=========================================================================== COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS (CSES) INTEGRATED MODULE DATASET (IMD) CODEBOOK PART 2: CSES IMD - VARIABLES DESCRIPTION PHASE 4 RELEASE - FEBRUARY 27, 2024 CSES Secretariat www.cses.org =========================================================================== HOW TO CITE THE STUDY: The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (www.cses.org). CSES INTEGRATED MODULE DATASET PHASE 4 RELEASE [dataset and documentation]. February 27, 2024 version. doi:10.7804/cses.imd.2024-02-27. These materials are based on work supported by the American National Science Foundation (www.nsf.gov) under grant numbers SES-0817701, SES-1154687, SES-1420973, and SES-1760058, the GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, the University of Michigan, in-kind support of participating election studies, the many organizations that sponsor planning meetings and conferences, and the numerous organizations that fund national election studies by CSES collaborators. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding organizations. =========================================================================== =========================================================================== TABLE OF CONTENTS =========================================================================== ))) IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING PHASE 4 RELEASE OF THE CSES INTEGRATED DATASET (IMD) ))) OVERVIEW OF "CODEBOOK PART 2: VARIABLES DESCRIPTION" ))) HOW TO NAVIGATE THE CSES IMD CODEBOOK ))) CSES IMD CODEBOOK: CRITICAL CRITERIA REGARDING CSES IMD AND DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLE NOTES, POLITY NOTES; & ELECTION STUDY NOTES >>> PLACEMENT OF QUESTIONS IN CSES IMD AND STANDALONE CSES MODULES >>> RECODING OF VARIABLES FOR CSES IMD >>> DEVIATIONS FROM STANDALONE CSES MODULES >>> VARIABLE NOTES >>> POLITY NOTES AND ELECTION STUDY NOTES >>> DERIVATIVE VARIABLES ))) CSES CODING OF PARTY/COALITIONS AND LEADERS IN CSES IMD - A NEW DEPARTURE >>> CSES IMD NUMERICAL PARTY/COALITION CODING - HARMONIZATION >>> CSES IMD NUMERICAL PARTY/COALITION CODING - IMPORTANT NOTES >>> CSES IMD ALPHABETICAL PARTY/COALITION CODING - RELATIONAL DATA >>> CSES ALPHABETICAL LEADER CODING - RELATIONAL DATA ))) CSES DATA BRIDGING: NEW FRONTIERS ))) LIST OF TABLES IN CODEBOOK PART 2 ))) CSES IMD VARIABLE LIST ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: IDENTIFICATION, DATA BRIDGING AT POLITY/REGION/TIME, WEIGHT, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION DATA ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: MICRO-LEVEL (SURVEY) DATA ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: MACRO-LEVEL DATA ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: DATA BRIDGING - PARTY/COALITION IDENTIFIERS =========================================================================== ))) IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING PHASE 4 RELEASE OF THE CSES INTEGRATED MODULE DATASET (IMD) =========================================================================== This dataset and all accompanying documentation comprises the Phase 4 Release of the CSES Integrated Module Dataset (IMD). The CSES Integrated Module Dataset is being released in a phased way. Thus, this release is an advance version of the dataset, and thus lacks some of the checking, documentation, and inclusion of certain variables that are expected with the Full Release of this dataset. This Advance Release is provided as a service to the CSES user community, for those analysts who find it valuable to work with preliminary versions of the dataset. We would appreciate being notified of any errors in the dataset or documentation by email to "cses@umich.edu". Users should expect future changes and improvements to the data and documentation of variables. If users wish to re-use their programming code on a future release of the file, the code should be written in a way that is flexible and can be accommodating of these future changes. Users of the CSES Integrated Module Dataset (IMD) may wish to monitor the errata for CSES IMD on the CSES website, to check for known errors which may impact their analyses. To view errata for CSES IMD Phase 4, go to Data Download on the CSES website, navigate to the CSES IMD download page, and click on the Errata link in the white box to the right of the page. Users of the CSES Integrated Module Dataset (IMD) are also advised that while the CSES IMD Codebook is comprehensive, users are strongly advised to consult Standalone CSES Module Documentation including Standalone CSES Module Codebooks, Macro Reports, Design Reports, and Election Summaries. =========================================================================== ))) OVERVIEW OF "CODEBOOK PART 2: VARIABLES DESCRIPTION" =========================================================================== Part 2 of the CSES IMD Codebook provides users with information about the variables in CSES IMD as well as accompanying information about each polity's election study. =========================================================================== ))) HOW TO NAVIGATE THE CSES IMD CODEBOOK =========================================================================== CSES IMD Codebook is produced in .txt format to allow for easy accessibility and as such, the Codebook can be read into a variety of programs. The CSES IMD Codebook can be navigated quickly in the electronic files, with the following commands allowing for quick searching: ))) = Section Header >>> = Sub-section Header 1 <<>> = Sub-section Header 2 +++ = Tables VARIABLES NOTES = Notes for particular variables. POLITY NOTES = Notes for a particular polity. [POLITY NOTES] = Notes for a particular polity where data in CSES IMD deviates from published data in Standalone CSES Modules. ELECTION STUDY NOTES = Notes for a particular election study. [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] = Notes for a particular election study where data in CSES IMD deviates from published data in Standalone CSES Modules. DERIVATIVE VARIABLE = Highlights a variable derived from another variable or variables within the CSES. POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER = Highlights a variable that may be used for data bridging at polity level. POTENTIAL REGIONAL LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER = Highlights a variable that may be used for data bridging at regional level. POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER = Highlights a variable that may be used for data bridging by time. POTENTIAL PARTY/COALITION LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER = Highlights a variable that may be used for data bridging at party/coalition level. =========================================================================== ))) CSES IMD CODEBOOK: CRITICAL CRITERIA REGARDING CSES IMD AND DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLE NOTES, POLITY NOTES; & ELECTION STUDY NOTES =========================================================================== Here we provide a brief overview of some of the critical criteria regarding the creation of CSES IMD and some crucial things users may wish to take account of in analyzing data from CSES IMD. Variables are presented in five groupings: 1) IMD1001-IMD1999 Identification, weight, and election study variables 2) IMD2001-IMD2999 Demographic data and variables 3) IMD3001-IMD3999 Micro-level (survey) data and variables 4) IMD5001-IMD5099 Macro-level data and variables 5) IMD5100-IMD5199 Data Bridging identifier variables In the Variable Descriptions section of the CSES IMD Codebook (Part 2), the headers for individual variables are surrounded by two lines of dashes. Users are advised to consult Part 1 of the CSES IMD Codebook for more in-depth information concerning the operating principles of CSES IMD, its coding conventions, details on identification and missing data, and overviews of the dataset including detailed summary information on the election studies included in CSES IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> PLACEMENT OF QUESTIONS IN CSES IMD AND STANDALONE CSES MODULES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- When using variables in the CSES IMD, users are advised that even when a question is worded identically in successive surveys, its placement in the survey questionnaire may be different in each Standalone CSES Module, with unknown effects. Thus, even when a question is worded identically in successive surveys, analysts may wish to examine the placement of the question in each questionnaire to ensure that changes in its placement do not contaminate analyses. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> RECODING OF VARIABLES FOR CSES IMD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Variables for CSES IMD have been recoded to be consistent over time. Questions (and variables) are not necessarily coded the same way in CSES IMD as they are in the Standalone CSES Modules. Users are advised to consult the CSES IMD Codebook Part 2, where possible, details have been provided in VARIABLE NOTES and ELECTION STUDY NOTES regarding harmonization schemes and specific election study deviations. Users are also advised to consult Standalone CSES Module Codebooks for specific information on Module-specific studies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> DEVIATIONS FROM STANDALONE CSES MODULES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CSES goal is to keep deviations between Standalone CSES Modules and CSES IMD to a minimum. Nonetheless, despite question wordings being virtually identical across CSES modules, CSES IMD harmonizes variables to be consistent over time, thus necessitating some deviations to occur. These deviations may occur because of coding errors found in the Standalone CSES dataset or Standalone Codebooks. In these circumstances, these errors may result in changes being implemented in CSES IMD and the issues listed in errata on the Standalone CSES Module pages. These issues will be corrected in the Standalone CSES Modules upon re-release of these respective Standalone CSES Modules at some future date. Deviations may also legitimately arise because of different coding schemes applied in Standalone CSES Modules compared with CSES IMD, lack of data at the time of processing of Standalone CSES Modules which has since become available, or that data for certain variables were not collected in particular Standalone CSES Modules but have become eligible for inclusion in CSES IMD as it meets the "3 and 1" eligibility criteria. In line with the policy of minimizing differences between CSES IMD and Standalone CSES Modules, CSES only applies deviations between CSES IMD and Standalone CSES Modules when the above circumstances are met. In circumstances where CSES is unable to explain why coding differs between studies from the same polity over time, no changes are made to the data. Concerning deviations, Election Study Notes and Polity Notes are included under the applicable variables noting the deviations. Irregular codes discovered in Standalone CSES Modules and which could not be identified were set to missing. These are also noted in Variable Notes and Election Study Notes. Users can identify these by using the following unique search terms in Part 2 of the CSES IMD Codebook: - VARIABLE NOTES - [POLITY NOTES] - [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> VARIABLE NOTES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Variable notes provide information on the rationale of a variable as well as source information for that variable. It also details the polities for which no data for that particular variable are available. VARIABLE NOTES are listed below the descriptive information for the said variable and can be navigated in the Codebook by searching for "VARIABLE NOTES" in Part 2 of the CSES IMD Codebook. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> POLITY NOTES AND ELECTION STUDY NOTES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A unique dimension of the CSES are the inclusion of POLITY NOTES and ELECTION STUDY NOTES. They are notes which are attached to each variable included in the dataset and refer to case-specific information regarding a particular variable. This information may apply to a polity consistently in the dataset (i.e.: a POLITY NOTE) or one election study in the dataset (i.e.: an ELECTION STUDY NOTE). Their purpose is to provide users with more detailed information on the case or explain essential deviations specific to cases from CSES conventions. Where applicable, POLITY NOTES and ELECTION STUDY NOTES are listed below a particular variable and any VARIABLE NOTES in Parts 2, 3, and 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook. They can be navigated in the Codebook by searching for "POLITY NOTES" or ELECTION STUDY NOTES" in Parts 2-5 of the CSES IMD Codebook. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> DERIVATIVE VARIABLES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CSES IMD includes several derivative variables. A derivative variable is a variable that is derived from another variable or variables within the CSES. Their purpose is to facilitate speedier analysis for users with derivative variables capturing some of the most common analytical concepts in the discipline. A list of the DERIVATIVE VARIABLES are below this explanation and can be navigated in the Codebook by searching for "DERIVATIVE VARIABLES" in Part 2 of the CSES IMD Codebook. - IMD2001_GG BIRTH GENERATION: GREATEST GENERATION (BORN 1927 OR BEFORE) - IMD2001_GS BIRTH GENERATION: SILENT GENERATION (BORN 1928-1945) - IMD2001_GBB BIRTH GENERATION: BABY BOOMER (BORN 1946-1964) - IMD2001_GX BIRTH GENERATION: GENERATION X (BORN 1965-1980) - IMD2001_GY BIRTH GENERATION: GENERATION Y (BORN 1981-1996) - IMD2001_GZ BIRTH GENERATION: GENERATION Z (BORN 1997 ONWARDS) - IMD3001_TS TURNOUT: TURNOUT SWITCHER BETWEEN CURRENT ELECTION AND PREVIOUS ELECTION - IMD3002_OUTGOV VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE FOR OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT) - IMD3002_VS_1 VOTE CHOICE: VOTE SWITCHER BETWEEN CURRENT ELECTION AND PREVIOUS ELECTION - IMD3002_LR_CSES VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE FOR LEFTIST/CENTER/RIGHTIST - CSES - IMD3002_LR_MARPOR VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE FOR LEFT/RIGHT (RILE) - MARPOR/CMP - IMD3002_IF_CSES VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE BY IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY CLASSIFICATION - CSES - IMD3100_LR_CSES VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE LINKED WITH CSES COLLABORATOR EXPERT JUDGMENT L-R - IMD3100_LR_MARPOR VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE LINKED WITH MARPOR/CMP RILE - IMD3100_IF_CSES VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE LINKED WITH CSES COLLABORATOR EXPERT JUDGMENT IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - IMD5008_C DID PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER CHANGE - IMD5009_C DID PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT CHANGE - IMD5025_W DATE ELECTION HELD - TIMING - IMD5025_S DATE ELECTION HELD - SEASON =========================================================================== ))) CSES CODING OF PARTY/COALITIONS AND LEADERS IN CSES IMD - A NEW DEPARTURE =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> CSES IMD NUMERICAL PARTY/COALITION CODING - HARMONIZATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CSES IMD marks a radical new departure in the CSES approach to the coding of parties and coalitions. All parties/coalitions or Presidential candidates, where applicable, participating in the election or the previous election receive a NUMERICAL code. These codes are used to identify the following in the micro-component of the CSES dataset: - Who the respondent voted for in the current election (IMD3002). - Who the respondent voted for in the previous election (IMD3004). - The respondent's party identification (IMD3005_3). - Party/coalition that best represents the respondents' views (IMD3016_2). These codes are used to identify the following in the macro-component of the CSES dataset: - Numeric Party Code Identifier for relational data (IMD5000_). - Party/coalition of the Prime Minister before the election (IMD5008_). - Party/coalition of the President before and after the election (IMD5009_). In CSES IMD, each party/coalition receives a unique numerical identifier that is consistent across modules. This seven-digit numerical identifier contains information on the polity and a unique numerical value to distinguish the party/coalition. Hence, numerical party/coalition codes are harmonized across Modules within CSES IMD. The first three digits of the identifier consist of the