Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Linking Citizens and PartiesHow Electoral Systems Matter for Political Representation$

Lawrence Ezrow

Print publication date: 2010

Print ISBN-13: 9780199572526

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2010

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572526.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 27 February 2017

(p.127) Appendix

(p.127) Appendix

Source:
Linking Citizens and Parties
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

Table 2A.1 Countries and Parties Included in the Empirical Analyses for Chapter 2

Belgium

Greece

Belgian Communist Party (PCB)

Left Coalition: Communist Party (KKE)

Socialist Party‐Flemish (SP)

Panhellenic Socialist Movement Party (PASOK)

Socialist Party‐French (PS)

Ecologists (Ecolo/Agalev)

Democratic Renewal (Diana)

Francophone Front/Walloon Rally (FDF/RW)

New Democracy (ND)

People's Union (Volksunie)

Liberal Party‐Flemish (PVV)

Ireland

Liberal Reformation Party (PRL)

Worker's Party

Flemish Christian Socialists (CVP)

Labour

French Christian Socialists (PSC)

Green

Progressive Democrats

Denmark

Republican Party (Fianna Fail)

Socialist People's Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti)

United Ireland Party (Fine Gael)

Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokratiet)

Sinn Fein

Radical Liberal Party (Radikale)

Christian People's Party (Kristeligt Folkeparti)

Luxembourg

Center Democrats (CD)

Communist Party of Luxembourg (KP/PC)

Liberal Party (Venstre)

Green Alternative Party (GAP)

Conservative Party (Konservative)

Socialist Workers Party (LSAP/POSL)

Progress Party (Fremkridtspartiet)

Democratic Party – Liberals (DP/PD)

National Movement (Bewegung)

France

Christian Social Party (CSV/PCS)

Communist (PCF)

Socialist (PSU)

The Netherlands

Union for French Democracy (PR/UDF)

Pacifist Socialist Party (PSP)

Gaullists – Rally for the Republic (RPR)

Radical Political Party (PPR)

National Front (FN)

Labor Party (PvdA)

Democrats'66 (D'66)

Germany

Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA)

Greens (Grune)

People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD)

German Social Democratic Party (SPD)

Free Democratic Party (FDP)

Reformational Political Federation (RPF)

Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU)

Reformed Political Union (GPV)

Political Reformed Party (SGP)

Center Party (CP)

Great Britain

Labour

Portugal

Social and Liberal Democrats

Communists (PCP)

Conservative

Political Democratic Union (UDP)

Portuguese Democratic Movement (MDP/CDE)

Spain

Basque United People (HB)

Party of Democratic Renewal (PRD)

United Left (IU)

Socialist Party (PS)

Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE)

Social Democratic Party (PSD)

Basque Nationalist Party (PNV)

People's Monarchy Party (PPM)

Convergence and Union Party (CIU)

Christian Democratic Party (PDC)

Democratic and Social Center (CDS)

Social Democratic Center (CDS)

Popular Coalition (CP)

Notes: Parties are ordered from “the left” to “the right” by country. The Castles–Mair survey does not place parties in Greece, Luxembourg, and Portugal. The citizen placements of parties contain the twelve existing European Community members at the time of the 1989 survey.

(p.128) (p.129)
AppendixAppendixAppendixAppendixAppendixAppendix

Figure A2.1 Underlying Ideological Distributions of Citizen Left–Right Preferences Across Western Europe Based on the Eurobarometer 31A (1989)

(p.130) (p.131) (p.132) (p.133) (p.134)

(p.135)

Table A3.1 Data Points in the Empirical Analyses

Source of parties' Left–Right placements

Proportion‐alityc

ENPPd

Experts

Citizens

Manifestos

Country

WPEa

UPEb

WPE

UPE

WPE

UPE

Australia

1.06

1.08

0.28

0.27

9.79

2.19

Belgium

0.74

0.75

0.71

0.70

0.31

0.28

16.85

5.49

Canada

0.44

0.57

0.30

0.34

7.78

2.35

Denmark

0.85

0.82

0.89

0.83

0.59

0.61

18.16

5.11

Finland

0.78

0.67

0.83

0.78

16.77

5.17

France

1.14

1.22

1.06

1.25

0.46

0.54

1.29

3.54

Germany

0.91

0.75

0.79

0.81

0.45

0.39

18.46

2.84

Greece

0.96

1.07

11.86

2.20

Ireland

0.45

0.87

0.75

1.13

0.65

0.88

16.74

2.76

Italy

0.82

0.91

0.91

0.76

0.33

0.37

16.12

5.22

Luxembourg

0.62

0.71

16.01

3.68

The Netherlands

0.67

0.71

0.81

0.91

0.31

0.26

18.65

4.68

Norway

0.94

0.95

0.41

0.52

15.24

3.61

Portugal

0.84

1.18

15.90

3.33

Spain

0.92

0.94

0.71

0.72

0.25

0.28

11.79

2.76

Sweden

0.80

0.79

0.37

0.39

18.17

3.52

UK

0.96

0.76

1.14

1.09

0.63

0.58

5.28

2.20

United States

0.42

0.42

0.47

0.47

4.34

2.41

Notes: Each parameter estimate reported in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 derives from these observations.

(a) WPE: Weighted measure of average party policy extremism (Equation 3.1).

(b) UPE: Unweighted measure of average party policy extremism (Equation 3.2).

(c) Source: “Index of Disproportionality” developed by Michael Gallagher (1991). The scale has been reversed so that higher scores now denote increased proportionality. The purpose of this transformation is to improve the substantive interpretation of the results.

(d) Source: Laakso and Taagepera (1979) measure of effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP).

(p.136)

Table A3.2 Elections Included in the Empirical Analyses

Country

Election

Included in empirical analyses based on the following

Australia

1983

Experts, manifestos

Belgium

1981

Experts, manifestos

Belgium

1987

Citizens

Canada

1980

Experts, manifestos

Denmark

1981

Experts, manifestos

Denmark

1988

Citizens

Finland

1983

Experts, manifestos

France

1981

Experts, manifestos

France

1988

Citizens

Germany

1983

Experts, manifestos

Germany

1990

Citizens

Greece

1989

Citizens

Ireland

1982

Experts, manifestos

Ireland

1989

Citizens

Italy

1983

Experts, manifestos

Italy

1987

Citizens

Luxembourg

1989

Citizens

The Netherlands

1982

Experts, manifestos

The Netherlands

1989

Citizens

Norway

1981

Experts, manifestos

Portugal

1987

Citizens

Spain

1982

Experts, manifestos

Spain

1987

Citizens

Sweden

1982

Experts, manifestos

United Kingdom

1983

Experts, manifestos

United Kingdom

1987

Citizens

United States

1980

Experts, manifestos

Notes: No country was observed more than once in any single set of statistical analyses.

