DIPAC CITIZEN DATA: Technical report 1.0

(1)

Decreased Ideological Polarization and Conflict in Western Europe?

Linnaeus University, Mid-University, University of Gothenburg.

Växjö 2019

DIPAC

DIPAC CITIZEN DATA

TECHNICAL REPORT 1.0

Magnus Hagevi, Sofie Blombäck,

Jonas Hinnfors, Marie Demker and Karl Loxbo

(2)

About the project

The data described in this report were collected for the DIPAC-project:

Decreased Ideological Polarisation and Conflict in Western Europe?

DIPAC is funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Crafoord Foundation. The project’s aim is to study the proposed crisis of

representative democracy in Western Europe during the last decades. The implications of this are that the links between parties and citizens are broken, the policies of the dominant parties have become increasingly alike, and party systems have fragmented because of new political conflicts. However, as Western European party systems have not only survived but also flourished during this permanent crisis, the question arises as to whether this crisis of representative democracy is a crisis for parties or for democratic ideals. The vitality of democracy stands and falls on the parties’ ability to function as democratic channels, although the vigour of parties as organizations may not depend on this. The main aim of DIPAC is to relate to five theoretical themes of the development of

representative democracy in Western Europe by answering the following two questions: First, are the ideologies and enacted policies of political parties converging or diverging in Western European party systems?

Second, are the changes in party ideologies and enacted policies initiated by the parties themselves aligned with voter demand or forced by

globalization?

One of our main goals was to collect and analyze data on parties, governments, parliaments and citizens in a systematic and comparable manner for the time- period from the mid-1970s to the mid-2010s. This resulted in five unique datasets.

- Election manifestos data - Government declarations data - Parliamentary conflict data - Citizen data

- Policy making data

This report describes DIPAC Citizen data set.

The first part of this report gives information on the project as a whole, including discussions of case selection and core concepts. Following this, there are a technical report the DIPAC citizen data set.

(4)

The cases

The nine cases in focus in the project are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany¹, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Note that the selection of party systems means that the study focuses on established, historically persistent, economically well-developed, and wealthy representative democracies. However, the cases also include varying electoral and party systems in both federal and unitary states, as well as both consensus- and conflict-oriented party systems. Given these differences, our study represents a most-different- system design.²

The long time-period covered means that year-by-year data is not feasible.

Instead the aim has been to collect all types of data as close as possible to the middle of each decade, i.e. 1975, 1985, 1995, 2005 and 2015, with an extra collection point around 2010. Since neither election manifestos nor government declarations are typically available for each year, we have centered the data collection around the election closest prior to the mid-point of each decade. A complete list of election years covered are available in Appendix I.

About ideology

One of the core concepts underlying this study is ideology. Ideologies provide guidelines for the voters about where the parties would like to go. Thus, they are visions, frames or worldviews that ‘provide road maps that increase actors’

clarity about goals or ends-means relationships’ (Goldstein and Keohane 1993:

3). They can be defined as ‘verbal image[s] of the good society and of the chief means of constructing such a society’ (Downs 1957: 102). To map these visions and images is different from what is done in the range of studies that provide valuable data about differences and similarities regarding political parties’

concrete issue positions, pledges and policy proposals (e.g. Abney et al. 2007;

Bornschier 2010; Stoll 2010; Bakker et al. 2015). These other aspects are

important features of a party’s messages to the voters. Yet, these are not the same as explicit reasoning about visionary ideas as such; not the same as ideological goals and visions.

1 Until German reunification we study the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany/

the Bonn Republic). After reunification we study the entire country.

2 Given that the focus is on Western European countries that have been stable

(5)

A common complaint in much research on parties and party systems is that parties are becoming less ideologically distinct and/or that parties’ ideological positions are converging (Katz and Mair 1995, 2009, 2018; Kitschelt 2000, 2007;

for an early example see Clayton Thomas, 1975). Both these scenarios would leave voters with fewer meaningful choices at election time, with all the negative democratic consequences this might entail. We have thus collected data about parties’ ideologies with this specific question in mind, is the ideological space shrinking or not.

The exact operationalization of ideology will naturally vary between the different data sources we use. We do, however, consistently work from a common

understanding of the central areas of ideology. We regard Western European party systems as bi-dimensional (Inglehart and Flanagan 1987; Kitschelt 1994;

Hooghe et al. 2002; Bornschier 2010; cf. Kriesi et al. 2008, 2012), the economic Left-Right dimension and the GAL-TAN dimension. Each of these dimensions encompass several what we call sub-dimensions.

Based on previous research (Lipset and Rokkan 1967; Stoll 2010; Bornschier 2010) we have identified the following sub-dimensions (see Table 1).

