' preferences. Using a roll call-based measure (DW-NOMINATE scores) of US Senators' ideologies and citizen assessments of Senators' ideologies (from the American National Election Study: Pooled Senate Election Study 1988, 1990, 1992), we demonstrate that judgements about Senators' responsiveness (the extent to which more liberal/conservative Senators represent more liberal/conservative states) is sensitive to measurement issues. In addition, using citizen assessments, we move beyond responsiveness to examine ‘representativeness’ (the extent to which Senators' ideologies match the average ideologies of their constituents) as a dimension of representation. We conclude that citizen assessments should not be overlooked since representation may ultimately be a phenomenon that rests in the eye of the beholder and since governmental legitimacy itself rests on citizens' attitudes and beliefs.     

The Regional Innovation Paradox: Innovation Policy and Industrial Policy

This paper explores the regional innovation paradox and its policy implications. The regional innovation paradox refers to the apparent contradiction between the comparatively greater need to spend on innovation in lagging regions and their relatively lower capacity to absorb public funds earmarked for the promotion of innovation and to invest in innovation related activities compared to more advanced regions. Empirical analysis of the nature of the paradox shows that there are strong complementarities between business, education and government spending on R&D and that technology/innovation policy and industrial policies tend to work in opposite directions. Our analysis suggests that resolution of the paradox requires policies that: (i) increase the innovation capacity of regions by working both on the demand and the supply side of the system to increase both private and public sector investment in innovation activity; and (ii) integrate technology policy and industrial policy by encouraging expenditure on innovation activity within mainstream industrial policy programmes. The penultimate section of the paper outlines and assesses policy initiatives/experiments along these lines and suggests how they might be developed in the future.     

Cross-Cultural Preferences for Distributive Justice Principles: Resource Type and Uncertainty Management

Drawing on social resource theory, we investigated the evaluation of distributive justice principles in relation to material benefits (monetary rewards in working life) and symbolic benefits (praise at university) in a cross-cultural study. We predicted that the equity principle would be perceived as more just for distributing culturally valued resources, whereas the equality principle would be perceived as more just for resources that are less valued within culture. Moreover, applying uncertainty management theory, we predicted that cross-cultural fairness evaluations would be more pronounced for individuals with higher (vs. lower) uncertainty avoidance or lower (vs. higher) uncertainty tolerance. Data of 608 Canadian and German students were collected in a two-wave survey. As expected, when allocating material benefits Canadians found the equity principle to be more just than did Germans, whereas Germans perceived the equality principle as more just than did Canadians. When allocating symbolic benefits, by contrast, Canadians perceived equality as more just than did Germans, though unexpectedly culture did not influence evaluations of the equity principle. Finally, consistent with uncertainty management theory, some of the cultural differences in the evaluation of distributive principles were more pronounced among people with higher uncertainty avoidance and lower uncertainty tolerance. Implications for cross-cultural research on distributive justice are discussed.     

Behind the Mask of Method: Political Orientation and Constitutional Interpretive Preferences

Debate about how to best interpret the Constitution often revolves around interpretive methodologies (e.g., originalism or expansive interpretation). This article examines whether individuals’ political orientation influences the methodologies they prefer to use to interpret the Constitution. We study this proposed relationship using a survey of federal law clerks and an experimental study with college students. The survey results indicate that, compared to conservatives, liberal clerks prefer the current meaning or the most plausible appealing meaning of the constitutional text, while conservatives prefer the original meaning of the text. Liberal clerks also prefer to interpret the Constitution much more expansively. The second study manipulates the policy implications of expansive interpretation and finds this manipulation differentially affects liberals’ and conservatives’ expansiveness preferences.

Officer Preferences for Male Backup: The Influence of Gender and Police Partnering

Much of the extant literature regarding women in policing focuses on job stress, perceptions of job performance, and inherent difficulties associated with their immersion in a traditionally male-dominated profession. Little attention, however, has been given to perceptions regarding gender and backup preferences among police officers. This study sought to examine the impact of professional and demographic characteristics of municipal police officers in a southern state on preferences for male police officers as backup. Multivariate analysis indicated that gender, partner status, race, and marital status significantly impacted officer preferences for male backup. However, further examination of the interaction effect between gender and partner status revealed a gap in the preferences for officers with no partners. Although officers with no partners reported lower overall preferences for male backup than officers with female or male partners, the disparity of preference between male and female officers with no partners was sizeable.     

Parties,Preferences, and Petitions: Discharge Behavior in the Modern House

Although discharge petitions lie at the confluence of personal preferences, committee prerogatives, and party leadership in Congress, these procedures have received little scholarly scrutiny. We capitalize on the public nature of petition signatures since 1993 to examine the behavior of the most cross‐pressured members in discharge battles: bill sponsors and cosponsors belonging to the majority party who personally prefer the bills they have sponsored but who face party pressure not to sign the petitions that threaten the leadership's control of the legislative agenda. After controlling for personal preferences, we find a statistically significant partisan effect in the U.S. House, which further illuminates the “Where's the party?” debate.     

Facts,Preferences, and Doctrine: An Empirical Analysis of Proportionality Judgment

Legal proportionality is one of the most important principles for adjudicating among conflicting values. However, rather little is known about the factors that play a role in the formation of proportionality judgments. This research presents the first empirical analysis in this regard, relying on a sample of 331 legal experts (lawyers and legal academics). The policy domain addressed by the experiment is the antiterrorist military practice of targeted killings, which has been the subject of a legal debate. Our experimental findings suggest that proportionality judgments are receptive to normatively relevant facts. We also find strong correlational evidence for the effect of ideological preferences on such judgments. These results are consistent for two proportionality doctrines. We suggest that proportionality judgment is anchored jointly in the experts’ policy preferences and the facts of the case. We outline the implications of the findings for the psychological and legal literature.