Measuring Authoritarian Populism with Expert Surveys Extending CHES estimates on populism and authoritarianism. Andreadis, I. Technical Report University of Sydney, Sydney, 2018.
abstract   bibtex   
For many years, scholars working on populism have dedicated most of their resources studying the supply side of populism and most studies on populism were based on the application of text analysis methods on party manifestos and speeches by party leaders. Only recently, we have seen methods that try to cover both the supply and the demand side of populism by including batteries of items in survey questionnaires suitable for various target groups (voters, candidates and experts). One of these surveys is the Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) which uses the opinion of experts on the positioning of political parties in many countries in Europe. The limitations of CHES are i) the limited scope of the study (covering Europe only), and ii) the CHES questionnaires include only a limited number of questions directly connected to populism and authoritarianism. Finally, for the studies comparing CHES data with data from other surveys, we need to explore the possible implications of the fact that the CHES questions have different structure and wording from the questions used in voter and candidate surveys. To deal with the first CHES limitation, this paper aims to present the findings of the application of a shortened version of the most recent CHES questionnaire in selected countries in different regions of the world 2. The first findings indicate that extending CHES in other regions of the world is feasible and can be extremely fruitful, but it seems that not all dimensions included in the CHES questionnaire can travel equally well in other countries. To deal with the second CHES limitation and to study the possible implications of the different question structures and wordings, this paper presents the findings of a pilot study. The questionnaire of the pilot study includes both CHES and selected items that have already been used in voter and elite surveys. Based on the findings of the pilot study, the paper provides guidelines on what scholars should do when they want to compare the position of the voters of a party (extracted by voter surveys) with the position of the same party extracted by CHES.
@techreport{andreadis_measuring_2018,
	address = {Sydney},
	title = {Measuring {Authoritarian} {Populism} with {Expert} {Surveys} {Extending} {CHES} estimates on populism and authoritarianism},
	copyright = {All rights reserved},
	abstract = {For many years, scholars working on populism have dedicated most of their resources studying the supply side of populism and most studies on populism were based on the application of text analysis methods on party manifestos and speeches by party leaders. Only recently, we have seen methods that try to cover both the supply and the demand side of populism by including batteries of items in survey questionnaires suitable for various target groups (voters, candidates and experts). One of these surveys is the Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) which uses the opinion of experts on the positioning of political parties in many countries in Europe. The limitations of CHES are i) the limited scope of the study (covering Europe only), and ii) the CHES questionnaires include only a limited number of questions directly connected to populism and authoritarianism. Finally, for the studies comparing CHES data with data from other surveys, we need to explore the possible implications of the fact that the CHES questions have different structure and wording from the questions used in voter and candidate surveys. To deal with the first CHES limitation, this paper aims to present the findings of the application of a shortened version of the most recent CHES questionnaire in selected countries in different regions of the world 2. The first findings indicate that extending CHES in other regions of the world is feasible and can be extremely fruitful, but it seems that not all dimensions included in the CHES questionnaire can travel equally well in other countries. To deal with the second CHES limitation and to study the possible implications of the different question structures and wordings, this paper presents the findings of a pilot study. The questionnaire of the pilot study includes both CHES and selected items that have already been used in voter and elite surveys. Based on the findings of the pilot study, the paper provides guidelines on what scholars should do when they want to compare the position of the voters of a party (extracted by voter surveys) with the position of the same party extracted by CHES.},
	institution = {University of Sydney},
	author = {Andreadis, Ioannis},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {38},
}

Downloads: 0