Table 1. Ideological dimensions and sub-dimensions

Left-Right GAL-TAN

State-Market Environment – Economic growth

Public-Private welfare provision Civil liberties – Law and order

High – Low redistribution Individual liberty – Social authoritarianism Multiculturalism – National unity

Cosmopolitanism - Nationalism EU positive – EU negative

Together we argue that these sub-dimensions capture relevant ideological areas that parties can and do contest. One advantage of working with broader

ideological categories rather than issues is that we can track changes over time and compare between countries, even if the specific content of the sub-

dimensions vary between the contexts. Conversely, the same issue can also be a part of several sub-dimensions at once, depending on the ideological statements made about the issue.

We describe the operationalization of each sub-dimension in five separate dataset reports.

(6)

Citizen data

The DIPAC citizen data set includes public opinion from citizens in nine political systems (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany³, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom). We study citizen opinion using data from a variety of national surveys conducted in Western Europe from the 1970s onwards. Largely, the data comes from comparative collaborations (EVS, EES and ISSP). We also supplement these studies with other surveys, mainly National Election Studies. To study change over time, we collected these data in the mid- 1970s, -1980s, -1990s, -2000s, and -2010s.

The citizen data concerns two areas. Firstly, we collect survey data of citizens’

position on the ideological dimension of economic Left-Right and GAL-TAN.

These data are stored on two files depending of unit of analysis: one file with the mean ideological position of citizens in a country as a whole, and one file with mean ideological position among citizens with the same party preference. The purpose is to make it possible to compare the ideological position of parties and government with the ideological position of citizens in each county as well as the ideological position of the sympathizers of each party. Secondly, we also collect survey data to determine the percentage of party members in each country.

To determine the ideological positions of citizens, our approach, as far as possible, corresponds to the coding of party manifestos and government declarations (see Blombäck et al. 2019). We do so to increase the possibility of comparing the position of parties and government with the ideological positions of citizens. We regard Western European party systems as bi-dimensional (Inglehart and Flanagan 1987; Inglehart 1997; Flanagan and Lie 2003): the economic Left-Right and the cultural GAL-TAN dimension. We collected citizen data that relate to the three sub-dimensions of the economic left-right dimension, and to the five sub-dimensions of the GAL-TAN dimension (see Table 1).

State – market focuses on citizens’ views on the state’s role in the economy and to what degree the government (the state) should regulate or deregulate the free market, enterprises, and, businesses, be engage in economic stimuli packages as well as to what degree the government (the state) should privatize or socialize industries and companies.

Public – private welfare provision focuses on who should provide welfare. Do citizens prefer private or public provision of, for instance, health care and

(7)

education? Is it the responsibility of the state or the individual/family to provide for welfare?

High – low redistribution asks how much government redistribution there should be between rich and poor.

Environment – economic growth does not only ask if citizens believe that protecting the environment is good, but also how citizens prioritize between the environment and the economy. Is environmental protection only possible or desirable as long as it does not damage the economy and the standard of living, or should we be willing to make financial sacrifices in order to safeguard nature?

Civil rights – law and order focuses on the tension between the individual’s rights against intervention from the state and the state’s mandate to ensure collective safety. Do citizens prioritize civil liberties/citizen rights or security? Is crime best dealt with by prevention or a focus on law enforcement? How much government surveillance is acceptable?

Individual liberty – social authoritarianism focuses on the relationship between the individual and the societal collective. Do citizens support the individual’s right to choose how to live their life or the importance of traditional values and social cohesion? Should the government’s role be to protect minorities, promote non-traditional lifestyles, traditional ways of life or not interfere in issues of family formation, religion etc.?

Multiculturalism – national unity deals with the relationship between the

state/nation and minority groups. Do citizens support migration or not? Should it be possible or even encouraged for individuals and groups to use different languages and have different beliefs, or are all such differences a threat to the national unity? Should minority groups be allowed to make some decisions for themselves, or is it more important that all citizens are treated exactly the same?

Cosmopolitanism – Nationalism focuses on the country’s relationship to the surrounding world. Do citizens have nationalistic attitudes, view contact and collaboration with other countries as beneficial or threatening? Is national

sovereignty or international co-operation most important? Is national security and well-being best ensured by diplomacy and free trade or a strong military?

EU positive – EU negative, finally, asks about the opinion of citizens on European integration. Should the country remain in/join the EU and push for further integration, or should it leave the EU? Do citizens trust or mistrust the

(8)

are mostly general statements of semi-ideological character, not related to specific policies on the election campaign agenda. Since our intention is to determine the ideological position of citizens (and compare these with the corresponding position of parties and governments), items mainly tapping in to the values of citizens is a suitable level for our purpose. The specific survey items used to indicate each sub-dimension sometimes vary both between countries and over time. However, primarily and as much as possible, we base our coding on similar items from the European Values Study (EVS 2019).

