Kenneth Benoit's Home Page

My pre-first round Hungarian forecast judged the most accurate

Ken — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:16:42 +0000

You have to be able to read Hungarian, but here is the story:

“A Republikoné és a Századvégé volt a legpontosabb mandátumbecslés”

Don’t read Hungarian? Try http://translate.google.ie/?hl=en&tab=wT#hu|en|.

Hungary’s Fidesz will win a Two-Thirds Majority of Seats on April 25

Ken — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:29:35 +0000

My forecast of the final parliamentary seat distribution for the Hungarian elections is the following:

Fidesz: 264 seats (68.4%)
MSZP: 58 seats (15%)
Jobbik: 48 seats (12.4%)
LMP: 16 seats (4.1%)

I’ve written about this in more detail in a post on the Monkey Cage blog.

New MSc in International Politics

Ken — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:54:49 +0000

New MSc in International Politics from the Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin

This new M.Sc. in International Politics offers graduate students a combination of rigorous training in the study of international politics with a comprehensive empirical approach to understanding many prominent problems in contemporary world politics, especially topics where domestic and international politics cannot be understood in isolation from each other. These topics include democratisation, international cooperation, development and foreign aid, international conflict as well as the politics of many environmental issues and their implications for the politics of developing countries. Students will also receive training in research methods.

Application deadline for entry in Sept. 2010: June 1, 2010

For programme and application details, click here.

Merit-based SCHOLARSHIPS are available for the incoming cohort that enters the programme in September 2010. One full-fees scholarship (EU or non-EU fees as relevant to the beneficiary) will be awarded for each Masters programme on offer in the Department. The Department will also offer a limited number of partial fee awards. For information on how to apply for these merit-based scholarships, please visit the Admission Requirements and Application Procedure website.

Field seminar B 2009-2010, Spring Weeks 6 and 7

Ken — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:38:06 +0000

NOTE: Week 6 will be a double-length session, since Week 7 clashes with the Political Economy mini-conference. As a result, there is no field seminar meeting on Mar 12. Instead, the Week 6 (Feb 26) will last from 9-13:00.

Strategic Behavior , Dr. Jon Slapin

Readings:

Thomas Schelling. 1978. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. Chapter 1 & chapter 3.
Timothy Besley. 2006. Principled Agents. Chapter 1 & chapter 2.
Barry Weingast. 1997. The Political Foundations of the Rule of Law. American Political Science Review 97(2).
R. Preston McAfee. Introduction to Economic Analysis. Chap 7.1. (pgs 7-251 to 7-270). Available from www.introecon.com.

Statistical haiku

Ken — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:54:23 +0000

See Keisuke Hirano’s Haiku page. Here is one of my favorites:

T-stat looks too good.
Use robust standard errors–
significance gone.

Field seminar B 2009-2010, Spring Weeks 1 and 2

Ken — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:33:36 +0000

Interviewing techniques for academic research, Dr. Jacqueline Hayden

Friday January 22^nd and 29^th

Location: Room 3131 Arts Block (Podcast/Video Recording and playback facility)
Time: 9-11 am and 12-1pm

Note: Room 3131 is booked by the English Dept. from 11-12. I have 2 slots booked from 9-11 am and 12 -1. The best option is to take the 9-11 am slot which will allow us to record a number of interview sessions – then (if necessary) we could utilise the 12 – 1pm slot for self and peer evaluation.

This is a practical workshop designed to develop your techniques for academic interviewing. The focus of the two sessions will be on developing your awareness of the issues relating to the following

Why – when to interview?
Pre- interview preparation
Interviewee identification and selection
Preparing your questions
Interviews as part of a data set – checking veracity of interviewee claims/triangulation
Interviewing strategies and techniques
Peer group and self-evaluation

Format

Your interviews will be recorded for self and peer evaluation – we will review the interviews in the 2nd session between 12 and 1pm on both days.

Making this workshop effective requires a fair amount of advance preparation and input from you. You will get out of it what you put in! The best way to find out what works and doesn’t work in interview scenarios is for you to conduct an interview and be interviewed and then to review the end product.

