1

The Spatial Theory of Electoral The Spatial Theory of Electoral CompetitionCompetition

Melvin J. Hinich

2

The spatial theory of electoral competition developed by Davis and Hinich (1966) rests on the assumption that voter choices are functions of the squared Euclidean distance between a voter’s position in a political space and the positions of the candidates (or parties) standing for election.

3

Euclidean Distance ModelEuclidean Distance Model

Suppose that there are N observers and

M targets. Each observer at position

1 2,i i ix x x

2

m iπ x

1 2,m m m π

reports the squared Euclidean

distance

to the targets at locations

4

Latent Ideological SpaceLatent Ideological Space1 Issue positions cluster: If I know what you think on defense and environmental policy, I can guess what you think of school lunch subsidies.

2 Shared meaning: This clustering phenomenon is not purely atomistic, so that ideological positions such as “liberal” and “conservative” have similar meanings to different people.

3 Constraint: If the effective space of political conflict is “ideological” in the sense above , the strategies of candidates (and hence the choices for voters) in the policy space are highly constrained.

5

Political Figures in Two-Dimensional Issue Space, 1996

50 Establishment

-150 Reform

-100

Liberal

100

Conservative

Notes: Positions of political figures in two-dimensional space are estimated based on MAPmethodology (Hinich and Munger 1996),using thermometer score data from the 1996 NES. The centroid (0,0 point) is fixed as Jack Kemp’s ratings.

x Ross Perot

x Al Gore x Lamar Alexanderx Steve Forbes

x Newt Gingrichx Bob Dole

x Pat Buchanan

x Pat Robertson

x Phil Gramm

x Hillary Clinton

x Jesse Jackson

x Colin Powell

x Bill Clintonx Ideal Point

6

Political Figures in Two-Dimensional Issue Space, 2004

50 Establishment

-150 Reform

-100

Liberal

100

Conservative

Notes: Positions of political figures in two-dimensional space are estimated based on MAPmethodology (Hinich and Munger 1996),using thermometer score data from the 2004 NES. The centroid (0,0 point) is fixed as Ronald Reagan’s ratings.

x Dick Ashcroftx G. W. Bush

x Dick Cheneyx Hillary Clintonx Bill Clinton

x John McCainx Colin Powell

x Ideal Point

x Ralph Nader

x John Edwards

x John Kerry

7

Lieberman

Nader

BushSr

Heston

Hillary

McCain

Forbes

Powell

RobertsonRushJessieJ

ArnieS

WClarkTKennedy

Dole

Daschle

Edwards

Sharpton

Dean

Kerry

Reagan

Condi CheneyCarter

ClintonGore

Bush

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Candidate Respondent

2006 Private Survey2006 Private Survey

8

Political Figures in Two-Dimensional Issue Space, 2008

50 Establishment

-150 Reform

-100

Liberal

100

Conservative

Notes: Positions of political figures in two-dimensional space are estimated based on MAPmethodology (Hinich and Munger 1996),using thermometer score data from the 2008 CCES. The centroid (0,0 point) is fixed as Joe Biden’s ratings.

x G.W. Bush

x Sarah Palin

x John McCain

x Barack Obama

x Hillary Clinton

x Ideal Point

9

“The federal government of the United States is mostly

incompetent.”

“The federal government of the United States is mostly corrupt.”

Strongly Agree 29% 49%

Somewhat Agree 39 33

Somewhat Disagree

24 10

Strongly Disagree 54

Don’t know 3 4

N 1,000 1,000

“Candidate A is a current U.S. senator who has twice served in the president’s cabinet and has a reputation for knowing how to get things done in Washington. Candidate B is a current governor who has a reputation for challenging entrenched interests and not accepting ‘politics as usual.’ If

both were running for president in 2008, which would you be more likely to support?”

Candidate A 54%

Candidate B 40

Don’t know 6

N 1,000

10

Ideological Groups in the Turkish Party System

Extreme-Left (EL) Center-Left (CL)

People's Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi P.-HADEP) Republican Peoples Party (Cumhuriyet Halk P.-CHP)

Democratic People's Party (Demokratik Halkın P.-DEHAP) Democratic Left Party (Demokratik Sol Parti-DSP)

Programmatic/Policy Platforms

Ethnic Kurdish nationalist Strictly secularist

Pro-EU Relatively more state interventionist

Support base is east and southeastern Anatolia Pro-EU

Relatively more urban

Obtaining Alevi support (CHP)

Charismatic leader (DSP)

Support base is western and coastal provinces

11

Ideological Groups in the Turkish Party System

Center-Right (CR) Pro-Islamist

Motherland Party (Anavatan Partisi-ANAP) Felicity party (Saadet Partisi-SP)