The coding is quantitative. If possible, we have prioritized similar items across countries and years. Our empirical indicators of citizens’ positions on sub- dimensions have sometimes been single survey items, sometimes indexes based on several items from one survey and sometimes two or more surveys. We aggregate the individual positions for survey responders to party level, by using the party preference of responders, as well as to country level. If needed, we summarize the aggregated positions for each sub-dimension, on party level and country level, respectively. Based upon this, for each sub-dimension, we create a 5-point scale from 0 (Left/GAL) to 1 (Right/TAN) with 0.25, 0.50 (indicating a neutral mid-point), and 0.75 as intermediate variable values. If appropriate, and a neutral mid-point is not available among the original response options, we use the

“don’t know”-option as a neutral mid-point (variable value 0.50). To create the Left-Right dimension scale from 0 (Left) to 1 (Right), we summarize the sub- dimensions scales of state-market, public-private welfare provision, and high-low redistribution and divide the sum with the number of sub-dimension in use. In the case of missing data for a sub-dimension, we base the Left-Right dimension scale on the sub-dimensions with available data. To create the GAL-TAN dimension scale from 0 (GAL) to 1 (TAN), we summarize the sub-dimensions scales of environment – economic growth, civil liberties – law & order, individual liberty – social authoritarianism, multiculturalism – national unity, cosmopolitanism – nationalism, and EU-positive – EU-negative and divide the sum with the number of sub-dimension in use. In the case of missing data for a sub-dimension, we base the GAL-TAN dimension scale on the sub-dimensions with available data.

The next sections present the sources of the original citizen data and show our recoding of the original data variables and variable values to the variables we use to measure Left-Right and GAL-TAN dimensions and their sub-dimensions among citizens from the 1970s to 2010s. We also present original variables for party preference and country (if appropriate). If (and only then) we substantially recode this data, we also present their original variable values and how they are recoded to party preference and country.

(9)

Objective Left-Right Index

The objective Left-Right index is calculated by the sum of available indicators of sub-dimensions variable values (V) divided by the number (N) of available sub- dimensions: ∑V of available sub-dimensions / N of available sub-dimensions. If all three indicators of sub-dimensions are available, the objective Left-Right index is calculated as follows: (state-market + public-private welfare provision + low-high redistribution) / 3.

Regarding the economic Left-Right index, DIPAC uses two data sets based on citizen data. One data set uses country as unit of analysis, the other uses party as unit of analysis. The data set with countries as the unit of analysis contains data on the citizens’ average value on the economic Left-Right dimension. The data set with party as the unit of analysis contains information about the mean value of each party’s voters on the economic Left-Right dimension. Table 3 presents variable names, labels and values in this data set.

Objective Economic Left-Right dimension

Table 2. Variable values for objective economic Left-Right dimension.

0 Left

…

1.00 Right

State-market

1970s

Cases: France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, UK Source: Eurobarometer 11, April 1979 (Commission of the European Communities (2012): Eurobarometer 11 (Apr 1979). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA1036 Data file Version 1.0.1, doi:10.4232/1.10866)

Original variable:

v76 Government should play a greater role in the management of economy Original variable values: State-market variable values:

0 DK; NA 0.50

1 Agree strongly 0.00=pro state

2 Agree 0.25

3 Disagree 0.75

4 Disagree strongly 1.00=pro market

(10)

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): v119 If there were a general election tomorrow which party would you support?

Cases: Norway

Source: Norwegian Election Survey 1977 (NSD0062, "Valgundersøkelsen 1977".

Data samlet av Statistisk sentralbyrå, Oslo. Andre NSD utgave, Bergen 2010, https://nsd.no/nsddata/serier/norske_valgundersokelser.html).

Original variable:

V053 Could you for each statement, state the response written on the card that best describes your opinion. The suggestion on reducing state control on private business?

Original variable values: State-market variable values:

1 Very important to carry out 1.00=pro market 2 Fairly important to carry out 0.75

3 Not very preoccupied of quest. 0.50 4 Fairly important not to carry out 0.25

5 Not to carry out 0.00=pro state Other original variables:

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): v258 Which party or list did you vote for?

Cases: Sweden

Source: Swedish National Election Study 1976 (SND-ID: SND 0008, Olof Petersson, Statistics Sweden. Uppsala University, Department of Government (1984). Swedish election study 1976. Swedish National Data Service. Version 1.0. https://doi.org/10.5878/002505)

Original variable:

V57 Reduce government control over private enterprises.

1 Good proposal: very important to implement

1.00=pro market 2 Good proposal: fairly important to

implement

0.75 3 Does note really matter 0.50 4 Bad proposal: fairly important to

not implement

0.25 5 Bad proposal: very important to not implement

0.00=pro state

8 DK/NA Missing

9 Missing Missing

Other original variables:

(11)

1980s Early 1980s

Cases: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands (no parties), Norway, Sweden (no parties), and UK.

Source: ZA4804: European Values Study Longitudinal Data File 1981-2008 (EVS 1981-2008) (EVS (2015): European Values Study Longitudinal Data File 1981-2008 (EVS 1981-2008). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4804 Data file Version 3.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.12253)

Original variable:

C060 There is a lot of discussion about how business and industry should be managed. Which of these four statements comes closest to your opinion? (Mark only one)

1 The owners should run their business or appoint the managers

0.75=pro market 2 The owners and the employees

should participate in the selection of managers

0.25=pro state

3 The State should be the owner and appoint the managers

0.25=pro state 4 The employees should own the

business and should elect the managers

0.25=pro state

-1 Don't know 0.50

-2 NA Missing

-3 Not applicable Missing

-4 Not asked in survey Missing

-5 Missing; unknown Missing

Year: Year (1981): S002EVS Country: S003

Party preference: No data on party preference available.

Late 1980s

Cases: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and UK

Source: ZA4804: European Values Study Longitudinal Data File 1981-2008

(12)

Original variable:

e036 Now I’d like you to tell me your views on various issues. How would you place your views on this scale?

–5 Other missing Missing

–4 Question not asked Missing

–3 Not applicable Missing

–2 No answer Missing

–1 Don’t know Missing

1 Private ownership of business and industry should be increased

1.00=pro market

2 1.00=pro market

3 0.75

4 0.75

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.25

8 0.25

9 0.00=pro state

10 Government ownership of business and industry should be increased

0.00=pro state

Year (1990): S002EVS

Country: S003 (only West-Germany variable S003A)

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): e179 If there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you give first preference vote to?

1990s

Cases: France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, and UK

(13)

Original variable:

1.00=pro market

2 1.00=pro market

3 0.75

4 0.75

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.25

8 0.25

9 0.00=pro state

0.00=pro state

Year: Year (1999): S002EVS

Country: S003 (Germany with weight variable S017)

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): e179.

Which political party would you vote for [if there were a general election tomorrow]?

Cases: Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden.

(14)

Original variable:

1 The state should give more freedom to firms

1.00=pro market

2 1.00=pro market

3 0.75

4 0.75

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.25

8 0.25

9 0.00=pro state

10 The state should control firms more effectively

0.00=pro state

Year (1999): S002EVS Country: S003

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): e179 If there was a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?

Cases: Norway.

Source: World Values Survey: All Rounds - Country-Pooled Datafile Version1981-2014 (Inglehart, R., C. Haerpfer, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K.

Kizilova, J. Diez-Medrano, M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin & B. Puranen et al.

(eds.). 2018. World Values Survey: All Rounds - Country-Pooled Datafile.

Verson:

http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp. Madrid: JD Systems Institute.)

(15)

Original variable:

1.00=pro market

2 1.00=pro market

3 0.75

4 0.75

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.25

8 0.25

9 0.00=pro state

0.00=pro state

Year (1996): S002

Country: S003 (only Norway in Dipac-study)

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): e179WVS.

Which political party would you vote for [if there were a general election tomorrow]?

2000s

Cases: France, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, UK, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, and UK.

(16)

Original variable:

1.00=pro market

2 1.00=pro market

3 0.75

4 0.75

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.25

8 0.25

9 0.00=pro state

0.00=pro state

Country: S003 (Germany with weight variable S017).

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): e179 [If there was a general election tomorrow, can you tell me if you would vote?]

Which party would you vote for?

2010s

Cases: France, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and UK.

Source: ZA7500: European Values Study 2017: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017) (EVS (2019): European Values Study 2017: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017).

GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7500 Data file Version 2.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.13314)

(17)

Original variable:

V107 On this card you see a number of opposite views on various issues. How would you place your views on this scale??

1.00=pro market

2 1.00=pro market

3 0.75

4 0.75

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.25

8 0.25

9 0.00=pro state

0.00=pro state

Country: cntry_y (only Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and UK used in DIPAC-study).

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): v174_cs Which (political) party appeals to you most?

Cases: Belgium and Ireland.

Source: ZA5160: European Parliament Election Study 2014, Voter Study, First Post-Election Survey (Schmitt, Hermann; Hobolt, Sara B.; Popa, Sebastian A.;

Teperoglou, Eftichia; European Parliament, Directorate-General for

Communication, Public Monitoring Unit (2016): European Parliament Election Study 2014, Voter Study, First Post-Election Survey. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5160 Data file Version 4.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.12628).

(18)

Original variable:

Qpp17_1 Now I would like you to tell me your views on various issues. For each issue, we will present you with two opposite statements and we will ask your opinion about these two statements. We would like to ask you to position yourself on a scale from 0 to 10, where '0' means that you "fully agree with the statement at the top" and '10' means that you "fully agree with the statement at the bottom".

Then if your views are somewhere in between, you can choose any number that describes your position best.

-9. DK Missing

-8. Refusal Missing

-7. System missing Missing

1. 0 You are fully in favour of state intervention in the economy

0.00=pro state

2. 1 0.00=pro state

3. 2 0.00

4. 3 0.25

5. 4 0.25

6. 5 0.50

7. 6 0.75

8. 7 0.75

9. 8 0.75

10. 9 1.00=pro market

11. 10 You are fully opposed to state intervention in the economy

1.00=pro market

Country: countrycode (only Belgium and Ireland used in Dipac study).