(p.137)

Table A3.3 Explaining Weighted Average Party Policy Extremism (WPE), Using a Dichotomous Measure of Electoral System Proportionality (Single‐Member Districts (SMD) Versus Proportional Representation (PR))

Left–Right party placements based on the following

Experts(1980–3)

Citizens(1987–90)

Manifestos(1980–3)

Specification:

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Variable

SMD/PR

−.06

−.02

−.30***

−.30***

−.007

.02

(.17)

(.12)

(.09)

(.08)

(.12)

(.09)

Effective number of parliamentary parties

.03

.01

−.0001

−.03

.02

.02

(.07)

(.05)

(.03)

(.04)

(.05)

(.04)

Constant

.74***

.80***

.75***

1.10***

1.10***

.98***

.38**

.43

.38**

(.20)

(.10)

(.19)

(.11)

(.07)

(.14)

(.15)

(.08)

(.14)

N

15

15

15

12

12

12

15

15

15

Adjusted R2

−.15

−.08

−.07

.51

.56

−.02

−.15

−.07

−.06

Notes: Parameters are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Estimated standard errors are in parentheses. The dependent variable is the average party's policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter weighted by its relative share of the vote, divided by the standard deviation of voter Left–Right self‐placements (refer to Equation 3.1). SMD/PR is a dichotomous measure of electoral system proportionality that is equal to one when the district magnitude is greater than one. * p = .10, ** p = .05, *** p = .01, two‐tailed test

(p.138)

Table A3.4 Explaining Unweighted Average Party Policy Extremism (UPE), Using a Dichotomous Measure of Electoral System Proportionality (Single‐Member Districts (SMD) Versus Proportional Representation (PR))

Left–Right party placements based on the following

Experts(1980–3)

Citizens(1987–90)

Manifestos(1980–3)

Specification:

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Variable

SMD/PR

−.01

−.001

−.23

−.28*

.04

.03

(.15)

(.11)

(.14)

(.14)

(.14)

(.11)

Effective Number of Parliamentary Parties (ENPP)

.01

.02

−.06

−.09*

−.01

.004

(.06)

(.06)

(.04)

(.05)

(.06)

(.04)

Constant

.79***

.81***

.82***

1.34***

1.17***

1.25***

.46**

.44***

.45**

(.17)

(.09)

(.18)

(.18)

(.12)

(.18)

(.17)

(.09)

(.16)

N

15

15

15

12

12

12

15

15

15

Adjusted R2

−.17

−.08

−.14

.30

.24

.19

−.16

−.07

−.08

Notes: Parameters are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Estimated standard errors are in parentheses The dependent variable is the average party's policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter, divided by the standard deviation of voter Left–Right self‐placements (refer to Equation 3.2). SMD/PR is a dichotomous measure of electoral system proportionality that is equal to 1 when the district magnitude is greater than 1.

(*) p = .10,

(**) p = .05,

(***) p =.01, two‐tailed test

(p.139)

Table A3.5 Explaining Weighted Average Party Policy Extremism (WPE), Using “Effective District Magnitude” to Measure Proportionality

Left–Right party placements based on the following

Experts(1980–3)

Citizens(1987–90)

Manifestos(1980–3)

Specification:

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Variable

Effective district magnitude

−.002

−.001

−.0009

−.002

−.003

−.001

(.004)

(.003)

(.003)

(.002)

(.003)

(.002)

Effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP)

.03

.01

−.02

−.03

.04

.02

(.06)

(.05)

(.05)

(.04)

(.04)

(.04)

Constant

.71***

.81***

.76***

.95***

.87***

.96***

.33**

.46***

.38**

(.20)

(.07)

(.19)

(.16)

(.06)

(.15)

(.15)

(.05)

(.14)

N

15

15

15

12

12

12

15

15

15

Adjusted R2

−.13

−.06

−.07

−.14

−.05

−.03

−.06

−.05

−.06

Notes: Parameters are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Estimated standard errors are in parentheses. The dependent variable is the average party's policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter weighted by its relative share of the vote, divided by the standard deviation of voter Left–Right self‐placements. Effective district magnitude is a measure developed in Taagepera and Shugart (1989, chapter 12), and it is computed by dividing the number of representatives by the number of districts. * p = .10, ** p = .05, *** p = .01, two‐tailed test

(p.140)

Table A3.6 Explaining Unweighted Average Party Policy Extremism (UPE), Using “Effective District Magnitude” to Measure Proportionality

Left–Right party placements based on the following

Experts(1980–3)

Citizens(1987–90)

Manifestos(1980–3)

Specification:

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Variable

Effective district magnitude

−.002

−.001

−.00006

−.003

−.004

−.003

(.003)

(.003)

(.003)

(.003)

(.003)

(.003)

Effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP)

.02

.002

−.08

−.08

.04

.006

(.05)

(.04)

(.06)

(.05)

(.05)

(.04)

Constant

.76***

.83***

.80***

1.23***

.97***

1.24***

.38**

.49***

.44**

(.18)

(.06)

(.17)

(.20)

(.08)

(.18)

(.17)

(.06)

(.16)

N

15

15

15

12

12

12

15

15

15

Adjusted R2

−.13

−.06

−.08

.08

−.02

.17

−.05

−.008

−.08

Notes: Parameters are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Estimated standard errors are in parentheses. The dependent variable is the average party's policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter, divided by the standard deviation of voter Left–Right self‐placements (refer to Equation 3.2). Effective district magnitude is a measure developed in Taagepera and Shugart (1989, chapter 12), and it is computed by dividing the number of representatives by the number of districts.