three-digit UN Polity Identifier Code. The remaining four digits consist of numerical codes ranging from 0001 to 9999, with each party/coalition assigned a value that remains consistent across Modules. In assigning of the last four digits, macro data specialists have assigned codes with consistent leading vote-getters in a polity being assigned lower values. Beyond this, the allocation of the final four digits is random. The harmonized and consistent codes for parties/coalitions are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. Users can search for the following term: "CSES IMD HARMONIZED PARTY/COALITION NUMERICAL CODES" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> CSES IMD NUMERICAL PARTY/COALITION CODING - IMPORTANT NOTES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In cases of a merger between two parties, the newly created party/coalition receives a different numerical code from its previous incarnations. When parties compete in electoral alliances/coalitions, the alliance/coalition receives a different numerical code from the constituent parties that make it up. Parties/coalitions that merely undergo a name change do not receive a new unique code. Instead, a POLITY/ELECTION STUDY NOTE will note the name change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> CSES IMD ALPHABETICAL PARTY/COALITION CODING - RELATIONAL DATA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CSES IMD includes relational data for parties/coalitions. In CSES IMD, as in Standalone CSES Modules, this data is coded using an ALPHABETICAL classification with parties/coalitions where data is available receiving an alphabetical code (A-I). Parties/coalitions A through F are the six most popular parties/coalitions, ordered in descending order of their share of the popular vote in the said polity's election (unless otherwise stated). Thus Party A is the party/coalition that received the most votes in the election, party B the second most votes, etc... Parties/coalitions who achieve at least 1% of the vote nationally are eligible for an alphabetical A-F assignment. In polities with multiple electoral tiers and where one vote is cast, parties are ordered according to their vote share in tier 1 (the lowest tier), unless otherwise stated. In polities where voters have two votes (i.e., a constituency and a list vote) simultaneously, for example Germany, parties are ordered by the national share of the party list vote (tier 2). Parties G, H, and I are supplemental parties. They may, but do not have to, accord with how parties A-F are ordered, that is ordered on the popular share of the vote in a polity. More often, they are codified in no particular order. These parties are voluntarily provided by each polity's election study and often reflect important or notable parties within a polity. They may also include data about individual parties within a coalition, where data about the coalition and the individual parties, or some of these parties that make it up are provided. These codes are used to identify the following in the micro-component of the CSES dataset: - Respondent's left-right placement of the party/coalition (variable IMD3007_). - Respondent's likability of the party/coalition (variable IMD3008_). These alphabetical codes are used to identify the macro level information about these said parties/coalitions, namely: - Election Results: percentage of vote for each party/coalition in lower house (variable IMD5001_) - Election Results: percentage of seats for each party/coalition in lower house (variable IMD5002_) - Election Results: percentage of vote for each party/coalition in upper house (variable IMD5003_) - Election Results: percentage of seats for each party/coalition in upper house (variable IMD5004_) - Election Results: percentage of vote for each party/coalition in Presidential election (variable IMD5005_) - Expert judgments by the national collaborators of the said party/ coalition's ideological family placement (variable IMD5011_). - Expert judgments by the national collaborators of the said party/ coalition's left-right placement (variable IMD5012_). - Number of cabinet portfolios held by each party/coalition before the election (variable IMD5029_). - Number of cabinet portfolios held by each party/coalition after the election (variable IMD5031_). - Manifesto research on political representation identifier for each party/coalition (variable IMD5100_). - Parliaments and Governments (ParlGov) identifier for each party/coalition (variable IMD5101_). - The said party/coalition's Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) Identifier (variable IMD5102_). - The said party/coalition's Party Facts Identifier (variable IMD5103_). To allow users to see what party/coalition A-I refers to in a particular election within a polity, variable IMD5000_ provides identifiers within the dataset with detailed labels. In addition, Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook details the alphabetical classifications for each polity by Standalone CSES Module. Users can search in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook with the following term: "ALPHABETICAL PARTY CODES BY CSES MODULE" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> CSES ALPHABETICAL LEADER CODING - RELATIONAL DATA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CSES IMD includes relational data for leaders of parties/coalitions. In CSES IMD, as in Standalone CSES Modules, this data is coded using an ALPHABETICAL classification with leaders where data is available receiving an alphabetical code (A-I). Leaders A through F tend to be the leaders of the six most popular parties/coalitions or the Presidential candidates of these parties. They correspond to parties A-F (i.e., Leader A will be related to Party A in some way, Leader B will be related to Party B, etc...) Leaders G, H, and I are supplemental leaders. They may be related to parties G, H, I, but they do not have to be. These leaders are voluntarily provided by each country's election study and often include data about additional personalities of interest. For example, in a parliamentary system, data about a President might be provided, even if the Presidency is not being contested. On many occasions, slots Leader G, H, and I will include additional data for parties/coalitions that have multiple leaders. These codes are used to identify the following in the micro and macro components of the CSES dataset: - Respondent's likability of the leader/personality in question (variable IMD3009). To allow users to see what Leader A-I refers to in a particular election within a polity, Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook details the alphabetical classifications of leaders for each polity by Standalone CSES Module. Users can search in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook with the following term: "ALPHABETICAL LEADER CODES BY CSES MODULE" =========================================================================== ))) CSES DATA BRIDGING: NEW FRONTIERS =========================================================================== Data Bridging enables users to bring together information from CSES with other data sources. The concept is part of CSES Data Linkage efforts. CSES has been a pioneer of Data Linkage with the inclusion of various macro-level data originating from other sources (e.g., The World Bank, the IDEA) directly in CSES data products, including in CSES IMD. These macro data classify the political system's characteristics and contextual conditions of a polity at the election time. Data Bridging gives users the power to build on the direct data linkage in CSES products by enabling users to easily link other data with CSES products. CSES IMD enables users to bridge data with other prominent datasets in political science by including standard identifiers at the polity, year, and party level used by other projects to facilitate merging. CSES IMD facilitates data bridging with other datasets at the polity level with the following variables: - IMD1006_UN ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 NUMERIC CODE - IMD1006_UNALPHA2 ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 ALPHABETIC TWO LETTER CODE - IMD1006_UNALPHA3 ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 ALPHABETIC THREE LETTER CODE - IMD1006_NAM ID COMPONENT - POLITY NAME - IMD1006_VDEM ID COMPONENT - V-Dem POLITY IDENTIFIER More details can be found on all these variables in CSES IMD Codebook Part 2 by searching for the variable name (e.g., "IMD1006_UN") or using the search term "POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER". CSES IMD facilitates data bridging with other datasets at the regional level through the following variables: - IMD1006_REG ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS NUMERIC CODES More details can be found on all these variables in CSES IMD Codebook Part 2 by searching for the variable name (e.g., "IMD1006_REG") or using the search term "POTENTIAL REGIONAL LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER". CSES IMD facilitates data bridging with other datasets by date through the following variables: - IMD1008_YEAR ID COMPONENT - ELECTION YEAR - IMD1011_M DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH - IMD1011_D DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY - IMD1011_Y DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR - IMD1011_1 DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYY-MM-DD - IMD1011_2 DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYYMM - IMD1012_M DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH - IMD1012_D DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY - IMD1012_Y DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR - IMD1012_1 DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYY-MM-DD - IMD1012_2 DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYYMM More details can be found on all these variables in CSES IMD Codebook Part 2 by searching for the variable name (e.g., "IMD1008_YEAR") or using the search term "POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER". CSES IMD facilitates data bridging with other datasets at the party/coalition level with the following variables: - IMD5100_A-I MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A-I - IMD5101_A-I PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A-I - IMD5102_A-I CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A-I - IMD5103_A-I PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY A-I More details can be found on all these variables in CSES IMD Codebook Part 2 by searching for the variable name (e.g., "IMD5100_A") or using the search term "POTENTIAL PARTY/COALITION LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER." Users can also see the specific bridging codes for each party/coalition assigned an alphabetical code in CSES by other projects in Part 5 of the CSES IMD Codebook. =========================================================================== ))) LIST OF TABLES IN CODEBOOK PART 2 =========================================================================== Below, we list the Tables located in CSES IMD Codebook Part 2. Tables can be accessed in the electronic version of the CSES Codebook by searching for "+++". - ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF ELECTION - TYPE OF ORIGINAL WEIGHTS BY INDIVIDUAL ELECTION STUDIES - POLITIES FIELDING A CSES MODULE TWICE BY STANDALONE MODULE - MAPPING OF EDUCATION CODES IN CSES MODULES 1-3 TO EDUCATION CODES IN CSES IMD - MAPPING OF EDUCATION CODES IN CSES MODULES 4-5 TO EDUCATION CODES IN CSES IMD - MAPPING OF RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION CODES IN CSES MODULES 1-4 TO RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION CODES IN CSES IMD - MAPPING OF CODES FOR RACE IN CSES MODULES 1-2 TO CODES FOR RACE IN CSES IMD - FREQUENCIES ON IMD2012_2 FOR HOUSEHOLDS WHERE THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IS EQUAL OR BIGGER THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (IMD2012_1) - MAPPING OF EMPLOYMENT TYPE CODES IN CSES MODULE 1 TO EMPLOYMENT TYPE CODES IN CSES IMD - MAPPING OF RESIDUAL EMPLOYMENT TYPE CODES IN CSES STANDALONE MODULES TO EMPLOYMENT TYPE CODES IN CSES IMD - FREQUENCIES ON IMD2020 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD - FREQUENCIES ON IMD2021_ISCO_88 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD - FREQUENCIES ON IMD2021_ISCO_08 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD - FREQUENCIES ON IMD2022 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD - MAPPING OF RESIDUAL EMPLOYMENT TYPE CODES IN CSES STANDALONE MODULES TO EMPLOYMENT TYPE CODES IN CSES IMD - FREQUENCIES ON IMD2023 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD - FREQUENCIES ON IMD2024 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD - ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF MAIN ELECTION - ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF MAIN ELECTION - SUMMARY OF TYPE OF PREVIOUS ELECTION AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD - SUMMARY OF TYPE OF PREVIOUS ELECTION AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD - SUMMARY OF TYPE OF PREVIOUS ELECTION AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD - MAPPING OF CLOSE TO PARTY CODES IN CSES MODULE 1 TO CLOSE TO PARTY CODES IN CSES IMD - MAPPING OF CLOSER TO PARTY CODES IN CSES MODULE 1 TO CLOSER TO PARTY CODES IN CSES IMD - MAPPING OF CLOSENESS TO PARTY CODES IN CSES MODULE 1 TO CLOSENESS TO PARTY CODES IN CSES IMD - MAPPING OF ECONOMY VALENCE SCALE IN CSES MODULE 5 TO IMD3013_1 IN CSES IMD - MAPPING OF ECONOMY VALENCE SCALE IN CSES MODULE 5 TO IMD3013_2 IN CSES IMD - MAPPING OF ECONOMY VALENCE SCALE IN CSES MODULE 5 TO IMD3013_3 IN CSES IMD - PARTIES FOR WHICH IMD5011_ (IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY CODES) DIFFER ACROSS ELECTION STUDIES - MAPPING OF VOTING PROCEDURE CODES IN CSES MODULES 1 AND 2 TO VOTING PROCEDURE CODES IN CSES IMD - MAPPING OF MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENT CODES IN CSES MODULE 1 TO CODES IN CSES IMD =========================================================================== ))) CSES IMD VARIABLE LIST =========================================================================== ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: IDENTIFICATION, DATA BRIDGING AT POLITY/REGION/TIME LEVEL, WEIGHT, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION DATA IMD1001 >>> DATASET IMD1002_VER >>> DATASET VERSION IMD1002_DOI >>> DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER IMD1003 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY) IMD1004 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (POLITY ALPHABETIC AND YEAR OF ELECTION) IMD1005 >>> ID VARIABLE - RESPONDENT IMD1006 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY CSES CODE IMD1006_UN >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 NUMERIC CODE IMD1006_UNALPHA2 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 ALPHABETIC TWO LETTER CODE IMD1006_UNALPHA3 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 ALPHABETIC THREE LETTER CODE IMD1006_NAM >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY NAME IMD1006_REG >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS NUMERIC CODES IMD1006_OECD >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY MEMBER OF OECD IMD1006_EU >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY MEMBER OF EUROPEAN UNION IMD1006_VDEM >>> ID COMPONENT - V-Dem POLITY IDENTIFIER IMD1007 >>> ID COMPONENT - SAMPLE COMPONENT IMD1008_YEAR >>> ID COMPONENT - ELECTION YEAR IMD1008_DEC >>> ID COMPONENT - ELECTION DECADE IMD1008_MOD_1 >>> ID COMPONENT - CSES MODULE 1 IMD1008_MOD_2 >>> ID COMPONENT - CSES MODULE 2 IMD1008_MOD_3 >>> ID COMPONENT - CSES MODULE 3 IMD1008_MOD_4 >>> ID COMPONENT - CSES MODULE 4 IMD1008_MOD_5 >>> ID COMPONENT - CSES MODULE 5 IMD1008_RES >>> ID COMPONENT - RESPONDENT WITHIN ELECTION STUDY IMD1009 >>> ELECTION TYPE IMD1010_1 >>> ELECTION STUDY WEIGHT: SAMPLE IMD1010_2 >>> ELECTION STUDY WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC IMD1010_3 >>> ELECTION STUDY WEIGHT: POLITICAL IMD1011_M >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH IMD1011_D >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY IMD1011_Y >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR IMD1011_1 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYY-MM-DD IMD1011_2 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYYMM IMD1012_M >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH IMD1012_D >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY IMD1012_Y >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR IMD1012_1 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYY-MM-DD IMD1012_2 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYYMM IMD1013_M >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - MONTH IMD1013_D >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - DAY IMD1013_Y >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - YEAR IMD1014_1 >>> INTERVIEW TIMING - NUMBER OF DAYS BETWEEN INTERVIEW AND FIRST ROUND OF ELECTION IMD1014_2 >>> INTERVIEW TIMING - NUMBER OF DAYS BETWEEN INTERVIEW AND SECOND ROUND OF ELECTION IMD1015 >>> STUDY CONTEXT IMD1016_1 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - STUDY FIRST IMD1016_2 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - STUDY SECOND IMD1016_3 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - STUDY THIRD IMD1017 >>> INTERVIEWER GENDER IMD1018 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY APPEARANCE IN CSES IMD1018_MOD_1 >>> ID COMPONENT - WHETHER POLITY ADMINISTERED CSES MODULE 1 MULTIPLE TIMES IMD1018_MOD_2 >>> ID COMPONENT - WHETHER POLITY ADMINISTERED CSES MODULE 2 MULTIPLE TIMES IMD1018_MOD_3 >>> ID COMPONENT - WHETHER POLITY ADMINISTERED CSES MODULE 3 MULTIPLE TIMES IMD1018_MOD_4 >>> ID COMPONENT - WHETHER POLITY ADMINISTERED CSES MODULE 4 MULTIPLE TIMES IMD1018_MOD_5 >>> ID COMPONENT - WHETHER POLITY ADMINISTERED CSES MODULE 5 MULTIPLE TIMES IMD1019 >>> STUDY TIMING WITH RESPECT TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA IMD2001_1 >>> AGE OF RESPONDENT (IN YEARS) IMD2001_2 >>> AGE OF RESPONDENT (IN CATEGORIES) IMD2001_GG >>> BIRTH GENERATION: GREATEST GENERATION (BORN 1927 OR BEFORE) IMD2001_GS >>> BIRTH GENERATION: SILENT GENERATION (BORN FROM 1928 TO 1945) IMD2001_GBB >>> BIRTH GENERATION: BABY BOOMERS (BORN FROM 1946 TO 1964) IMD2001_GX >>> BIRTH GENERATION: GENERATION X (BORN FROM 1965 TO 1980) IMD2001_GY >>> BIRTH GENERATION: GENERATION Y (BORN FROM 1981 TO 1996) IMD2001_GZ >>> BIRTH GENERATION: GENERATION Z (BORN FROM 1997 ONWARDS) IMD2002 >>> GENDER IMD2003 >>> EDUCATION IMD2004 >>> MARITAL STATUS IMD2005 >>> RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION IMD2005_1 >>> RELIGIOUS SERVICES ATTENDANCE IMD2005_2 >>> RELIGIOSITY IMD2006 >>> HOUSEHOLD INCOME IMD2007 >>> RURAL OR URBAN RESIDENCE IMD2008 >>> REGION OF RESIDENCE IMD2010 >>> RACE IMD2011 >>> ETHNICITY IMD2012_1 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD IN TOTAL IMD2012_2 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD UNDER AGE 18 IMD2013 >>> LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME IMD2014 >>> CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS IMD2015_ISCO_88 >>> MAIN OCCUPATION (CSES MODULES 1-3) IMD2015_ISCO_08 >>> MAIN OCCUPATION (CSES MODULE 4) IMD2016 >>> SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS IMD2017 >>> EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE IMD2018 >>> INDUSTRIAL SECTOR IMD2019_1 >>> UNION MEMBERSHIP OF RESPONDENT IMD2019_2 >>> UNION MEMBERSHIP OF OTHERS IN HOUSEHOLD IMD2020 >>> SPOUSE: CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS IMD2021_ISCO_88 >>> SPOUSE: MAIN OCCUPATION (CSES MODULES 1-3) IMD2021_ISCO_08 >>> SPOUSE: MAIN OCCUPATION (CSES MODULE 4) IMD2022 >>> SPOUSE: SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS IMD2023 >>> SPOUSE: EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE IMD2024 >>> SPOUSE: INDUSTRIAL SECTOR IMD2025 >>> BUSINESS OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP IMD2026 >>> FARMERS' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP IMD2027 >>> PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: MICRO-LEVEL (SURVEY) DATA IMD3001 >>> TURNOUT: MAIN ELECTION IMD3001_PR_1 >>> TURNOUT: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 1 IMD3001_PR_2 >>> TURNOUT: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 2 IMD3001_LH >>> TURNOUT: CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION IMD3001_UH >>> TURNOUT: CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION IMD3001_TS >>> TURNOUT: TURNOUT SWITCHER BETWEEN CURRENT ELECTION AND PREVIOUS ELECTION IMD3002_PR_1 >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 1 IMD3002_PR_2 >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 2 IMD3002_LH_PL >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION - PARTY LIST IMD3002_LH_DC >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE IMD3002_UH_PL >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - PARTY LIST IMD3002_UH_DC_1 >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 1 IMD3002_UH_DC_2 >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 2 IMD3002_UH_DC_3 >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 3 IMD3002_UH_DC_4 >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 4 IMD3002_OUTGOV >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE FOR OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT) IMD3002_VS_1 >>> VOTE CHOICE: VOTE SWITCHER BETWEEN CURRENT ELECTION AND PREVIOUS ELECTION IMD3002_LR_CSES >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE FOR LEFTIST/CENTER/RIGHTIST - CSES IMD3002_LR_MARPOR >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE FOR LEFT/RIGHT (RILE) - MARPOR/CMP IMD3002_IF_CSES >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE BY IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY CLASSIFICATION - CSES IMD3003_PR_1 >>> TURNOUT: PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 1 IMD3003_PR_2 >>> TURNOUT: PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 2 IMD3003_LH >>> TURNOUT: PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION IMD3003_UH >>> TURNOUT: PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION IMD3004_PR_1 >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 1 IMD3004_PR_2 >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 2 IMD3004_LH_PL >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION - PARTY LIST IMD3004_LH_DC >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE IMD3004_UH_PL >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - PARTY LIST IMD3004_UH_DC_1 >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 1 IMD3004_UH_DC_2 >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 2 IMD3004_UH_DC_3 >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 3 IMD3005_1 >>> PARTY IDENTIFICATION: ARE YOU CLOSE TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY IMD3005_2 >>> PARTY IDENTIFICATION: DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ONE PARTY IMD3005_3 >>> PARTY IDENTIFICATION: WHO IMD3005_4 >>> PARTY IDENTIFICATION: HOW CLOSE IMD3006 >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - SELF IMD3007_A >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A IMD3007_B >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B IMD3007_C >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C IMD3007_D >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D IMD3007_E >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E IMD3007_F >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F IMD3007_G >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY G (OPTIONAL) IMD3007_H >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY H (OPTIONAL) IMD3007_I >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY I (OPTIONAL) IMD3008_A >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY A IMD3008_B >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY B IMD3008_C >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY C IMD3008_D >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY D IMD3008_E >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY E IMD3008_F >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY F IMD3008_G >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY G (OPTIONAL) IMD3008_H >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY H (OPTIONAL) IMD3008_I >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY I (OPTIONAL) IMD3009_A >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER A IMD3009_B >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER B IMD3009_C >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER C IMD3009_D >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER D IMD3009_E >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER E IMD3009_F >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER F IMD3009_G >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER G (OPTIONAL) IMD3009_H >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER H (OPTIONAL) IMD3009_I >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER I (OPTIONAL) IMD3010 >>> SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRACY IMD3011 >>> EFFICACY: WHO IS IN POWER CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE IMD3012 >>> EFFICACY: WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR MAKES A DIFFERENCE IMD3013_1 >>> STATE OF ECONOMY (OVER PAST 12 MONTHS) IMD3013_2 >>> STATE OF ECONOMY - BETTER IMD3013_3 >>> STATE OF ECONOMY - WORSE IMD3014 >>> GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE: GENERAL IMD3015_1 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: DICHOTOMIZED ITEM - 1ST IMD3015_2 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: DICHOTOMIZED ITEM - 2ND IMD3015_3 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: DICHOTOMIZED ITEM - 3RD IMD3015_4 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: DICHOTOMIZED ITEM - 4TH IMD3015_A >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: SCALE - CSES MODULE 1 (0-3 SCALE) IMD3015_B >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: SCALE - CSES MODULE 2 (0-3 SCALE) IMD3015_C >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: SCALE - CSES MODULE 3 (0-3 SCALE) IMD3015_D >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: SCALE - CSES MODULE 4 (0-4 SCALE) IMD3016_1 >>> IS THERE A PARTY THAT REPRESENTS RESPONDENT'S VIEWS IMD3016_2 >>> PARTY THAT REPRESENTS RESPONDENT'S VIEWS BEST IMD3100_LR_CSES >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE LINKED WITH CSES COLLABORATOR EXPERT JUDGMENT L-R IMD3100_LR_MARPOR >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE LINKED WITH MARPOR/CMP RILE IMD3100_IF_CSES >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE LINKED WITH CSES COLLABORATOR EXPERT JUDGMENT IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: MACRO-LEVEL DATA IMD5000_A >>> PARTY A IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_B >>> PARTY B IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_C >>> PARTY C IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_D >>> PARTY D IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_E >>> PARTY E IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_F >>> PARTY F IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_G >>> PARTY G IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_H >>> PARTY H IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_I >>> PARTY I IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5001_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A IMD5001_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B IMD5001_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C IMD5001_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D IMD5001_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E IMD5001_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F IMD5001_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G IMD5001_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H IMD5001_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I IMD5002_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A IMD5002_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B IMD5002_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C IMD5002_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D IMD5002_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E IMD5002_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F IMD5002_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G IMD5002_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H IMD5002_I >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I IMD5003_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A IMD5003_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B IMD5003_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C IMD5003_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D IMD5003_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E IMD5003_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F IMD5003_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G IMD5003_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H IMD5003_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I IMD5004_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A IMD5004_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B IMD5004_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C IMD5004_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D IMD5004_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E IMD5004_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F IMD5004_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G IMD5004_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H IMD5004_I >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I IMD5005_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY A IMD5005_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY B IMD5005_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY C IMD5005_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY D IMD5005_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY E IMD5005_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY F IMD5005_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY G IMD5005_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY H IMD5005_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY I IMD5006_1 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - TURNOUT AS A PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS (ER) IMD5006_2 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - TURNOUT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE VOTING AGE POPULATION (VAP) IMD5007 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING IMD5008_1 >>> PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER BEFORE IMD5008_2 >>> PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER AFTER IMD5008_C >>> DID PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER CHANGE IMD5009_1 >>> PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT BEFORE IMD5009_2 >>> PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT AFTER IMD5009_C >>> DID PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT CHANGE IMD5011_A >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY A IMD5011_B >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY B IMD5011_C >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY C IMD5011_D >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY D IMD5011_E >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY E IMD5011_F >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY F IMD5011_G >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY G IMD5011_H >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY H IMD5011_I >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY I IMD5012_A >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A IMD5012_B >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B IMD5012_C >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C IMD5012_D >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D IMD5012_E >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E IMD5012_F >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F IMD5012_G >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY G IMD5012_H >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY H IMD5012_I >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY I IMD5013 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA IN ALL SEGMENTS: LOWER HOUSE IMD5014 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IMD5016_1 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5016_2 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5016_3 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5016_4 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5017_1 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5017_2 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5017_3 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5017_4 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5018_1 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5018_2 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5018_3 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5018_4 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5021_1 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5021_2 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5021_3 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5021_4 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5022_1 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5022_2 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5022_3 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5022_4 