Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:35:35.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PARTY COMPETITION AND IDEOLOGY IN HONG KONG: A NEW MANIFESTO CODING DATASET

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

Mathew Y. H. Wong
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study provides a new dataset on the ideological positions of political parties in Hong Kong, which is a hybrid regime with electoral elements. Using this dataset, the study challenges the non-ideological view of party competition in Hong Kong by identifying an ideological dimension to the elections held between 1998 and 2016. It is shown that parties do position themselves along an identifiable left–right spectrum, with shifts that can be meaningfully interpreted, and that the aggregate ideology of the electorate appears to be linked to the level of economic growth. The ideological dimension provides a novel perspective on local politics that looks beyond the dominant pro-democracy versus pro-Beijing divide while also shedding light on the recent changes underlying the latter. This study provides valuable objective data for analyzing political competition dynamics and contributes to the comparative literature by incorporating Hong Kong into the framework of the manifesto coding project.

Keywords

political partiesmanifesto codingpolitical ideologyHong Konghybrid regime
Type
Article
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , July 2020 , pp. 207 - 230
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 2020

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, James, Merrill, Samuel, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Ryan, de Vries, Catherine, Edwards, Erica, Hooghe, Liesbet, Jolly, Seth, Marks, Gary, Polk, Jonathan, Rovny, Jan, Steenbergen, Marco, and Vachudova, Milada Anna. 2015. “Measuring Party Positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File, 1999–2010.” Party Politics 21 (1): 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, Erling, Finseraas, Henning, and Moene, Karl. 2015. “Political Reinforcement: How Rising Inequality Curbs Manifested Welfare Generosity.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 565–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2007. “Estimating Party Policy Positions: Comparing Expert Surveys and Hand-Coded Content Analysis.” Electoral Studies 26 (1): 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, Robin E. 2013. “Using the Manifesto Estimates to Correct Systematic ‘Centring’ Error in Expert and Electoral Positioning of Parties.” In Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts III: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analyst, edited by Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, Budge, Ian, McDonald, Michael D., and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, 33–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blaydes, Lisa. 2011. Elections and Distributive Politics in Mubarak's Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blekesaune, Morten. 2007. “Economic Conditions and Public Attitudes to Welfare Policies.” European Sociological Review 23 (3): 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownlee, Jason. 2007. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian, and Meyer, Thomas. 2013. “Understanding and Validating the Left-Right Scale (RILE).” In Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts III: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analyst, edited by Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, Budge, Ian, McDonald, Michael D., and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, 85–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, and Pennings, Paul. 2007. “Do They Work? Validating Computerised Word Frequency Estimates Against Policy Series.” Electoral Studies 26 (1): 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunce, Valerie, and Wolchik, Sharon. 2010. “Defeating Dictators: Electoral Change and Stability in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes.” World Politics 62 (1): 43–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, Kathrin. 2016. “Estimating Parties’ Left-Right Positions: Determinants of Voters’ Perceptions’ Proximity to Party Ideology.” Electoral Studies 41 (2): 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramani, Daniele. 2004. The Nationalization of Politics: The Formation of National Electorates and Party Systems in Western Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, Francis, and Mair, Peter. 1984. “Left-right Political Scales: Some ‘Expert’ Judgments.” European Journal of Political Research 12 (1): 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. 2015. “CSES Module 3 Third Full Release” (December 15, 2015), www.cses.org.Google Scholar
Dalton Russell, J., and Weldon, Steven. 2007. “Partisanship and Party System Institutionalization.” Party Politics 13 (2): 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Fong, Brian. 2017. “In-between Liberal Authoritarianism and Electoral Authoritarianism: Hong Kong's Democratization under Chinese Sovereignty, 1997–2016.” Democratization 24 (4): 724–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabel, Matthew, and Huber, John D.. 2000. “Putting Parties in Their Place.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandhi, Jennifer, and Przeworski, Adam. 2006. “Cooperation, Cooptation, and Rebellion under Dictatorships.” Economics & Politics 18 (1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 2006. “Why Parties and Elections in Authoritarian Regimes?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Greene, Kenneth. 2007. Why Dominant Parties Lose: Mexico's Democratization in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. 1976. “Party Identification, Ideological Preference and the Left-right Dimension among Western Mass Publics.” In Party Identification and Beyond: Representations of Voting and Party Competition, edited by Budge, Ian, Crewe, Ivor, and Farlie, Dennis, 243–273. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Mads. 2013. “The Effect of Macroeconomic and Social Conditions on the Demand for Redistribution: A Pseudo Panel Approach.” Journal of European Social Policy 23 (2): 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaeding, Malte. 2017. “The Rise of ‘Localism’ in Hong Kong.” Journal of Democracy 28 (1): 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Franzese, Robert J.. 2007. Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Heemin, and Fording, Richard. 2003. “Voter Ideology in Western Democracies: An Update.” European Journal of Political Research 42 (1): 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, Budge, Ian, and McDonald, Michael D.. 2006. Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kosterina, Svetlana. 2017. “Why Vote for a Co-Opted Party? Endogenous Government Power Increases and Control of Opposition Politicians in Authoritarian Regimes.” Comparative Political Studies 50 (9): 1155–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwong, Ying-ho. 2018. “Political Repression in a Sub-national Hybrid Regime: The PRC's Governing Strategies in Hong Kong.” Contemporary Politics 24 (4): 361–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacewell, Onawa, and Werner, Annika. 2013. “Coder Training: Key to Enhancing Reliability and Validity.” In Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts III: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analyst, edited by Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, Budge, Ian, McDonald, Michael D., and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, 169–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lau, Siu-kai, and Kuan, Hsin-chi, 2002. “Hong Kong's Stunted Political Party System.” China Quarterly 172 (4): 1010–1028.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Rokkan, Stein. 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, Will, Benoit, Kenneth, Mikhaylov, Slava, and Laver, Michael. 2011. “Scaling Policy Preferences from Coded Political Texts.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 36 (1): 123–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, Ngok. 2001. “The Decline of the Democratic Party in Hong Kong.” Asian Survey 41 (4): 564–583.Google Scholar
Ma, Ngok. 2007. Political Development in Hong Kong: State, Political Society, and Civil Society. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Magaloni, Beatriz. 2006. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Michael. 2015. “Elections, Information, and Policy Responsiveness in Autocratic Regimes.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (6): 691–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molder, Martin. 2016. “The Validity of the RILE Left–Right Index as a Measure of Party Policy.” Party Politics 22 (1): 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netjes, Catherine, and Binnema, Harmen. 2007. “The Salience of the European Integration Issue: Three Data Sources Compared.” Electoral Studies 26 (1): 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, Slapin, Jonathan, and Thies, Michael. 2011. “Party System Dynamics in Post-War Japan: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Electoral Pledges.” Electoral Studies 30 (1): 114–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1942. Party Government. New York: Rinehart.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas. 2002. “The Menu of Manipulation.” Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoll, Heather. 2008. “Social Cleavages and the Number of Parties.” Comparative Political Studies 41 (11): 1439–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavits, Margit, and Letki, Natalia. 2009. “When Left Is Right: Party Ideology and Policy in Post-Communist Europe.” American Political Science Review 103 (4): 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
University of Hong Kong Public Opinion Programme (currently the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute). 2017. Popularity of Political Groups 1997–2016. www.pori.hk. Accessed 7 March2017.Google Scholar
Volkens, Andrea. 2007. “Strengths and Weaknesses of Approaches to Measuring Policy Positions of Parties.” Electoral Studies 26 (1): 108–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, Budge, Ian, McDonald, Michael D., and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. 2013. Mapping Policy Preferences From Texts III: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Laron, and Whitten, Guy. 2015. “Don't Stand So Close to Me: Spatial Contagion Effects and Party Competition.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (2): 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Mathew Y. H. 2015. “Party Models in a Hybrid Regime: Hong Kong 2007–2012.” China Review 15 (1): 67–94.Google Scholar
Wong, Mathew Y. H. 2017. Comparative Hong Kong Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Mathew Y. H. 2020. “Welfare or Politics? A Survey Experiment of Political Discontent and Support for Redistribution in Hong Kong.” Politics 40 (1): 70–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Stan Hok-Wui. 2014. “Resource Disparity and Multi-level Elections in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from Hong Kong.” Electoral Studies 33 (1): 200–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Wong supplementary material

Appendix

Download Wong supplementary material(File)
File 952.8 KB