*p = .10,

(**) p = .05,

(***) p = .01, two‐tailed test

(p.141)

Table A3.7 Explaining Weighted Average Party Policy Extremism (WPE), Using Effective Thresholds to Measure Proportionality

Left–Right party placements based on the following

Experts(1980–3)

Citizens(1987–90)

Manifestos(1980–3)

Specification:

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Variable

Effective thresholda

.0009

−.0003

.01***

.009***

.002

−.0002

(.006)

(.004)

(.003)

(.003)

(.005)

(.003)

Effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP)

.02

.01

.04

−.03

.03

.02

(.08)

(.05)

(.03)

(.04)

(.06)

(.04)

Constant

.71*

.80***

.76***

.57***

.75***

.96***

.29

.44***

.38**

(.36)

(.09)

(.19)

(.16)

(.04)

(.15)

(.27)

(.07)

(.14)

N

15

15

15

12

12

12

15

15

15

Adjusted R2

−.16

−.08

−.07

.49

.47

−.03

−.13

−.08

−.06

Notes: Parameters are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Estimated standard errors are in parentheses. The dependent variable is the average party's policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter weighted by its relative share of the vote, divided by the standard deviation of voter Left–Right self‐placements (refer to Equation 3.1).

(a) Source: Lijphart (1994: 27).

(*) p= .10,

(**) p = .05,

(***) p = .01, two‐tailed test

(p.142)

Table A3.8 Explaining Unweighted Average Party Policy Extremism (UPE), Using Effective Thresholds to Measure Proportionality

Left–Right party placements based on the following

Experts(1980–3)

Citizens(1987–90)

Manifestos(1980–3)

Specification:

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Variable

Effective thresholda

.002

.0006

.01*

.01**

.002

.0005

(.006)

(.004)

(.005)

(.004)

(.005)

(.004)

Effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP)

.02

.002

−.02

−.08

.02

.006

(.07)

(.04)

(.05)

(.05)

(.06)

(.04)

Constant

.71**

.80***

.80***

.88***

.80***

1.24***

.37

.46***

.44**

(.31)

(.08)

(.17)

(.23)

(.06)

(.18)

(.30)

(.07)

(.16)

N

15

15

15

12

12

12

15

15

15

Adjusted R2

−.16

−.07

−.08

.38

.43

.17

−.16

−.08

−.08

Notes: Parameters are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Estimated standard errors are in parentheses. The dependent variable is the average party's policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter, divided by the standard deviation of voter Left–Right self‐placements (refer to Equation 3.2).

(a) Source: Lijphart (1994: 27)

(*) p= .10,

(**) p = .05,

(***) p = .01, two‐tailed test

(p.143)

Table A3.9 Explaining Weighted Average Party Policy Extremism (WPE), Using the Effective Number of Elective Parties (ENEP) to Measure the Number of Parties

Left–Right party placements based on the following

Experts(1980–3)

Citizens(1987–90)

Manifestos(1980–3)

Specification:

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Variable

Degree of proportionality

−.008

−.004

−.02**

−.02**

.0009

.001

(.01)

(.01)

(.007)

(.006)

(.008)

(.008)

ENEP

.03

.02

−.003

−.02

.005

.001

(.04)

(.04)

(.02)

(.03)

(.03)

(.03)

Constant

.77***

.85***

.71***

1.13***

1.12***

.92***

.41**

.43***

.42***

(.18)

(.15)

(.16)

(.12)

(.09)

(.13)

(.14)

(.11)

(.12)

N

15

15

15

12

12

12

15

15

15

Adjusted R2

−.09

−.06

−.05

.38

.44

−.06

−.16

−.07

−.07

Notes: Parameters are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Estimated standard errors are in parentheses. The dependent variable is the average party's policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter weighted by its relative share of the vote, divided by the standard deviation of voter Left–Right self‐placements (refer to Equation 3.1). The definitions of the independent variables are given in the text. The ENEP measure is developed by Laakso and Taagepera (1979) and is calculated as N = 1/Σvi 2, where vi is the proportion of votes of the ith party represented in the main legislative body. * p =.10, ** p = .05, *** p = .01, two‐tailed test

(p.144)

Table A3.10 Explaining Unweighted Average Party Policy Extremism (UPE), Using the Effective Number of Elective Parties (ENEP) to Measure the Number of Parties

Left–Right party placements based on the following

Experts(1980–3)

Citizens(1987–90)

Manifestos(1980–3)

Specification:

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Variable

Degree of proportionality

−.01

−.003

−.02

−.02*

.001

.0007

(.01)

(.01)

(.01)

(.01)

(.01)

(.009)

ENEP

.02

.009

−.04

−.06

−.009

−.01

(.04)

(.03)

(.03)

(.04)

(.04)

(.03)

Constant

.81***

.86***

.77***

1.34***

1.21***

1.15***

.48***

.45***

.49***

(.16)

(.13)

(.14)

(.18)

(.14)

(.16)

(.16)

(.13)

(.14)

N

15

15

15

12

12

12

15

15

15

Adjusted R2

−.13

−.07

−.07

.27

.24

.11

−.16

−.08

−.08

Notes: Parameters are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Estimated standard errors are in parentheses. The dependent variable is the average party's policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter, divided by the standard deviation of voter Left–Right self‐placements (refer to Equation 3.2). The ENEP measure is developed by Laakso and Taagepera (1979) and is calculated as N = 1/Σvi 2, where vi is the proportion of votes of the ith party represented in the main legislative body. * p= .10, ** p= .05, *** p = .01, two‐tailed test

(p.145)

Table A3.11 Explaining Weighted Average Party Policy Extremism (WPE), Measuring the Number of Parties Based on 5% Thresholds

Left–Right party placements based on the following

Experts(1980–3)

Citizens(1987–90)

Manifestos(1980–3)

Specification:

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Variable

Degree of proportionality

−.01

−.004

−.02**

−.02**

−.001

.001

(.01)

(.01)

(.09)

(.006)

(.009)

(.008)

Number of parties based on a 5% threshold

.06

.04

−.02

−.02

.02

.02

(.05)

(.04)

(.02)

(.03)

(.04)

(.03)

Constant

.68***

.85***

.62***

1.18***

1.12***

.96***

.36**

.43***

.35**

(.18)

(.15)

(.17)

(.13)

(.09)

(.14)

(.15)

(.11)

(.13)

