Students of party organization often rely on politicians’ perceptions when measuring internal party institutions and organizational characteristics. We compare a commonly used survey measure of political parties’ European Parliament candidate selection mechanisms to measures that the authors coded directly from parties’ selection rules. We find substantial disconnect between formal institutions and survey respondent perceptions of selection mechanisms, raising questions about measure accuracy and equivalency. While this divergence may be driven either by distinctions between de jure and de facto selection procedures or by respondent error, we find the differences between the two measures are unsystematic. Our findings suggest that authors studying party characteristics must decide whether their research question calls for survey or formal institutional measures.
BenoitKConwayDLauderdaleBEet al.(2016) Crowd-sourced text analysis: Reproducible and agile production of political data. American Political Science Review110(02): 278–295.
3.
BilleL (2001) Democratizing a democratic procedure: Myth or reality?: Candidate selection in Western European parties, 1960-1990. Party Politics7(3): 363–380.
4.
BudgeI (2000) Expert judgments of party policy positions: Uses and limitations in political research. European Journal of Political Research37(1): 103–113.
5.
CanacheD (2012) Citizens’ conceptualizations of democracy: Structural complexity, substantive content, and political significance. Comparative Political Studies45: 1132–1158.
6.
CareyJM (2009) Legislative Voting and Accountability, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
ClintonJDLewisDE (2008) Expert opinion, agency characteristics, and agency preferences. Political Analysis16(1): 3–20.
8.
CoppedgeMGlynnALindbergSet al.(2015) Conceptualizing democracy: A survey experiment using paired country comparisons, Presented at Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.
9.
DaltonRJShinDCJouW (2007) Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places. Journal of Democracy18(4): 142–156.
10.
ElkinsZGinsburgTMeltonJ (2009) The Endurance of National Constitutions, New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
FaasT (2003) To defect or not to defect? National, institutional and party group pressures on MEPs and their consequences for party group cohesion in the European Parliament. European Journal of Political Research42(6): 841–866.
12.
Farrell DM, Hix S, Johnson M, et al. (2006) EPRG 2000 and 2006 MEP surveys dataset. Technical Report. Available at: www.lse.ac.uk/collections/EPRG/ (accessed 30 March 2016).
13.
GallagherM (1988) Introduction. In: GallagherMMarshM (eds) Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics, London: SAGE Publications.
14.
Giebler H, Haus E and Wessels B (2010) 2009 European election candidate study – Codebook, advance release. Technical Report, WZB, Berlin. Available at: www.piredeu.edu (accessed 30 March 2016).
15.
GlaeserELLa PortaRLopez-de SilaneFet al.(2004) Do institutions cause growth?Journal of Economic Growth9(3): 217–303.
16.
GreifA (2006) Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HazanRYRahatG (2010) Democracy Within Parties: Candidate Selection and Their Political Consequences, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
HixS (2002) Parliamentary behavior with two principals: Preferences, parties, and voting in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science46(3): 688–698.
19.
HixS (2004) Electoral institutions and legislative behavior: Explaining voting defection in the European Parliament. World Politics56(2): 194–223.
20.
HixSNouryARolandG (2007) Democratic Politics in the European Parliament, New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
HoogheLBakkerRBrigevichAet al.(2010) Reliability and validity of measuring party positions: The Chapel Hill Expert Surveys of 2002 and 2006. European Journal of Political Research49(5): 687–703.
22.
HopkinJ (2001) Bringing the members back in?: Democratizing candidate selection in Britain and Spain. Party Politics7(3): 343–361.
23.
KatzRS (2001) The problem of candidate selection and models of party democracy. Party Politics7(3): 277–296.
24.
KatzRSMairP (1992) Party Organizations: A Data Handbook on Party Organizations in Western Democracies, 1960-90, London: Sage Publications.
25.
Kernell G (2008) Political party organizations and representation: Party responsiveness, candidate heterogeneity and voter behavior in mature parliamentary democracies. PhD Thesis, Columbia University, New York, USA.
26.
KingGWandJ (2007) Comparing incomparable survey responses: Evaluating and selecting anchoring vignettes. Political Analysis15(1): 46–66.
27.
KlüverHSpoonJJ (2015) Bringing salience back in: Explaining voting defection in the European Parliament. Party Politics21(4): 553–564.
28.
LaffinMShawETaylorG (2007) The new sub-national politics of the British labour party. Party Politics13(1): 88–108.
29.
LangstonJ (2006) The changing party of the institutional revolution: Electoral competition and decentralized candidate selection. Party Politics12(3): 395–413.
30.
LindstädtRProkschSOSlapinJB (2016) When experts disagree: Response aggregation and its consequences in expert surveys, Working Paper.
31.
LindstädtRSlapinJBVanderWRJ (2012) Adaptive behavior in the European Parliament: Learning to balance competing demands. European Union Politics13(4): 465–486.
32.
MaestasCDButticeMKStoneWJ (2014) Extracting wisdom from experts and small crowds: Strategies for improving informant-based measures of political concepts. Political Analysis22(3): 354–373.
MeserveSAPemsteinDBernhardWT (2009) Political ambition and legislative behavior in the European Parliament. Journal of Politics71(3): 1015–1032.
35.
NorrisP (1997) Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies, New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
NorrisPFranklinM (1997) Social Representation. European Journal of Political Research32(2): 185–210.
37.
PemsteinDMeserveSABernhardWT (2015) Brussels bound: Policy experience and candidate selection in European elections. Comparative Political Studies48(11): 1421–1453.
38.
PesonenP (1968) An Election in Finland, New Haven: Yale University Press.
39.
Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs (2009) The selection of candidates for the European Parliament by National Parties and the Impact of European Political Parties. Technical Report, PE 410.683, Brussels: European Parliament: Directorate General for Internal Affairs. Available at: www.europarl.europa.eu/studies (accessed 8 June 2016).
40.
RahatGHazanRY (2001) Candidate selection methods: An analytical framework. Party Politics7(3): 297–322.
41.
RanneyA (1981) Candidate selection. In: ButlerDPennimanHRRanneyA (eds) Democracy at the Polls: A Comparative Study of Competitive National Elections, Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, pp. 75–106.
42.
RaunioT (2000) Losing independence or finally gaining recognition?: Contacts between MEPs and National Parties. Party Politics6(2): 211–223.
43.
Scarrow S and Webb P (2013) Assessing party organizational change: participation, representation and power. In: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Chicago, pp.1–24. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2300958.
44.
SchattschneiderEE (1942) Party Government, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
45.
ShomerY (2009) Candidate selection procedures, seniority, and vote-seeking behavior. Comparative Political Studies42(7): 945–970.
46.
ShomerY (2014) What affects candidate selection processes? A cross-national examination. Party Politics20(4): 533–546.
47.
SiavelisP (2002) The hidden logic of candidate selection for chilean elections parliamentary. Comparative Politics34: 419–438.
48.
SteenbergenMRMarksG (2007) Evaluating expert judgments. European Journal of Political Research46: 347–366.
49.
van der KolkHSchmittHScholzEet al.(1997) The European election study 1994. European Journal of Political Research32: 283–289.
50.
VoigtS (2013) How (not) to measure institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics9: 1–26.
51.
Whitaker R, Hix S and Zapryanova G (2017) Understanding members of the European Parliament: Four waves of the European Parliament research group MEP survey. European Union Politics. 18: 491–506.
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.