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): qpp6 And if there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?

Public-private welfare provision

1970s

Cases: Germany

Source: ZA0823: Election Study 1976 (Panel: Initial Investigation, May - June 1976, August - September 1976; Follow-Up Survey, October - November 1976) (Berger, Manfred; Gibowski, Wolfgang G.; Gruber, Edelgard; Roth, Dieter;

Schulte, Wolfgang; Kaase, Max; Klingemann, Hans-Dieter; Schleth, Uwe (2015):

Election Study 1976 (Panel: Initial Investigation, May - June 1976, August - September 1976; Follow-Up Survey, October - November 1976). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA0823 Data file Version 3.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.11982).

(19)

Original variable:

V505 Do you think that there should be less welfare benefits in the future, should they be kept the way they are today, or should they be expanded further?

Original variable values: Public private welfare provision redistribution values:

0 No W3 interview Missing

1 Everybody has to take care of himself 1.00=pro private 2public expenditures are necessarily

required, even if they are increased

1.00=pro private

3 0.75

4 0.75

5 0.75

6 0.50

7 0.25

8 0.25

9 0.25

10 0.00=pro public

11 The state has to see to it 0.00=pro public

99 NA Missing

Other original variable:

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): v437 [German ballot] You have two votes… here 1 vote for the election of a country list (party) (second vote).

Cases: Norway

Original variable:

v036 Do you think that there should be less welfare benefits in the future, should they be kept the way they are today, or should they be expanded further?

Original variable values: Public-private welfare provisions variable values:

1 Should be done less 0,75=pro private 2 Should stay the way it is 0.25=pro public

3 Expand further 0.50

4 Other Missing

8 Do not know Missing

9 Io not relevant Missing

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): v258

(20)

1980s Early 1980s No data.

Late 1980s

Source: ZA4804: European Values Study Longitudinal Data File 1981-2008 (EVS 1981-2008) (EVS (2015): European Values Study Longitudinal Data File 1981-2008 (EVS 1981-2008). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4804 Data file Version 3.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.12253)

Original variable:

e037 Now I'd like you to tell me your views on various issues. How would you place your views on this scale?

Original variable values: Public-private welfare provision variable values:

–5 Missing; unknown Missing

–4 Not asked in survey Missing

1 Individuals should take more

responsibility for providing for themselves

1.00=pro private

2 1.00=pro private

3 0.75

4 0.75

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.25

8 0.25

9 0.00=pro public

10 The state should take more

responsibility to ensure that everybody is provided for

0.00=pro public

Year (1990): S002EVS

(21)

1990s

Cases: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, and UK

Original variable:

1.00=pro private

2 1.00=pro private

3 0.75

4 0.75

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.25

8 0.25

9 0.00=pro public

0.00=pro public

Cases: Norway.

(22)

Original variable:

1.00=pro private

2 1.00=pro private

3 0.75

4 0.75

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.25

8 0.25

9 0.00=pro public

0.00=pro public

Year: Year (1996): S002 Country: S003

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): e179 Which political party would you vote for [if there were a general election tomorrow]?

2000s

(23)

Original variable:

1.00=pro private

2 1.00=pro private

3 0.75

4 0.75

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.25

8 0.25

9 0.00=pro public

0.00=pro public

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): e179 [If there was a general election tomorrow, can you tell me if you would vote?]

Which party would you vote for?

2010s

Cases: Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and UK.

Source: ZA7500: European Values Study 2017: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017) (EVS (2019): European Values Study 2017: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017).

GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7500 Data file Version 2.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.13314)

(24)

Original variable:

V103 On this card you see a number of opposite views on various issues. How would you place your views on this scale?

1.00=pro private

2 1.00=pro private

3 0.75

4 0.75

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.25

8 0.25

9 0.00=pro public

0.00=pro public

Original variable:

(25)

-9. DK Missing

-8. Refusal Missing

1. 0 Your are fully in favour of raising taxes to increase public services

0.00=pro public

2. 1 0.00=pro public

3. 2 0.25

4. 3 0.25

5. 4 0.25

6. 5 0.50

7. 6 0.75

8. 7 0.75

9. 8 0.75

10. 9 1.00=pro private

11. 10 You are fully in favour of cutting public services to cut taxes

1.00=pro private

Country: countrycode (only Belgium and Ireland used in DIPAC-study)

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): qpp6_new And if there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?

High-low redistribution

1970s

Cases: France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, UK Source: Eurobarometer 11, April 1979 (Commission of the European Communities (2012): Eurobarometer 11 (Apr 1979). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA1036 Data file Version 1.0.1, doi:10.4232/1.10866)

Original variable:

v73 Greater efforts should be made to reduce inequality of income?