N

15

15

15

12

12

12

15

15

15

Adjusted R2

.01

−.06

.001

.40

.44

−.03

−.12

−.07

−.04

Notes: Parameters are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Estimated standard errors are in parentheses. The dependent variable is the average party's policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter weighted by its relative share of the vote divided by the standard deviation of voter Left–Right self‐placements (refer to Equation 3.1). The number of parties based on a 5% threshold is equal to the number of parties that received at least 5% of the national vote in an election. * p = .10, ** p = .05, *** p = .01, two‐tailed test

(p.146)

Table A3.12 Explaining Weighted Average Party Policy Extremism (UPE), Measuring the Number of Parties Based on 5% Thresholds

Left–Right party placements based on the following

Experts(1980–3)

Citizens(1987–90)

Manifestos(1980–3)

Specification:

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Variable

Degree of proportionality

−.007

−.003

−.02*

−.02*

−.0006

.0007

(.01)

(.01)

(.01)

(.01)

(.01)

(.009)

Number of parties based on a 5% threshold

.03

.02

−.02

−.03

.01

.01

(.04)

(.04)

(.04)

(.04)

(.04)

(.04)

Constant

.78***

.86***

.74***

1.29***

1.21***

1.06***

.43**

.45***

.42**

(.17)

(.13)

(.16)

(.21)

(.14)

(.19)

(.17)

(.13)

(.15)

N

15

15

15

12

12

12

15

15

15

Adjusted R2

−.11

−.07

−.06

.18

.24

−.04

−.16

−.08

−.07

Notes: Parameters are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Estimated standard errors are in parentheses. The dependent variable is the average party's policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter divided by the standard deviation of voter Left–Right self‐placements (refer to Equation 3.2). The number of parties based on a 5% threshold is equal to the number of parties that received at least 5% of the national vote in an election. * p = .10, ** p = .05, *** p= .01, two‐tailed test

(p.147)

Table A3.13 Explaining Weighted Average Party Policy Extremism (WPE), Based on the Variances of Party Positions and Voters' Left–Right Self‐placements

Left–Right party placements based on the following

Experts(1980–3)

Citizens(1987–90)

Manifestos(1980–3)

Specification:

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Variable

Degree of proportionality

−.02

−.01

−.04 ***

−.04 ***

.004

.01

(.02)

(.02)

(.01)

(.01)

(.01)

(.01)

Effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP)

.09

.02

−.02

−.10

.02

.03

(.09)

(.08)

(.05)

(.07)

(.07)

(.05)

Constant

.78**

.95***

.72***

1.53***

1.48***

1.28***

.19

.22

.20

(.29)

(.22)

(.29)

(.20)

(.15)

(.26)

(.21)

(.15)

(.19)

N

15

15

15

12

12

12

15

15

15

Adjusted R2

−.05

−.03

−.07

.55

.58

.11

−.14

−.05

−.05

Notes: Parameters are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Estimated standard errors are in parentheses. The dependent variable is the average party's squared policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter weighted by its relative share of the vote, divided by the variance of voter Left–Right self‐placements (refer to Equation 3.1). The definitions of the independent variables are given in the text. * p = .10, ** p = .05, *** p= .01, two‐tailed test

(p.148)

Table A3.14 Explaining Unweighted Average Party Policy Extremism (UPE), Based on the Variances of Party Positions and Voters' Left–Right Self‐placements

Left–Right party placements based on the following

Experts(1980–3)

Citizens(1987–90)

Manifestos(1980–3)

Specification: Variable

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Degree of proportionality

−.01

−.005

−.02

−.04

.007

.007

(.02)

(.02)

(.02)

(.02)

(.02)

(.01)

Effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP)

.05

.02

−.13

−.18

−.004

.02

(.10)

(.08)

(.11)

(.10)

(.08)

(.06)

Constant

.85**

.95***

.81**

1.93***

1.62***

1.78***

.25

.24

.27

(.31)

(.23)

(.29)

(.42)

(.33)

(.39)

(.24)

(.18)

(.23)

N

15

15

15

12

12

12

15

15

15

Adjusted R2

−.13

−.07

−.07

.17

.13

.17

−.14

−.05

−.07

Notes: Parameters are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Estimated standard errors are in parentheses. The dependent variable is the average party's squared policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter divided by the variance of voter Left–Right self‐placements. The definitions of the independent variables are given in the text. * p = .10, ** p = .05, *** p= .01, two‐tailed test; † p = .103

(p.149)

Table A3.15 Explaining Weighted and Unweighted Average Party Policy Extremism (WPE and UPE), Relying on the Huber–Inglehart (1995) Survey of Experts

WPE

UPE

Specification: Variable

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Full

Bivariate

Bivariate

Degree of proportionality

−.02

−.01

−.01

−.01

(.01)

(.01)

(.01)

(.01)

Effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP)

.07

.04

.07

.04

(.05)

(.05)

(.05)

(.05)

Constant

.69***

.88***

.59**

.74***

.91***

.66***

(.18)

(.15)

(.19)

(.19)

(.15)

(.19)

N

10

10

10

10

10

10

Adjusted R2

.14

.003

−.04

.03

−.07

−.03

Notes: Parameters are ordinary least squares (OLS) coefficients. Estimated standard errors are in parentheses. The weighted version of the dependent variable is computed based on the average party's policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter weighted by its relative share of the vote, divided by the standard deviation of voter Left–Right self‐placements (refer to Equation 3.1). The unweighted version is calculated as the average party's policy distance from the Left–Right position of the mean voter, divided by the standard deviation of voter Left–Right self‐placements (refer to Equation 3.2). The definitions of the independent variables are given in the text.

The number of observations is reduced to ten for this set of analyses, because the Huber and Inglehart study did not ask experts to place parties in Luxembourg and Greece; and Powell (2000) does not report the standard deviations of voters' Left–Right self‐placements for the early 1990s. * p = .10, ** p = .05, *** p = .01, two‐tailed test

(p.150)

Appendix

Figure A3.1a Spatial Mapping of Party Competition in the Netherlands

Source: Schofield and Sened (2006: 134).

Appendix

Figure A3.1b Spatial Mapping of Party Competition in Italy

Source: Schofield and Sened (2006: 116).

(p.151)
Appendix

Figure A3.1c (2006) Spatial Mapping of Party Competition in Britain

Notes: Distribution of voter ideal points and party positions in Britain in the 1979 election, for a two-dimensional model, showing the highest density contours of the sample voter distribution at the 95%, 75%, 50%, and 10% levels.Source: Schofield and Sened (2006: 152).

