Post on 18-Dec-2015
1
The Spatial Theory of Electoral The Spatial Theory of Electoral CompetitionCompetition
Melvin J. Hinich
2
The spatial theory of electoral competition developed by Davis and Hinich (1966) rests on the assumption that voter choices are functions of the squared Euclidean distance between a voter’s position in a political space and the positions of the candidates (or parties) standing for election.
3
Euclidean Distance ModelEuclidean Distance Model
Suppose that there are N observers and
M targets. Each observer at position
1 2,i i ix x x
2
m iπ x
1 2,m m m π
reports the squared Euclidean
distance
to the targets at locations
4
Latent Ideological SpaceLatent Ideological Space1 Issue positions cluster: If I know what you think on defense and environmental policy, I can guess what you think of school lunch subsidies.
2 Shared meaning: This clustering phenomenon is not purely atomistic, so that ideological positions such as “liberal” and “conservative” have similar meanings to different people.
3 Constraint: If the effective space of political conflict is “ideological” in the sense above , the strategies of candidates (and hence the choices for voters) in the policy space are highly constrained.
5
Political Figures in Two-Dimensional Issue Space, 1996
50 Establishment
-150 Reform
-100
Liberal
100
Conservative
Notes: Positions of political figures in two-dimensional space are estimated based on MAPmethodology (Hinich and Munger 1996),using thermometer score data from the 1996 NES. The centroid (0,0 point) is fixed as Jack Kemp’s ratings.
x Ross Perot
x Al Gore x Lamar Alexanderx Steve Forbes
x Newt Gingrichx Bob Dole
x Pat Buchanan
x Pat Robertson
x Phil Gramm
x Hillary Clinton
x Jesse Jackson
x Colin Powell
x Bill Clintonx Ideal Point
6
Political Figures in Two-Dimensional Issue Space, 2004
50 Establishment
-150 Reform
-100
Liberal
100
Conservative
Notes: Positions of political figures in two-dimensional space are estimated based on MAPmethodology (Hinich and Munger 1996),using thermometer score data from the 2004 NES. The centroid (0,0 point) is fixed as Ronald Reagan’s ratings.
x Dick Ashcroftx G. W. Bush
x Dick Cheneyx Hillary Clintonx Bill Clinton
x John McCainx Colin Powell
x Ideal Point
x Ralph Nader
x John Edwards
x John Kerry
7
Lieberman
Nader
BushSr
Heston
Hillary
McCain
Forbes
Powell
RobertsonRushJessieJ
ArnieS
WClarkTKennedy
Dole
Daschle
Edwards
Sharpton
Dean
Kerry
Reagan
Condi CheneyCarter
ClintonGore
Bush
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Candidate Respondent
2006 Private Survey2006 Private Survey
8
Political Figures in Two-Dimensional Issue Space, 2008
50 Establishment
-150 Reform
-100
Liberal
100
Conservative
Notes: Positions of political figures in two-dimensional space are estimated based on MAPmethodology (Hinich and Munger 1996),using thermometer score data from the 2008 CCES. The centroid (0,0 point) is fixed as Joe Biden’s ratings.
x G.W. Bush
x Sarah Palin
x John McCain
x Barack Obama
x Hillary Clinton
x Ideal Point
9
“The federal government of the United States is mostly
incompetent.”
“The federal government of the United States is mostly corrupt.”
Strongly Agree 29% 49%
Somewhat Agree 39 33
Somewhat Disagree
24 10
Strongly Disagree 54
Don’t know 3 4
N 1,000 1,000
“Candidate A is a current U.S. senator who has twice served in the president’s cabinet and has a reputation for knowing how to get things done in Washington. Candidate B is a current governor who has a reputation for challenging entrenched interests and not accepting ‘politics as usual.’ If
both were running for president in 2008, which would you be more likely to support?”
