The RILE index of the manifesto dataset is a popular but controversial estimate of parties’ left–right positions. It has been thoroughly criticized, yet a basic question of its validity has not been addressed. In the current article I argue that for the index to be valid, patterns of association presumed by the logic of the index must be present in the data used to calculate it. I apply canonical correlation analysis (CCA) to test these associations within and between the sets of variables that form the left–right (RILE) index, concluding that for countries which have not experienced a communist past the relationship is present, although substantively weak. More important, however, is that for post-communist countries the required associations in the data are clearly not there. The RILE index is therefore an invalid measure of left–right position for this set of countries.
AdcockRCollierD (2001) Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review95(3): 529–546.
2.
AlbrightJJ (2010) The multidimensional nature of party competition. Party Politics16(6): 699–719.
3.
AndewegRWDe WinterLDumontP (eds) (2011) Puzzles of Government Formation: Coalition Theory and Deviant Cases. London: Routledge.
4.
BenoitKLaverM (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.
5.
BenoitKLaverM (2007) Estimating party policy positions: Comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies26(1): 90–107.
6.
BenoitKLaverM (2012) The dimensionality of political space: Epistemological and methodological considerations. European Union Politics13(2): 194–218.
7.
BudgeI (2013a) Estimating estimate error directly from the estimates. Available at: http://goo.gl/dACrI.
8.
BudgeI (2013b) The standard left–right scale. Available at: http://goo.gl/4EubD.
9.
BudgeIBaraJ (2001a) Introduction. Content analysis and political texts. In: BudgeI. (eds) Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Governments, Electorates 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
BudgeIBaraJ (2001b) Manifesto-based research: A critical review. In: BudgeI. (eds) Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Governments, Electorates 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
BudgeIKlingemannH-D (2001) Finally! Comparative over-time mapping of party policy movement. In: Budge. (eds) Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Governments, Electorates 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
BudgeIRobertsonDHearlD (1987) Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
BudgeIKlingemannH-DVolkensA. (eds) (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Governments, Electorates 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
CochraneC (2011) The asymmetrical structure of left/right disagreement: Left-wing coherence and right-wing fragmentation in comparative party policy. Party Politics19(1): 104–121.
15.
DaltonRJFarrellDMMcAllisterI (2011) Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
DinasEGemenisK (2010) Measuring parties’ ideological positions with manifesto data: A critical evaluation of the competing methods. Party Politics16(4): 427–450.
17.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
18.
DyrbergTB (2009) What is beyond right/left? The case of New Labour. Journal of Political Ideologies14(2): 133–153.
19.
FranzmannSKaiserA (2006) Locating political parties in policy space: A reanalysis of party manifesto data. Party Politics12(2): 163–188.
20.
GemenisK (2013) What to do (and not to do) with the comparative manifestos project data. Political Studies61: 3–23.
21.
GemenisKDinasE (2010) Confrontation still? Examining parties’ policy positions in Greece. Comparative European Politics8(2): 179–201.
22.
HansenME (2008) Back to the archives? A critique of the Danish part of the manifesto dataset. Scandinavian Political Studies31(2): 201–216.
23.
HotellingH (1929) Stability in competition. The Economic Journal39(153): 41–57.
24.
HuberJInglehartR (1995) Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics1(1): 73–111.
25.
InglehartR (1984) The changing structure of political cleavages in Western society. In: DaltonRJFlanaganSCBeckPA (eds) Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Realignment or Dealignment?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
JacobyWG (1991) Data Theory and Dimensional Analysis. London: Sage.
27.
KlingemannH-DVolkensABaraJ. (eds) (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
KrippendorffK (2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. London: Sage.
29.
LaverM (ed.) (2001) Estimating the Policy Position of Political Actors. London: Routledge.
30.
LaverMBudgeI (eds) (1992) Party Policy and Government Coalitions. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
31.
LaverMGarryJ (2000) Estimating policy positions from political texts. American Journal of Political Science44(3): 619–634.
32.
LevineMS (1977) Canonical Analysis and Factor Comparison. London: Sage.
33.
MartinLWStevensonRT (2001) Government formation in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science45(1): 33–50.
34.
McDonaldMDMendesSM (2001) The policy space of party manifestos. In: LaverM (ed.) Estimating the Policy Position of Political Actors. London and New York: Routledge.
MeyerTMJennyM (2012) Measuring error for adjacent policy position estimates: Dealing with uncertainty using CMP data. Electoral Studies32(1): 174–185.
37.
MikhaylovSLaverMBenoitKR (2012) Coder reliability and misclassification in the human coding of party manifestos. Political Analysis20(1): 78–91.
38.
PelizzoR (2003) Party positions or party direction? An analysis of party manifesto data. West European Politics26(2): 67–89.
39.
SavageLM (2012) Who gets in? Ideology and government membership in Central and Eastern Europe. Party Politics.
40.
SmithiesA (1941) Optimum location in spatial competition. Journal of Political Economy49(3): 423–439.
41.
StrømKMüllerWC (eds) (1999) Policy, Office, or Votes?: How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
StrømKMüllerWCBergmanT (eds) (2008) Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining: The Democratic Life Cycle in Western Europe. Comparative Politics. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
43.
TabachnickBGFidellLS (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
44.
ThompsonB (1984) Canonical Correlation Analysis: Uses and Interpretation. London: Sage.
45.
van der BurgW (2001) Analysing party dynamics by taking partially overlapping snapshots. In: LaverM (ed.) Estimating the Policy Position of Political Actors. London and New York: Routledge.
46.
VolkensA (2000) Canonical correlation analysis. In: GrimmLGYarnoldPR (eds) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
47.
VolkensA (2001) Manifesto research since 1979. From reliability to validity. In: LaverM (ed.) Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors. London: Routledge.
48.
VolkensABaraJBudgeI (2009) Data quality in content analysis. The case of the comparative manifestos project. Historical Social Research34(1): 234–251.