(p.152)
Appendix

Figure A3.1d Spatial Mapping of Candidate Competition in the United States

Notes: The two-dimensional factor space, with voter positions and Carter's and Reagan's respective policy in1980, with linear estimated probability vote functions (log likelihood = -372).Source: Schofield and Sened (2006: 187).

(p.153)

Table A4.1 Disproportionality Scores and the Size and Number of Niche Parties, Stratified by Country and Election Year

Country

Election year

Niche

Niche vote

Disproportionalitya

EFFNvb

EffNsc

Australia

1977

0

0

14.93

3.11

2.46

Australia

1980

0

0

8.25

2.81

2.66

Australia

1983

0

0

10.31

2.67

2.24

Australia

1984

0

0

7.95

2.79

2.43

Australia

1987

0

0

10.42

2.9

2.28

Australia

1990

0

0

12.48

3.37

2.35

Australia

1993

0

0

8.12

2.91

2.39

Australia

1996

0

0

10.97

3.21

2.62

Australia

1998

0

0

10.87

3.44

2.48

Australia

2001

0

0

9.37

3.44

2.48

Austria

1979

0

0

0.93

2.27

2.22

Austria

1983

0

0

2.44

2.4

2.26

Austria

1986

1

4.82

0.93

2.72

2.63

Austria

1990

1

4.78

2.07

3.16

2.99

Austria

1994

1

7.31

1.03

3.87

3.73

Austria

1995

1

4.81

1.03

3.59

3.49

Austria

1999

1

7.4

3.53

3.82

3.41

Austria

2002

2

9.47

1.33

3.02

2.88

Belgium

1977

0

0

2.52

5.69

5.24

Belgium

1978

0

0

2.81

7.5

6.8

Belgium

1981

2

4.84

4.17

9.01

7.62

Belgium

1985

2

6.25

3.31

8.15

7

Belgium

1987

2

6.05

3.24

8.14

7.13

Belgium

1991

2

9.93

3.49

9.81

8.41

Belgium

1995

2

8.44

3.04

9.47

8.03

Belgium

1999

2

14.35

2.99

10.28

9.05

Belgium

2003

1

3.06

5.16

8.84

7.03

Canada

1979

0

0

10.41

3.09

2.45

Canada

1980

0

0

8.72

2.93

2.39

Canada

1984

0

0

20.91

2.74

1.69

Canada

1988

0

0

11.33

3.04

2.33

Canada

1993

0

0

17.67

3.93

2.35

Canada

1997

0

0

13.26

4.09

2.98

Canada

2000

0

0

13.56

3.77

2.54

Czech Republic

1990

1

13.2

11.54

3.5

2.22

Czech Republic

1992

2

19.99

8.57

7.31

4.8

Czech Republic

1996

2

18.34

5.55

5.33

4.15

Czech Republic

1998

2

11.03

5.7

4.69

3.71

Czech Republic

2002

1

18.51

5.73

4.82

3.67

Denmark

1977

3

10.23

0.41

5.23

5.17

Denmark

1979

3

12.43

1.49

4.99

4.83

Denmark

1981

3

10.07

1.57

5.76

5.47

Denmark

1984

3

14.86

1.38

5.24

5.04

Denmark

1987

2

16.74

2.11

5.82

5.31

Denmark

1988

1

13.01

2.34

5.83

5.31

Denmark

1990

1

8.3

2.62

4.85

4.36

Denmark

1994

2

10.43

1.57

4.76

4.54

Denmark

1998

3

17.67

0.42

4.73

4.71

Denmark

2001

3

20.77

1.58

4.69

4.48

Finland

1979

1

17.9

2.68

5.75

5.21

Finland

1983

2

15.38

2.19

5.44

5.14

Finland

1987

1

17.67

4.98

6.13

4.93

Finland

1991

2

16.9

3.24

6.03

5.23

Finland

1995

2

17.68

3.81

5.82

4.88

Finland

1999

2

18.15

3.24

5.93

5.15

Finland

2003

2

17.94

3.16

5.65

4.93

France

1978

1

20.61

6.57

5.08

4.2

France

1981

1

16.13

16.04

4.13

2.68

France

1986

2

19.52

7.23

4.65

3.9

France

1988

2

20.96

11.84

4.4

3.07

France

1993

3

29.66

25.25

6.89

2.86

France

1997

4

31.08

17.69

6.56

3.54

France

2002

3

9.36

21.95

5.22

2.26

Germany

1976

0

0

0.59

2.91

2.85

Germany

1980

0

0

1.41

3.1

2.96

Germany

1983

1

5.57

0.5

3.22

3.16

Germany

1987

1

8.26

0.76

3.56

3.47

Germany

1990

2

3.63

4.63

3.75

3.17

Germany

1994

2

11.66

2.22

3.75

3.45

Germany

1998

2

11.8

3.15

3.78

3.31

Germany

2002

2

12.55

4.61

4.09

3.38

Great Britain

1979

0

0

11.58

2.87

2.15

Great Britain

1983

0

0

17.45

3.46

2.09

Great Britain

1987

0

0

14.95

3.33

2.17

Great Britain

1992

0

0

13.55

3.06

2.27

Great Britain

1997

1

0.41

16.51

3.22

2.13

Great Britain

2001

1

0.67

17.77

3.33

2.17

Great Britain

2005

0

0

16.73

3.59

2.46

Greece

1977

1

9.36

13.58

3.73

2.45

Greece

1981

1

10.94

8.4

2.69

2.09

Greece

1985

1

9.89

7.08

2.58

2.15

Greece

June, 1989

1

13.13

4.37

2.73

2.4

Greece

November, 1989

1

10.97

3.94

2.56

2.32

Greece

1990

1

10.28

3.97

2.63

2.37

Greece

1993

1

4.54

7.57

2.63

2.17

Greece

1996

2

10.73

9.45

3.07

2.36

Greece

2000

2

8.73

6.78

2.64

2.21

Hungary

1990

0

0

13.75

7.05

3.77

Hungary

1994

0

0

16.18

5.74

2.9

Hungary

1998

1

5.57

10.88

5.18

3.45

Hungary

2002

0

0

8.2

2.94

2.21

Iceland

1978

1

22.87

3.39

4.21

3.85

Iceland

1979

1

19.72

2.67

3.89

3.79

Iceland

1983

1

17.24

3.72

4.26

4.06

Iceland

1987

1

13.35

2.31

5.77

5.34

Iceland

1991

1

14.39

2.79

4.23

3.78

Iceland

1995

1

14.3

1.98

4.3

3.95

Iceland

1999

1

9.12