Candidate A 54%
Candidate B 40
Don’t know 6
N 1,000
10
Ideological Groups in the Turkish Party System
Extreme-Left (EL) Center-Left (CL)
People's Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi P.-HADEP) Republican Peoples Party (Cumhuriyet Halk P.-CHP)
Democratic People's Party (Demokratik Halkın P.-DEHAP) Democratic Left Party (Demokratik Sol Parti-DSP)
Programmatic/Policy Platforms
Ethnic Kurdish nationalist Strictly secularist
Pro-EU Relatively more state interventionist
Support base is east and southeastern Anatolia Pro-EU
Relatively more urban
Obtaining Alevi support (CHP)
Charismatic leader (DSP)
Support base is western and coastal provinces
11
Ideological Groups in the Turkish Party System
Center-Right (CR) Pro-Islamist
Motherland Party (Anavatan Partisi-ANAP) Felicity party (Saadet Partisi-SP)
True Path Party (Doğru Yol Partisi-DYP) Justice & Development Party (Adalet&Kalkınma P.-AKP)
Young Party (Genç Parti-GP) Nationalist
Nationalist Action Party (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi-MHP)
Grand Unity Party (Büyük Birlik Partisi-BBP)
Programmatic/Policy Platforms
Secularist on policy matters but courting the brotherhoods Pro-Islamist
Market oriented economic policy Pro-Islamist Sunni supporters, close w/ Islamist circles
Relatively more developed rural support Relatively more eurosceptic
Pro-EU Populist in economic policy, state interventionist
Support base is western and coastal provinces Support base is central Anatolia
Support base is western and coastal provinces (GP) Nationalist
Ethnic Turkish nationalist, Sunni supporters
Sunni supporters, Anti-EU
Populist in economic policy, state interventionist
Support base is central Anatolia (MHP)
12
2001 Survey2001 Survey
A nation-wide representative survey of urban population conducted during the chaotic weeks of the second economic crisis of February 2001
12011201 face-to-face interviews were conducted in 12 of the 81 provinces of Turkey
The survey was run during 2/20 – 3/16 using a
random sampling method that represents the nationwidevoting age urban population based on the urban population figures of 1997 census data.
13
Estimated ideal points & party positions - 2001 survey
ANAPA Labor Leader
A Prominent Businessman
HADEP
MHP
FP
DYP
DSP
CHP
A Very Religious Leader
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
-9 -4 1 6 11
14
Mean ideal points of primary identity groups - 2001
Turkish World
Islamic WorldEuropean Union
Very religious (8-10)
Mildly religious (3-7)
Non-religious (0-2)Kurdish speaker
Cannot speak Kurdish
AleviKurd
Citizen of TurkeyMuslim
Turk
None of the presently available
Mhp
Hadep
Fp
DypDsp
Chp
Anap
Abstainers
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
15
Basic Independent VariablesBasic Independent Variables
Sex Male 52 Socio-economic status Low 59Female 48 Medium 31
Age 18-24 20 High 1025-34 25 Religious conservatism Low 2935-44 22 Medium 4145-54 15 High 3055+ 17 Ethnic nationalism Low 12
Education No schooling-illiterate 13 Medium 29Primary school 46 High 59Junior high school 11 Xenophobia Low 28High school 22 Medium 38University+ 8 High 34
Kurdish Can speak 12 Political efficacy Low 23Cannot speak 88 Medium 40
Inhabitant of Province centre 46 High 37District centre 20 EU membership Supports 73Rural village 34 Does not support 27
Dwelling type Shanty town 21Medium registered 73Luxurious registered 5
16
VVote ote Intentions for Intentions for the November 3rd the November 3rd EElectionlection
• % 8,7
• % 8,7
• % 7,1
• % 1,9
• % 1,3
• % 0,6
• % 0,7
• % 1,0
• % 1,5
• % 2,4
• % 3,3
• % 4,1
• % 5,0
• % 9,9
• % 14,4
• % 29,4
•%0 •%10 •%20 •%30
•AKP
•CHP
•GP
•DYP
•MHP
•DEHAP
•ANAP
•SP
•YTP
•DSP
•BBP
•Other
•Will not vote
•Will not vote for the• existing parties
•Undecided
•DK/NA
17
Party/ (Hypothetical Politician) N Mean Std. DeviationAKP 1904 6.06 3.44CHP 1889 4.28 3.11
GP 1877 4.06 3.06A prominent businessman 1830 3.74 3.10
DYP 1907 3.69 2.65A very religious leader 1848 3.31 2.94
MHP 1899 3.23 2.61SP 1880 3.06 2.49
ANAP 1900 3.00 2.43YTP 1847 2.98 2.37
BBP 1829 2.81 2.25DSP 1926 2.31 2.19
DEHAP 1850 2.10 2.19Valid N (listwise) 1727
Descriptive Statistics of the Grade Scores 2002
18
Estimated ideal points and party positions, full sample, 2002 survey
GP
RELIGIOUS
YTP
AKP
CHP
SP
ANAP
BBP DYP
MHP
DEHAPDSP
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
-13 -8 -3 2 7 12
19
Mean ideal points for positions on foreign policy preferences
TUR should be closer to other ME countries
TUR should be closer to İsrail
TUR should develop closer tiese with Western countries
TUR should develop closer tiese with Muslim countries
Feels part of the whole World
Feels part of the ME
Feels part of Europe
Feels part of Turkey
Feels part of native region
Feels part of native province
GP
RELIGIOUS
YTP
AKP
CHP
SP ANAP
BBPDYP
MHP
DEHAP
DSP
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
20
Xenophobia & Political EfficacyXenophobia & Political Efficacy
• XenophobiaXenophobia• Foreigners who settle in our country harm our culture.• Foreigners who settle in our country make our chances
of finding a job• more difficult• Some should either love Turkey or leave it.• I would not want a foreigner to be my neighbor• Political efficacyPolitical efficacy• Regular citizens like me have no power for changing
political decisions in Turkey for their advantage.• Turkey is being ruled by a small and powerful group.• Whatever I do I don't think I can reach a better position in
society
21
Question - I'm going to give to you a series of promises and would like to get your evaluation as to which party do you find most convincing in realizing each one. 1 Limiting the MP immunity 2 Reducing unemployment 3 Reducing taxes 4 Membership in the EU 5 Increased effort to combat corruption 6 Revitalizing the economy 7 Resolving the Cyprus problem
22
8 Reducing inflation
9 Resolving education and health
policy problems
10 Resolving the headscarves
problem
11 Resolving the problems in
agriculture
12 Enforcing the moral values in
Turkish society
Respondents are asked to pick one party
as most credible.