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5024_1 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - MONTH IMD5024_2 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - DAY IMD5024_3 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - YEAR IMD5025_1 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - MONTH IMD5025_2 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - DAY IMD5025_3 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - YEAR IMD5025_W >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - TIMING IMD5025_S >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - SEASON IMD5026_1 >>> NUMBER OF LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS IMD5026_2 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTED LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS IMD5027 >>> SIZE OF THE LOWER HOUSE IMD5028 >>> SIZE OF THE CABINET BEFORE ELECTION IMD5029_A >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY A IMD5029_B >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY B IMD5029_C >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY C IMD5029_D >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY D IMD5029_E >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY E IMD5029_F >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY F IMD5029_G >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY G IMD5029_H >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY H IMD5029_I >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY I IMD5030 >>> SIZE OF THE CABINET AFTER ELECTION IMD5031_A >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY A IMD5031_B >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY B IMD5031_C >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY C IMD5031_D >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY D IMD5031_E >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY E IMD5031_F >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY F IMD5031_G >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY G IMD5031_H >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY H IMD5031_I >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY I IMD5032_1 >>> ELECTION VIOLENCE IMD5032_2 >>> GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF VIOLENCE IMD5032_3 >>> POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE IMD5032_4 >>> POST-ELECTION PROTEST IMD5033 >>> FAIRNESS OF THE ELECTION IMD5034_1 >>> FORMAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST NATIONAL LEVEL RESULTS IMD5034_2 >>> ELECTION IRREGULARITIES REPORTED IMD5034_3 >>> ELECTION DATE IRREGULARITIES IMD5035 >>> NUMBER OF PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN ELECTION IMD5036_1 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES PERMITTED IN AN ELECTION IMD5036_2 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES IN PRACTICE IMD5036_3 >>> DID ANY ELECTORAL ALLIANCE FORM? IMD5038 >>> REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT PARTY LISTS IMD5040_1 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS IMD5040_2 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT IMD5041_1 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) IMD5041_2 >>> LINKED ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) IMD5042_1 >>> DEPENDENT FORMULA IN MIXED SYSTEMS IMD5042_2 >>> SUBTYPES OF MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEMS IMD5044 >>> FUSED VOTE IMD5045_1 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE IMD5045_2 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE IMD5045_3 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER)- LOWER HOUSE IMD5046_1 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5046_2 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5046_3 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5046_4 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5048 >>> REGIME: TYPE OF EXECUTIVE IMD5049 >>> AGE OF CURRENT REGIME IMD5050_1 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T IMD5050_2 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5050_3 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-2 YEARS IMD5051_1 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T IMD5051_2 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5051_3 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-2 YEARS IMD5052_1 >>> GDP GROWTH ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T IMD5052_2 >>> GDP GROWTH ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5052_3 >>> GDP GROWTH ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 YEARS IMD5053_1 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T IMD5053_2 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5053_3 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 YEARS IMD5054_1 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T IMD5054_2 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5054_3 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 YEARS IMD5055_1 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T IMD5055_2 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5055_3 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-2 YEARS IMD5056_1 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T IMD5056_2 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5056_3 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 YEARS IMD5057_1 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T IMD5057_2 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5057_3 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 YEARS IMD5058_1 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES IMD5058_2 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES IMD5059_1 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES IMD5059_2 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES IMD5061 >>> CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL STRUCTURE ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: DATA BRIDGING IMD5100_A >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A IMD5100_B >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B IMD5100_C >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C IMD5100_D >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D IMD5100_E >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E IMD5100_F >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F IMD5100_G >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G IMD5100_H >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H IMD5100_I >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I IMD5101_A >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A IMD5101_B >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B IMD5101_C >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C IMD5101_D >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D IMD5101_E >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E IMD5101_F >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F IMD5101_G >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G IMD5101_H >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H IMD5101_I >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I IMD5102_A >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A IMD5102_B >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B IMD5102_C >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C IMD5102_D >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D IMD5102_E >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E IMD5102_F >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F IMD5102_G >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G IMD5102_H >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H IMD5102_I >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I IMD5103_A >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY A IMD5103_B >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY B IMD5103_C >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY C IMD5103_D >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY D IMD5103_E >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY E IMD5103_F >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY F IMD5103_G >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY G IMD5103_H >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY H IMD5103_I >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY I =========================================================================== ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: IDENTIFICATION, DATA BRIDGING AT POLITY/REGION/TIME LEVEL, WEIGHT, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION DATA =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1001 >>> DATASET --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dataset. .................................................................. CSES-IMD. CSES INTEGRATED MODULE DATASET | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1001 | | IMD1001 details the name of the dataset. | This dataset is the fourth version of the CSES INTEGRATED MODULE | DATA SET (CSES IMD), integrating data from CSES MODULE 1 to | CSES MODULE 5. | | The Standalone CSES Modules were administered during the | following years (inclusive): | | MODULE 1: 1996 - 2001 - SEE BELOW | MODULE 2: 2001 - 2006 | MODULE 3: 2006 - 2011 - SEE BELOW | MODULE 4: 2011 - 2016 | MODULE 5: 2016 - 2021 - SEE BELOW | | MODULE 1 was principally administered between 1996 and 2001 | but the 2002 Portuguese study administered both CSES MODULES | 1 and 2 simultaneously. | | MODULE 3 was principally administered between 2006 and 2011 | but the 2005 German, Polish, and Norwegian study administered | CSES MODULE 3 pilot studies in 2005, with the CSES questionnaire | for MODULE 3 finalized in 2006. | | MODULE 5 was principally administered between 2016 and 2021 | but the 2015 Greek study administered a CSES MODULE 5 pilot | study focusing on the Greek September 2015 election, with the | CSES MODULE 5 questionnaire finalized in 2016. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1002_VER >>> DATASET VERSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dataset version. .................................................................. VER2024-FEB-27. Version of dataset, released on February 27, 2024. | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1002_VER | | IMD1002_VER reports the version date (i.e., the release date) of | the CSES IMD dataset. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1002_DOI >>> DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digital Object Identifier. .................................................................. doi: 10.7804/cses.imd.2024-02-27. | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1002_DOI | | IMD1002_DOI indicates the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) | which is registered for the dataset. CSES DOI registration is | conducted by the DA|RA registration agency for economic and | social science data. Each CSES dataset version | (see variable IMD1002_VER) has a unique and persistent DOI. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1003 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Election Study Identifier: Numeric Polity Code and Election Year. .................................................................. 00802005. ALBANIA (2005) 00802017. ALBANIA (2017) 03202015. ARGENTINA (2015) 03601996. AUSTRALIA (1996) 03602004. AUSTRALIA (2004) 03602007. AUSTRALIA (2007) 03602013. AUSTRALIA (2013) 03602019. AUSTRALIA (2019) 04002008. AUSTRIA (2008) 04002013. AUSTRIA (2013) 04002017. AUSTRIA (2017) 11202001. BELARUS (2001) 11202008. BELARUS (2008) 05611999. BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999) 05621999. BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999) 05602003. BELGIUM (2003) 05612019. BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) 05622019. BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) 07602002. BRAZIL (2002) 07602006. BRAZIL (2006) 07602010. BRAZIL (2010) 07602014. BRAZIL (2014) 07602018. BRAZIL (2018) 10002001. BULGARIA (2001) 10002014. BULGARIA (2014) 12401997. CANADA (1997) 12402004. CANADA (2004) 12402008. CANADA (2008) 12402011. CANADA (2011) 12402015. CANADA (2015) 12402019. CANADA (2019) 15201999. CHILE (1999) 15202005. CHILE (2005) 15202009. CHILE (2009) 15202017. CHILE (2017) 18802018. COSTA RICA (2018) 19102007. CROATIA (2007) 20301996. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (1996) 20302002. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2002) 20302006. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006) 20302010. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2010) 20302013. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013) 20302017. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2017) 20302021. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2021) 20801998. DENMARK (1998) 20802001. DENMARK (2001) 20802007. DENMARK (2007) 20802019. DENMARK (2019) 22202019. EL SALVADOR (2019) 23302011. ESTONIA (2011) 24602003. FINLAND (2003) 24602007. FINLAND (2007) 24602011. FINLAND (2011) 24602015. FINLAND (2015) 24602019. FINLAND (2019) 25002002. FRANCE (2002) 25002007. FRANCE (2007) 25002012. FRANCE (2012) 25002017. FRANCE (2017) 27601998. GERMANY (1998) 27612002. GERMANY (2002 Telephone) 27622002. GERMANY (2002 Mail-Back) 27602005. GERMANY (2005) 27602009. GERMANY (2009) 27602013. GERMANY (2013) 27602017. GERMANY (2017) 27602021. GERMANY (2021) 82601997. GREAT BRITAIN (1997) 82602005. GREAT BRITAIN (2005) 82602015. GREAT BRITAIN (2015) 82602017. GREAT BRITAIN (2017) 82602019. GREAT BRITAIN (2019) 30002009. GREECE (2009) 30002012. GREECE (2012) 30012015. GREECE (2015 Jan) 30022015. GREECE (2015 Sep) 30002019. GREECE (2019) 34401998. HONG KONG (1998) 34402000. HONG KONG (2000) 34402004. HONG KONG (2004) 34402008. HONG KONG (2008) 34402012. HONG KONG (2012) 34402016. HONG KONG (2016) 34801998. HUNGARY (1998) 34802002. HUNGARY (2002) 34802018. HUNGARY (2018) 35201999. ICELAND (1999) 35202003. ICELAND (2003) 35202007. ICELAND (2007) 35202009. ICELAND (2009) 35202013. ICELAND (2013) 35202016. ICELAND (2016) 35202017. ICELAND (2017) 35602019. INDIA (2019) 37202002. IRELAND (2002) 37202007. IRELAND (2007) 37202011. IRELAND (2011) 37202016. IRELAND (2016) 37601996. ISRAEL (1996) 37602003. ISRAEL (2003) 37602006. ISRAEL (2006) 37602013. ISRAEL (2013) 37602020. ISRAEL (2020) 38002006. ITALY (2006) 38002018. ITALY (2018) 39201996. JAPAN (1996) 39202004. JAPAN (2004) 39202007. JAPAN (2007) 39202013. JAPAN (2013) 39202017. JAPAN (2017) 40402013. KENYA (2013) 41702005. KYRGYZSTAN (2005) 42802010. LATVIA (2010) 42802011. LATVIA (2011) 42802014. LATVIA (2014) 42802018. LATVIA (2018) 44001997. LITHUANIA (1997) 44002016. LITHUANIA (2016) 44002020. LITHUANIA (2020) 48401997. MEXICO (1997) 48402000. MEXICO (2000) 48402003. MEXICO (2003) 48402006. MEXICO (2006) 48402009. MEXICO (2009) 48402012. MEXICO (2012) 48402015. MEXICO (2015) 48402018. MEXICO (2018) 49902012. MONTENEGRO (2012) 49902016. MONTENEGRO (2016) 52801998. NETHERLANDS (1998) 52802002. NETHERLANDS (2002) 52802006. NETHERLANDS (2006) 52802010. NETHERLANDS (2010) 52802017. NETHERLANDS (2017) 52802021. NETHERLANDS (2021) 55401996. NEW ZEALAND (1996) 55402002. NEW ZEALAND (2002) 55402008. NEW ZEALAND (2008) 55402011. NEW ZEALAND (2011) 55402014. NEW ZEALAND (2014) 55402017. NEW ZEALAND (2017) 55402020. NEW ZEALAND (2020) 57801997. NORWAY (1997) 57802001. NORWAY (2001) 57802005. NORWAY (2005) 57802009. NORWAY (2009) 57802013. NORWAY (2013) 57802017. NORWAY (2017) 60402000. PERU (2000) 60402001. PERU (2001) 60402006. PERU (2006) 60402011. PERU (2011) 60402016. PERU (2016) 60402021. PERU (2021) 60802004. PHILIPPINES (2004) 60802010. PHILIPPINES (2010) 60802016. PHILIPPINES (2016) 61601997. POLAND (1997) 61602001. POLAND (2001) 61602005. POLAND (2005) 61602007. POLAND (2007) 61602011. POLAND (2011) 61602019. POLAND (2019) 62002002. PORTUGAL (2002) 62002005. PORTUGAL (2005) 62002009. PORTUGAL (2009) 62002015. PORTUGAL (2015) 62002019. PORTUGAL (2019) 64201996. ROMANIA (1996) 64202004. ROMANIA (2004) 64202009. ROMANIA (2009) 64202012. ROMANIA (2012) 64202014. ROMANIA (2014) 64202016. ROMANIA (2016) 64301999. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (1999) 64302000. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (2000) 64302004. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (2004) 68802012. SERBIA (2012) 70302010. SLOVAKIA (2010) 70302016. SLOVAKIA (2016) 70302020. SLOVAKIA (2020) 70501996. SLOVENIA (1996) 70502004. SLOVENIA (2004) 70502008. SLOVENIA (2008) 70502011. SLOVENIA (2011) 71002009. SOUTH AFRICA (2009) 71002014. SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 41002000. SOUTH KOREA (2000) 41002004. SOUTH KOREA (2004) 41002008. SOUTH KOREA (2008) 41002012. SOUTH KOREA (2012) 41002016. SOUTH KOREA (2016) 72401996. SPAIN (1996) 72402000. SPAIN (2000) 72402004. SPAIN (2004) 72402008. SPAIN (2008) 75201998. SWEDEN (1998) 75202002. SWEDEN (2002) 75202006. SWEDEN (2006) 75202014. SWEDEN (2014) 75202018. SWEDEN (2018) 75601999. SWITZERLAND (1999) 75602003. SWITZERLAND (2003) 75602007. SWITZERLAND (2007) 75602011. SWITZERLAND (2011) 75602019. SWITZERLAND (2019) 15801996. TAIWAN (1996) 15802001. TAIWAN (2001) 15802004. TAIWAN (2004) 15802008. TAIWAN (2008) 15802012. TAIWAN (2012) 15802016. TAIWAN (2016) 15802020. TAIWAN (2020) 76402001. THAILAND (2001) 76402007. THAILAND (2007) 76402011. THAILAND (2011) 76402019. THAILAND (2019) 78802019. TUNISIA (2019) 79202011. TURKEY (2011) 79202015. TURKEY (2015) 79202018. TURKEY (2018) 80401998. UKRAINE (1998) 84001996. UNITED STATES (1996) 84002004. UNITED STATES (2004) 84002008. UNITED STATES (2008) 84022012. UNITED STATES (2012) 84002016. UNITED STATES (2016) 84002020. UNITED STATES (2020) 85802009. URUGUAY (2009) 85802019. URUGUAY (2019) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1003 | | IMD1003 is an eight-digit numeric variable that identifies an | election study within CSES IMD. | | IMD1003 is constructed from two components, variable IMD1006 | (CSES polity code) and IMD1008_YEAR (election year). | | The first three digits are the numerical version of the polity | codes created by the United Nations Statistics Division | ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", revised February | 13, 2002), except for Taiwan (see ELECTION STUDY NOTE). | | The fourth digit distinguishes between multiple studies | conducted within a single polity, for the same election or | within the same year. | | The fifth through eighth digits correspond to the election year | as specified in variable IMD1008_YEAR. | | Polities are listed in alphabetical order, followed by the | chronological order of the study. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1003 | MODULE 2: B1003 | MODULE 3: C1003 | MODULE 4: D1003 | MODULE 5: E1003 | POLITY NOTES - TAIWAN: IMD1003 | | As Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations, the polity code | assigned to Taiwan comes from the International Organization of | Standards (ISO) 3166 polity classification, which the UN approach | scheme largely mirrors. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GREECE (2015 Jan & Sep): IMD1003 | | Greece held two legislative elections in 2015: The first on | January 25, 2015, followed by a second early election on | September 20, 2015, due to Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras' | resignation. CSES IMD includes studies on both contests: | A study pertaining to the January 2015 contest from CSES | MODULE 4, and a study about the September 2015 election | from CSES MODULE 5. To distinguish between the two studies | in CSES IMD, data in IMD1003 were recoded as follows: | | Election study CSES Module Code CSES IMD code |----------------------------------------------------------------- | Greece (2015 Jan) 30002015 30012015 | Greece (2015 Sep) 30002015 30022015 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1004 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (POLITY ALPHABETIC AND YEAR OF ELECTION) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Election Study Identifier: Alphabetic Polity Code & Election Year. .................................................................. ALB_2005. ALBANIA (2005) ALB_2017. ALBANIA (2017) ARG_2015. ARGENTINA (2015) AUS_1996. AUSTRALIA (1996) AUS_2004. AUSTRALIA (2004) AUS_2007. AUSTRALIA (2007) AUS_2013. AUSTRALIA (2013) AUS_2019. AUSTRALIA (2019) AUT_2008. AUSTRIA (2008) AUT_2013. AUSTRIA (2013) AUT_2017. AUSTRIA (2017) BLR_2001. BELARUS (2001) BLR_2008. BELARUS (2008) BELF1999. BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999) BELW1999. BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999) BEL_2003. BELGIUM (2003) BELF2019. BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) BELW2019. BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) BRA_2002. BRAZIL (2002) BRA_2006. BRAZIL (2006) BRA_2010. BRAZIL (2010) BRA_2014. BRAZIL (2014) BRA_2018. BRAZIL (2018) BGR_2001. BULGARIA (2001) BGR_2014. BULGARIA (2014) CAN_1997. CANADA (1997) CAN_2004. CANADA (2004) CAN_2008. CANADA (2008) CAN_2011. CANADA (2011) CAN_2015. CANADA (2015) CAN_2019. CANADA (2019) CHL_1999. CHILE (1999) CHL_2005. CHILE (2005) CHL_2009. CHILE (2009) CHL_2017. CHILE (2017) CRI_2018. COSTA RICA (2018) HRV_2007. CROATIA (2007) CZE_1996. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (1996) CZE_2002. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2002) CZE_2006. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006) CZE_2010. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2010) CZE_2013. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013) CZE_2017. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2017) CZE_2021. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2021) DNK_1998. DENMARK (1998) DNK_2001. DENMARK (2001) DNK_2007. DENMARK (2007) DNK_2019. DENMARK (2019) SLV_2019. EL SALVADOR (2019) EST_2011. ESTONIA (2011) FIN_2003. FINLAND (2003) FIN_2007. FINLAND (2007) FIN_2011. FINLAND (2011) FIN_2015. FINLAND (2015) FIN_2019. FINLAND (2019) FRA_2002. FRANCE (2002) FRA_2007. FRANCE (2007) FRA_2012. FRANCE (2012) FRA_2017. FRANCE (2017) DEU_1998. GERMANY (1998) DEU12002. GERMANY (2002 Telephone) DEU22002. GERMANY (2002 Mail-Back) DEU_2005. GERMANY (2005) DEU_2009. GERMANY (2009) DEU_2013. GERMANY (2013) DEU_2017. GERMANY (2017) DEU_2021. GERMANY (2021) GBR_1997. GREAT BRITAIN (1997) GBR_2005. GREAT BRITAIN (2005) GBR_2015. GREAT BRITAIN (2015) GBR_2017. GREAT BRITAIN (2017) GBR_2019. GREAT BRITAIN (2019) GRC_2009. GREECE (2009) GRC_2012. GREECE (2012) GRC12015. GREECE (2015 Jan) GRC22015. GREECE (2015 Sep) GRC_2019. GREECE (2019) HKG_1998. HONG KONG (1998) HKG_2000. HONG KONG (2000) HKG_2004. HONG KONG (2004) HKG_2008. HONG KONG (2008) HKG_2012. HONG KONG (2012) HKG_2016. HONG KONG (2016) HUN_1998. HUNGARY (1998) HUN_2002. HUNGARY (2002) HUN_2018. HUNGARY (2018) ISL_1999. ICELAND (1999) ISL_2003. ICELAND (2003) ISL_2007. ICELAND (2007) ISL_2009. ICELAND (2009) ISL_2013. ICELAND (2013) ISL_2016. ICELAND (2016) ISL_2017. ICELAND (2017) IND_2019. INDIA (2019) IRL_2002. IRELAND (2002) IRL_2007. IRELAND (2007) IRL_2011. IRELAND (2011) IRL_2016. IRELAND (2016) ISR_1996. ISRAEL (1996) ISR_2003. ISRAEL (2003) ISR_2006. ISRAEL (2006) ISR_2013. ISRAEL (2013) ISR_2020. ISRAEL (2020) ITA_2006. ITALY (2006) ITA_2018. ITALY (2018) JPN_1996. JAPAN (1996) JPN_2004. JAPAN (2004) JPN_2007. JAPAN (2007) JPN_2013. JAPAN (2013) JPN_2017. JAPAN (2017) KEN_2013. KENYA (2013) KGZ_2005. KYRGYZSTAN (2005) LVA_2010. LATVIA (2010) LVA_2011. LATVIA (2011) LVA_2014. LATVIA (2014) LVA_2018. LATVIA (2018) LTU_1997. LITHUANIA (1997) LTU_2016. LITHUANIA (2016) LTU_2020. LITHUANIA (2020) MEX_1997. MEXICO (1997) MEX_2000. MEXICO (2000) MEX_2003. MEXICO (2003) MEX_2006. MEXICO (2006) MEX_2009. MEXICO (2009) MEX_2012. MEXICO (2012) MEX_2015. MEXICO (2015) MEX_2018. MEXICO (2018) MNE_2012. MONTENEGRO (2012) MNE_2016. MONTENEGRO (2016) NLD_1998. NETHERLANDS (1998) NLD_2002. NETHERLANDS (2002) NLD_2006. NETHERLANDS (2006) NLD_2010. NETHERLANDS (2010) NLD_2017. NETHERLANDS (2017) NLD_2021. NETHERLANDS (2021) NZL_1996. NEW ZEALAND (1996) NZL_2002. NEW ZEALAND (2002) NZL_2008. NEW ZEALAND (2008) NZL_2011. NEW ZEALAND (2011) NZL_2014. NEW ZEALAND (2014) NZL_2017. NEW ZEALAND (2017) NZL_2020. NEW ZEALAND (2020) NOR_1997. NORWAY (1997) NOR_2001. NORWAY (2001) NOR_2005. NORWAY (2005) NOR_2009. NORWAY (2009) NOR_2013. NORWAY (2013) NOR_2017. NORWAY (2017) PER_2000. PERU (2000) PER_2001. PERU (2001) PER_2006. PERU (2006) PER_2011. PERU (2011) PER_2016. PERU (2016) PER_2021. PERU (2021) PHL_2004. PHILIPPINES (2004) PHL_2010. PHILIPPINES (2010) PHL_2016. PHILIPPINES (2016) POL_1997. POLAND (1997) POL_2001. POLAND (2001) POL_2005. POLAND (2005) POL_2007. POLAND (2007) POL_2011. POLAND (2011) POL_2019. POLAND (2019) PRT_2002. PORTUGAL (2002) PRT_2005. PORTUGAL (2005) PRT_2009. PORTUGAL (2009) PRT_2015. PORTUGAL (2015) PRT_2019. PORTUGAL (2019) ROU_1996. ROMANIA (1996) ROU_2004. ROMANIA (2004) ROU_2009. ROMANIA (2009) ROU_2012. ROMANIA (2012) ROU_2014. ROMANIA (2014) ROU_2016. ROMANIA (2016) RUS_1999. RUSSIA (1999) RUS_2000. RUSSIA (2000) RUS_2004. RUSSIA (2004) SRB_2012. SERBIA (2012) SVK_2010. SLOVAKIA (2010) SVK_2016. SLOVAKIA (2016) SVK_2020. SLOVAKIA (2020) SVN_1996. SLOVENIA (1996) SVN_2004. SLOVENIA (2004) SVN_2008. SLOVENIA (2008) SVN_2011. SLOVENIA (2011) ZAF_2009. SOUTH AFRICA (2009) ZAF_2014. SOUTH AFRICA (2014) KOR_2000. SOUTH KOREA (2000) KOR_2004. SOUTH KOREA (2004) KOR_2008. SOUTH KOREA (2008) KOR_2012. SOUTH KOREA (2012) KOR_2016. SOUTH KOREA (2016) ESP_1996. SPAIN (1996) ESP_2000. SPAIN (2000) ESP_2004. SPAIN (2004) ESP_2008. SPAIN (2008) SWE_1998. SWEDEN (1998) SWE_2002. SWEDEN (2002) SWE_2006. SWEDEN (2006) SWE_2014. SWEDEN (2014) SWE_2018. SWEDEN (2018) CHE_1999. SWITZERLAND (1999) CHE_2003. SWITZERLAND (2003) CHE_2007. SWITZERLAND (2007) CHE_2011. SWITZERLAND (2011) CHE_2019. SWITZERLAND (2019) TWN_1996. TAIWAN (1996) TWN_2001. TAIWAN (2001) TWN_2004. TAIWAN (2004) TWN_2008. TAIWAN (2008) TWN_2012. TAIWAN (2012) TWN_2016. TAIWAN (2016) TWN_2020. TAIWAN (2020) THA_2001. THAILAND (2001) THA_2007. THAILAND (2007) THA_2011. THAILAND (2011) THA_2019. THAILAND (2019) TUN_2019. TUNISIA (2019) TUR_2011. TURKEY (2011) TUR_2015. TURKEY (2015) TUR_2018. TURKEY (2018) UKR_1998. UKRAINE (1998) USA_1996. UNITED STATES (1996) USA_2004. UNITED STATES (2004) USA_2008. UNITED STATES (2008) USA_2012. UNITED STATES (2012) USA_2016. UNITED STATES (2016) USA_2020. UNITED STATES (2020) URY_2009. URUGUAY (2009) URY_2019. URUGUAY (2019) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1004 | | IMD1004 is an eight-character variable that identifies an | election study within the CSES IMD. | | The variable is constructed from two components, namely: | IMD1006_UNALPHA3 (Polity alphabetical three letter code) and | IMD1008_YEAR (election year). | | The first three characters are the alphabetic country codes | 'alpha-3' created by the International Organization for | Standardization in their ISO 3166 Standard and shared by the | United Nations Statistics Division (see Variable | IMD1006_UNALPHA3). | | If appropriate, the fourth character distinguishes between | multiple studies conducted within a single country, for the same | election or within the same year. If only one study is in place | for the election-year, this character appears as an underscore | (_). | | The fifth through eighth characters correspond to the election | year as specified in variable IMD1008_YEAR. | | Polities are listed in alphabetical order, followed by the | chronological order of the study. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1004 | MODULE 2: B1004 | MODULE 3: C1004 | MODULE 4: D1004 | MODULE 5: E1004 | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GREECE (2015 Jan & Sep): IMD1004 | | Greece held two legislative elections in 2015: The first on | January 25, 2015, followed by a second early election on | September 20, 2015, due to Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras' | resignation. CSES IMD includes studies on both contests: | A study pertaining to the January 2015 contest from CSES | MODULE 4, and a study about the September 2015 election | from CSES MODULE 5. To distinguish between the two studies | in CSES IMD, data in IMD1004 were recoded as follows: | | Election study CSES Module Code CSES IMD code |----------------------------------------------------------------- | Greece (2015 Jan) GRC_2015 GRC12015 | Greece (2015 Sep) GRC_2015 GRC22015 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1005 >>> ID VARIABLE - RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent Identifier. .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1005 | | IMD1005 is an eighteen-character variable uniquely identifying | a respondent within the CSES IMD. | It equals the original respondent IDs from the Standalone CSES | Modules (A1005, B1005, C1005, D1005, E1005). Therefore, users who | want to merge additional CSES variables not covered by the | present data set may do so by using this variable as the basis | for merging. | | The variable is constructed from three components: variable | IMD1006 (CSES polity code), IMD1008_YEAR (election year), and | IMD1008_RES (respondent within election study). | | The first three characters are the numeric version of the | country codes created by the United Nations Statistics | Division ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", | revised February 13, 2002). | | If appropriate, the fourth character distinguishes between | multiple studies conducted within a single country, for the same | election. If only one study is in place for the election, this | character appears as a zero (0). | | The fifth through eighth characters correspond to the election | year as specified in variable IMD1008_YEAR. | | The last ten characters are the respondent identifier from | IMD1008_RES, which is unique within each election study. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1005 | MODULE 2: B1005 | MODULE 3: C1005 | MODULE 4: D1005 | MODULE 5: E1005 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015 Jan & Sep): IMD1005 | | Greece held two legislative elections in 2015: The first on | January 25, 2015, followed by a second early election on | September 20, 2015, due to Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras' | resignation. CSES IMD includes studies on both contests: | A study pertaining to the January 2015 contest from CSES | MODULE 4, and a study about the September 2015 election | from CSES MODULE 5. Respondent IDs for the January 2015 | study range from 300020150000000001 to 300020150000001008. | Respondent IDs pertaining to the September 2015 study | range from 300020150000001020 to 300020150000004496. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1006 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY CSES CODE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity Identifier. .................................................................. 0080. ALBANIA 0320. ARGENTINA 0360. AUSTRALIA 0400. AUSTRIA 0560. BELGIUM 0561. BELGIUM-FLANDERS 0562. BELGIUM-WALLONIA 0760. BRAZIL 1000. BULGARIA 1120. BELARUS 1240. CANADA 1520. CHILE 1880. COSTA RICA 1910. CROATIA 2030. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA 2080. DENMARK 2220. EL SALVADOR 2330. ESTONIA 2460. FINLAND 2500. FRANCE 2760. GERMANY 2761. GERMANY (2002 Mail-Back) 2762. GERMANY (2002 Telephone) 8260. GREAT BRITAIN 3000. GREECE 3440. HONG KONG 3480. HUNGARY 3520. ICELAND 3560. INDIA 3720. IRELAND 3760. ISRAEL 3800. ITALY 3920. JAPAN 4040. KENYA 4100. SOUTH KOREA 4170. KYRGYZSTAN 4280. LATVIA 4400. LITHUANIA 4840. MEXICO 4990. MONTENEGRO 5280. NETHERLANDS 5540. NEW ZEALAND 5780. NORWAY 6040. PERU 6080. PHILIPPINES 6160. POLAND 6200. PORTUGAL 6420. ROMANIA 6430. RUSSIA 6880. SERBIA 7030. SLOVAKIA 7050. SLOVENIA 7100. SOUTH AFRICA 7240. SPAIN 7520. SWEDEN 7560. SWITZERLAND 1580. TAIWAN 7640. THAILAND 7880. TUNISIA 7920. TURKEY 8040. UKRAINE 8400. UNITED STATES 8402. UNITED STATES (2012)* 8580. URUGUAY ------------------------------------------------------------- KEY: * = See Election Study Notes below | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1006 | | POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1006 is a four-character variable that identifies a polity | conducting an election study that is present in the CSES | IMD. The variable is constructed in part from Variable | IMD1006_UN (UN ISO_3166-1 numeric polity code) and an | additional classification added by CSES. | | The first three characters are the numerical version of | the polity codes created by the United Nations Statistics | Division ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", | revised February 13, 2002). | | The fourth character distinguishes between multiple studies | conducted within a single polity, for the same election. | | Polities are listed in alphabetical order. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1006 | MODULE 2: B1006 | MODULE 3: C1006 | MODULE 4: D1006 | MODULE 5: E1006 | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - UNITED STATES (2012): IMD1006 | | The 2012 American Election Study consisted of two sample | components. The fourth digit in the Standalone CSES MODULE 4 | was used to indicate the two components. Hence, IMD1006 differs | from all other election studies for the United States which | are included in the CSES IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1006_UN >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 NUMERIC CODE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity Identifier UN Country Code. .................................................................. 008. ALBANIA 032. ARGENTINA 036. AUSTRALIA 040. AUSTRIA 056. BELGIUM - SEE POLITY NOTES 076. BRAZIL 100. BULGARIA 112. BELARUS 124. CANADA 152. CHILE 188. COSTA RICA 191. CROATIA 203. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA 208. DENMARK 222. EL SALVADOR 233. ESTONIA 246. FINLAND 250. FRANCE 276. GERMANY 826. GREAT BRITAIN - SEE POLITY NOTES 300. GREECE 344. HONG KONG 348. HUNGARY 352. ICELAND 356. INDIA 372. IRELAND 376. ISRAEL 380. ITALY 392. JAPAN 404. KENYA 417. KYRGYZSTAN 428. LATVIA 440. LITHUANIA 484. MEXICO 499. MONTENEGRO 528. NETHERLANDS 554. NEW ZEALAND 578. NORWAY 604. PERU 608. PHILIPPINES 616. POLAND 620. PORTUGAL 642. ROMANIA 643. RUSSIA 688. SERBIA 703. SLOVAKIA 705. SLOVENIA 710. SOUTH AFRICA 410. SOUTH KOREA 724. SPAIN 752. SWEDEN 756. SWITZERLAND 158. TAIWAN 764. THAILAND 788. TUNISIA 792. TURKEY 804. UKRAINE 840. UNITED STATES 858. URUGUAY | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1006_UN | | POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1006_UN is a three-character variable identifying a polity | conducting an election study present in the CSES IMD. | | It consists of the numerical version of the country codes created | by the United Nations Statistics Division ("Countries or areas, | codes and abbreviations", revised February 13, 2002). | | Polities are listed in alphabetical order. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1006_UN | MODULE 2: B1006_UN | MODULE 3: C1006_UN | MODULE 4: D1006_UN | MODULE 5: E1006_UN | POLITY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS & BELGIUM-WALLONIA: IMD1006_UN | | The 1999 and 2019 Belgium-Flanders and Belgium-Wallonia studies | are assigned code 056 referring to Belgium. | [POLITY NOTES] - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA: IMD1006_UN | | In July 2016, the Czech government officially changed the | polity's name from Czech Republic to Czechia. Hence, the polity | is denoted "Czechia" throughout the CSES MODULE 5 dataset and | documentation, while it is labeled as "Czech Republic" in | CSES MODULES 1-4. | In CSES IMD, the polity is referred to as "Czech Republic/ | Czechia" to acknowledge naming conventions throughout the whole | time period covered in the dataset. | POLITY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN: IMD1006_UN | | Code 826 refers to the United Kingdom. However, British election | studies do not include respondents from Northern Ireland, instead | only including respondents from England, Scotland, and Wales. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1006_UNALPHA2 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 ALPHABETIC TWO LETTER CODE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- United Nations (UN) ISO Alpha-2 Country Codes. .................................................................. AL. Albania AR. Argentina AT. Austria AU. Australia BE. Belgium BG. Bulgaria BR. Brazil BY. Belarus CA. Canada CH. Switzerland CL. Chile CR. Costa Rica CZ. Czech Republic/Czechia DE. Germany DK. Denmark EE. Estonia ES. Spain FI. Finland FR. France GB. Great Britain GR. Greece HK. Hong Kong HR. Croatia HU. Hungary IE. Ireland IL. Israel IN. India IS. Iceland IT. Italy JP. Japan KE. Kenya KG. Kyrgyzstan KR. Republic of Korea LT. Lithuania LV. Latvia ME. Montenegro MX. Mexico NL. Netherlands NO. Norway NZ. New Zealand PE. Peru PH. Philippines PL. Poland PT. Portugal RO. Romania RS. Serbia RU. Russian Federation SE. Sweden SI. Slovenia SK. Slovakia SV. El Salvador TH. Thailand TN. Tunisia TR. Turkey TW. Taiwan UA. Ukraine US. United States of America UY. Uruguay ZA. South Africa | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1006_UNALPHA2 | | POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1006_UNALPHA2 is a two-character variable identifying a | polity conducting an election study present in the CSES IMD. | | IMD1006_UNALPHA2 provides alphabetic country codes 'alpha-2' | created by the International Organization for Standardization | in their ISO 3166 Standard and shared by the United Nations | Statistics Division ("Countries or areas, codes and | abbreviations", revised February 13, 2002). | | Source of data: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#search | (Date accessed: September 01, 2020). | | Polities are listed in alphabetical order. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E1006_UNALPHA2 | [POLITY NOTES] - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA: IMD1006_UNALPHA2 | | In July 2016, the Czech government officially changed the | polity's name from Czech Republic to Czechia. Hence, the polity | is denoted "Czechia" throughout the CSES MODULE 5 dataset and | documentation, while it is labeled as "Czech Republic" in | CSES MODULES 1-4. | In CSES IMD, the polity is referred to as "Czech Republic/ | Czechia" to acknowledge naming conventions throughout the whole | time period covered in the dataset. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1006_UNALPHA3 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 ALPHABETIC THREE LETTER CODE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- United Nations (UN) ISO Alpha-3 Country Codes. .................................................................. ALB. Albania ARG. Argentina AUS. Australia AUT. Austria BEL. Belgium BLR. Belarus BGR. Bulgaria BRA. Brazil CAN. Canada CHE. Switzerland CHL. Chile CRI. Costa Rica CZE. Czech Republic/Czechia DEU. Germany DNK. Denmark ESP. Spain EST. Estonia FIN. Finland FRA. France GBR. Great Britain GRC. Greece HKG. Hong Kong HRV. Croatia HUN. Hungary IND. India IRL. Ireland ISL. Iceland ISR. Israel ITA. Italy JPN. Japan KEN. Kenya KGZ. Kyrgyzstan KOR. South Korea LTU. Lithuania LVA. Latvia MEX. Mexico MNE. Montenegro NLD. Netherlands NOR. Norway NZL. New Zealand PER. Peru PHL. Philippines POL. Poland PRT. Portugal ROU. Romania RUS. Russia SLV. El Salvador SRB. Serbia SVK. Slovakia SVN. Slovenia SWE. Sweden THA. Thailand TUN. Tunisia TUR. Turkey TWN. Taiwan UKR. Ukraine URY. Uruguay USA. United States ZAF. South Africa | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1006_UNALPHA3 | | POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1006_UNALPHA3 is a three-character variable identifying a | polity conducting an election study present in the CSES IMD. | | IMD1006_UNALPHA3 provides alphabetic country codes 'alpha-3' | created by the International Organization for Standardization | in their ISO 3166 Standard and shared by the United Nations | Statistics Division ("Countries or areas, codes and | abbreviations", revised February 13, 2002). | | Source of data: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#search | (Date accessed: September 01, 2020). | | Polities are listed in alphabetical order. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E1006_UNALPHA3 | [POLITY NOTES] - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA: IMD1006_UNALPHA3 | | In July 2016, the Czech government officially changed the | polity's name from Czech Republic to Czechia. Hence, the polity | is denoted "Czechia" throughout the CSES MODULE 5 dataset and | documentation, while it is labeled as "Czech Republic" in | CSES MODULES 1-4. | In CSES IMD, the polity is referred to as "Czech Republic/ | Czechia" to acknowledge naming conventions throughout the whole | time period covered in the dataset. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1006_NAM >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY NAME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity Identifier Country Name. .................................................................. Albania Argentina Australia Austria Belarus Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile Costa Rica Croatia Czech Republic/Czechia - SEE POLITY NOTES Denmark El Salvador Estonia Finland France Germany Great Britain Greece Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Ireland Israel Italy Japan Kenya Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Mexico Montenegro Netherlands New Zealand Norway Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Republic of Korea Romania Russian Federation Serbia Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Tunisia Turkey - SEE POLITY NOTES Ukraine United States of America Uruguay | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1006_NAM | | POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1006_NAM is a string variable identifying a polity conducting | an election study present in the CSES IMD. | | IMD1006_NAM consists of polity names based on those principally | used by the United Nations Statistics Division ("Countries or | areas, codes and abbreviations", revised February 13, 2002). | However, in some instances, polity names deviate from those used | by the United Nations. | | Polities are listed in alphabetical order. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1006_NAM | MODULE 2: B1006_NAM | MODULE 3: C1006_NAM | MODULE 4: D1006_NAM | MODULE 5: E1006_NAM | [POLITY NOTES] - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA: IMD1006_NAM | | In July 2016, the Czech government officially changed the | polity's name from Czech Republic to Czechia. Hence, the polity | is denoted "Czechia" throughout the CSES MODULE 5 dataset and | documentation, while it is labeled as "Czech Republic" in | CSES MODULES 1-4. | In CSES IMD, the polity is referred to as "Czech Republic/ | Czechia" to acknowledge naming conventions throughout the whole | time period covered in the dataset. | POLITY NOTES - TURKEY: IMD1006_NAM | | In 2022, the Turkish government officially changed the polity's | name from Turkey to Tuerkiye. As the latest Turkish study | included in CSES IMD refers to the 2018 contest, the polity | is referred to as "Turkey" in CSES IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1006_REG >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS NUMERIC CODES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geographic Region of Polity. .................................................................. AFRICA 014. EASTERN AFRICA 015. NORTHERN AFRICA 018. SOUTHERN AFRICA AMERICAS 005. SOUTH AMERICA 013. CENTRAL AMERICA 021. NORTHERN AMERICA ASIA 030. EASTERN ASIA 034. SOUTHERN ASIA 035. SOUTH EASTERN ASIA 143. CENTRAL ASIA 145. WESTERN ASIA EUROPE 039. SOUTHERN EUROPE 151. EASTERN EUROPE 154. NORTHERN EUROPE 155. WESTERN EUROPE 009. OCEANIA | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1006_REG | | POTENTIAL REGIONAL LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1006_REG is a numeric variable identifying the geographic | region of a polity conducting an election study present in the | CSES IMD. | | IMD1006_REG provides the geographical region codes applied by | the United Nations Statistics Division. The geographic regions | are based on continental regions which are further subdivided | into subdivisions. | | Source of data: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/ | Date accessed: February 11, 2020 | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E1006_REG | POLITY NOTES - TAIWAN | | Taiwan is not included in UN classification, as it is not a | member of the United Nations (UN) or its sub-organizations. | Given its geographic location, the polity has been classified | as "030. Eastern Asia." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1006_OECD >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY MEMBER OF OECD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) at the time of the election. .................................................................. 0. POLITY NOT A MEMBER OF OECD AT THE TIME OF ELECTION 1. POLITY A MEMBER OF OECD AT THE TIME OF ELECTION | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1006_OECD | | The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) | is an intergovernmental economic organization founded in 1961 to | stimulate economic progress and world trade. | | Source of data: www.oecd.org | Date accessed: February 10, 2020 | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E1006_OECD | POLITY NOTES - CHILE: IMD1006_OECD | | Chile joined the OECD in 2010. Consequently, the Chilean 1999, | 2005 and 2009 studies are coded "0. Polity not a member of OECD | at the time of election" in IMD1006_OECD, while the Chilean | 2017 study is coded "1. Polity a member of OECD at the time of | election". | POLITY NOTES - ISRAEL: IMD1006_OECD | | Israel joined the OECD in 2010. Consequently, the Israeli 1996, | 2003 and 2006 studies are coded "0. Polity not a member of OECD | at the time of election" in IMD1006_OECD, while | the Israeli 2013 and 2020 studies are coded "1. Polity a member | of OECD at the time of election". | POLITY NOTES - LATVIA: IMD1006_OECD | | Latvia joined the OECD in 2016. Consequently, the Latvian 2010, | 2011 and 2014 studies are coded "0. Polity not a | member of OECD at the time of election" in IMD1006_OECD, while | the Latvian 2018 study is coded "1. Polity a member of OECD | at the time of election". | POLITY NOTES - LITHUANIA: IMD1006_OECD | | Lithuania joined the OECD on July 5, 2018. Consequently, the | Lithuanian 1997 and 2016 studies are coded "0. Polity not a | member of OECD at the time of election" in IMD1006_OECD, while | the Lithuanian 2020 study is coded "1. Polity a member of OECD | at the time of election". | POLITY NOTES - SLOVENIA: IMD1006_OECD | | Slovenia joined the OECD in 2010. Consequently, the Slovenian | 1996, 2004 and 2008 studies are coded "0. Polity not a member | of OECD at the time of election" in IMD1006_OECD, while | the Slovenian 2011 study is coded "1. Polity a member of OECD | at the time of election". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1006_EU >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY MEMBER OF EUROPEAN UNION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity a member of the European Union (EU) at the time of the election. .................................................................. 0. POLITY NOT A MEMBER OF EU AT THE TIME OF ELECTION 1. POLITY A MEMBER OF EU AT THE TIME OF ELECTION 7. NOT APPLICABLE: POLITY NOT IN CONTINENTAL EUROPE | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1006_EU | | The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of | polities located primarily in Europe. The EU came into being | in 1993 as the Maastricht Treaty came into force. The Union | traces its origins to the European Coal and Steel Community | (ECSC) established in 1951 and the European Economic | Community (EEC) established in 1957 under the Treaty of Rome. | | Throughout the course of the CSES IMD, the European Union | experienced two enlargement rounds of relevance for the coding | of IMD1006_EU: | | On May 1, 2004, CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA, ESTONIA, HUNGARY, LATVIA, | LITHUANIA, POLAND, SLOVAKIA, and SLOVENIA joined the European | Union. | | On January 1, 2007, BULGARIA and ROMANIA became EU members. | | All election studies from the above-listed polities are coded | "0. POLITY NOT EU MEMBER AT THE TIME OF ELECTION" if they refer | to electoral contests before the EU accession date and "1. POLITY | A MEMBER OF EU AT THE TIME OF ELECTION" otherwise. | | Source of data: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/ | countries_en | Date accessed: February 26, 2020 | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E1006_EU --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1006_VDEM >>> ID COMPONENT - V-Dem POLITY IDENTIFIER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity identifier in the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project. .................................................................. 003. MEXICO 005. SWEDEN 006. SWITZERLAND 008. SOUTH AFRICA 009. JAPAN 011. RUSSIAN FEDERATION 012. ALBANIA 017. POLAND 019. BRAZIL 020. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 021. PORTUGAL 022. EL SALVADOR 030. PERU 037. ARGENTINA 039. INDIA 040. KENYA 042. REPUBLIC OF KOREA 046. PHILIPPINES 048. TAIWAN 049. THAILAND 066. CANADA 067. AUSTRALIA 072. CHILE 073. COSTA RICA 076. FRANCE 077. GERMANY 081. IRELAND 082. ITALY 084. LATVIA 091. NETHERLANDS 098. TUNISIA 096. SPAIN 099. TURKEY 100. UKRAINE 101. GREAT BRITAIN 102. URUGUAY 107. BELARUS 122. KYRGYZSTAN 144. AUSTRIA 148. BELGIUM 152. BULGARIA 154. CROATIA 157. CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA 158. DENMARK 161. ESTONIA 163. FINLAND 164. GREECE 167. HONG KONG 168. ICELAND 169. ISRAEL 173. LITHUANIA 183. MONTENEGRO 185. NEW ZEALAND 186. NORWAY 190. ROMANIA 198. SERBIA 201. SLOVAKIA 202. SLOVENIA 210. HUNGARY | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1006_VDEM | | POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1006_VDEM identifies a polity conducting an election study | that is present in the CSES IMD and links it with the numerical | code assigned to the polity by the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) | project. V-Dem provides a multidimensional and disaggregated | dataset that reflects the complexity of the concept of democracy | distinguishing between five high-level principles of democracy: | electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian, | and collects data to measure these principles. | | Source of data: www.v-dem.net/en/ | Date accessed: July 15, 2020 | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E1006_VDEM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1007 >>> ID COMPONENT - SAMPLE COMPONENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample Components within an election study. .................................................................. 