Prior to the workshop you will need to talk to each other about the following:

Who wants to act as an interviewer and interviewee – (depending on time it is hoped that everyone will play both roles).
Select subject areas where you can play expert interviewee and interviewer. More than one person can interview an ‘expert’ – you just need to liaise on whose doing what. You can for example use your own research agenda (or current research proposal) or you can create a ‘mock’ research issue – this has its advantages in that it means you can do something outside your own ‘box’. In practical terms this means that Student X is designated as an expert theorist on say – political parties and Student Y will interview him/her for some part of his research. Be creative about choosing your subjects…many of you are already on the way to being experts on specific research areas but you also have first hand knowledge of politics from your own domestic political contexts so remember you can adopt many different ‘expert’ hats.
You may be able to encourage senior PhD’s or perhaps even some staff to act as your interviewee – all you need is someone willing to take on an ‘expert’ role in some area for 10-15 minutes. There is no harm asking!
Create a running order or agenda for the two sessions

Having done all of the above you need to agree on a class member to prepare a list of topics stating who is the ‘expert’ interviewee and who’s interviewing (reminder – there can be more than one interviewer per ‘expert’ interviewee). This will allow me to allocate a duration for each interview session.

Essential requirement for participation is that you write up a brief memo – 500-750 words which outlines where interviewing fits into your research agenda. I can’t offer a critique of your interview skills if I don’t understand your objectives so specifically you must

designate the aspect or part of your research that necessitates an interview
outline the information you want to illicit from the interview
how you intend to use the interview material
how you intend to validate/triangulate the interview data
how you intend to store or share the data for other scholars (replication purposes)
how you will evaluate the material you get from the interviewing process
outline a framework for the core topics and questions you will use for your interview
PLEASE EMAIL ME THIS OUTLINE BY WED 20 Jan so that I have time to read them before the workshop (please note I have a very heavy teaching schedule on Thursdays)

Reaction papers

Those wishing to write a reaction paper may use their pre-prepared workshop memo as a starting point for an evaluation of the projected role of interviews in their research.

Getting started

I have emailed you papers from a Symposium on interviewing in political science and a paper based on the experience of interviewing in divided societies. Please find a fuller bibliography below prepared by Adrian Bunea below.

Bibliography

Interviewing techniques – Compiled by Adriana Bunea

Handbook of interview research: context & method. 2001. Ed. By Jaber F. Gubrium, James A. Holstein. Sage Publications.

Interviewing experts. 2009. Ed. Alexander Bogner, Beate Littig and Wolfgang Menz. Palgrave Macmillan.

Elite and specialized interviewing. 2006. LA Dexter, A Ware, M Sanchez-Jankowski. ECPR Press.

Mason, Jennifer. 2002. Qualitative researching, Ch 4 “Qualitative Interviewing”. Sage Publications.

Symposium on Interview Methods in Political Science in Political Science and Politics (2002) 35 (4).

Joanne McEvoy 2006 ‘Elite Interviewing in a Divided Society: Lessons from Northern Ireland’ Politics 26 (3): 184-191.

Craig D. Murray and Judith Sixsmith. 2003. ‘E-mail: A Qualitative Research Medium for Interviewing?’ in Interviewing Sage Benchmarks in Social Research Methods Vol. 2. Ed. Nigel Fielding. London: Sage. 128-148.

Field seminar B 2009-2010, Week 10

Ken — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:02:18 +0000

The Michigan Model, Professor Michael Marsh

This is classically presented in A. Cambell et al The American Voter, which is available via Google online. Critical chapters are 2, 6 and 7. Or look at a redced version, for instance in R. Niemi and H. Weisberg eds, Classics in Electoral Behaviour ch 22 [based on TAV ch 6-7].

A sympathetic but contemporary restatement is M. Lewis-Beck at al, The American Voter Revisited ch 6-7.

For Ireland

Michael Marsh, Party identification in Ireland An insecure anchor for a floating party system’, Electoral Studies, 25, (3), 2006, p489 – 508
[available from INES page at www.tcd.ie/ines]

A recent debate on party identification is Bartle and Bellucci’s edited volume Political Parties and Partisanship, Routledge 2008. See esp:

Chapter 3: Thomassen and Rosema
Chapter 4 B. Grofman et al
Chapter 6 Clark et al
Chapter 11 Green and Schickler – a defence of TAV.

