1 Tracing the Contours of Turkish Ideological Space, 2001-2004 Ali Çarkoğlu Melvin J. Hinich...
-
Upload
lydia-tyler -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Tracing the Contours of Turkish Ideological Space, 2001-2004 Ali Çarkoğlu Melvin J. Hinich...
1
TTracing the Contours of Turkish racing the Contours of Turkish Ideological Space, 2001-2004Ideological Space, 2001-2004
Ali Çarkoğlu Melvin J. Hinich
April, 2006
2
Vote Share on a Left - Right Scale 1950-2002Vote Share on a Left - Right Scale 1950-2002
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1950 1954 1957 1960 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1980 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2002
Election years
Vot
e sh
ares
(%) Left of Center,
"Extreme" LeftCenter-Left
Center-Right
Right of Center,"Extreme" Right
Military Coups
3
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
4
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)
5
Province clusters in November 2002
1st Province Cluster
2nd Province Cluster
3rd Province Cluster
4th Province Cluster
5th Province Cluster
6th Province Cluster
•AKP is by far the largest party, CHP is the second with considerable votes, DYP and MHP are following
•AKP is by far the largest party, there are considerable votes for
the independent candidate
•28
•26
•107
•9
•23
•116
•36
•106
•54
•44
•50
•63
•23
•118
•65
•34
•30•27
•41
•248
•165
•47•203
•15
•50
•45
•14
•22
•54
•69
•45
•27
•24
•HATAY•KİLİS
•KAYSERİ
•SİVAS
•YALOVA
•BURSA
•SAKARYA
•BALIKESİR
•ÇANAKKALE
•İZMİR
•AYDIN
•MANİSA
•MUĞLA•ANTALYA
•AFYON
•KONYA
•ORDU•GİRESUN
•TOKAT
•SİNOP
•DÜZCE
•ANKARA
•BOLU
•KOCAELİ
•İSTANBUL
•ESKİŞEHİR
•KARABÜK•ZONGULDAK
•BARTIN
•KAHRAMANMARAŞ•ADANA
•ADIYAMAN
•GÜMÜŞHANE•BAYBURT
•AĞRI
•AMASYA
•ARTVİN
•BİLECİK
•BİNGÖL
•BİTLİS
•BURDUR
•ÇANKIRI •ÇORUM
•DENİZLİ
•DİYARBAKIR
•EDİRNE
•ELAZIĞ
•ERZİNCAN
•ERZURUM
•GAZİANTEP
•HAKKARİ•ISPARTA
•İÇEL
•KARS
•KASTAMONU
•KIRKLARELİ
•KIRŞEHİR•KÜTAHYA
•MALATYA
•MARDİN
•MUŞ
•NEVŞEHİR
•NİĞDE
•RİZE•SAMSUN
•SİİRT
•TEKİRDAĞ•TRABZON
•TUNCELİ
•ŞANLIURFA
•UŞAK
•VAN
•YOZGAT
•AKSARAY
•KARAMAN
•KIRIKKALE
•BATMAN
•ŞIRNAK
•ARDAHAN
•IĞDIR
•OSMANİYE
•DEHAP is by far the largest party, AKP is the second far behind
•CHP is the first party, AKP is the second with considerable votes and DYP is the tird party
•AKP is by far the largest party, CHP and DYP are second and third far behind
•AKP is by far the largest party, ANAP is the second far behind
6
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
7
Squared Distances with ErrorsSquared Distances with Errors
2 2m i im m m m i i i ime e π x π π π x x x
For each error ime
0imE e
2 2m imE e
8
Removing the Nonlinear TermsRemoving the Nonlinear Terms
The nonlinearity is removed by subtracting
the distances to one target, target m=0
from the distances to the other targets.
Then compute the sample covariance
matrix of the differences
2 2
0 0,m i m i i i imD e e π x π x π x
9
0, 2m i m m m i im iD e e π x π π π x
Assume that the errors me
are independently & identically distributed and that they are independent of the observer positions ix
10
Covariance Matrix of Distance DifferencesCovariance Matrix of Distance Differences
• Assume that the observer positions are uncorrelated random variables whose variances are 2 2
1 2 &
Then the covariance matrix of the distancedifferences is
204D x Σ Π Σ Π Ψ 1 1
2
1
2
2
0
0x
11
1 , , M
π π
is a Mx2 matrix of target positions
21
2
0
0 0
0
0
0 M
Ψ
2 2m imE e
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
Party positions & mean ideal points of party voters ideal points - 2001
None of the presently available parties Mhp
Hadep
Fp
DypDsp
Chp
Anap
Abstainers
A Very Religious Leader
CHP
DSP
DYP
FP
MHP
HADEP
A Prominent Businessman
A Labor Leader
ANAP
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Estimated party names in capital letters - mean ideal points of party voters in lower case
Quadrant 1Quadrant 4
Quadrant 3 Quadrant 2
15
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
16
KEY DATA ABOUT THE SURVEY
• The target of the sample was the nation-wide urban and rural settlers who are 18 years or older.
• The sample consisted of a total of 2028 face-to-face interviews conducted in 54 districts, 291 neighborhoods and 95 villages of a total 33 provinces.
• Under the restrictive assumption of simple random sampling this sample has a confidence interval of 95% with an error margin of +/- 2,2%.