01.-25. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1007 | | IMD1007 details the number of sampling components included in a | study, i.e., differentiation in administering a survey in terms | of language, pre- and post-election designs, oversampling of | selected subpopulations, etc. | In some cases, analysts may wish to consider regions of polities | or other sample components units of analysis (e.g., what form of | questionnaire was administered to a respondent or timing of | administration). This variable provides this information. If | applicable, ELECTION STUDY NOTES below detail the individual | sampling components. For studies that do not provide multiple | sample components, the default value is 1. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1007 | MODULE 2: B1007 | MODULE 3: C1007 | MODULE 4: D1007 | MODULE 5: E1007 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): IMD1007 | | The Argentinean election survey was conducted in two waves. | Only the second wave of the survey is used for CSES. It | contained 780 respondents who had been sampled initially | for the first survey as well as a refresh sample of 626 | respondents. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. First wave sample | 002. Refresh sample | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM (2003): IMD1007 | | Sample component here refers to the language of the | questionnaire. This variable is entered by interviewers and is | important because questionnaires differ most notably in their | inclusion of different sets of political parties. Election study | notes for variables in the B3037 series (Codebook Part 2, | MODULE 2) include information about which of the two | questionnaire versions a particular party was included. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2002): IMD1007 | | This variable reports the questionnaire version. The Brazilian | survey used two versions of the questionnaire. The difference is | in the order of several sets of items, and in the direction of | some scales (see the corresponding file in the download area of | the CSES website, MODULE 2). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. Questionnaire version 1 | 002. Questionnaire version 2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): IMD1007 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. Pre-election survey, only | 002. Pre-and-post-election survey, only | 003. Pre-and-post-election-mail-back survey only | 004. Pre-and-post-election-panel survey, only | 005. Pre-and-post-election-mail-back-panel survey | | Values "4" and "5" mean that respondents also participated already | in earlier election studies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): IMD1007 | | The study was composed of only one sample component. However, a | study was conducted as a panel study (see Overview of Methods, | MODULE 4 - Canada (2015)). In second wave respondents were at the | end of interview asked if they want to provide their address and | participate in the third component of the study mail-back survey. | So, they voluntarily decided to opt-in from that component. To | provide users with the most comprehensive information, variable | IMD1007 distinguishes between the following three groups of | respondents: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. Respondents who participated in first and second | part of the study and did not want to | participate in mail-back survey (did not provide | address) | 002. Respondents who returned the mail-back | questionnaire | 003. Respondents who opted-in for mail-back survey | but did not return a questionnaire | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): IMD1007 | | IMD1007 reflects the language of interviewing | (see also notes on C1009, Codebook Part 2, MODULE 3). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. Finnish | 002. Swedish | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): IMD1007 | | The survey was composed of only one sample component. However, | a subset of the CSES MODULE 4 questions were asked in a drop-off | questionnaire (see also Election Study Note for D1023 on Survey | Mode, Codebook Part 2, MODULE 4). This drop-off questionnaire | included the questions on the following MODULE 4 variables: | D3019, D3020_, D3021_, D3022, D3023_, D3024, D3027_, and D3028_. | Of the 1,587 respondents, 684 returned the drop-off | questionnaire. To provide users with the most comprehensive | information, variable IMD1007 distinguishes between Finnish | respondents who returned the drop-off questionnaire and those who | did not. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. Respondents who returned the drop-off | questionnaire | 002. Respondents who did not return the drop-off | questionnaire | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): IMD1007 | | The data collection organization programmed the questionnaire | incorrectly and consequently, 288 respondents were not asked | about turnout and vote choice. | Affected respondents were re-contacted by phone, asking the | accidentally omitted questions from the initial interview. | Further details are provided in the Study Design Overview | for Finland (2019) in Part 6 of the CSES MODULE 5 Codebook. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Asked the entire questionnaire in the original | interview | 02. Asked several items during the second data | collection round in a phone interview | 03. The second data collection round should have been | conducted, but R could not be reached | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): IMD1007 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. West Germany | 002. East Germany | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2002 Mail-Back): IMD1007 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. East Germany (includes East Berlin) | 002. West Germany (includes West Berlin) | 999. Missing | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2002 Telephone): IMD1007 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. East Germany (includes East Berlin) | 002. West Germany (includes West Berlin) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): IMD1007 | | Germany used two different samples, dividing the German | population along the former division of the country after | the Second World War. The population of the two components | equal the population of residence in C2027 (Codebook Part 2, | MODULE 3), where values 12 to 15 refer to East Germany. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. East Germany (including East Berlin) | 002. West Germany (including West Berlin) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): IMD1007 | | The German data over-sample the eastern part of Germany, the | federal states of the former German Democratic Republic. | However, the original German data do not allow to separate both | parts of Berlin, which has been over-sampled for the eastern | part, as well. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. East Germany | 002. West Germany (including Berlin) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): IMD1007 | | East and West Germany were sampled separately with an | oversampling of East Germans. The final data contains 1,165 | respondents from West and 724 respondents from East Germany. The | sample components are coded as 1='West' and 2='East'. | Further information on weights are available in Part 6 of | CSES MODULE 4 Codebook. Additional relevant information is also | available in the election study notes for variable D1010_1 | (Codebook Part 2, MODULE 4). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017 & 2021): IMD1007 | | East and West Germany were sampled separately with an | oversampling of East Germans. IMD1007 provides an exact | geographic differentiation between respondents living in | territories of former East Germany and former West Germany. | The final 2017 data comprises 1,368 respondents from West and 664 | respondents from East Germany. | In the 2021 study, 2,171 Western German respondents participated, | as did 981 Eastern Germans. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. West Germany | 02. East Germany | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015 Jan): IMD1007 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. Respondents sampled for the previous (2012) | election study | 002. Respondents sampled newly for the 2015 election | study | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015 Sep): IMD1007 | | Respondents for the Greek September 2015 study were sampled via | random digit dialing. In addition to this freshly recruited main | sample (N = 602), Collaborators contacted 797 respondents from a | previous election study on the January 2015 election who stated | to be willing to participate in future surveys. From this pool | of panelists, 476 participated in the September 2015 study | included in CSES. IMD1007 distinguishes the two components. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Respondents sampled for the previous election | study (January 2015 elections) | 02. Respondents sampled newly for the September 2015 | election study | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): IMD1007 | | Interviews for the Hungarian study were collected in two rounds. | After invalid interviews were excluded from the first round, the | sample was heavily distorted in terms of gender and age. | This was compensated with an additional round of data collection. | IMD1007 distinguishes between interviewing rounds. For more | information, see Codebook Part 6 of CSES MODULE 5. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. First round of data collection | 02. Second round of data collection | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): IMD1007 | | After an initial step involving a random stratified sampling of | electoral districts, the Italian 2018 study recruited respondents | from two different sources: An existing web panel maintained by | Demetra Opinioni.net that was initially sampled randomly | (N = 500) and a freshly sampled dual-frame telephone survey | (random digit dialing, N = 1,501). IMD1007 distinguishes between | the two components. For more information, see Codebook Part 6 of | CSES MODULE 5. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Respondents sampled from web panel | 02. Respondents sampled through random digit dialing | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): IMD1007 | | The Dutch 2017 study consists of two independent sampling | components, a simple random sample drawn from population | registers (N = 723) and a sample drawn from the ongoing "LISS" | online panel (Langlopende Internet Studies voor de Sociale | wetenschappen, N = 1,180). The LISS panel was launched in 2007 | and refreshed in four subsequent waves, all based on probability | sampling. For more information, users are referred to the study | design overview provided in Codebook Part 6 of CSES MODULE 5. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Respondents sampled from population registers | (face-to-face interviews with drop-off | questionnaire) | 02. Respondents sampled from LISS web panel | (online interviews) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2021): IMD1007 | | The Dutch 2021 study consists of two independent sampling | components, a simple random sample drawn from population | registers (N = 1,688) and a sample drawn from the ongoing | "LISS" online panel (N = 1,766) (Langlopende Internet Studies | voor de Sociale wetenschappen). | IMD1007 further differentiates 31 respondents from the LISS-Panel | as a separate sampling component. These respondents stated to | be ineligible to vote in an open-ended question not included in | CSES. Collaborators note they do not possess any additional | information suggesting ineligibility. | | For more information on the DPES 2021 sampling design, please | refer to the Study Design Overview provided in Codebook Part 6 | of CSES MODULE 5. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Respondents sampled from population registers | (self-administered online or mail-back | questionnaire) | 02. Respondents sampled from the LISS web panel | (online interviews) | 03. Respondents sampled from the LISS web panel | stating to be ineligible to vote in an open-ended | question | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): IMD1007 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. Postal new sample (including Maori sample) | 002. Postal panel sample (1990 and 1993 respondents) | 006. Postal campaign | | Post-Election Study (1=postal new sample): Respondents to | the post-election survey were randomly selected from the 1996 | electoral roll and sent a self-completion questionnaire. | | Maori Sample (1=postal new sample): As part of the post-election | survey, persons on the Maori roll were oversampled allowing for | an analysis of Maori political attitudes and behavior. Persons | randomly selected from the Maori electoral rolls were mailed | self-administered questionnaires. | | Panel Study (2 = postal panel from 1993 and 1990): Each elector | survey includes a panel of respondents carried through from the | previous study, making it possible to track patterns of | individual-level change. The 1996 survey includes the final wave | of a panel of respondents who participated in the 1993 and 1990 | NZES. | | The Campaign Wave (6 = postal campaign): A pre-election survey | was conducted over the course of the campaign to track short- | term changes in voting behavior. The rolling cross-section was | conducted September 5 through October 11, during which time | approximately 120 computer-assisted telephone interviews per | day were conducted with randomly selected New Zealanders of | voting age. Respondents' names and addresses were also requested | and those who supplied them were sent a postal questionnaire | after the election. | | The post-election wave of the campaign sample was added to the | post-election sample from the electoral rolls, the Maori sample | and the panel and these components comprise the complete post- | election data set. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): IMD1007 | | New Zealand respondents of Maori descent can choose to be | registered on a separate Maori roll, and cast their electorate | votes within seven constituencies that overlie the general | electorates. For its new sample, the 2008 NZES sampled | within four subsets of registered voters and over-sampled | subsets 1, 3, and 4 below, groups of particular interest to the | researchers. For the CSES release, respondents from the three | over-sampled subsets were re-sampled to bring their numbers into | the appropriate proportions among registered voters, removing | any need for sampling weights. | | In this variable you find information about a person's | registration: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. Those on Maori roll 27 and over | 002. Those on General roll 27 and over | 003. Those on Maori roll 18-26 | 004. Those on General Roll 18-26 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): IMD1007 | | The survey was part of a rolling cross-sectional | sample. For further reference see the general notes for Norway | in Part 6 of the MODULE 4 Codebook. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. Respondents who participated in the panel | already in 2009 | 002. New cross-section sample | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD1007 | | A part of the sample consisted of a panel component in which | respondents were interviewed prior and after the election | (N=1,080). All relevant CSES questions were asked in the post- | election survey of the panel component. All other respondents | were part of a cross-sectional post-election study (N=1,203). | For further information, see the general notes for Romania 2012 | in Part 1 of the CSES MODULE 4 Codebook. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. Respondents who were part of the cross-section | post-election study | 002. Respondents who were part of the pre-election/ | post-election panel study | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): IMD1007 | | The fieldwork for the Slovakian study was conducted from June to | August 2020, as a face-to-face study, in the midst of the | COVID-19 pandemic. Due to lockdown measures in some parts of the | country and a shortage of interviewers because of the pandemic, | about 20% of selected primary sampling units (PSUs) were not | reachable. To compensate for this, Slovakian Collaborators | conducted a second round of PSU-selection again based on the | whole country. The resulting second round of fieldwork collected | the missing approx. 