Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Growing up on Different Sides of the Wall – A Quasi-Experimental Test: Applying the Left–Right Dimension to the German Mass Public

2009; Routledge; Volume: 18; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/09644000902870834

1743-8993

Anja Neundorf,

Electoral Systems and Political Participation

Abstract This paper utilises survey data from the 1999 European Value Study to conduct a quasi-experimental analysis of the relationship between the left–right self-identification and policy preferences of Germany's electorate. Given the German division until 1990 it is plausible that citizens from East and West Germany had different ideological socialisation experiences swayed by the political discourse of their times. This paper models the influence of this diverse experience on ideological thinking, and examines the effects on the understanding of political issues. The findings suggest that differences do exist in the ideological consistency and attitude structuring of respondents. Compared to respondents in the West, East Germans are more likely to understand the term 'left' in socio-economic terms. On the other hand, they seem to connect the term 'right' rather to xenophobic issues. These results have crucial implications for political communication in representative democracies, as they question the one-level dimensionality of the left–right concept. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, 28–31 August 2008. The paper was partly written during a visit to the Mannheim Centre of European Social Research (MZES). Apart from the researchers at the MZES, the author would like to thank Paul Whiteley, Jan van Deth, Elinor Scarbrourgh, Lawrence Ezrow, Tobias Böhmelt, Georgios Xezonakis, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and encouragement. Notes D. Fuchs and H.D. Klingemann, 'The Left–Right Schema', in M. Kent Jennings and Jan W. van Deth (Eds.) Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), p.205. I. Budge, H.D. Klingemann, A. Volkens, J. Bara and E. Tanenbaum, Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p.19. R. Inglehart and H.D. Klingemann, 'Party Identification, Ideological Preference, and the Left–Right Dimension among Western Mass Publics', in I. Budge, I. Crewe and D. Farlie (eds.), Party Identification and Beyond: Representations of Voting and Party Competition (London: Wiley, 1976), p.244. P.E. Converse, 'The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics', in D.E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent (New York: Free Press, 1964); R.L. Ogmundson, 'A Note on the Ambiguous Meanings of Survey Research Measures Which Use the Words "Left" and "Right"', Canadian Journal of Political Science 12/4 (1979), pp.799–805; S.L. Feld and B. Grofman, 'Ideological Consistency as a Collective Phenomenon', American Political Science Review 82/3 (1988), pp.773–88; F.U. Pappi, 'Political Behavior: Reasoning Voters and Multi-Party Systems', in R.E. Goodin and H.D. Klingemann (eds.), A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). K. Jennings, 'Ideological Thinking among Mass Publics and Political Elites', Public Opinion Quarterly 56/4 (1992), pp.419–41. R. Pierce, 'Mass–Elite Issue Linkages and the Responsible Party Model of Representation', in W.E. Miller (ed.), Policy Representation in Western Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Budge et al., Mapping Policy Preferences. Converse, 'The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics'; J. Friedman, 'Democratic Competence in Normative and Positive Theory: Neglected Implications of "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics"', Critical Review 18 (2006), pp.i–xiii; S.E. Bennett, 'Democratic Competence, Before Converse and After', Critical Review 18 (2006), pp.1–43; P.E. Converse, 'Democratic Theory and Electoral Reality', Critical Review 18 (2006); J. Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). A. Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957); C.P. Middensdorp, 'Left–Right Self-Identification and (Post)materialism in the Ideological Space; their Effect on the Vote in the Netherlands', Electoral Studies 11/3 (1992), pp.249–60; O. Knutsen, 'Value Orientation, Political Conflicts and Left–Right Identification: A Comparative Study', European Journal of Political Research 28/1 (1995), pp.63–93; Pierce, 'Mass-Elite Issue Linkages and the Responsible Party Model of Representation'; Budge et al., Mapping Policy Preferences; E. Zechmeister, 'What's Left and Who's Right? A Q-method of Individual and Contextual Influences on the Meaning of Ideological Labels', Political Behavior 28/2 (2006), pp.151–73. R. Inglehart, 'The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in Post-Industrial Societies', American Political Science Review 65/4 (1971), pp.991–1017; R. Inglehart, 'The Changing Structure of Political Cleavages in Western Society', in R. Dalton (ed.), Electoral Change. Realignment and Dealignment in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984); J. Van Deth and P. Geurts, 'Value Orientation, Left-Right Placement and Voting', European Journal of Political Research 17/1 (1989), pp.17–34; G. Evans, A. Heath, and M. Lalljee, 'Measuring Left–Right and Libertarian–Authoritarian Values in the British Electorate', British Journal of Political Science 47/1 (1996), pp.773–88. Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy; Converse, 'The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics'; Fuchs and Klingemann, 'The Left–Right Schema'; Budge et al., Mapping Policy Preferences. Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion; J. Huber, 'Values and Partisanship in Left-Right Orientations: Measuring Ideology', European Journal of Political Research 17 (1989), pp.289–309. V.O. Key, Public Opinion and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), p.558. Campbell, P.E. Converse, W.E. Miller and D.E. Stokes, The American Voter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960). Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, p.98. P.M. Sniderman and J. Bullok, 'A Consistency Theory of Public Opinion and Political Choice: The Hypothesis of Menu Dependency', in W.E. Saris and P.M. Sniderman (eds.), Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error and Change (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004); cf. Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Sniderman and Bullok, 'A Consistency Theory of Public Opinion and Political Choice', p.346. Campbell et al., The American Voter; J.W. Prothro and C.W. Grigg, 'Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement', Journal of Politics 22 (1960), pp.276–94; H. McClosky, 'Consensus and Ideology in American Politics', American Political Science Review 58 (1964), pp.361–82; Converse, 'The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics'; P.E. Converse, 'Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue', in E.R. Tufte (ed.), The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems (Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1970); P.E. Converse, 'Assessing the Capacity of Mass Electorates', Annual Review of Political Science 3 (2000), pp.331–53; H. McClosky and J. Zaller, The American Ethos (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984); W.E. Miller, Without Consent (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1988); R. Herrera, 'Understanding of Ideological Labels by Political Elites: A Research Note', Western Political Quarterly 45 (1992), pp.1021–1035; Jennings, 'Ideological Thinking among Mass Publics and Political Elites'; J.D. Huber and B. Powell, 'Congruence Between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy', World Politics 46/3 (1994), pp.291–326; J. Thomassen, 'The Role of Belief Systems', in W.E. Miller (ed.) Policy Representation in Western Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). Converse, 'The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics', p.245. Fuchs and Klingemann, 'The Left–Right Schema', p.205. Zechmeister, 'What's Left and Who's Right?'. Ibid., p.151. The left–right dimension fulfils also an evaluation function (e). That is, citizens get their political understanding through the analytical shortcuts of the left–right terminology. This consequently enables them to evaluate the policies as proposed by the political elite and to arrive at a final voting decision (f). The responsible party model assumes moreover that the political parties satisfy the policy preferences of their voters (g). F.U. Pappi and S. Shikano, 'The Positions of Parties in Ideological and Policy Space: The Perception of German Voters of their Party System', Working Paper: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung 73 (2004), p.2. H.D. Klingemann, 'Testing the Left–Right Continuum on a Sample of German Voters', Comparative Political Studies 5/1 (1972), pp.93–106; Inglehart and Klingemann, 'Party Identification, Ideological Preference, and the Left-Right Dimension among Western Mass Publics'; Ogmundson, 'A Note on the Ambiguous Meanings of Survey Research Measures Which Use the Words "Left" and "Right"'; H.D. Klingemann, 'Measuring Ideological Conceptualizations', in S.H. Barnes (ed.), Political Action (London: Sage Publications, 1979); P. Conover and S. Feldman, 'The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-Identifications', American Journal of Political Science 25/4 (1981), pp.617–45; Fuchs and Klingemann, 'The Left–Right Schema'; Van Deth and Geurts, 'Value Orientation, Left–Right Placement and Voting'; K. Knight, 'Ideology and Public Opinion', Research in Micropolitics 3 (1990), pp.59–82; Knutsen, 'Value Orientation, Political Conflicts and Left–Right Identification'; P. Bauer-Kaase, 'Politische Ideologies im Wandel? – Eine Längschnittanalyse der Inhalte der politischen Richtungsbegriffe "links" und "rechts"', in H.D. Klingemann and M. Kaase (eds.), Wahlen und Wähler: Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 1998 (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001), pp.73–111 Zechmeister, 'What's Left and Who's Right?' J.D. Huber and R. Inglehart, 'Expert Interpretations of Party Spaces and Party Locations in 42 Societies', Party Politics 1/1 (1995), pp.73–111; Herrera, 'Understanding of Ideological Labels by Political Elites'; R. Herrera, 'The Language of Politics', in W.E. Miller (ed.), Policy Representation in Western Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). Budge et al., Mapping Policy Preferences; H.D. Klingemann, A. Volkers, J. Bara, J.I. Budge and M. McDonald, Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990–2003 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, p.116. Inglehart, 'The Silent Revolution in Europe'; Inglehart, 'The Changing Structure of Political Cleavages in Western Society'; Van Deth and Geurts, 'Value Orientation, Left–Right Placement and Voting'; Evans et al., 'Measuring Left–Right and Libertarian-Authoritarian Values in the British Electorate'. Knutsen, 'Value Orientation, Political Conflicts and Left–Right Identification'; Middensdorp, 'Left–Right Self-Identification and (Post)materialism in the Ideological Space'; W. Jadodzinski and S. Kühnel, 'Bedeutungsvarianz und Beudetungswandel der politischen Richtungsbgeriffe "links" und "rechts"', in H. Rattinger, O. Gabriel and W. Jadodzinski (eds.), Wahlen und politische Einstellungen im vereinten Deutschland (Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang GmbH, 1994); Huber and Inglehart, 'Expert Interpretations of Party Spaces and Party Locations'; Herrera, 'The Language of Politics'; Budge et al., Mapping Policy Preferences; Klingemann et al., Mapping Policy Preferences II; P. Warwick, 'Toward a Common Dimensionality in West European Policy Spaces', Party Politics 8 (2002). Klingemann, 'Testing the Left–Right Continuum on a Sample of German Voters', cf. Fuchs and Klingemann, 'The Left–Right Schema'. Pappi and Shikano, 'The Positions of Parties in Ideological and Policy Space', p.19. Bauer-Kaase, 'Politische Ideologies im Wandel'. Jadodzinski and Kühnel, 'Bedeutungsvarianz und Beudetungswandel der politischen Richtungsbgeriffe "links" und "rechts"'. Pappi and Shikano, 'The Positions of Parties in Ideological and Policy Space', p.73; Bauer-Kaase, 'Politische Ideologies im Wandel', p.223. Ibid., p.225; Huber and Inglehart, 'Expert Interpretations of Party Spaces and Party Locations' confirm this strong linkage between ideological labels and xenophobia in Germany. Jagodzinski and Kühnel, 'Bedeutungsvarianz und Beudetungswandel der politischen Richtungsbgeriffe "links" und "rechts"'; W. Jagodzinski and S. Kühnel, 'The Stability of the Meaning of Left and Right in Germany, 1976–1990', in C.J. Anderson and C. Zelle (eds.), Stability and Change in German Elections (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998); M. Kaase and H.-D. Klingemann, 'Social Structure, Value-Orientations, and the Party System: The Problem of Interest Accommodation in Western Democracies', European Journal of Political Research 10 (1982), pp.367–86. Bauer-Kaase, 'Politische Ideologies im Wandel'; Pappi and Shikano, 'The Positions of Parties in Ideological and Policy Space', p.19. R. Merelman, 'Revitalizing Political Socialization', in M. Herman (ed.) Political Psychology (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1986), p.279. K. Jennings and R.G. Niemi, Generations and Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981); K. Jennings, 'The Crystallization of Orientations', in M. Jennings and J.W. van Deth (eds.), Continues in Political Action (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990). The argument could be made that the consumption of Western German TV, which was widely accessible in the GDR territory already educated the Eastern German citizens in the usage of the terms 'left' and 'right'. A recent study by M. Meyen, 'Kollektive Ausreise? Zur Reichweite ost- und westdeutscher Fernsehprogramme in der DDR', Publizistik 47/2 (2002), pp.200–20, shows that usage of the Western news media was relatively low before the year 1988, when the political tumults that led to the toppling of the Wall started. Furthermore, I argue that even if the GDR citizens already got into contact with these terms before the political reunification in 1990 through the Western media, the relevance of these was very low for the Eastern German citizens. One can therefore assume that Eastern Germans only used the terms 'left' and 'right' after the reunification as they had direct implications on their actual political decision making. Converse, 'The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics'; Converse, 'Attitudes and Non-Attitudes' Huber, 'Values and Partisanship in Left–Right Orientations'. Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, p.85; cf. J. Zaller and S. Feldman, 'A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences', American Journal of Political Science 36/3 (1992), pp.579–616; cf. V. Price, 'Priming Ideological Leanings: The Impact of Salience and Commitment', Report to the National Election Studies Board of Overseas, Ann Arbor, Michigan, US (1991); This finding goes back to the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance first introduced by L. Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (London: Tavistock, 1957). According to this theory, individuals avoid cognitive dissonance by trying to seem consistent in their attitudes. Klingemann, 'Testing the Left–Right Continuum on a Sample of German Voters'; M. Kroh, 'Measuring Left–Right Political Orientation: The Choice of Response Format', Public Opinion Quarterly 71/2 (2007), pp.204–20. As a sign of their inability to use the left–right terminology in a meaningful way the majority of the voters tend to flock to the middle point on ideological scales. In the data used in the empirical analyses about 43 per cent placed themselves on 5 or 6, the middle points of the 10 point scale. As the variable is continuous, I performed a Shapiro-Wilk test to check for normality. The test statistic W is 0.99864 for the left–right self-placement, which clearly shows normality. Therefore, I can reject this objection that there might be a problem of middle flocking (which would be indicated by a kurtosis function). See Appendix for the exact question wording of variables. As discussed above, the socio-economic scales are reversed to the left–right dimension. In order to calculate the deviation between the left–right and the five policy scales, it is necessary to code the items in the same direction. We can only calculate the deviation for those Equation(1) having a valid answer on the left–right scale and (2) at least one socio-economic scale. We obtained the average score on the socio-economic policy dimension by summing up the scores on the five scales and dividing this sum by the valid answers. We are thereby able to account for missing values. 155 (7.6 per cent) of the respondents have at least one missing value on one of the socio-economic scales. For example, some people associate only parts of the issues measuring the socio-economic policy dimension with the left–right terminology. I therefore tested whether these respondents differ in their ideological consistency, as they might have ignored those questions that are not linked to their ideological self-identification. As two-sample t-test estimates show no difference, we consequently treat these 155 respondents equal to those who answered all five socio-economic policy questions. Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, p.113. Converse, 'The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics'; cf. R.D. Lambert, J. Curtis, S. Brown and B. Kay, 'In Search of Left/Right Beliefs in the Canadian Electorate', Canadian Journal of Political Science 19/3 (1986), pp.541–63; Bauer-Kaase, 'Politische Ideologies im Wandel'. Zechmeister, 'What's Left and Who's Right?'; Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. R.C. Luskin, 'Explaining Political Sophistication', Political Behavior 12/4 (1990), pp.331–61. Education is measured by the highest educational level attained, subdivided in four categories – did not finish school/Hauptschulsabschluss, Mittlere Reife, Abitur, and university degree. Political interest is measured on a four point scale, ranging from 1 'not interested at all' and 4 'very interested'. To measure the political news exposure, respondents were asked 'How often do you follow politics in the news on television or on the radio or in the daily papers?' They could choose between: every day, which 65.5 per cent of all respondents answered, several times a week, once or twice a week, less often, and never. The last two categories were collapsed to bring this variable into the four-point format of the political sophistication index. However I have to consider some weaknesses of the factor of media exposure. It is thus very difficult to distinguish between 'low-brow' political media (in the German case, for example, Bild-Zeitung) and 'high-brow' media (such as the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung or Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung). Only the latter ones would be suitable for receiving valuable political information to create political sophistication. Other problems with media exposure arise from subjective differences in self-rating standards. Moreover, exposure does not necessarily mean that political news consumers comprehend and use the information presented (Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, pp.334–335). Nevertheless, news exposure is very important for the argument used in this paper. The media consumption is necessary to perceive the 'policy packages' provided by the political elite. Fuchs and Klingemann, 'The Left–Right Schema', p.225; Bauer-Kaase, 'Politische Ideologies im Wandel'. The two-sample t-test assuming equal variance estimates a t-value of –0.71, which is not significant on the 5 per cent level. The interaction terms between age and a left/right self-placement are not included in the model, as they can not be calculated. The factor explains 51.2 per cent of the five variables' combined variance. The loadings are all above 0.62, which shows uni-dimensionality and a high correlation of all variables with the socio-economic policy factor. The estimated Cronbach's alpha of 0.75, moreover, confirms the high reliability of this scale. The average pair-wise correlation between the five socio-economic policy issues is 0.38 ranging from 0.28 to 0.60. All correlations are significant on 1% level. The results of the factor analysis are included in the appendix. This finding is confirmed in the pair-wise correlation between the six variables. The alpha coefficient testing the reliability of items by looking at the consistency of a person's responses decreases only slightly to 0.73 when the variable of ideological self-placement is included in the test to the five items of socio-economic preferences. Those respondents only placing themselves in the middle of all scales could influence this value. There are, however, only 29 (1.4 per cent) respondents who have the value 5 and/or 6 on all five policy scales. Of those 21 also placed themselves at 5 or 6 on the left–right dimension. The low number of cases suggests that this does not constitute a considerable problem. I therefore keep these respondents in the analysis, as there is no evidence that this answer pattern is an expression of non-attitude. They do not necessarily place themselves on the left side of the dimension; even so most in this category do so.