• Provinces chosen according to probability proportionate to size (PPS) principle on the basis of their registered voter population in 1999 general election.
• The questionnaire was administered between the 10th and 25th of October 2002.
17
FACTS ABOUT THE FIELD RESEARCHFACTS ABOUT THE FIELD RESEARCH• Training for questionnaire implementation was given by Ali
Çarkoğlu and Ersin Kalaycıoğlu on October 4. The questionaire was tested and necessay corrections made after a pilot study on October 5-6.
• During the project 9 experts, 35 supervisers and 186 interviewers were assigned.
• 45% of the interviews were completed in the first trial. The rest is completed by either trying for a second time or selecting new streets and households.
· Interviews lasted 35 minutes on average.
• 45% of the interviews were randomly controlled. Controls are made either by phoning or going to the households one more time. 332 interviews were cancelled and conducted with replacements.
18
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
19
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
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
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
22
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
23
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.
24
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
25
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
26
Party positions & mean ideal points of party voters - 2002 survey
GP
RELIGIOUS
YTP
AKP
CHP
SP
ANAP
BBPDYP
MHP
DEHAP
DSP
Ytp
Bbp
Dsp
No vote
None of the PA
Undecided
Sp
Mhp
Gp
Dyp
Dehap
Chp
Anap
Akp
Others
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Estimated party names in capital letters - Mean voter ideal points in lower case
27
Mean ideal points for ethnic identity & attitudes toward religious issues
Can speak Kurdish
Can not speak Kurdish
Muslims are NOT under pressure
Muslims are under pressureNo to Şeriat
Yes to Şeriat
DSPDEHAP
MHP
DYPBBP
ANAP
SP
CHP
AKP
YTP
RELIGIOUS
GP
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
28
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
BBP
DYP
MHP
DEHAP
DSP
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
29
Mean ideal points for nationalism attidued & L-R ideology
Middle (5-6)
Rightist (7 to 10)
Leftist (1 to4)
Women
Men
GP
RELIGIOUS
YTP
AKP
CHP
SP
ANAP
BBPDYP
MHP
DEHAP
DSP
Xenophobia High
Xenophobia Low
Ethnic nationalism High
Ethnic nationalism Low
Religious conservatism High
Religious conservatism Low
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
30
Coefficients
Unstandardized Coefficients Unstandardized CoefficientsB Sig. B Sig.
(Constant) -0.11 0.82 1.85 0.00Age 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.14
Sex (Male=1) -0.40 0.01 -0.05 0.70Can speak European languages (English/Germa/French) 0.46 0.03 -0.12 0.47
Can speak Arabic -0.24 0.42 -0.32 0.16Can speak Kurdish -0.55 0.04 0.41 0.04
Unemployed -0.06 0.82 -0.67 0.00Student 0.15 0.67 -0.10 0.71Worker (public+private) -0.33 0.14 -0.04 0.81
Public Employee (public+private) -0.62 0.04 -0.22 0.35Ownership status index -0.07 0.42 0.02 0.76Dummy for no schooling -0.07 0.86 -0.03 0.92Dummy for primary school 0.27 0.41 0.05 0.85Dummy for junior high 0.29 0.41 -0.18 0.52Dummy for High school 0.25 0.39 -0.29 0.20Shanty town (Gecekondu) dummy -0.36 0.06 -0.18 0.21
Religious conservatism REGR factor score 1 -0.71 0.00 -0.50 0.00Ethnic nationalism REGR factor score 2 0.10 0.20 -0.20 0.00
Xenophobia REGR factor score 3 -0.23 0.00 -0.16 0.01Political efficacy REGR factor score 4 -0.03 0.70 -0.03 0.54To what degree is it important that one party wins the elections in order to have your family income rise. -0.01 0.61 -0.01 0.71To what degree you vote will influence the outcome of the elections. -0.01 0.69 0.00 0.86
Self placement on L-R index -0.12 0.00 -0.39 0.00Dummy for those who do not believe that there exists a party that can resolve TUR problems 0.51 0.00 0.12 0.35
Dummy for those who support EU membership 0.37 0.02 0.30 0.02Dummy for those who had taken the local initiative to resolve some of their local problems 0.53 0.00 0.04 0.77
Dummy for those who always cast a vote in general electionsHer seçimde oy kullanmış dummy 0.38 0.02 -0.17 0.17İncome gap between the real and desired income 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.46Dummy for those who had been angry in the recent past -0.20 0.21 -0.02 0.86Positive evaluation of the past on family 0.58 0.33 0.62 0.17Positive evaluation of the past on Turkey 0.84 0.06 0.47 0.18
Dummy for positive evaluations of the present day 0.72 0.01 -0.04 0.85Positive for familiy's future -0.11 0.63 0.09 0.60Positive for Turkey's future 0.10 0.65 0.09 0.58Yes to Şeriat -0.38 0.07 0.07 0.68
Degree of belief in destiny 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.51R Square 0.278 0.430
Adjusted R Square 0.253 0.410
Std. Error of the Estimate 2.283 1.760
Dimension 1 Pro-Islamism vs Secularism
Dimension 2 Pro vs anti Reform
Determinants of the positions on the two dimensions
31
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)
32
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
33
-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