(去)自由化的政治:使用混合效应模型研究党派效应

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Julian L. Garritzmann, Kilian Seng
{"title":"(去)自由化的政治:使用混合效应模型研究党派效应","authors":"Julian L. Garritzmann, Kilian Seng","doi":"10.1017/psrm.2023.35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Liberalization is a perennial topic in politics and political science. We first review a broad scholarly debate, showing that the mainstream theories make rival and contradictory claims regarding the role of political parties in (de)liberalization reforms. We then develop a framework of conditional partisan influence, arguing that and under what conditions parties matter. We test our (and rival) propositions with a new dataset on (de)liberalization reforms in 23 democracies since 1973 covering several policy areas. Methodologically, we argue that existing quantitative studies are problematic: They rely on time-series cross-section models using country-year observations; but governments do not change annually, so that the number of observations is artificially inflated, resulting in incorrect estimates. We propose mixed-effects models instead, with country-year observations nested in cabinets, which are nested in countries and years. The results show under what conditions parties matter for (de)liberalization. More generally, the paper argues that mixed-effects models should become the new standard for studying partisan influences.","PeriodicalId":47311,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Research and Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The politics of (de)liberalization: studying partisan effects using mixed-effects models\",\"authors\":\"Julian L. Garritzmann, Kilian Seng\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/psrm.2023.35\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Liberalization is a perennial topic in politics and political science. We first review a broad scholarly debate, showing that the mainstream theories make rival and contradictory claims regarding the role of political parties in (de)liberalization reforms. We then develop a framework of conditional partisan influence, arguing that and under what conditions parties matter. We test our (and rival) propositions with a new dataset on (de)liberalization reforms in 23 democracies since 1973 covering several policy areas. Methodologically, we argue that existing quantitative studies are problematic: They rely on time-series cross-section models using country-year observations; but governments do not change annually, so that the number of observations is artificially inflated, resulting in incorrect estimates. We propose mixed-effects models instead, with country-year observations nested in cabinets, which are nested in countries and years. The results show under what conditions parties matter for (de)liberalization. More generally, the paper argues that mixed-effects models should become the new standard for studying partisan influences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Science Research and Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Science Research and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2023.35\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science Research and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2023.35","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自由化是政治和政治学中一个永恒的话题。我们首先回顾了一场广泛的学术辩论,表明主流理论对政党在(去)自由化改革中的作用提出了竞争和矛盾的主张。然后,我们开发了一个有条件的党派影响框架,讨论党派在什么条件下是重要的。我们用一个新的数据集来测试我们(和对手)的主张,该数据集涵盖了自1973年以来23个民主国家的(去)自由化改革,涵盖了几个政策领域。在方法上,我们认为现有的定量研究存在问题:它们依赖于使用国家年度观测的时间序列横截面模型;但是政府并没有每年改变一次,因此观测的数量被人为地夸大了,导致了不正确的估计。我们提出了混合效应模型,将国家-年份的观测结果嵌套在橱柜中,橱柜嵌套在国家和年份中。结果表明,在什么条件下,各方对自由化很重要。更一般地说,本文认为混合效应模型应该成为研究党派影响的新标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The politics of (de)liberalization: studying partisan effects using mixed-effects models
Liberalization is a perennial topic in politics and political science. We first review a broad scholarly debate, showing that the mainstream theories make rival and contradictory claims regarding the role of political parties in (de)liberalization reforms. We then develop a framework of conditional partisan influence, arguing that and under what conditions parties matter. We test our (and rival) propositions with a new dataset on (de)liberalization reforms in 23 democracies since 1973 covering several policy areas. Methodologically, we argue that existing quantitative studies are problematic: They rely on time-series cross-section models using country-year observations; but governments do not change annually, so that the number of observations is artificially inflated, resulting in incorrect estimates. We propose mixed-effects models instead, with country-year observations nested in cabinets, which are nested in countries and years. The results show under what conditions parties matter for (de)liberalization. More generally, the paper argues that mixed-effects models should become the new standard for studying partisan influences.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
×
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