Comparative Study of Electoral Systems

The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) is a collaborative research project among national election studies around the world. Participating countries and polities include a common module of survey questions in their national post-election studies. The resulting data are collated together along with voting, demographic, district and macro variables into one dataset allowing comparative analysis of voting behavior from a multilevel perspective.

The CSES is published as a free, public dataset. The project is administered by the CSES Secretariat, a joint effort between the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan and the GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Germany.

Aims and content of the study

The CSES project was founded in 1994 with two major aims. The first was to promote international collaboration between national election studies. The second was to allow researchers to study variations in political institutions, especially electoral systems, and their effects on individual attitudes and behaviors, especially turnout and vote choice.

CSES datasets contain variables at three levels. The first is micro-level variables which are answered by respondents during post-election surveys in each included country. The second is district-level variables that contain election results from the electoral districts that survey respondents are situated in. The third is macro-level variables containing information about the country context and electoral system, as well as aggregate data such as economic indicators and democracy indices. This nested data structure, as depicted in Figure 1, allows for multilevel analysis.

Figure 1: Visualization of CSES multilevel data structure

A new thematic module is devised by the CSES Planning Committee every five years. Between the final releases of the complete modules, CSES also disseminates advance releases of datasets periodically, which include partial data for modules that have not been fully released yet.

Survey data collection for module 1 was conducted between 1996 and 2001 and focuses on system performance. The module allows investigation of the impact of electoral institutions on citizens’ political cognition and behavior as well as of the nature of political and social cleavages and alignment. Furthermore, it enables research about citizens’ evaluation of democratic institutions and processes. Module 1 includes 39 election studies conducted in 33 countries.

Survey data collection for module 2 was conducted between 2001 and 2006 and focuses on accountability and representation. It addresses the contrast between the view that elections are a mechanism to hold government accountable and the view that they are a means to ensure that citizens’ views and interests are properly represented in the democratic process. Module 2 includes 41 election studies conducted in 38 countries.

Survey data collection for module 3 was conducted between 2006 and 2011. The module allows investigating the meaningfulness of electoral choices and, accordingly, focuses on a major aspect of electoral research: the contingency in choice of available options. Module 3 includes 50 election studies conducted in 41 countries.

Survey data collection for module 4 was conducted between 2011 and 2016 and focuses on distributional politics and social protection. The main topics investigated are voters’ preferences for public policy and the mediating factors of political institutions and voting behavior.[1] Module 4 includes 45 election studies conducted in 39 countries.

Survey data collection for module 5 is conducted between 2016 and 2021 and focuses on the electorate's attitudes towards political elites, on the one hand, and towards "out groups", on the other hand. It thus enables research on attitudes and voting behavior in the context of a rise of parties campaigning on anti-establishment messages and in opposition to "out groups".[2]

A complete table of all variables available across modules can be found on the CSES website.

CSES also has an Integrated Module Dataset (IMD) which brings together the existing Standalone CSES Modules (CSES Modules 1–4 inclusive) into one longitudinal and harmonized dataset. Variables that appear in at least three Standalone CSES Modules, up to and including CSES Module 5, are eligible for inclusion in IMD with all polities participating in CSES included in the dataset.

CSES IMD includes over 281,000 individual-level observations across 174 elections in 55 polities, with voter evaluations of over 600 political parties. Highlights of the IMD file is party and coalition numerical codes are synchronized across CSES Modules and the incorporation of data bridging variables allowing CSES data to be easily merged with other common datasets in the social sciences. CSES IMD launched in December 2018 and is being rolled out on a phased basis with the latest release, Phase 3 released in December 2020.