Field Seminar B 2009-2010, Weeks 8-9

Ken — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:35:16 +0000

Week 8: The impact of referendums (MG)

Lawrence LeDuc, The Politics of Global Democracy: referendums in global perspective. Peterborough Ontario: Broadview Press, 2003

Matt Qvortrup, A Comparative Study of Referendums: Government by the People, 2nd ed (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005).

Claes De Vreese (ed), The Dynamics of Referendum Campaigns: an international perspective (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007)

Maija Setala, Referendums and Democratic Government: normative theory and the analysis of institutions (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999)

Svensson, Palle (2002), Five Danish Referendums on the European Community and European Union: A Critical Assessment of the Franklin Thesis European Journal of Political Research 41/5: 733–50.

Further reading:

Bowler, Shaun and Todd Donovan (1998), Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Overview of the USA experience.

Darcy, R. and Michael Laver (1990), Referendum Dynamics and the Irish Divorce Amendment, Public Opinion Quarterly 54/1: 1-20.

de Vreese, Claes H. (2006), Political Parties in Dire Straits? Consequences of National Referendums for Political Parties, Party Politics 12/5: 581-98.

Lupia, Arthur and Richard Johnston (2001), Are Voters to Blame? Voter Competence and Elite Maneuvers in Referendums, in Matthew Mendelsohn and Andrew Parkin (eds), Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns (Basingstoke: Palgrave). (2001), 191-210.

Marthaler, Sally (2005), The French Referendum on Ratification of the EU Constitutional Treaty, 29 May 2005, Representation 41/3: 230-9.

Michael Gallagher and Pier Vincenzo Uleri (eds), The Referendum Experience in Europe. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996.

Week 9: Electoral Behaviour I: The Dependent Variable (MM)

Cees van der Eijk et al, ‘Rethinking the dependent variable in voting behavior: On the measurement and analysis of electoral utilities’, Electoral Studies 2006, 25(3): 424-47

Guy Whitten and Harvey Palmer ‘Heightening Comparativists’ concern for model choice’, American Journal of Political Science, vol 40(1) 1996: 231-60

See also:

Wouter van der Brug et al The Economy and the Vote. Cambridge UnIversity Press, 2008, esp pp. 31-53.

Michael Marsh ‘Stability and change in structure of electoral competition 1989-2002’ in, editor(s)Diane Payne, John Garry and Niamh Hardiman , Irish social and political attitudes, Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2006, pp94 – 111, [see http://www.tcd.ie/ines]

Field Seminar B 2009-2010, Weeks 5-6

Ken — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:20:14 +0000

Week 5: (30 Oct) Raj Chari: Interest Groups in the EU

Frank Baumgartner and Beth L. Leech. 2001. “Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics.” The Journal of Politics 63(4): 1191-1212.

Burson-Marsteller,2005. The Definitive Guide to Lobbying in European In European Institutions – Based on a survey of the EP, the Council and the Commission (Spring; valuable analysis from more of a practitioner perspective).

David Coen. 1997. ‘The Evolution of the large firm as a political actor in the EU’, JEPP, 4.1 Justin Greenwood. 2007. Interest Representation in the EU 2nd ed. (Palgrave)

Christine Mahoney, 2007, ‘Lobbying Success in the US and the EU’, Journal of Public Policy, Vol 27/1, 44-45

Sonia Mazey and Jeremy Richardson, 2006. ‘Interest Groups and EU Policy Making: Organizational logic and venue-shopping’ in Richardson (ed.) Power and Policy Making in the EU 3rd ed (Routledge)

Silke M. Trommer and Raj Chari. 2006. ‘The Council of Europe: Interest Groups and Ideological Missions?’ West European Politics, Vol. 29, No. 4, 665 – 686, September 2006 (available on my webpage)

Woll C. 2006. ‘Lobbying in the EU: from sui generis to a comparative perspective’ Journal of European Public Policy vol 14. 3, 456-69

Week 6: (6 Nov) Raj Chari: Regulating EU Interest Groups

Bertók, János. 2008. Lobbyists, Governments and Public Thrust: Building a Legislative Framework for Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in Lobbying. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/41/41074615.pdf

Brinig, Margaret F., Randall G. Holcombe. and Linda Schwartzstein. 1993. “The Regulation of Lobbyists.” Public Choice 77 (2): 377-384.