1.06

3.55

3.45

Iceland

2003

1

8.82

1.85

3.94

3.71

Ireland

1977

0

0

4.91

2.75

2.36

Ireland

1981

1

1.72

2.73

2.87

2.62

Ireland

February, 1982

1

2.18

1.69

2.69

2.53

Ireland

November, 1982

1

3.25

2.74

2.72

2.52

Ireland

1987

1

3.79

5.14

3.47

2.89

Ireland

1989

2

6.47

3.85

3.38

2.94

Ireland

1992

2

4.18

3.1

3.94

3.46

Ireland

1997

2

5.27

6.55

4.03

3

Ireland

2002

1

3.85

6.62

4.13

3.38

Italy

1976

3

41.25

2.75

3.53

3.16

Italy

1979

3

37.02

2.69

3.91

3.47

Italy

1983

4

38.16

2.57

4.52

4.02

Italy

1987

4

36.68

2.52

4.62

4.07

Italy

1992

5

38.55

2.51

6.63

5.71

Italy

1994

5

51.2

7.81

7.58

7.67

Italy

1996

5

57.9

6.91

7.17

6.09

Italy

2001

6

41.4

10.22

6.32

5.3

Japan

1976

1

10.38

7.44

4.07

3.18

Japan

1979

1

10.42

4

3.79

3.3

Japan

1980

1

9.83

6.59

3.45

2.74

Japan

1983

1

9.34

4.27

3.67

3.24

Japan

1986

1

8.79

7.22

3.38

2.58

Japan

1990

1

7.96

6.73

3.48

2.71

Japan

1993

1

7.7

6.36

5.29

4.2

Japan

1996

1

13.08

10.67

4.12

2.94

Japan

2000

1

11.23

11.49

4.56

3.17

Japan

2003

1

7.76

8.52

3.26

2.59

Luxembourg

1979

1

4.9

5.17

4.17

3.46

Luxembourg

1984

2

8.6

2.99

3.56

3.23

Luxembourg

1989

3

11.82

5.03

4.65

3.77

Luxembourg

1994

1

9.9

4.67

4.71

3.9

Luxembourg

1999

1

9.6

3.22

4.71

4.34

The Netherlands

1977

0

0

1.52

3.96

3.7

The Netherlands

1981

0

0

1.3

4.56

4.29

The Netherlands

1982

0

0

1.16

4.24

4.01

The Netherlands

1986

0

0

1.67

3.77

3.49

The Netherlands

1989

1

4.07

0.9

3.9

3.75

The Netherlands

1994

2

4.79

1.08

5.72

5.42

The Netherlands

1998

2

10.8

1.28

5.15

4.81

The Netherlands

2002

3

29.85

0.88

6.04

5.79

The Netherlands

2003

3

17.17

1.05

4.99

4.74

New Zealand

1978

0

0

15.55

2.87

2.01

New Zealand

1981

0

0

16.63

2.9

2.08

New Zealand

1984

0

0

15.4

2.99

1.98

New Zealand

1987

0

0

8.89

2.34

1.94

New Zealand

1990

0

0

17.24

2.77

1.74

New Zealand

1993

0

0

18.19

3.52

2.16

New Zealand

1996

0

0

3.43

4.27

3.76

New Zealand

1999

1

5.16

2.97

3.86

3.45

New Zealand

2002

1

7

2.37

4.17

3.76

Norway

1977

1

4.18

5.93

3.76

2.97

Norway

1981

1

4.94

4.94

3.87

3.19

Norway

1985

1

5.46

4.75

3.63

3.09

Norway

1989

1

10.08

3.68

4.84

4.23

Norway

1993

1

7.91

3.95

4.73

4.04

Norway

1997

1

6.01

3.44

4.94

4.36

Norway

2001

1

12.55

3.22

6.19

5.35

Poland

1991

3

7.74

3.62

13.82

10.86

Poland

1993

1

5.77

17.81

9.81

3.88

Poland

1997

0

0

10.63

4.59

2.95

Poland

2001

0

0

6.33

4.5

3.6

Portugal

1976

3

17.64

3.68

3.99

3.43

Portugal

1979

3

22.29

3.74

3

2.61

Portugal

1980

3

20.07

3.93

2.89

2.5

Portugal

1983

3

18.4

3.04

3.73

3.34

Portugal

1985

3

16.02

3.63

4.78

4.19

Portugal

1987

4

12.57

6.12

2.98

2.37

Portugal

1991

2

8.96

6.09

2.79

2.23

Portugal

1995

2

8.74

4.6

2.97

2.55

Portugal

1999

3

11.58

4.9

3.13

2.61

Portugal

2002

2

9.87

4.64

3.03

2.5

Slovakia

1990

2

16.43

3.54

5.81

4.98

Slovakia

1992

2

45.19

11.15

5.36

3.19

Slovakia

1994

4

47.72

5.94

5.81

4.41

Slovakia

1998

2

36.07

2.9

5.33

4.75

Slovakia

2002

2

25.88

6.97

8.87

6.12

Spain

1977

1

9.27

10.05

4.3

2.91

Spain

1979

1

10.8

10.56

4.25

2.81

Spain

1982

1

4.13

8.02

3.19

2.34

Spain

1986

1

3.83

7.19

3.59

2.68

Spain

1989

1

9.13

9.35

4.13

2.85

Spain

1993

1

9.63

7.08

3.52

2.67

Spain

1996

1

10.54

5.36

3.21

2.72

Spain

2000

1

5.45

6.1

3.12

2.48

Sweden

1976

1

4.75

1.23

3.57

3.45

Sweden

1979

1

5.61

1.27

3.63

3.48

Sweden

1982

1

5.56

2.4

3.39

3.13

Sweden

1985

1

5.36

1.35

3.52

3.39

Sweden

1988

2

11.37

2.45

3.92

3.67

Sweden

1991

2

7.89

2.86

4.57

4.19

Sweden

1994

2

11.19

1.18

3.65

3.5

Sweden

1998

2

16.49

0.97

4.55

4.29

Sweden

2002

2

13.04

1.52

4.51

4.23

Switzerland

1979

2

1.92

1.73

5.51

5.14

Switzerland

1983

2

4.7

2.94

6.04

5.31

Switzerland

1987

2

7.94

3.78

6.82

5.74

Switzerland

1991

4

11.16

2.6

7.38

6.7

Switzerland

1995

4

10.74

4.37

6.79

5.6

Switzerland

1999

4

9.02

3.17

5.87

5.16

Switzerland

2003

4

10.4

2.47

5.44

5.01

United States

1976

0

0

9.67

2.02

1.79

United States

1980

0

0

4.59

2.06

1.97

United States

1984

0

0

5.39

2.03

1.95

United States

1988

0

0

5.55

2.03

1.93

United States

1992

0

0

7.08

2.14

1.94

United States

1996

0

0

3.21

2.18

2

United States

2000

0

0

3.15

2.25

2.02

United States

2004

0

0