Countries in the study
Module 1Module 2Module 3Module 4 Module 5
Albania2005
Argentina2015
Australia1996200420072013 2019
Austria20082013 2017
Belarus20012008
Belgium1999,1999[3]2003
Brazil20022006,20102014 2018
Bulgaria20012014
Canada1997200420082011, 2015
Chile199920052009 2017
Croatia2007
Czech Republic199620022006,20102013
Denmark199820012007
Estonia2011
Finland20032007,20112015
France200220072012 2017
Germany19982002,2002[4]2005,20092013 2017
Great Britain199720052015
Greece20092012, 2015 2015
Hong Kong1998,2000200420082012 2016
Hungary19982002 2018
Iceland199920032007,20092013 2016, 2017
Ireland200220072011 2016
Israel1996200320062013
Italy2006 2018
Japan1996200420072013
Kenya2013
Kyrgyzstan2005
Latvia20102011, 2014
Lithuania1997 2016
Mexico1997,200020032006,20092012,2015
Montenegro2012 2016
Netherlands199820022006,2010
New Zealand1996200220082011,2014 2017
Norway199720012005,20092013 2017
Peru2000,2001200620112016
Philippines200420102016
Poland199720012005,20072011
Portugal2002[5]2002,[6] 200520092015
Romania1996200420092012, 2014
Russia1999,[7] 2000[8]2004
Serbia2012
Slovakia20102016
Slovenia1996200420082011
South Africa20092014
South Korea2000200420082012 2016
Spain1996,200020042008
Sweden1998200220062014
Switzerland1999200320072011
Taiwan19962001,200420082012 2016
Thailand200120072011
Turkey20112015 2018
Ukraine1998
United States of America1996200420082012 2016
Uruguay2009

A frequently updated election study table across all modules can be found on the CSES website.

Data access

CSES data are available publicly and are free of charge. Data releases are non-proprietary – in other words the data are made available to the public without preferential or advance access to anyone. Data is available in multiple formats including for common statistical packages like STATA, SPSS, SAS and R. The data can be downloaded from the CSES website as well as via the GESIS data catalogue. The GESIS online analysis tool ZACAT can furthermore be used to browse and explore the dataset.

Organizational structure and funding

The CSES Secretariat

In conjunction with national election study collaborators, the CSES Secretariat administers the CSES project. It consists of staff from the GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Germany and the University of Michigan, Ann-Arbor in the United States. The Secretariat is responsible for compiling the final CSES dataset by harmonizing the single country studies into a cross-national dataset. It is also responsible for collecting the district and macro data, for data documentation, and for ensuring data quality. The Secretariat, furthermore, maintains the CSES website, promotes the project, provides support to the user community, and organizes conferences and project meetings.

The Planning Committee, collaborators and the CSES Plenary

The CSES research agenda, study design, and questionnaires are developed by an international committee of leading scholars in political science, sociology, and survey methodology. This committee is known as the CSES Planning Committee. At the beginning of each new module, a new Planning Committee is established. Nominations for the Planning Committee come from the user community, with membership of the Committee then being approved by the CSES Plenary Meeting. The Plenary Meeting is made up of national collaborators from each national election study involved in the CSES. Ideas for new modules can be submitted by anyone. More information on the current planning committee, its members, and subcommittee reports, as well as on past Planning Committees can be found on the CSES website. A list of country collaborators who participate in CSES can also be found on the CSES website.

Funding and support

The work of the CSES Secretariat is funded by the American National Science Foundation, the GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences and the University of Michigan’s Center for Political Studies along with in-kind support from participating election studies, additional organizations that sponsor planning meetings and conferences, and the many organizations that fund election studies by CSES collaborators.

Klingemann Prize

Each year, the CSES awards the GESIS Klingemann Prize for the best CSES scholarship (paper, book, dissertation, or other scholarly work, broadly defined). The award is sponsored by the GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences and is named in honor of Professor Dr. Hans-Dieter Klingemann, co-founder of the CSES, an internationally renowned political scientist who made significant contributions to cross-national electoral research. Nominated works must make extensive use of CSES and have a publication date in the calendar year prior to the award, either in print or online.