23
Valence Question - Revitalizing the EconomyValence Question - Revitalizing the Economy
AKP 532 26.23 ANAP 39 1.92 BBP 8 0.39 CHP 227 11.19 DEHAP /HADEP 25 1.23 DSP 7 0.35 DYP 82 4.04 Genç P 157 7.74 MHP 38 1.87 SP 22 1.08 YTP 11 0.54 BTP 1 0.05 İP 2 0.10 LDP 2 0.10 ÖDP 2 0.10 TKP 1 0.05 None of them 654 32.25 No answer 218 10.75
24
Mean Thermometer Scores for Party Leaders-2004
6,46
2,43
2,41
2,27
2,10
2,08
1,91
1,83
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
AKP (T. Erdoğan)
DYP (M. Agar)
CHP (D. Baykal)
MHP (D. Bahceli)
DEHAP (T. Bakirhan)
SP (N. Erbakan)
ANAP (M. Yılmaz)
GP (C. Uzan)
March-2004 survey of nation-wide representative urban population (N=1,232)
25
Estimated Party Positions-2004
GP
AKP
ANAP
CHP
SP
DEHAP
MHP
DYP
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
-9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11
26
-2,5
-2,0
-1,5
-1,0
-0,5
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
-1,0 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Speaks Kurdish
No to EU
District Center
Closer ties w Israel
Feels unsafe at night in neighborhood
Unhappy at work
Does not speak KurdishIncome sufficient to meet
needs
Income insufficient to meet needs
Neighborhood has different identity groups
Neighbors are not in harmonious relationships
Unhappy with the way democracy works
Yes to EU
Happy at work
HProvince Center
Women
Men
Neighborhood does not have different identity groups
Closer ties w other ME countries
Neighbors are in harmonious relationships
Feels safe at night in neighborhood
Happy with the way democracy works
Unhappy w/work, democracy, income
and neighborhood, living in relatively larger province
centers.
However, supports closer ties w/ Israel and the EU
Ethnic (?) Turkish
Happy w/work, democracy, income and neighborhood living mostly
in smaller district centers.
However, does not support closer ties w/ Israel and the
EU
Mean positions across different groups and issue stands-2004
●
1st D. 2nd D.
Alevis -1.5 -3.8
Non-Alevis +0.3 -1.7
27
Estimated Party Positions, (2001-2004)
DYP
MHP
DEHAP
SP
CHP
ANAP
AKP
GP
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
-9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11
● CHP
● DEHAP● DSP
● YTP
● GP
● AKP● SP
● BBP● MHP
● DYP
● ANAP
■ CHP
■ DSP
■ DYP■ MHP
■ FP■ Very religious leader
■
Prominent Businessman
■ HADEP
● 2002
■ 2001
♦ 2004
“Left”
Secularist
“Center”
“Right”
Pro-Islamist
“Periphery”
Reformist
Pro-EU
Kurdish Nationalist
Status Quo Reactionary
Anti-EU
Turkish Nationalist
-AKP remains as the only credible party with “centrist” positions and clear pro-EU stance
-CHP left the reformist, pro-EU camp as well as its support concerning the protection and advancement of the Kurdish minority rights. CHP seems positioned to exploit anti-EU nationalist rhetoric.
-”Right of center” is back into its original anti-EU position. CHP is likely to pull them down on this axis.
-Is the Turkish center ready for another business take-over similar to the GP in 2002?