Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T12:44:26.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Multilevel Model of Ideological Congruence in Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2021

Juan Antonio Rodríguez-Zepeda Open the ORCID record for Juan Antonio Rodríguez-Zepeda [Opens in a new window]  and
Patricia Otero-Felipe Open the ORCID record for Patricia Otero-Felipe [Opens in a new window]
Juan Antonio Rodríguez-Zepeda
Affiliation:
Juan Antonio Rodríguez-Zepeda is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Burgos, Burgos, Spain. [email protected].
Patricia Otero-Felipe
Affiliation:
Patricia Otero-Felipe is a professor of political science at the University of Burgos, Burgos, Spain. [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What explains ideological congruence between citizens and political parties? Although the literature on congruence has recently provided some answers to this question, most of these works have focused on the effect of systemic and partisan factors. They have paid less attention to the effect of people’s characteristics on ideological congruence, which is built by the interaction between citizens’ positions on public issues and those of the political parties that represent them. Our general research hypothesis is that party-voter congruence is stronger when parties reduce the uncertainty about their ideological positions and citizens can understand these signals better. Analysis of Latin American data supports this hypothesis, showing that people’s cognitive ability, specifically education and political knowledge, has a positive effect on party-voter ideological congruence. Moreover, this relationship is moderated by parties’ attributes, such as ideological ambiguity and radicalism.

Keywords

congruenceideologyuncertaintyvoterspartiesLatin America
Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 63 , Special Issue 3: The Grassroots Right in Latin America , August 2021 , pp. 119 - 145
Copyright
© The Authors 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the University of Miami