Chari, Raj, Gary Murphy, and J. W. Hogan. 2007. “Regulating Lobbyists: A Comparative Analysis of the USA, Canada, Germany and the European Union.” The Political Quarterly 78 (3): 422-438.

Dinan, William. 2006. “Learning Lessons? The Registration of Lobbyists at the Scottish Parliament.” Journal of Communication Management 10 (1): 55-66

Greenwood, Justin. 1998. “Regulating Lobbying in the European Union.” Parliamentary Affairs 51(4): 587-599

Hogan, Murphy and Chari, ‘Next Door they have regulation, but not here…’, Canadian Political Science Review 2(3), September 2008.

Nolan Committee. 1995. Standards in Public Life, Vol. I, Cm 2850-I HMSO, London, available at: www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm28/2850/2850.htm

Opheim, Cynthia. 1991. “Explaining the Differences in State Lobby Regulations.” The Western Political Quarterly 44 (2): 405-421

Public Administration Select Committee. 2009. Lobbying: Access and Influence in Whitehall, London: The Stationary Office (available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubadm/36/36i.pdf; along with the Nolan Committee Report above, this will give you a good idea on how the UK has evolved in terms of ideas regarding lobbying laws)

Thomas, Clive S. 1998. “Interest Group Regulation Across the United States: Rationale, Development and Consequences.” Parliamentary Affairs 51 (4): 500-515.

Week 7: (13 Nov) Reading Week (No class)

Field Seminar B, 2009-2010, PhD

Ken — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:52:21 +0000

The Field Seminar B course handout is available here, although we are still working out the content and some of the topics for later sessions.

The first four weeks look like this:

Week 1: (2 Oct 2009): Ken Benoit – Measuring Policy Positions through Text I

Week 2: (9 Oct) Ken Benoit – Measuring Policy Positions through Text II

Week 3: (16 Oct) Gail McElroy – Legislative Organization: Party Influence

Week 4: (23 Oct) Gail McElroy – Legislative Organization and Behaviour: Beyond Congress

The detailed reading list for these first four weeks is:

Week 1: Measuring Policy Positions through Text I (Kenneth Benoit)

Budge, Ian, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara & Eric Tanenbaum. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Especially Introduction, Chapters 1-4, Appendix II.

Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, Ian Budge & Michael McDonald. 2006. Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990-2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Especially Introduction, Chapters 4-6.

Kenneth Benoit, Slava Mikhaylov, and Michael Laver. 2009. “Treating Words as Data with Error: Uncertainty in Text Statements of Policy Positions.” American Journal of Political Science 53(2, April): 495-513.

Exercise:

1. You must read the manifesto coding instructions, found here (from Appendix II of MMP1 and MMP2).
2. Code the test manifesto from this document (Appendix II) as an exercise, but only the sections headed WE WILL GROW, PROSPER and ALLIANCES.

Recommended:

Volkens, Andrea. 2001a. Manifesto Research Since 1979. From Reliability to Validity. In Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors, ed. Michael Laver. London: Routledge pp. 33–49.

Week 2: Measuring Policy Positions through Text II (Kenneth Benoit)

Jonathan B. Slapin and Sven-Oliver Proksch. 2008. “A Scaling Model for Estimating Time-Series Party Positions from Texts”, American Journal of Political Science 52(3), 705-722.

Laver, Michael, Kenneth Benoit & John Garry. 2003. “Estimating the policy positions of political actors using words as data.” American Political Science Review 97(2):311–331.

Laver, Michael & John Garry. 2000. “Estimating Policy Positions from Political Texts.” American Journal of Political Science 44(3):619–634.

Benoit, Kenneth and Michael Laver. 2007. “Benchmarks for Text Analysis: A Reply to Budge and Pennings.” Electoral Studies 26:130–135.

Budge, Ian and Paul Pennings. 2007. “Missing the message and shooting the messenger: Benoit and Laver’s ‘response’.” Electoral Studies 26: 136-141