True Path Party (Doğru Yol Partisi-DYP) Justice & Development Party (Adalet&Kalkınma P.-AKP)

Young Party (Genç Parti-GP) Nationalist

Nationalist Action Party (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi-MHP)

Grand Unity Party (Büyük Birlik Partisi-BBP)

Programmatic/Policy Platforms

Secularist on policy matters but courting the brotherhoods Pro-Islamist

Market oriented economic policy Pro-Islamist Sunni supporters, close w/ Islamist circles

Relatively more developed rural support Relatively more eurosceptic

Pro-EU Populist in economic policy, state interventionist

Support base is western and coastal provinces Support base is central Anatolia

Support base is western and coastal provinces (GP) Nationalist

Ethnic Turkish nationalist, Sunni supporters

Sunni supporters, Anti-EU

Populist in economic policy, state interventionist

Support base is central Anatolia (MHP)

12

2001 Survey2001 Survey

A nation-wide representative survey of urban population conducted during the chaotic weeks of the second economic crisis of February 2001

12011201 face-to-face interviews were conducted in 12 of the 81 provinces of Turkey

The survey was run during 2/20 – 3/16 using a

random sampling method that represents the nationwidevoting age urban population based on the urban population figures of 1997 census data.

13

Estimated ideal points & party positions - 2001 survey

ANAPA Labor Leader

A Prominent Businessman

HADEP

MHP

FP

DYP

DSP

CHP

A Very Religious Leader

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-9 -4 1 6 11

14

Mean ideal points of primary identity groups - 2001

Turkish World

Islamic WorldEuropean Union

Very religious (8-10)

Mildly religious (3-7)

Non-religious (0-2)Kurdish speaker

Cannot speak Kurdish

AleviKurd

Citizen of TurkeyMuslim

Turk

None of the presently available

Mhp

Hadep

Fp

DypDsp

Chp

Anap

Abstainers

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

15

Basic Independent VariablesBasic Independent Variables

Sex Male 52 Socio-economic status Low 59Female 48 Medium 31

Age 18-24 20 High 1025-34 25 Religious conservatism Low 2935-44 22 Medium 4145-54 15 High 3055+ 17 Ethnic nationalism Low 12

Education No schooling-illiterate 13 Medium 29Primary school 46 High 59Junior high school 11 Xenophobia Low 28High school 22 Medium 38University+ 8 High 34

Kurdish Can speak 12 Political efficacy Low 23Cannot speak 88 Medium 40

Inhabitant of Province centre 46 High 37District centre 20 EU membership Supports 73Rural village 34 Does not support 27

Dwelling type Shanty town 21Medium registered 73Luxurious registered 5

16

VVote ote Intentions for Intentions for the November 3rd the November 3rd EElectionlection

• % 8,7

• % 8,7

• % 7,1

• % 1,9

• % 1,3

• % 0,6

• % 0,7

• % 1,0

• % 1,5

• % 2,4

• % 3,3

• % 4,1

• % 5,0

• % 9,9

• % 14,4

• % 29,4

•%0 •%10 •%20 •%30

•AKP

•CHP

•GP

•DYP

•MHP

•DEHAP

•ANAP

•SP

•YTP

•DSP

•BBP

•Other

•Will not vote

•Will not vote for the• existing parties

•Undecided

•DK/NA

17

Party/ (Hypothetical Politician) N Mean Std. DeviationAKP 1904 6.06 3.44CHP 1889 4.28 3.11

GP 1877 4.06 3.06A prominent businessman 1830 3.74 3.10

DYP 1907 3.69 2.65A very religious leader 1848 3.31 2.94

MHP 1899 3.23 2.61SP 1880 3.06 2.49

ANAP 1900 3.00 2.43YTP 1847 2.98 2.37

BBP 1829 2.81 2.25DSP 1926 2.31 2.19

DEHAP 1850 2.10 2.19Valid N (listwise) 1727

Descriptive Statistics of the Grade Scores 2002

18

Estimated ideal points and party positions, full sample, 2002 survey

GP

RELIGIOUS

YTP

AKP

CHP

SP

ANAP

BBP DYP

MHP

DEHAPDSP

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

-13 -8 -3 2 7 12

19

Mean ideal points for positions on foreign policy preferences

TUR should be closer to other ME countries

TUR should be closer to İsrail

TUR should develop closer tiese with Western countries

TUR should develop closer tiese with Muslim countries

Feels part of the whole World

Feels part of the ME

Feels part of Europe

Feels part of Turkey

Feels part of native region

Feels part of native province

GP

RELIGIOUS

YTP

AKP

CHP

SP ANAP

BBPDYP

MHP

DEHAP

DSP

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

20

Xenophobia & Political EfficacyXenophobia & Political Efficacy

• XenophobiaXenophobia• Foreigners who settle in our country harm our culture.• Foreigners who settle in our country make our chances

