Choosing among Discrete Choice Models for Voting Behavior

Analyses presented in this paper aim at testing demographic cues hypothesis, which explains voting behavior as a function of the distance between the voter and the object of the vote, expressed as demographic similarity. Four types of multivariate regression models–binomial logistic (BNL), multinomial logistic (MNL), contrast logistic (CONTRAST), and conditional logistic (CLOGIT)–are applied to explain vote choice among Polish parties in the 1997 parliamentary election. For all models I use survey data combined with information on political parties derived from characteristics of the electoral candidates. The results demonstrate that for testing demographic cues hypothesis CLOGIT and BNL are the most advisable options in terms of elucidation of the regression coefficients; MNL and CONTRAST involve cumbersome interpretation and their fit to the theory is questionable

Cross-National Measures of Political Inequality of Voice

Social scientists have long argued that political power is a key dimension of stratification, yet few empirically analyze political inequality or explicitly discuss the methodological implications of their measures of it. Political inequality is a distinct dimension of social stratification and a form of power inequality whose domain is all things related to political processes. It is a multidimensional concept–comprised of voice, response, and policy–that occurs in all types of governance structures. Conceptions of political inequality of voice reflect the well-established finding that position within the social and political structure impacts individual and group political influence. I argue that definitions and measures of political inequality of voice should focus on the extent of influence given its connection, but not reduction, to economic resources. This article proposes and evaluates cross-national structural measures of political inequality of voice based on the relationship between socioeconomic status and political participation. I explore the relationships between the measures and the rankings of European countries using data from the European Social Survey 2008 and the Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy 2008’s “political participation” category

Political Inequality is International, Interdisciplinary, and Intersectional

Abstract Political inequality refers to the unequal inf luence over decisions made by political bodies and the unequal outcomes of those decisions. Political inequality is a subtype of power inequality, visible within the political processes of all kinds of political structures. In modern democracies, political inequality is simultaneously a dimension of democracy and a dimension of stratification. Two key theoretical and empirical questions are How much political inequality is there? and is political inequality rising, falling, or staying the same? The answer to these key questions requires us to specify the kind of political inequalityvoice, response, and their subtypes -and whether we mean equality of political opportunities or of political outcomes. I argue that we need to understand better the form, duration, and magnitude of political inequality within and across nations. We need to study it systematically, continuously, and diligently, and in an inclusive, open-minded way, inclining our ears to the varied contributions of the many academic disciplines. We should begin by studying political inequality as an international phenomenon and as an interdisciplinary enterprise, and from an intersectional approach. How much political inequality is there? Is political inequality rising, falling, or staying the same? How would you answer these questions? When the Occupy Wall Street movement reached its heyday in the autumn of 2011, spreading to cities all over the world, the protestors' rallying cry was "We are the 99 percent." They hoped for political change, among other things, but "99" was mainly understood as a statement about economic inequality. If you want to know how much economic inequality there is in your country, and whether this inequality been rising, falling, or staying the same, you can turn to the terabytes worth of publicly available economic data and grind them through the many inequality equations to derive a multitude of statistics. With decades of innovations in the study of economics and inequality, led by the disciplines of sociology and economics, we can, at least, have a debate over the form, duration, and magnitude of economic inequality and its dynamics over time. Political inequality is a distinct form of inequality but has yet to attract sustained, systematic scholarly attention in the same way as its sibling inequalities. Although political equality is a foundation of modern democracy, we do not know how far from equality we are. Even the news media rarely addresses political inequality (Dubrow 2014). Unlike economic inequality, with political inequality, we are far from setting the terms of the debate. I argue that we need to understand better the form, duration, and magnitude of political inequality within and across nations. We need to study it systematically, continuously, and diligently, and in an inclusive, open-minded way, inclining our ears to the varied contributions of the many academic disciplines. Scholarly focus should turn, in equal measure, to both the concept and the empirical assessment of political inequality. To accomplish these goals, we should study political inequality as an international phenomenon and as an interdisciplinary enterprise, and from an intersectional approach

Changes in Social Structure, Class, and Stratification: The Polish Panel Survey (POLPAN)

We present an overview of the intellectual foundations and some major research questions and topics of the Polish Panel Survey (POLPAN). Carried out since 1988 in 5-year intervals, with the latest in 2013, POLPAN is the longest continuously run panel survey on changes in social structure, class and stratification in Central and Eastern Europe. The 2018 round is in planning. POLPAN is strongly anchored in recent theoretical innovations surrounding analyses of social structure and its change, as well as in the most up-to-date survey methodology. As such, POLPAN has major substantive and methodological contributions. Substantively, POLPAN constitutes a breakthrough that stems from taking into account individuals' life courses in a long time span. Methodologically, POLPAN enhances knowledge about how to conduct long-term panel studies and how to assess the quality of this type of data. Social scientists interested in the dynamics of social structure, class, and stratification, as well as political attitudes and behaviors, have a wealth of data with which to address timeless and timely research questions from a variety of perspectives and fields

Governança global democrática, desigualdade política e a hipótese da resistência nacionalista Democratic global governance, political inequality, and the nationalist retrenchment hypothesis

Será a governança global inevitável? Será possível uma governança global democrática? Aponto dois obstáculos para a existência desta: a desigualdade política e a resistência nacionalista. Enquanto a governança global já existe, uma governança global democrática é refreada por desigualdades políticas internas e entre nações. Neste contexto, a resistência nacionalista, refreamento e desvio em direção ao unilateralismo, através da qual as nações evadem-se às estratégias de governança global, também se apresenta como um desafio ao desenvolvimento democrático de instituições deste cunho. Este artigo pretende dar continuidade ao diálogo entre sociólogos e outros cientistas sociais sobre a esperança otimista pela governança global.Is global governance inevitable? Is democratic global governance likely? I point out two obstacles that lie in the path toward democratic global governance: political inequality and nationalist retrenchment. While global governance is already here, democratic global governance is held back by political inequality within and between nations. In this context, nationalist retrenchment, a stop and back-slide toward unilaterialism where nations eschew global governance strategies, also poses a challenge to the democratic development of global governance institutions. This article serves to continue the conversation among sociologists and other social scientists on the optimistic hopes for democratic global governance

Governança Global Democrática, Desigualdade Política e a Hipótese da Resistência Nacionalista

Será a governança global inevitável? Será possível uma governança global democrática? Aponto dois obstáculos para a existência desta: a desigualdade política e a resistência nacionalista. Enquanto a governança global já existe, uma governança global democrática é refreada por desigualdades políticas internas e entre nações. Neste contexto, a resistência nacionalista, refreamento e desvio em direção ao unilateralismo, através da qual as nações evadem-se às estratégias de governança global, também se apresenta como um desafio ao desenvolvimento democrático de instituições deste cunho. Este artigo pretende dar continuidade ao diálogo entre sociólogos e outros cientistas sociais sobre a esperança otimista pela governança global