Political inequality in participation index - a Gini-based measure of inequalities in political participation

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY
Pál Susánszky, R. Somogyi, Gergely Tóth
{"title":"Political inequality in participation index - a Gini-based measure of inequalities in political participation","authors":"Pál Susánszky, R. Somogyi, Gergely Tóth","doi":"10.1177/10434631221143614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Measuring inequalities in political participation across social groups is a challenging task as participation is typically coded in dummy variables. For instance, social scientists record whether their respondents have voted in the previous elections (1) or not (0). In this paper, we identify a list of desirable criteria that an inequality index used for empirical comparative studies should meet. Existing inequality indices fail to satisfy one or more of these criteria. Building on our list, we define a new Gini-type index, the Political Inequality in Participation Index (PIPI), suitable for cross-country comparisons. We show that inequalities measured by the PIPI are correlated to, but are qualitatively different from the best-known measurements. In particular, using data simulation techniques, we demonstrate that this correlation is decreasing in the complexity of societies’ structure. Moreover, by replicating an existing study, we further demonstrate that when working with real-world data, the PIPI provides new empirical results.","PeriodicalId":47079,"journal":{"name":"Rationality and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rationality and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10434631221143614","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Measuring inequalities in political participation across social groups is a challenging task as participation is typically coded in dummy variables. For instance, social scientists record whether their respondents have voted in the previous elections (1) or not (0). In this paper, we identify a list of desirable criteria that an inequality index used for empirical comparative studies should meet. Existing inequality indices fail to satisfy one or more of these criteria. Building on our list, we define a new Gini-type index, the Political Inequality in Participation Index (PIPI), suitable for cross-country comparisons. We show that inequalities measured by the PIPI are correlated to, but are qualitatively different from the best-known measurements. In particular, using data simulation techniques, we demonstrate that this correlation is decreasing in the complexity of societies’ structure. Moreover, by replicating an existing study, we further demonstrate that when working with real-world data, the PIPI provides new empirical results.
参与中的政治不平等指数——一种基于基尼系数的政治参与不平等指标
衡量社会群体之间政治参与的不平等是一项具有挑战性的任务,因为参与通常以虚拟变量编码。例如,社会科学家记录他们的受访者是否在之前的选举中投票(1)(0)。在本文中,我们确定了一系列理想的标准,用于实证比较研究的不平等指数应该满足这些标准。现有的不平等指数不能满足其中一个或多个标准。在我们的列表的基础上,我们定义了一个新的基尼指数,即参与中的政治不平等指数(PIPI),适用于跨国比较。我们表明,PIPI测量的不等式与最著名的测量值相关,但在质量上不同。特别是,使用数据模拟技术,我们证明了这种相关性随着社会结构的复杂性而降低。此外,通过复制现有的研究,我们进一步证明,当使用真实世界的数据时,PIPI提供了新的实证结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Rationality & Society focuses on the growing contributions of rational-action based theory, and the questions and controversies surrounding this growth. Why Choose Rationality and Society? The trend toward ever-greater specialization in many areas of intellectual life has lead to fragmentation that deprives scholars of the ability to communicate even in closely adjoining fields. The emergence of the rational action paradigm as the inter-lingua of the social sciences is a remarkable exception to this trend. It is the one paradigm that offers the promise of bringing greater theoretical unity across disciplines such as economics, sociology, political science, cognitive psychology, moral philosophy and law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信