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1978. Measuring Representation. American Journal of Political Science 22, 3: 475–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguinis, Herman, Ryan K., Gottfredson, and Culpepper, Steven A.. 2013. Best-Practice Recommendations for Estimating Cross-Level Interaction Effects Using Multilevel Modeling. Journal of Management 39, 6: 1490–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, Michael R. 1997. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andeweg, Rudy. 2011. Approaching Perfect Policy Congruence: Measurement, Development, and Relevance for Political Representation. In How Democracy Works: An Introduction, ed. Rosema, Martin, Denters, Bas, and Aarts, Kees. Amsterdam: Pallas/Amsterdam University Press. 39–52.Google Scholar
Banducci, Susan, Giebler, Heiko, and Kritzinger, Sylvia. 2017. Knowing More from Less: How the Information Environment Increases Knowledge of Party Positions. British Journal of Political Science 47, 3: 571 -88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1986. Issue Voting Under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test. American Journal of Political Science 30, 4: 709–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M.. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Belchior, Ana María. 2012. Explaining Left-Right Party Congruence Across European Party Systems: A Test of Micro, Meso, and Macro-Level Models. Comparative Political Studies 46, 3: 352–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, Julian, Giger, Nathalie, and Rosset, Jan. 2015. Mind the Gap: Do Proportional Electoral Systems Foster a More Equal Representation of Women and Men, Poor and Rich? International Political Science Review 36, 1: 78–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Matt, Golder, and Daniel, Milton. 2012. Improving Tests of Theories Positing Interaction. Journal of Politics 74, 3: 653–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, and Marc, André Bodet. 2006. Does Proportional Representation Foster Closer Congruence Between Citizens and Policymakers? Comparative Political Studies 39: 1243–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Taylor, and Smith, Amy E.. 2019. Looks Like Me, Thinks Like Me: Descriptive Representation and Opinion Congruence in Brazil. Latin American Research Review 54, 2: 310–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boonen, Joris, Pedersen, Eva Falk, and Hooghe, Marc. 2017. The Effect of Political Sophistication and Party Identification on Voter-Party Congruence: A Comparative Analysis of 30 Countries. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 27, 3: 311-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brader, Ted, Tucker, Joshua A., and Duell, Dominik. 2012. Which Parties Can Lead Opinion? Experimental Evidence on Partisan Cue Taking in Multiparty Democracies. Comparative Political Studies 46, 11: 1485–1517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Royce, and Hiroki, Kubo. 2018. Explaining Citizen Perceptions of Party Ideological Positions: The Mediating Role of Political Context. Electoral Studies 51: 14–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David. New York: Free Press. 206-61.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 1984. Cognitive Mobilization and Partisan Dealignment in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Journal of Politics 46: 264–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2017. Party Representation Across Multiple Issue Dimensions. Party Politics 23, 86: 609–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delli, Carpini, Michael, X., and Scott, Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Enders, Craig K., and Tofighi, Davood. 2007. Centering Predictor Variables in Cross-Sectional Multilevel Models: A New Look at an Old Issue. Psychological Methods 12, 2: 121–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James M. 1988. A Methodology for Testing a New Spatial Model of Elections. Quality and Quantity 22: 347–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federico, Christopher M., and Hunt, Corrie V.. 2013. Political Information, Political Involvement, and Reliance on Ideology in Political Evaluation. Political Behavior 35: 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferland, Benjamin. 2020. A Gender Gap in Party Congruence and Responsiveness? Politics & Gender 16, 1: 174–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golder, Matt, and Jacek, Stramski. 2010. Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions. American Journal of Political Science 54: 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golder, Matt, and Benjamin, Ferland. 2018. Electoral Systems and Citizens-Elite Ideological Congruence. In The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, ed. Erik, S. Herron, Robert, J. Pekkanen, and Matthew, S. Shugart. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 213-46.Google Scholar
Gordon, Stacy B., and Segura, Gary M.. 1997. Cross-National Variation in the Political Sophistication of Individuals: Capability or Choice? Journal of Politics 59, 1: 126–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisig, Jan Paul, and Merlin, Schaeffer. 2019. Why You Should Always Include a Random Slope for the Lower-Level Variable Involved in a Cross-Level Interaction. European Sociological Review 35, 2: 258–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillygus, D. Sunshine. 2005. The Missing Link: Exploring the Relationship Between Higher Education and Political Engagement. Political Behavior 27, 1: 25–47.Google Scholar
Hox, Joop J. 2010. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huber, John D., and Powell, G. Bingham, Jr. 1994. Congruence Between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy. World Politics 46: 291–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissau, Kathrin, Lutz, Georg, and Rosset, Jan. 2012. Unequal Representation of Age Groups in Switzerland. Representation 48, 1: 63–81.Google Scholar
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Gancheva, Darina, and Wessels, Bernhard. 2017. Ideological Congruence: Choice, Visibility and Clarity. In Parties, Governments and Elites: The Comparative Study of Democracy, ed. Harfst, Philipp, Kubbe, Ina, and Poguntke, Thomas. Wiesbaden: Springer. 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and David Redlawsk. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefkofridi, Zoe, and Juan, Casado-Asensio. 2013. European Vox Radicis: Representation and Policy Congruence on the Extremes. Comparative European Politics 11, 1: 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesschaeve, Christophe. 2017. Inequality in Party-Voter Opinion Congruence: A Matter of Choices Made or Choices Given? Representation 53, 2: 153–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luna, Juan Pablo, and Elizabeth, Zechmeister. 2005. Representation in Latin America: A Study of Elite-Mass Congruence in Nine Countries. Comparative Political Studies 38, 4: 388–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupu, Noam, and Zack, Warner. 2017. Mass-Elite Congruence and Representation in Argentina. In Malaise in Representation in Latin American Countries: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, ed. Joignant, Alfredo, Morales, Mauricio, and Fuentes, Claudio. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupu, Noam, Selios, Lucia, and Warner, Zack. 2017. A New Measure of Congruence: The Earth Mover’s Distance. Political Analysis 25, 1: 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luskin, Robert C. 1987. Measuring Political Sophistication. American Journal of Political Science 31, 4: 856–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luskin, Robert C. 1990. Explaining Political Sophistication. Political Behavior 12, 4: 331–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinova, Dani M. 2016. Political Knowledge in Complex Information Environments. Acta Politica 51, 2: 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Danielle. 2019. Party Ambiguity and Individual Preferences. Electoral Studies 57: 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattila, Mikko, and Tapio, Raunio. 2006. Cautious Voters–Supportive Parties: Opinion Congruence Between Voters and Parties on the EU Dimension. European Union Politics 7, 4: 427–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald. 1963. Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57: 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otero-Felipe, Patricia. 2014. Party-Voter Linkages: A Comparative View of Ideology and European Integration. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 146: 139–68.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I. 1976. The Theory of Political Ambiguity. American Political Science Review 70, 3: 742–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, Roy. 1999. Mass-Elite Issue Linkages and the Responsible Party Model of Representation. In Policy Representation in Western Democracies, ed. Miller, Warren, Pierce, and Jacques, Thomassen. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 9–32.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Bingham G., Jr. 2004a. Political Representation in Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 7: 273–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Bingham G., Jr. 2004b. The Chain of Responsiveness. Journal of Democracy 15, 4: 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2010. You’ve Either Got It or You Don’t? The Stability of Political Interest over the Life Cycle. Journal of Politics 72, 3: 747–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2019. Hooked: How Politics Captures People’s Interest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rovny, Jan. 2012. Who Emphasizes and Who Blurs? Party Strategies in Multidimensional Competition. European Union Politics 13, 2: 269–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1972. The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition. American Political Science Review 66, 2: 555–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, Shane P., and Roy, Jason. 2014. Political Knowledge, the Decision Calculus, and Proximity Voting. Electoral Studies 34: 89–99.Google Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2015. Everything to Everyone: The Electoral Consequences of the Broad-Appeal Strategy in Europe. American Journal of Political Science 59, 4: 841–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenbergen, Marco R., and Jones, Bradford. 2002. Modeling Multilevel Data Structures. American Journal of Political Science 4, 1: 218–37.Google Scholar
Vegetti, Federico, Fazekas, Zoltán, and Zoltán Méder, Zsombor. 2017. Sorting Your Way Out: Perceived Party Positions, Political Knowledge, and Polarization. Acta Politica 52, 4: 479–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissberg, Robert. 1978. Collective vs. Dyadic Representation in Congress. American Political Science Review 72: 535–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar