, are available online at: www.unc.edu/ hooghe. These surveys were funded by the European Union, The CHES datasets for 2002, 1999.
, Included are political parties that obtain at least 2% of the vote in the election immediately prior to the survey year or that elect at least one representative to the national parliament. A total of 53 parties met this criterion in 1984, vol.54, 1992.
, , 2009.
, , 2008.
, , 2000.
, theorise how these ideological dimensions structure party positioning on European integration. Marks et al. (2006) explain the structuring of party positioning in East and West, 2002.
, The 2002 survey was sent out by mail and E-mail
, The 2002 survey includes questions on four additional EU policies: employment, agriculture, environment and asylum
, deregulation of markets, redistribution from the rich to the poor, civil liberties versus law and order, lifestyle (e.g., homosexuality), role of religious principles in politics, immigration policy, integration of immigrants and asylum seekers, urban versus rural interests, cosmopolitanism versus nationalism, political decentralisation to regions/localities, American leadership in world affairs, rights for ethnic minorities, These policy dimensions are improving public services versus reducing taxes
, Gal/tan' refers to values ranging from GAL (green/alternative/libertarian) to TAN (traditional/authoritarian/nationalist) (Hooghe et al. 2002), 1994.
, Excluding graduate students, party officials and journalists
, 2 (opposed), 3 (somewhat opposed), 4 (neutral), 5 (somewhat in favour), 6 (in favour) and 7 (strongly in favour). The section on 13 policy dimensions begins: 'Finally, some questions on where political parties stood on the following policy dimensions in Austria in 2006. On each dimension, we ask you to assess the position of the party leadership, and then to assess the importance/salience of this dimension for a party's public stance, The general question on European integration reads: 'How would you describe the general position on European integration that the party leadership took over the course of 2006?', on a seven-point scale ranging 1 (strongly opposed), p.11
, Ireland in 2006 (0.30) and Lithuania in 2006 (0.30); for dissent, Latvia in 2002 (0.35); for general left/right, Bulgaria in 2006 (0.16) and Romania in 2006 (0.16); for economic left/right, Slovakia in 2002 (0.18) and Austria in 2006 (0.18); for gal/tan, Latvia in 2006 (0.21); for all EU policies pooled, Ireland in 2002 (0.25) and Romania in 2006 (0.21); for all policy dimensions pooled, 10 = strongly favours reducing taxes.' 11. The countries with the highest average standard deviations are: for position, 2006.
, This is consistent with Benoit and Laver's finding that standard deviations among experts for post-communist countries are larger, vol.224, 2006.
, if experts coordinate evaluations or if the ideological leanings of academic experts affect their evaluations. Benoit and Laver examine whether experts' political sympathies affect party placements on left-right for 387 parties in 47 countries. For seven parties only (all populist right or conservative-national parties) politically unsympathetic experts were significantly more likely to give the party a more extreme score than neutral or sympathetic experts, Collective expert bias could result if the professional consensus is wrong, pp.136-138, 2006.
, see also Carmines and Zeller 1979) label this 'convergent validity'. Given that the indicators used in the factor analyses reported here are measured ordinally, it is possible that conventional factor analytic techniques are inappropriate. Factor analysis assumes that observed indicators of the latent construct are measured at the interval level and it models the relationship among indicators with linear correlations. When we relax the assumption of linearity and estimate polychoric correlations, 2001.
, The dataset can be downloaded from
, We thank Andrea Volkens for providing the most recent data for this analysis. 17. With thanks to Robert Rohrschneider, who provided the Whitefield-Rohrschneider dataset. The Benoit-Laver expert survey did not field a comparable question
, Modern methods for robust regression, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, pp.7-152, 2008.
, Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research, American Political Science Review, vol.95, issue.3, pp.529-546, 2001.
, Party policy in modern democracies, 2006.
, Identifying dimensions and locating parties: Methodological and conceptual problems, Handbook of political parties, 2006.
, Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors and governments, 1945.
, Reliability and validity assessment, 1979.
, Taking Europe to its extremes: Extremist parties and public Euroskepticism, Party Politics, vol.15, issue.1, pp.5-28, 2009.
, Assessing the reliability and validity of expert interviews, European Union Politics, vol.6, issue.3, pp.315-337, 2005.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571715
, Products of their past? Cleavage theory and intra-party dissent over European integration, Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS) Political Science Series 118. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies, 2009.
, The decline of cleavage politics, Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in Western countries, 1992.
, Putting parties in their place: Inferring party left-right ideological positions from party manifestos data, American Journal of Political Science, vol.44, issue.1, pp.94-103, 2000.
, Social science concepts: A user's guide, 2005.
, Improving data quality: Actors, incentives and capabilities, Political Analysis, vol.15, issue.4, pp.365-386, 2007.
, Does left/right structure party positions on European integration?, Comparative Political Studies, vol.35, issue.8, pp.965-989, 2002.
, The transformation of European social democracy, 1994.
, Europe's party-political center of gravity, Journal for European Public Policy, vol.15, issue.1, pp.20-39, 2008.
, Introduction: triangulation and the square-root law, Electoral Studies, vol.26, issue.1, pp.1-10, 2007.
, The past in the present: A theory of party response to European integration, British Journal of Political Science, vol.30, issue.2, pp.433-459, 2000.
, Party competition and European integration in East and West: Different structure, same causality, Comparative Political Studies, vol.39, issue.2, pp.155-175, 2006.
, Cross-validating data on party positioning on European integration, Electoral Studies, vol.26, issue.1, pp.23-38, 2007.
, Cross-temporal and cross-national comparisons of party left-right positions, Electoral Studies, vol.26, issue.1, pp.62-75, 2007.
, Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices, Comparative Political Studies, vol.35, issue.1, pp.5-34, 2002.
, The salience of the European integration issue: Three data sources compared, Electoral Studies, vol.26, issue.1, pp.39-49, 2007.
, Measuring party orientation towards European integration: Results from an expert survey, European Journal of Political Research, vol.36, issue.6, pp.283-306, 1999.
, Struggle over Dimensionality: Party Competition in Europe. Paper presented at The Politics of Change workshop, pp.13-14, 2008.
, Evaluating expert judgments, European Journal of Political Research, vol.46, issue.3, pp.347-366, 2007.
, Postcommunist politics in a magnetic field: How transition and EU accession structure party competition on European integration, European Politics, vol.7, issue.2, pp.179-212, 2009.
, Do expert surveys produce consistent estimates of party stances on European integration? Comparing expert surveys in the difficult case of Central and Eastern Europe, Electoral Studies, vol.26, issue.1, pp.50-61, 2007.