This article introduces a novel approach for generating agenda-related estimates of the policy positions of political parties from party manifestos and expert surveys. We show that current party estimates provide for little variation across policy areas and over time. In response, we propose to relate the issue-specific ideological preference profiles of political parties to the legislative context. For the dimensional representation of policy positions of political parties our procedure weights the issue-specific preference profiles by their prominence on the agenda of each policy area. We apply this procedure to EU legislation and locate national political parties on a national/supranational and left/right dimension, which can be used for the analysis of Council decision-making.
BechtelMMLeuffenD (2010) Forecasting European Union politics: Real-time forecasts in political time series analysis. European Union Politics11(2): 309–327.
2.
BenoitKLaverM (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies, New York: Routledge.
3.
BenoitKLaverM (2007) Estimating party policy positions: Comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies26(1): 90–107.
4.
BenoitKLaverM (2012) The dimensionality of political space: Epistemological and methodological considerations. European Union Politics13(2): 194–218.
5.
BenoitKLaverMMikhaylovS (2009) Treating words as data with error: Estimating uncertainty in text statements of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science53(2): 495–513.
6.
BörzelTAHofmannTPankeDSprungkC (2010) Obstinate and inefficient: Why member states do not comply with European law. Comparative Political Studies43(11): 1363–1390.
7.
Braun D, Mikhaylov S and Schmitt H (2010) EES (2009) Manifesto Study Documentation. Advance Release 28 July 2010. URL: http://www.piredeu.eu.
8.
BraunDSalzwedelMStumpfCWüstAM (2007) Euromanifesto Documentation, Mannheim: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung.
9.
BudgeIFarlieDJ (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-three Democracies, London: Allen & Unwin.
10.
BudgeIRobertsonDHearlD (1987) Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-war Election Programmes in 19 Democracies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BudgeIKlingemannH-DVolkensABaraJTanenbaumE (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments 1945–1998, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
CrombezC (1997) Policy making and Commission appointment in the European Union. Aussenwirtschaft52(1/2): 63–82.
13.
CrombezCHixS (2011) Treaty reform and the Commission’s appointment and policy-making role in the European Union. European Union Politics12(3): 291–314.
14.
EES (2009a) European Parliament Election Study 2009, Voter Study, Advance Release 23 June 2011. URL: http://www.piredeu.eu.
15.
EES (2009b) European Parliament Election Study 2009, Manifesto Study Data, Advance Release (release B) 28 July 2010. URL: http://www.piredeu.eu.
16.
EnelowJMHinichMJ (1984) The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
FranchinoF (2007) The Powers of the Union: Delegation in the EU, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
FranchinoFHøylandB (2009) Legislative involvement in parliamentary systems: Opportunities, conflict, and institutional constraints. American Political Science Review103(4): 607–621.
19.
GabelMHixS (2002) Defining the EU political space: An empirical study of the European election manifestos, 1979–1999. Comparative Political Studies35(8): 934–964.
20.
GabelMHuberJD (2000) Putting parties in their place: Inferring party left–right ideological positions from party manifestos data. American Journal of Political Science44(1): 94–103.
21.
GolubJ (1999) In the shadow of the vote? Decision making in the European Community. International Organization53(4): 733–764.
22.
GolubJ (2007) Survival analysis and European Union decision-making. European Union Politics8(2): 155–179.
23.
GolubJSteunenbergB (2007) How time affects EU decision-making. European Union Politics8(4): 555–566.
24.
HägeFM (2011) The European Union policy-making dataset. European Union Politics12(3): 455–477.
25.
HagemannS (2007) Applying ideal point estimation methods to the Council of Ministers. European Union Politics8(2): 279–296.
26.
HagemannSHøylandB (2010) Bicameral politics in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies48(4): 811–833.
27.
HammondTHMillerGJ (1987) The core of the constitution. American Political Science Review81(4): 1155–1174.
28.
Hayes-RenshawFWallaceH (2006) The Council of Ministers, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
29.
HeisenbergD (2005) The institution of ‘consensus’ in the European Union: Formal versus informal decision-making in the Council. European Journal of Political Research44(1): 65–90.
30.
HertzRLeuffenD (2011) Too big to run? Analysing the impact of enlargement on the speed of EU decision-making. European Union Politics12(2): 193–215.
31.
HinichMJMungerMC (1997) Analytical Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HixSHøylandB (2011) The Political System of the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
33.
HixSLordC (1997) Political Parties in the European Union, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
34.
HoogheLBakkerRBrigevichADe VriesCEdwardsEMarksGRovnyJSteenbergenMVachudovaM (2010) Reliability and validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill expert surveys on party positioning. European Journal of Political Research49(5): 687–703.
35.
HoogheLMarksG(1999) Making of a polity: The struggle over European integration. In: KitscheltHLangePMarksGStephensJ (eds) Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 70–97.
36.
HugSKönigT (2002) In view of ratification: Governmental preferences and domestic constraints at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. International Organization56(2): 447–476.
37.
KlingemannH-DVolkensABaraJBudgeIMcDonaldM (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II. Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990–2003, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
KönigT (2007) Divergence or convergence? From ever-growing to ever-slowing European legislative decision making. European Journal of Political Research46(3): 417–444.
39.
KönigT (2008) Analysing the process of EU legislative decision-making: To make a long story short…. European Union Politics9(1): 145–165.
40.
KönigTBräuningerT (2004) Accession and reform of the European Union. A game-theoretical analysis of eastern enlargement and the constitutional reform. European Union Politics5(4): 419–439.
41.
KönigTJungeD (2009) Why don’t veto players use their power?European Union Politics10(4): 507–534.
42.
KönigTLuetgertB (2009) Troubles with transposition? Explaining trends in member-state notification and the delayed transposition of EU directives. British Journal of Political Science39(1): 163–194.
43.
König T and Mäder L (2008) Cabinets and the Transposition of EC Directives. Paper presented at the 4th ECPR Pan-European Conference on EU politics, Riga/Latvia, 25–27 September 2008.
44.
König T and Mäder L (2013) Non-conformable, partial and conformable transposition: A competing risk analysis of the transposition of directives in the EU15. Forthcoming in European Union Politics 14(1).
45.
KönigTPöterM (2001) Examining the EU legislative process: The relative importance of agenda and veto power. European Union Politics2(3): 329–351.
46.
KönigTLuetgertBDannwolfT (2006) Quantifying European legislative research. European Union Politics7(4): 553–574.
47.
LaverMBudgeI(1992) Measuring policy distances and modelling coalition formation. In: LaverMBudgeI (eds) Party Policy and Government Coalitions, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 15–40.
48.
LaverMHuntWB (1992) Policy and Party Competition, New York: Routledge.
49.
LoweWBenoitKMikhaylovSLaverM (2011) Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly26(1): 123–155.
50.
LuetgertBDannwolfT (2009) Mixing methods: A nested analysis of EU member state transposition patterns. European Union Politics10(3): 307–334.
51.
MarksGSteenbergenM (2002) Understanding political contestation in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies35(8): 879–892.
52.
MattilaM (2004) Contested decisions: Empirical analysis of voting in the European Union Council of Ministers. European Journal of Political Research43(1): 29–50.
53.
MattilaM (2009) Roll call analysis of voting in the European Union Council of Ministers after the 2004 enlargement. European Journal of Political Research48(6): 840–857.
54.
MattilaMLaneJ-E (2001) Why unanimity in the Council?European Union Politics2(1): 31–52.
55.
McKelveyRD (1976) Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. Journal of Economic Theory12(3): 472–482.
56.
McKelveyRD (1979) General conditions for global intransitivities in formal voting models. Econometrica47(5): 1085–1112.
57.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825–850.
58.
PetrocikJRBenoitWLHansenGJ (2003) Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly118(4): 599–626.
59.
ProkschS-OLoJ (2012) Reflections on the European integration dimension. European Union Politics13(2): 317–333.
60.
RayL (1999) Measuring party orientations towards European integration: Results from an expert survey. European Journal of Political Research36(2): 283–306.
61.
RovnyJ (2012) Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition. European Union Politics13(2): 269–292.
62.
SchmittH (2003) The Eurobarometers: Their evolution, obvious merits, and ways to add value to them. European Union Politics4(2): 243–251.
63.
SchulzHKönigT (2000) Institutional reform and decision-making efficiency in the European Union. American Journal of Political Science44(4): 653–666.
64.
SelckTJ (2004) On the dimensionality of European Union legislative decision-making. Journal of Theoretical Politics16(2): 203–222.
65.
SteenbergenMRMarksG (2007) Evaluating expert judgments. European Journal of Political Research46(3): 347–366.
66.
SteunenbergB (2010) Is big brother watching? Commission oversight of the national implementation of EU directives. European Union Politics11(3): 359–380.
67.
ThomsonRTorenvliedR (2011) Information, commitment and consensus: A comparison of three perspectives on delegation in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science41(1): 139–159.
68.
ThomsonRTorenvliedRArreguiJ (2007) The paradox of compliance: Infringements and delays in transposing European Union directives. British Journal of Political Science37(4): 685–709.
69.
TsebelisG (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
70.
TsebelisG (2008) Thinking about the recent past and the future of the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies46(2): 265–292.
71.
Van EgmondMHSapirEVVan der BrugWHoboltSBFranklinMN (2010) EES 2009 Voter Study Advance Release Notes, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
72.
VeenT (2011a) The dimensionality and nature of conflict in European Union politics: On the characteristics of intergovernmental decision-making. European Union Politics12(1): 65–86.
73.
VeenT (2011b) Positions and salience in European Union politics: Estimation and validation of a new dataset. European Union Politics12(2): 267–288.
74.
VolkensA (2005) Manifesto Data Set. MDS 2005 Data Handbook, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
75.
VolkensALacewellOLehmannPRegelSSchultzeHWernerA (2011) The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR), Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
76.
WarntjenA (2012) Measuring salience in EU legislative politics. European Union Politics13(1): 168–182.
77.
WarntjenACrombezCHixS (2008) The party political make-up of EU legislative bodies. Journal of European Public Policy15(8): 1243–1253.
78.
WernerALacewellOVolkensA (2011) Manifesto Coding Instructions, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
79.
Wüst AM and Volkens A (2003) Euromanifesto Coding Instructions. Working Paper 64. Mannheim: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