of finding a job• more difficult• Some should either love Turkey or leave it.• I would not want a foreigner to be my neighbor• Political efficacyPolitical efficacy• Regular citizens like me have no power for changing

political decisions in Turkey for their advantage.• Turkey is being ruled by a small and powerful group.• Whatever I do I don't think I can reach a better position in

society

21

Question - I'm going to give to you a series of promises and would like to get your evaluation as to which party do you find most convincing in realizing each one. 1 Limiting the MP immunity 2 Reducing unemployment 3 Reducing taxes 4 Membership in the EU 5 Increased effort to combat corruption 6 Revitalizing the economy 7 Resolving the Cyprus problem

22

8 Reducing inflation

9 Resolving education and health

policy problems

10 Resolving the headscarves

problem

11 Resolving the problems in

agriculture

12 Enforcing the moral values in

Turkish society

Respondents are asked to pick one party

as most credible.

23

Valence Question - Revitalizing the EconomyValence Question - Revitalizing the Economy

AKP 532 26.23 ANAP 39 1.92 BBP 8 0.39 CHP 227 11.19 DEHAP /HADEP 25 1.23 DSP 7 0.35 DYP 82 4.04 Genç P 157 7.74 MHP 38 1.87 SP 22 1.08 YTP 11 0.54 BTP 1 0.05 İP 2 0.10 LDP 2 0.10 ÖDP 2 0.10 TKP 1 0.05 None of them 654 32.25 No answer 218 10.75

24

Mean Thermometer Scores for Party Leaders-2004

6,46

2,43

2,41

2,27

2,10

2,08

1,91

1,83

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

AKP (T. Erdoğan)

DYP (M. Agar)

CHP (D. Baykal)

MHP (D. Bahceli)

DEHAP (T. Bakirhan)

SP (N. Erbakan)

ANAP (M. Yılmaz)

GP (C. Uzan)

March-2004 survey of nation-wide representative urban population (N=1,232)

25

Estimated Party Positions-2004

GP

AKP

ANAP

CHP

SP

DEHAP

MHP

DYP

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11

26

-2,5

-2,0

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

-1,0 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0

Speaks Kurdish

No to EU

District Center

Closer ties w Israel

Feels unsafe at night in neighborhood

Unhappy at work

Does not speak KurdishIncome sufficient to meet

needs

Income insufficient to meet needs

Neighborhood has different identity groups

Neighbors are not in harmonious relationships

Unhappy with the way democracy works

Yes to EU

Happy at work

HProvince Center

Women

Men

Neighborhood does not have different identity groups

Closer ties w other ME countries

Neighbors are in harmonious relationships

Feels safe at night in neighborhood

Happy with the way democracy works

Unhappy w/work, democracy, income

and neighborhood, living in relatively larger province

centers.

However, supports closer ties w/ Israel and the EU

Ethnic (?) Turkish

Happy w/work, democracy, income and neighborhood living mostly

in smaller district centers.

However, does not support closer ties w/ Israel and the

EU

Mean positions across different groups and issue stands-2004

●

1st D. 2nd D.

Alevis -1.5 -3.8

Non-Alevis +0.3 -1.7

27

Estimated Party Positions, (2001-2004)

DYP

MHP

DEHAP

SP

CHP

ANAP

AKP

GP

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11

● CHP

● DEHAP● DSP

● YTP

● GP

● AKP● SP

● BBP● MHP

● DYP

● ANAP

■ CHP

■ DSP

■ DYP■ MHP

■ FP■ Very religious leader

■

Prominent Businessman

■ HADEP

● 2002

■ 2001

♦ 2004

“Left”

Secularist

“Center”

“Right”

Pro-Islamist

“Periphery”

Reformist

Pro-EU

Kurdish Nationalist

Status Quo Reactionary

Anti-EU

Turkish Nationalist

-AKP remains as the only credible party with “centrist” positions and clear pro-EU stance

-CHP left the reformist, pro-EU camp as well as its support concerning the protection and advancement of the Kurdish minority rights. CHP seems positioned to exploit anti-EU nationalist rhetoric.

-”Right of center” is back into its original anti-EU position. CHP is likely to pull them down on this axis.

-Is the Turkish center ready for another business take-over similar to the GP in 2002?