Party Positions on Ethnonationalism (EPAC)

Edina Szöcsik and Christina Zuber have conducted an expert survey on party positions on ethnonationalism (full data are available).

I wondered whether the positions captured in the EPAC were so different from what other expert surveys cover. This figure is a simple scatterplot matrix comparing dimensions in EPAC with two dimensions in CHES (Chapel Hill). EPAC I only include the dimensions that correlate highly, but what is striking is that such high correlations can be observed.

The dimensions are: ethnonationalism (“ethno” from EPAC), cultural autonomy (“cul” from EPAC), territorial autonomy (“ter” from EPAC), rights for ethnic minorities (from CHES), and political decentralization to regions/localities (from CHES).

I did a quick factor analysis, and it seems that these five dimensions are sufficiently summarized in a single factor (p=0.0129; compared to p=0.159 for two factors).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s