2.99

2.18

2

(a) Source: “Index of Disproportionality” developed by Michael Gallagher (1991). Gallagher and Mitchell (2008) report election year estimates in appendix B.

(b) Source: Laakso and Taagepera (1979) measures of the effective number of elective parties.

(c) Source: Laakso and Taagepera (1979) measure of the effective number of parliamentary parties.

(p.154) (p.155) (p.156) (p.157)

(p.158)

Table A5.1 Niche Parties Included in the Empirical Analyses for Chapter 5

Country

Niche party

Belgium

PCB (Communist)

Ecologie (Green)

Agalev (Green)

Denmark

Socialistisk Folkeparti (Communist)

France

PCF (Communist)

FN (National)

Germany

Grune (Green)

Greece

K.K.E (Communist)

Ireland

Workers' Party (Communist)

Green

Italy

PCI (Communist)

DP (Communist)

Verdi (Green)

AN (National)

Luxembourg

KP/PC (Communist)

Portugal

PCP (Communist)

UDP (Communist)

PPM (National)

Spain

IU (Communist)

Notes: The Comparative Manifesto Project (CMP) designates to which “party family” a party belongs in their published CD‐ROM. Approximately 1,000 respondents per country were asked to place their national political parties, including these niche parties, on a 1–10 Left–Right scale in the Eurobarometer 31A survey (1989).

(p.159) (p.160) (p.161) (p.162) (p.163)

Table A6.1 List of Countries, Inter‐Election Periods, Parties, Party Families, and Mean Left–Right Party Supporter Positions Included in the Empirical Analyses

Country

Party

Party family

Mean Left–Right party supporter position

Inter‐election period

Austria

Austrian Peoples' Party (ÖVP)

Conservative

5.84

1995–9; 1999–2003

League of the Independents, later named Freedom Movement (VdU/FPÖ)

Liberal

6.63

Social Democratic Party (SPÖ)

Social Democratic

4.33

Green Alternative (GA)

Green

4.79

Belgium

Christian Social Party (PSC)

Christian Democratic

6.43

1974–7; 1977–8; 1979–81; 1985–7; 1987–91; 1991–5; 1995–9

Christian People's Party (CVP)

Christian Democratic

6.89

Liberal Reformation Party (PRL)

Liberal

6.47

Liberal Reformation Party – Francophone Democratic Front (PRL–FDF)

Liberal

6.22

Flemish Liberals and Democrats (VLD)

Liberal

6.37

Francophone Socialist Party (PS)

Social Democratic

3.94

Flemish Socialist Party (SP)

Social Democratic

4.34

AGALEV

Green

4.45

ECOLA

Green

4.58

Flemish Bloc (VB)

Nationalist

6.36

Denmark

Conservative People's Party (KF)

Conservative

7.33

1977–9; 1979–81; 1981–4; 1984–7; 1987–8; 1988–90; 1990–4; 1994–8; 1998–2001

Radical Party (RV) Liberals (V)

Liberal Liberal

5.42

Social Democratic Party (SD)

Social Democratic

6.86

Center Democrats (CD)

Social Democratic

4.95

Socialist People's Party (SF)

Communist

6.42

Progress Party (FP)

Nationalist

3.48

Finland

National Rally (KOK)

Conservative

7.91

1995–9; 1999–2003

Finnish Center (KESK)

Liberal

6.46

Finnish Social Democrats (SSDP)

Social Democratic

4.48

Left Wing Alliance (VL)

Communist

3.01

Green Union (VL)

Green

5.23

France

Gaullists

Conservative

7.14

1978–81; 1981–6; 1986–8; 1988–93; 1993–7; 1997–2002

Rally for the Republic (RPR)

Conservative

7.18

Union for French Democracy (UDF)

Conservative

6.43

Socialist Party (PS)

Social Democratic

3.66

French Communist Party (PCF)

Communist

2.59

Germany

Christian Democratic Party/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU)

Christian Democratic

6.43

1976–80; 1980–3; 1983–7; 1987–90; 1990–4; 1994–8; 1998–2002

Free Democratic Party (FDP)

Liberal

5.86

Social Democratic Party (SDP)

Social Democratic

4.40

Party of German Socialism (PDS)

Communist

4.23

Greece

New Democracy (ND)

Christian Democratic

8.14

1981–5; 1985–9 (Jun); 1989 (June)–89 (Nov); 1989–90; 1990–3; 1993–6; 1996–2000

Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK)

Social Democratic

4.59

Communist Party of Greece (KKE)

Communist

2.12

Progressive Left Coalition (SAP)

Communist

2.69

Ireland

Fianna Fail

Conservative

6.56

1977–81; 1981–2 (February); 1982 (February)–82 (November); 1982–7; 1987–9; 1989–92; 1992–7; 1997–2002

Fine Gail

Christian Democratic

6.37

Progressive Democrats (PD)

Liberal

6.15

Labour Party (LP)

Social Democratic

4.88

Italy

Italian Social Movement (AN)

Nationalist

8.26

1976–9; 1979–83; 1987–92; 1992–4; 1994–6; 1996–2001

Northern League (LN) Go Italy (FI)

Nationalist

6.10

Italian People's Party (PPI)

Conservative

7.01

Republican Party (PRI)

Christian Democratic

5.70

Italian Democratic Socialist Party (PSDI)

Liberal

4.95

Social Democratic

4.50

Socialist Party (PSI)

Social Democratic

3.62

Newly Founded Communists (RC)

Communist

2.06

Democrats of the Left (DS)

Communist

2.48

Luxembourg

Christian Social People's Party (PCS/CSV)

Christian Democratic

6.82

1979–84; 1984–9; 1989–94; 1994–9

Patriotic and Democratic Group (PD/DP)

Liberal

5.76

Socialist Workers' Party (POSL/ LSAP)

Social Democratic

4.20

Communist Party (PCL/KPL)

Communist

3.14

The Netherlands

Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA)

Christian Democratic

6.67

1977–81; 1981–2; 1982–6; 1986–9; 1989–94; 1994–8; 1998–2002

People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD)

Liberal

6.84

Labour Party (PvdA)

Social Democratic

3.76

Democrats 66 (D'66)

Social Democratic

4.75

Green Left (GL)

Green

3.34

Portugal

Center Social Democrats (CDS/PP)

Conservative

7.37

1987–91; 1991–5; 1995–9

Popular Democratic Party (PPD/PSD)

Social Democratic

6.95

Portuguese Socialist Party (PSP)

Social Democratic

4.63

Unified Democratic Coalition, (CDU)

Communist

2.64

Spain

Popular Alliance (AP/PP)

Conservative

7.29

1986–9; 1989–93; 1993–6; 1996–2000

Convergence and Union (CiU)

Conservative

5.33

Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE)

Social Democratic

3.54

Communist Party (IU)

Communist

2.74

Sweden

Moderate Coalition Party (MSP)

Conservative

7.80

1994–8; 1998–2002

Christian Democratic Community Party (KdS)

Christian Democratic

6.48

People's Party (FP)

Liberal

6.23

Center Party (CP)

Liberal

5.90

Social Democratic Labour Party (SdsP)

Social Democratic

4.18

Communist Party (VP)

Communist

2.90

Green Party

Green

4.63

United Kingdom

Conservative Party

Conservative

6.97

1979–83; 1983–7; 1987–92; 1992–7; 1997–2001

Liberal Democrats (LD)

Liberal

5.39

Labour Party

Social Democratic

4.26

Notes: Parties are observed in at least three successive elections. The mean Left–Right party supporter position is calculated as the average of the mean party supporter positions for all of the elections in which the party is included in the empirical analysis.

(p.164)

Table A6.2 Citizen Mean Left–Right Self‐Placements (Stratified by Year and Country)

Election year

Country

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Belgium

5.67

5.76

6.00

6.02

6.03

5.82

6.39

5.75

5.83

5.79

5.74

5.71

5.71

5.50

5.62

5.53

5.50

5.55

5.42

5.38

5.15

5.36

5.36

5.29

5.33

5.10

5.20

5.17

5.20

Denmark

5.41

5.43

5.45

5.36

5.53

5.60

5.48

5.66

5.63

5.87

5.64

5.62

5.66

5.69

6.04

5.78

5.60

5.70

5.69

5.58

5.54

5.57

5.54

5.67

5.63

5.65

5.68

5.61

5.56

France

5.05

4.88

4.90

4.87

4.83

5.36

4.79

4.98

5.11

5.23

5.32

5.18

4.94

4.95

4.85

4.95

4.83

4.95

4.97

4.86

4.93

4.65

4.76

4.81

4.71

4.67

4.69

4.98

Germany

5.63

5.92

6.05

5.96

5.82

5.75

5.80

5.56

5.53

5.45

5.39

5.48

5.38

5.45

5.32

5.33

5.39

5.45

5.37

5.17

5.21

5.21

5.19

5.14

5.26

5.23

5.11

5.27

Ireland

6.30

5.99

6.42

6.22

6.11

5.84

6.25

6.19

5.99

6.25

6.18

6.08

6.22

6.22

6.05

5.69

5.66

5.64

5.57

5.72

4.78

5.61

5.53

5.60

5.60

5.60

5.53

5.57

Italy

4.69

4.39

4.40

4.42

4.31

4.52

4.51

4.62

4.63

4.62

4.68

4.69

4.70

4.82

4.65

4.63

4.76

4.77

4.73

5.11

5.04

5.02

5.20

5.17

5.33

5.30

5.25

5.35

Luxembourg

5.43

5.52

5.70

6.01

5.77

5.83

5.55

5.59

5.56

5.79

5.66

5.78

5.86

5.71

5.75

5.48

5.47

5.30

5.21

5.10

5.34

5.18

5.22

5.26

5.02

4.99

4.91

4.95

4.94

The Netherlands

5.80

5.92

5.72

5.43

5.53

5.22

5.46

5.50

5.30

5.37

5.26

5.29

5.33

5.31

5.22

5.39

5.40

5.40

5.33

5.17

5.17

5.10

5.02

5.06

5.28

5.27

5.08

5.25

Great Britain

5.37

5.57

5.97

5.89

5.72

5.79

5.72

5.59

5.74

5.72

5.74

5.79

5.62

5.83

5.77

5.57

5.40

5.59

5.54

5.39

5.23

5.23

5.20

5.05

5.15

5.03

5.16

5.08

4.96

Greece

5.15

5.68

4.95

5.16

5.21

5.11

5.44

5.48

5.43

5.57

5.68

5.77

5.80

5.57

5.68

5.51

5.52

5.34

5.55

5.69

5.77

5.61

5.62

Portugal

5.54

5.44

5.79

5.44

5.41

5.50

5.49

5.54

5.45

5.20

5.27

5.29

5.26

5.11

5.20

5.30

5.25

5.31

Spain

5.00

4.78

4.55

4.50

4.38

4.43

4.27

4.52

4.62

4.82

4.75

4.70

4.66

4.77

4.69

4.86

4.66

4.62

Finland

5.79

5.78

5.74

5.78

5.78

5.67

5.49

5.57

Sweden

5.29

5.24

5.32

5.38

5.43

5.19

5.32

5.24

Austria

5.27

5.14

4.78

4.75

5.12

4.88

5.16

4.93

Notes: The table entries represent the mean citizen Left–Right (1–10) self‐placements, based on the Eurobarometer surveys from 1973 to 2002. Bold type denotes an election year. The four observations in 1974 and 1975 have been interpolated based on the 1973 and 1976 data (because the self‐placement item is omitted from these survey years). The conclusions do not depend on the inclusion of these observations. The administration of the Eurobarometer surveys begins in Greece, Portugal, Spain, Finland, Sweden, and Austria at roughly the same time that these countries joined the European Union.