Original variable values: High-low redistribution variable values:

0 DK; NA 0.50

1 Agree strongly 0.00=pro low

2 Agre 0.25

3 Disagree 0.75

4 Disagree strongly 1.00=pro high

(26)

Cases: Norway

Source: Referendum on Norwegian Membership in EC 1972 / National Election Survey 1973 (NSD0062, "Referendum on Norwegian Membership in EC 1972 / National Election Survey 1973". Data collected by Statistics Norway, Oslo. 2nd NSD XML edition, Bergen 2012,

https://nsd.no/nsddata/serier/norske_valgundersokelser.html).

Original variable:

V140 Could you for each statement, state the response written on the card that best describes your opinion. C. One should, in our country, work for more equality when it comes to people's incomes.

Original variable values: High-low redistribution variable values

1 Completely agree 0.00=pro high

2 Agree more than disagree 0.25 3 Don’t know/no opinion. 0.50 4 Disagree more than agree 0.75

5 Completely disagree 1.00=pro low Other original variables:

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): v258 Which party or list did you vote for? V260 If the parties on the joint list had only made clean lists, which of the parties on the common list would you have voted for? (sum of result for “ren liste” and “fellesliste”)

Cases: Sweden

Source: Swedish National Election Study 1976 (SND-ID: SND 0008, Olof Petersson, Statistics Sweden. Uppsala University, Department of Government (1984). Swedish election study 1976. Swedish National Data Service. Version 1.0. https://doi.org/10.5878/002505)

Original variable:

V61 Increase equality concerning income and working conditions.

1. Good proposal: very important to implement

1.00=pro high 2. Good proposal: fairly important to

implement

0.25 3. Does note really matter 0.50 4. Bad proposal: fairly important to

not implement

0.75 5. Bad proposal: very important to

not implement

1.00=pro low

(27)

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): V228 Which party did you vote for in the Parliamentary election?

1980s Early 1980s

Cases: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands (no parties), Norway, Sweden (no parties), and UK.

Original variable:

e032 Which of these statements comes closest to your own opinion? A) I find that both freedom and equality are important. But if I ware to make up my mind for one or the other, I would consider personal freedom more important, that is, everyone can live in freedom and develop without hindrance. B) Certainly both freedom and equality are important. But if I were to make up my mind for one of the two, I would consider equality more important, that is that nobody is

underprivileged and that social class differences are not so strong.

1 Agree with A 0.75=pro low

2 Agree with B 0.25=pro high

3 Neither 0.50

V Don’t know Missing

Year: Year (1981): S002EVS Country: S003

Party preference: No data on party preference available.

(28)

Late 1980s

Original variable:

1 Income should be made more equal 0.00=pro high

2 0.00=pro high

3 0.25

4 0.25

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.75

8 0.75

9 1.00=pro low

10 There should be greater incentives for individual effort

1.00=pro low

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): e179 Which political party would you vote for [if there were a general election tomorrow]?

(29)

1990s

Cases: France, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, and UK.

Original variable:

2 0.00=pro high

3 0.25

4 0.25

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.75

8 0.75

9 1.00=pro low

1.00=pro low

Year: (1999): S002EVS Country: S003

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): e179 If there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you give first preference vote to?

(30)

Cases: Denmark

Source: ZA3785: EVS European Values Study 1999 - Denmark (EVS (2012):

EVS - European Values Study 1999 - Denmark. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne.

ZA3785 Data file Version 3.0.1, doi:10.4232/1.11530) Original variable:

v260 Now I’d like you to tell me your views on various issues. How would you place your views on this scale?

2 0.25

3 0.50

4 0.75

1.00=pro low

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): v256 If there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?

(31)

Cases: Germany, Norway, and Sweden.

Kizilova, J. Diez-Medrano, M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin & B. Puranen et al.

(eds.). 2018. World Values Survey: All Rounds - Country-Pooled Datafile.

Verson:

Original variable:

2 0.00=pro high

3 0.25

4 0.25

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.75

8 0.75

9 1.00=pro low

1.00=pro low

Year (1996, 1997): S002

Country: S003 (only Germany, Norway and Sweden in Dipac-study), (Germany with weight-variable S017).

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): e179WVS.

If there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you give first preference vote to?

(32)

2000s

Cases: Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, UK, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, and UK.

Original variable:

2 0.00=pro high

3 0.25

4 0.25

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.75

8 0.75

9 1.00=pro low

1.00=pro low

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): e179WVS If there was a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?

(33)

2010s

Cases: Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and UK.

Source: ZA7500: European Values Study 2017: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017) (EVS (2019): European Values Study 2017: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017).

GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7500 Data file Version 2.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.13314)

Original variable:

V106 On this card you see a number of opposite views on various issues. How would you place your views on this scale?

2 0.00=pro high

3 0.25

4 0.25

5 0.50

6 0.50

7 0.75

8 0.75

9 1.00=pro low

1.00=pro low

(34)

Original variable:

Then if your views are somewhere in between, you can choose any number that describes your position best.

-9. DK Missing

-8. Refusal Missing

1. 0 You are fully in favour of the

redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor in (OUR COUNTRY)

0.00=pro high

2. 1 0.00=pro high

3. 2 0.25

4. 3 0.25

5. 4 0.25

6. 5 0.50

7. 6 0.75

8. 7 0.75

9. 8 0.75

10. 9 1.00=pro low

11. 10 You are fully opposed to the

redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor in (OUR COUNTRY)

1.00=pro low

Country: countrycode (only Belgium and Ireland used in Dipac study).

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): qpp6 And if there were a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?

(35)

Objective Economic Left-Right Index

The objective economic Left-Right index is calculated by the sum of available indicators of sub-dimensions variable values (V) divided by the number (N) of available sub-dimensions: ∑V of available sub-dimensions / N of available sub- dimensions. If all three indicators of sub-dimensions are available, the objective economic Left-Right index is calculated as follows: (state-market + public- private welfare provision + low-high redistribution) / 3

Regarding the objective economic Left-Right index, DIPAC uses two data sets based on citizen data. One data set uses country as unit of analysis, the other uses party as unit of analysis. The data set with countries as the unit of analysis contains data on the citizens' average value the objective economic Left-Right dimension. The data set with party as the unit of analysis contains information about the mean value of each party's voters on the obejctive economic Left-Right dimension. Table 3 presents variable names, labels and values in this data set.

Table 3. Variable values for the objective economic Left-Right dimension.

Variable name Label Values

Party_name Name of party [name of party]

Country Party system 1=Belgium

2=Denmark 3=France 4=Germany 5=Ireland 6=Netherlands 7=Norway 8=Sweden

9=United Kingdom

Party Party code 1-142

LRvoter_1970s Left-Right dimension among voters 1970s

0=Left, 1=Right LRvoter_1980sE Left-Right dimension

among voters early 1980s

0=Left, 1=Right LRvoter_1980sL Left-Right dimension

among voters late 1980s

0=Left, 1=Right LRvoter_1990s Left-Right dimension

among voters 1990s

among voters 2000s

among voters 2010s

0=Left, 1=Right

(36)

Objective GAL/TAN dimension

Table 4. Variable values for objective economic Left-Right dimension.

0 GAL

…

1.00 TAN

Environment - Economic growth

1970s

Cases: France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, and UK Source: Eurobarometer 11, April 1979 (Commission of the European Communities (2012): Eurobarometer 11 (Apr 1979). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA1036 Data file Version 1.0.1, doi:10.4232/1.10866)

Original variable:

V81 We’d like to hear your views on some important political issues. Could you tell me wehter you agree or disagree with each of the following proposals? How strongly do you feel? Stronger measures should be taken to protect the

environment against pollution.

Original variable values: Environment – economic growth variable values:

0 DK; NA 0.50

1 Agree strongly 0.00

2 Agree 0.25

3 Disagree 0.75

4 Disagree strongly 1.00

(37)

V67 There is a lot of talk these days about what the aims of this country should be for the next 10 years. On this card are listed some of the goals which different people would give top priority. Would you please say which of these you,

yourself, consider the most important?

Original variable values: Economic growth variable values, step 1:

–1 Don’t know 0

1 Maintaining a high level of economic growth

1 2 Making sure that this country has strong defense forces

2 3 Seeing that people have more say about how things are done at their jobs and their communities

2

4 Trying to make our cities and countryside beautiful

2

V68 And which would be the next most important?

Original variable values: Economic growth, step 1:

–1 Don’t know 0

1 Maintaining a high level of economic growth

1 2 Making sure that this country has strong defense forces

2 3 Seeing that people have more say about how things are done at their jobs and their communities

2

4 Trying to make our cities and countryside beautiful

2

(38)

Economic growth index (step 2: variable values in boxes) V68 (second choice)

0 1 2

0 Missing 0.75 0.50

V67 (first choice)

1 1.00 1.00 1.00

2 0.50 0.75 0.5

Economic growth variable

Variable values Anti economic growth 0.00

0.50 0.75 Pro economic growth 1.00 Environment – economic growth index (Economic growth index+V81)/2 Other original variables:

Country; v8 (only France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, UK in Dipac study)

Case: Denmark

Source: Eurobarometer 11, April 1979 (Commission of the European Communities (2012): Eurobarometer 11 (Apr 1979). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA1036 Data file Version 1.0.1, doi:10.4232/1.10866)

Original variable:

V81 We’d like to hear your views on some important political issues. Could you tell me wehter you agree or disagree with each of the following proposals? How strongly do you feel? Stronger measures should be taken to protect the

environment against pollution.

0 DK; NA 0.50

1 Agree strongly 0.00

2 Agree 0.25

3 Disagree 0.75

4 Disagree strongly 1.00

(39)

Original variable:

V69 There is a lot of talk these days about what the aims of this country should be for the next 10 years. On this card are listed some of the goals which different people would give top priority. Would you please say which of these you,

yourself, consider the most important?

–1 Don’t know 0

1 Maintaining law and order 2 2 More say in government decisions 2

3 Fighting rising prices 1

4 Freedom of expression 2

V70 And which would be the next most important?

–1 Don’t know 0

1 Maintaining law and order 2 2 More say in government decisions 2

3 Fighting rising prices 1

4 Freedom of expression 2

Economic growth index (step2, variable values in boxes) V68 (second choice)

0 1 2

0 Missing 0.75 0.50

V67 (first choice)

1 1.00 1.00 1.00

2 0.50 0.75 0.5

Economic growth variable

Variable values Anti economic growth 0.00

0.50 0.75 Pro economic growth 1.00

(40)

Country; v8 (Only Denmark in the Dipac study)

Cases: Norway

Original variable:

V188 We have put together some opinions about politics that one sometimes hear. Here is a card which shows four options: completely agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, completely disagree. Would you please state which answer you would give for each of the options I read. To secure economic growth, we need to keep up the expansion of industry, even though this might conflict with nature conservation interests.

1 Completely agree 1.00=pro economic growth

2 Somewhat agree 0.75

3 Both 0.50

4 Somewhat disagree 0.25

5 Completely disagree 0.00=pro environment

9 Do not know Missing

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): v258 Which party or list did you vote for?

Case: Sweden

Source: Swedish Opinion 1979 (Gunnar Boalt, Gunnar Ekman, Sten Hultgren, Stiftelsen för Opinionsanalyser. Stiftelsen för Opinionsanalyser (1984). Svensk opinion 1979. Svensk nationell datatjänst. Version

1.0. https://doi.org/10.5878/001123).

(41)

V12 How important are the following changes for your personal situation right now? Better economy.

1 Very important 0.00

2 Somewhat important 0.25

3 Not so important 0.50

4 Not important at all (good now) 0.75

5 Rather the opposite 1.00

6 Irresolute 0.50

9 No answer Missing

V295 The following concerns many or most Swedes. How important are they for you personally? Make a vigorous effort against destruction of the natural environment.

1 Very important 0.00

2 Somewhat important 0.25

3 Not so important 0.50

4 Not important at all (good now) 0.75

5 Rather the opposite 1.00

6 Irresolute 0.50

9 No answer Missing

Environment – economic growth index (V12+V295)/2

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): v724 If there were a parliamentary election today, which party do you think you would support? (På vilket parti tror Ni att Ni skulle rösta om det var riksdagsval idag?)

1980s Early 1980s No data.

Late 1980s

Cases: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and UK.

Source: ZA4804: European Values Study Longitudinal Data File 1981-2008 (EVS 1981-2008) (EVS (2015): European Values Study Longitudinal Data File

(42)

Original variable:

b001 I am now going to read out some statements about the environment. For each one read out, can you tell me whether you agree strongly, agree, disagree or strongly disagree? I would give a part of my income if I were certain that the money would be used to prevent environmental pollution.

–1 Don’t know 0.50

1 Strongly agree 0.00=pro environment

2 Agree 0,25

3 Disagree 0.75

4 Strongly disagree 1.00=pro economic growth

Party preference (for DIPAC recoding of party codes, see appendix I): E179 If there was a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?

1990s

Cases: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, and UK.

(43)

Original variable:

b001 I am now going to read out some statements about the environment. For each one read out, can you tell me whether you agree strongly, agree, disagree or strongly disagree? I would give a part of my income if I were certain that the money would be used to prevent environmental pollution.

–1 Don’t know 0.50

1 Strongly agree 0.00=pro environment

2 Agree 0,25

3 Disagree 0.75

4 Strongly disagree 1.00=pro economic growth

Case: Norway.

Source: World Values Survey: All Rounds - Country-Pooled Datafile Version 1981-2014 (Inglehart, R., C. Haerpfer, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K. Kizilova, J.

Diez-Medrano, M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin & B. Puranen et al. (eds.). 2018.

World Values Survey: All Rounds - Country-Pooled Datafile. Verson:

DIPAC CITIZEN DATA: Technical report 1.0

Decreased Ideological Polarization and Conflict in Western Europe?

Linnaeus University, Mid-University, University of Gothenburg.

Växjö 2019

DIPAC

DIPAC CITIZEN DATA

TECHNICAL REPORT 1.0

Magnus Hagevi, Sofie Blombäck,

Jonas Hinnfors, Marie Demker and Karl Loxbo

Contents

About the project

The cases

About ideology

Citizen data

Objective Left-Right Index

Objective Economic Left-Right dimension

State-market

Public-private welfare provision

High-low redistribution

Objective Economic Left-Right Index

Objective GAL/TAN dimension

Environment - Economic growth