Winners of the Klingemann Prize

2020: Eelco Harteveld (University of Amsterdam), Stefan Dahlberg (University of Gothenburg), Andrej Kokkonen (Aarhus University) and Wouter Van Der Brug (University of Amsterdam) (2019). “Gender Differences in Vote Choice: Social Cues and Social Harmony as Heuristics”. British Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 1141-1161. doi:10.1017/S0007123417000138

2019: Ruth Dassonneville (University of Montreal) and Ian McAllister (Australian National University) (2018). "Gender, Political Knowledge, and Descriptive Representation: The Impact of Long-Term Socialization". American Journal of Political Science, 62(2), 249-265. doi:10.1111/ajps.12353

2018: André Blais (University of Montreal), Eric Guntermann (University of Montreal) and Marc-André Bodet (University of Laval) (2017). "Linking Party Preferences and the Composition of Government: A New Standard for Evaluating the Performance of Electoral Democracy". Political Science Research and Methods, 5(2), 315–331. doi:10.1017/psrm.2015.78

2017: Dani Marinova (Autonomous University of Barcelona) (2016). "Coping with Complexity: How Voters Adapt to Unstable Parties". ECPR Press.

2016: Kasara Kimuli (Columbia University) and Pavithra Suryanarayan (Johns Hopkins University) (2015). "When Do the Rich Vote Less Than the Poor and Why? Explaining Turnout Inequality across the World". American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 613-627. doi:10.1111/ajps.12134

2015: Noam Lupu (University of Wisconsin-Madison) (2015). "Party Polarization and Mass Partisanship: A Comparative Perspective". Political Behavior, 37(2), 331-356. doi:10.1007/s11109-014-9279-z

2014: Richard R. Lau (Rutgers University), Parina Patel (Georgetown University), Dalia F. Fahmy (Long Island University) and Robert R. Kaufman (Rutgers University) (2014). "Correct Voting Across Thirty-Three Democracies: A Preliminary Analysis". British Journal of Political Science, 44(02), 239-259. doi:10.1017/S0007123412000610

2013: Mark Andreas Kayser (Hertie School of Governance) and Michael Peress (University of Rochester) (2012). "Benchmarking across Borders: Electoral Accountability and the Necessity of Comparison". American Political Science Review, 106(03), 661-684. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000275

2012: Russell J. Dalton (University of California, Irvine) David M. Farrell (University College Dublin) and Ian McAllister (Australian National University) (2011). "Political Parties and Democratic Linkage. How Parties Organize Democracy". Oxford University Press.

2011: Matt Golder (Florida State University) and Jacek Stramski (Florida State University) (2011). "Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions". American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 90-106. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00420.x

Further resources

More information about the CSES can be obtained from the CSES website. CSES also maintains an active social media presence on Twitter (@csestweets) and on Facebook. The project maintains a blog which provides a glimpse into the work of the CSES project and its associated scholars and user community. The CSES Blog presents research using CSES data, introduces election study collaborators from around the world, offers updates on data collection from the field and provides updates about the CSES and comparative political science research more generally.

CSES Bibliography

The CSES Bibliography cites scholarly publications and presentations known to utilize the CSES.

References
  1. Partial source of text segments about module 1 to module 4: Archived 2017-08-15 at the Wayback Machine, accessed June 12, 2017
  2. Partial source of text segment about module 5: Archived 2017-08-08 at the Wayback Machine, accessed June 12, 2017.
  3. Two election studies were run in Belgium in 1999 – one in Belgium-Flanders, and one in Belgium-Walloon.
  4. Two election studies were run in Germany in 2002 – one was a telephone study, and one was a mail-back study.
  5. The Portugal 2002 election study occurred during the transition between module 1 and module 2, and included both modules.
  6. The Portugal 2002 election study occurred during the transition between module 1 and module 2, and included both modules.
  7. Russia 1999 and 2000: These two years were a panel study, with 1999 being for the parliamentary election and 2000 being for the presidential election.
  8. Russia 1999 and 2000: These two years were a panel study, with 1999 being for the parliamentary election and 2000 being for the presidential election.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.