Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-th4rj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T07:52:38.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Connecting Micro- and Macropartisanship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

John E. Jackson and
Ken Kollman
John E. Jackson*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan, 505 S. State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Ken Kollman
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan, 505 S. State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
*
e-mail: jjacksn@umich.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This paper extends models of micro- and macropartisanship in two ways. It first develops a model of individual partisanship that accommodates changes in partisan utilities. Achen's Bayesian partisan updating is a special case of our model. This more general micromodel is then aggregated to create a model of macropartisanship. This macromodel is a more general version of the models of macropartisanship estimated by various authors. The less restricted version incorporates possible individual and temporal heterogeneity. We present an example using real data that offers a possible way to estimate the parameters in the full aggregate model.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , Autumn 2011, pp. 503 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

Authors' note: This paper continues a project that began with a paper on partisanship and path dependence presented at the 2007 Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology, State College, PA, July 2007. We express our thanks to Chris Achen, Neal Beck, and John Freeman for their comments on that paper and for pushing us to explore this connection. Jude Hays offered suggestions that improved the model. Lastly, we want to thank the editors and reviewers for their requests and suggestions, which led us to do more that we thought possible. All errors are, of course, our own.

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1992. Social psychology, demographic variables, and linear regression: Breaking the iron triangle in voting research. Political Behavior 14: 195–211.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H., and Phillips Shively, W. 1995. Cross-level inference. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
American National Election Studies. 2010. Time series cumulative data file. Stanford, CA: Stanford University and Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. http://electionstudies.org/studypages/cdf/cdf.htm.Google Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L., Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Smidt, Corwin D., and Smith, Rene. 2011. The dynamic properties of individual-level party identification in the United States. Electoral Studies 30: 210–22.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 1983. Time-varying parameter regression models. American Journal of Political Science 27: 557–600.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., and Lewis, Jeffrey B. 2007. An estimate of risk aversion in the U. S. electorate. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2: 139–54.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and De Boef, Suzanna. 2001. Macropartisanship and macroideology in the sophisticated electorate. The Journal of Politics 63: 232–48.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Smith, Reńee. 1996. The dynamics of aggregate partisanship. The American Political Science Review 90: 567–80.Google Scholar
Brandt, Patrick T., and Freeman, John R. 2009. Modeling macro-political dynamics. Political Analysis 17: 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, Walter D. 1970. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., and McCutcheon, Allan L. 2009. The dynamics of party identification revisited. Public Opinion Quarterly 73: 704–28.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., and Stewart, Marianne C. 1994. Prospections, retrospections, and rationality: The ‘bankers’ model of presidential approval reconsidered. American Journal of Political Science 38: 1104–23.Google Scholar
Davidson, R. and MacKinnon, J. G. 1993. Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, R. and MacKinnon, J. G. 2004. Econometric Theory and Methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A. 1998. What moves partisanship? A response to Green, Palmquist, and Schickler. American Political Science Review 92: 901–12.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H. 1984. Issue preferences, socialization, and the evolution of party identification. American Journal of Political Science 28: 459–78.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H., and Jackson, John E. 1983. The dynamics of party identification. American Political Science Review 77: 957–73.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan, and Green, Donald P. 1998. Rational learning and partisan attitudes. American Journal of Political Science 42: 794–818.Google Scholar
Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Yoon, David H. 2002. Reconciling individual and aggregate evidence concerning partisan stability: Applying time-series models to panel survey data. Political Analysis 10: 1–24.Google Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1975. Issues and party alignment. In The Future of Political Parties, eds. Maisel, Louis and Sacks, Paul M. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2009. Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. American Political Science Review 103: 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacy, Dean, and Paolino, Philip. 2010. Testing proximity versus directional voting using experiments. Electoral Studies 29: 460–71.Google Scholar
Lebo, Matthew J., and Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. 2008. Dynamic conditional correlations in political science. American Journal of Political Science 52: 688–704.Google Scholar
MacKuen, Michael B., Erikson, Robert S., and Stimson, James A. 1989. Macropartisanship. American Political Science Review 83: 1125–42.Google Scholar
Mebane, Walter R. Jr., and Wand, Jonathan. 1997. Markov chain models for rolling cross-section data: How campaign events and political awareness affect vote intentions and partisanship in the United States and Canada. Paper presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL. April 10-12, 1997.Google Scholar
Mickey, Robert. 2011. Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America's Deep South, 1944-1972. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E. 1991. Party identification, realignment, and party voting: Back to the basics. The American Political Science Review 85: 557–68.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E. 1992. Generational changes and party identification. Political Behavior 14: 333–52.Google Scholar
Nardulli, Peter. 1995. The concept of a critical realignment, electoral behavior, and political change. The American Political Science Review 89: 10–22.Google Scholar
Sanders, David, Clarke, Harold D., Stewart, Marianne C., and Whiteley, Paul. 2011. Downs, Stokes and the dynamics of electoral choice. British Journal of Political Science 41: 287–314.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric, and Green, Donald. 1996. Issues and the dynamics of party identification: A methodological critique. Political Analysis 5: 151–80.Google Scholar
Stewart, Marianne C., and Clarke, Harold D. 1998. The dynamics of party identification in federal systems: The Canadian case. American Journal of Political Science 42: 97–116.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P. 2008. Candidate positioning and voter choice. American Political Science Review 102: 303–18.Google Scholar
Wawro, Gregory. 2002. Estimating dynamic panel data models in political science. Political Analysis 10: 25–48.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jackson and Kollman supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Jackson and Kollman supplementary material(File)
File 81.1 KB