33% of the sample. IMD1007 distinguishes the | two data collection rounds. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Interview conducted during the first part of | fieldwork (N = 668) | 02. Interview conducted during the second part of | fieldwork (N = 335) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): IMD1007 | | In Sweden, some respondents did not receive the same | questionnaire in terms of length. The following codes allow | users to identify respondents by questionnaire type. 408 | respondents did not receive the CSES Module. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. Full Questionnaire | 002. Shortened Questionnaire | 003. Very short Questionnaire (no CSES) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): IMD1007 | | The survey was part of a rolling cross-sectional study (Wave 1: | 2010-2014; Wave 2: 2014-2018). In addition, respondents could | complete either a long or a short version of the questionnaire. | The latter excluded the demographic MODULE 4 variables D2021, | D2022, D2023, D2025, and D2027. To allow distinguishing between | these groups, the sample component not only reflects the two | waves but also the length of the questionnaire. Finally, 22 | respondents in the sample were first-time voters who were not | part of either panel. These respondents are coded as | "99. MISSING" for IMD1007. For further information on the sample | composition, see Part 6 of the CSES MODULE 4 Codebook. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. 2010-2014 Panel; Full Questionnaire | 002. 2010-2014 Panel; Short Questionnaire | 003. 2014-2018 Panel; Full Questionnaire | 004. 2014-2018 Panel; Short Questionnaire | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): IMD1007 | | The CSES survey was applied in several stages and with different | methodologies. For details see study description in Codebook | Part 1, MODULE 3. | Variable IMD1007 accounts for the type of sample from where each | respondent was selected, as well as the type of questionnaire | employed in the follow-up stage (if applicable). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. Respondents from national sample and no follow-up | participation | 002. Respondents from cantonal over-sample and no | follow-up participation | 003. Respondents from national sample and completed | mail-back questionnaire follow-up. | 004. Respondents from cantonal over-sample sample and | completed questionnaire mail-back follow-up. | 005. Respondents from national sample and completed | online questionnaire follow-up. | 006. Respondents from cantonal over-sample sample and | completed online questionnaire follow-up. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): IMD1007 | | The Thai 2019 study was administered as a multistage systematic | random sample, in which substitution of individuals was | permissible at the final stage of selection. | IMD1007 distinguishes respondents who were selected via | substitution from other persons in the sample. For further | details, see ELECTION STUDY NOTES for E1007 in Codebook Part 2 | of CSES MODULE 5. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Respondent selected as a substitution for another | non-reachable person (N = 370) | 02. Respondent selected for initial sample, | no substitution (N = 1,166) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): IMD1007 | | There are two sample components in the US data distinguishing | early voters (N=115) and voters who cast a ballot on election | day. Respondents were asked in the pre-election survey whether | they had voted early. Respondents who affirmed this were still | asked the MODULE 4 questions about their voting behavior | (D3005_PR_1 - D3006_UH_DC) in the post-election survey. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 001. Voters who cast a ballot on election day | 002. Early voters | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): IMD1007 | | IMD1007 differentiates between two sample components in the U.S. | 2016 data, namely voters who cast their vote early prior to the | pre-election interview (N=131) and voters who cast their ballot | after the pre-election interview. Respondents who affirmed to | have voted early were asked to report their vote choice in the | pre-election survey. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Voted after the pre-election interview | 02. Voted early before the pre-election interview | | Furthermore, the ANES 2016 Time Series is composed of two | independently drawn probability samples split along modes. | See CSES MODULE 5 Codebook Part 6 for more information. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): IMD1007 | | IMD1007 differentiates between ten sample components in the 2020 | study. These ten sample components comprise two-digit identifiers | which represent the following distinctions. The first digit | (a "1" or a "2") differentiates between voters that report | casting their ballot before the pre-election and those who report | doing so after the pre-election interview. Voters who report the | former receive a code of "2" (and thus are represented by codes | 21-25, N=371). Voters who report the latter receive a code of "1" | and thus are represented by codes 11-15. | | The second digit of the identifier classifies the respondent | mode of interview and in certain circumstances, the timing period | in which the respondent was invited to undertake the interview. | Respondents part of the 2020 sample are classified with a second | digit (i.e., codes 11-14 and codes 21-24 respectively). | Respondents originating from the ANES 2016 study and | re-interviewed in 2020 are classified in codes 15 and 25. | Further details on the sampling design are provided in | Part 6 of the CSES MODULE 5 Codebook and in ELECTION STUDY NOTES | in CSES MODULE 5 Codebook Part 2 for variables E1009_P_. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | VOTED AFTER THE PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEW: | 11. Fresh 2020 sample: web only, replicate 1 | 12. Fresh 2020 sample: web only, replicate 2 | 13. Fresh 2020 sample: web or phone | 14. Fresh 2020 sample: video, web, or phone | 15. 2016-2020 Panel | | VOTED EARLY BEFORE THE PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEW: | 21. Fresh 2020 sample: web only, replicate 1 | 22. Fresh 2020 sample: web only, replicate 2 | 23. Fresh 2020 sample: web or phone | 24. Fresh 2020 sample: video, web, or phone | 25. 2016-2020 Panel --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1008_YEAR >>> ID COMPONENT - ELECTION YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Election year. .................................................................. 1996-2021. ELECTION YEAR | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1008_YEAR | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1008 details the year in which an election was held for a | study included in CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1008 | MODULE 2: B1008 | MODULE 3: C1008 | MODULE 4: D1008 | MODULE 5: E1008 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1008_DEC >>> ID COMPONENT - ELECTION DECADE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decade of the election. .................................................................. 0. ELECTION TAKING PLACE IN 1990s (i.e., 1996-1999 inc.) 1. ELECTION TAKING PLACE IN 2000s (i.e., 2000-2009 inc.) 2. ELECTION TAKING PLACE IN 2010s (i.e., 2010-2019 inc.) 3. ELECTION TAKING PLACE IN 2020s (i.e., 2020-2029 inc.) 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1008_DEC | | IMD1008_DEC refers to the decade of the main election, | notwithstanding fieldwork periods. In case of multiple rounds | split between decades, IMD1008_DEC refers to the first round of | the election. For example, the Chilean 1999 and 2009 | Presidential contests featured two rounds, with the first round | taking place in December and the second round taking place in | January of the following decade (2000 and 2010, respectively). | In these instances, data were coded according to the first round | (December 1999 and 2009). | | CSES classifies the main election based on the regime | (executive) type and the election in which the CSES survey has | been administered. For polities rated as parliamentary systems, | CSES classifies the main election as elections to the lower house | for most studies. It deviates for a few cases when elections to | the upper house constitutes the main election, usually due to the | respective CSES study focusing on the upper house contest. | For polities rated as Presidential systems, CSES conventionally | classifies the main election as the Presidential election. It | sometimes deviates when data for the Presidential election is | unavailable (e.g., when the CSES survey was administered in a | midterm election). For polities rated as mixed systems, CSES | has tended to classify the main election as elections to the | lower house. However, it sometimes deviates depending on data | availability. Users are advised to consult the table listed in | VARIABLE NOTES for IMD3001 specifying the main election for | each study in CSES for specific details. | | This variable is original to CSES IMD, and therefore there are | no corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1008_MOD_1 >>> ID COMPONENT - CSES MODULE 1 IMD1008_MOD_2 >>> ID COMPONENT - CSES MODULE 2 IMD1008_MOD_3 >>> ID COMPONENT - CSES MODULE 3 IMD1008_MOD_4 >>> ID COMPONENT - CSES MODULE 4 IMD1008_MOD_5 >>> ID COMPONENT - CSES MODULE 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CSES MODULE identifier. .................................................................. 0. ELECTION STUDY NOT INCLUDED IN CSES MODULE X 1. ELECTION STUDY INCLUDED IN CSES MODULE X | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1008_MOD | | IMD1008_MOD_ are binary variables indicating the CSES Module | which was included in the respective election study. For | example, respondents from an election study with questions from | MODULE 3 would be coded 1 for IMD1008_MOD_3, and 0 for all other | IMD1008_MOD_ variables. | | The Standalone CSES Modules were administered during the | following years (inclusive): | | CSES MODULE 1: 1996 - 2001 - SEE BELOW | CSES MODULE 2: 2001 - 2006 | CSES MODULE 3: 2006 - 2011 - SEE BELOW | CSES MODULE 4: 2011 - 2016 | CSES MODULE 5: 2016 - 2021 - SEE BELOW | | The official period covered in CSES MODULE 2 is from 1996 to | 2001. However, the Portuguese election study of 2002 included | both CSES MODULES 1 and 2 in their study. For more see ELECTION | STUDY NOTE for Portugal below. | | The official period covered in CSES MODULE 3 is from 2006 to | 2011. The questionnaire was finalized for data collection | beginning in 2006, however, there are three pilot studies from | 2005 covering MODULE 3, namely Germany (2005), Norway (2005) and | Poland (2005). | | The official period covered in CSES MODULE 4 is from 2011 to | 2016. A preliminary questionnaire was used for pretests in 2011 - | this version of the questionnaire was very similar to the final | version. The questionnaire was finalized in 2012. | | The official period covered in CSES MODULE 5 is from 2016 to | 2021. However, one pilot study was fielded in 2016 for Greece | which focused on the September 2015 election. The questionnaire | was finalized in 2016. | | These variables are original to CSES IMD, and therefore there are | no corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): IMD1008_MOD_ | | The Portuguese 2002 election study was administered during the | transition phase between CSES MODULES 1 and 2. Therefore, it | covered both the MODULE 1 and the MODULE 2 questionnaire. | Respondents from the 2002 Portuguese study are thus coded | "1" in both IMD1008_MOD_1 and IMD1008_MOD_2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1008_RES >>> ID COMPONENT - RESPONDENT WITHIN ELECTION STUDY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent identifier. .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1008_RES | | IMD1008_RES is ten characters in length and is a unique | identifier for each survey respondent within an election study. | | While this variable uniquely identifies a respondent within | an election study, it is not unique across the entire dataset. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1009 | MODULE 2: B1009 | MODULE 3: C1009 | MODULE 4: D1009 | MODULE 5: E1009 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1009 >>> ELECTION TYPE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Type of election. .................................................................. 10. PARLIAMENTARY/LEGISLATIVE 12. PARLIAMENTARY/LEGISLATIVE AND PRESIDENTIAL 13. PARLIAMENTARY/LEGISLATIVE AND PRIME MINISTER 20. PRESIDENTIAL 30. HEAD OF GOVERNMENT | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1009 | | The following table gives an overview of which type of elections | are included in CSES IMD for which polity. | | +++ TABLE: ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF ELECTION | | Presidential Lower House Upper House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election Election Election | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ALBANIA (2005) - X - | ALBANIA (2017) - X - | ARGENTINA (2015) X X X | AUSTRALIA (1996) - X - | AUSTRALIA (2004) - X X | AUSTRALIA (2007) - X X | AUSTRALIA (2013) - X X | AUSTRALIA (2019) - X X | AUSTRIA (2008) - X - | AUSTRIA (2013) - X - | AUSTRIA (2017) - X - | BELARUS (2001) X* X* - | BELARUS (2008) - X - | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999) - X - | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999) - X - | BELGIUM (2003) - X X | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) - X - | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) - X - | BRAZIL (2002) X X X | BRAZIL (2006) X X - | BRAZIL (2010) X X X | BRAZIL (2014) X X X | BRAZIL (2018) X X X | BULGARIA (2001) - X - | BULGARIA (2014) - X - | CANADA (1997) - X - | CANADA (2004) - X - | CANADA (2008) - X - | CANADA (2011) - X - | CANADA (2015) - X - | CANADA (2019) - X - | CHILE (1999) X - - | CHILE (2005) X X - | CHILE (2009) X X - | CHILE (2017) X X X | COSTA RICA (2018) X X - | CROATIA (2007) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (1996) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2002) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2006) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2010) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2013) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2017) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2021) - X - | DENMARK (1998) - X - | DENMARK (2001) - X - | DENMARK (2007) - X - | DENMARK (2019) - X - | EL SALVADOR (2019) X - - | ESTONIA (2011) - X - | FINLAND (2003) - X - | FINLAND (2007) - X - | FINLAND (2011) - X - | FINLAND (2015) - X - | FINLAND (2019) - X - | FRANCE (2002) X - - | FRANCE (2007) - X - | FRANCE (2012) X - - | FRANCE (2017) X - - | GERMANY (1998) - X - | GERMANY (2002 Mail-Back) - X - | GERMANY (2002 Telephone) - X - | GERMANY (2005) - X - | GERMANY (2009) - X - | GERMANY (2013) - X - | GERMANY (2017) - X - | GERMANY (2021) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (1997) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2005) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2019) - X - | GREECE (2009) - X - | GREECE (2012) - X - | GREECE (2015 Jan) - X - | GREECE (2015 Sep) - X - | GREECE (2019) - X - | HONG KONG (1998) - X - | HONG KONG (2000) - X - | HONG KONG (2004) - X - | HONG KONG (2008) - X - | HONG KONG (2012) - X - | HONG KONG (2016) - X - | HUNGARY (1998) - X - | HUNGARY (2002) - X - | HUNGARY (2018) - X - | ICELAND (1999) - X - | ICELAND (2003) - X - | ICELAND (2007) - X - | ICELAND (2009) - X - | ICELAND (2013) - X - | ICELAND (2016) - X - | ICELAND (2017) - X - | INDIA (2019) - X - | IRELAND (2002) - X - | IRELAND (2007) - X - | IRELAND (2011) - X - | IRELAND (2016) - X - | ISRAEL (1996) - X* - | ISRAEL (2003) - X - | ISRAEL (2006) - X - | ISRAEL (2013) - X - | ISRAEL (2020) - X - | ITALY (2006) - X - | ITALY (2018) - X X | JAPAN (1996) - X - | JAPAN (2004) - - X | JAPAN (2007) - - X | JAPAN (2013) - - X | JAPAN (2017) - X - | KENYA (2013) X X X | KYRGYZSTAN (2005) X - - | LATVIA (2010) - X - | LATVIA (2011) - X - | LATVIA (2014) - X - | LATVIA (2018) - X - | LITHUANIA (1997) X - - | LITHUANIA (2016) - X - | LITHUANIA (2020) - X - | MEXICO (1997) - X - | MEXICO (2000) X X - | MEXICO (2003) - X - | MEXICO (2006) X X X | MEXICO (2009) - X - | MEXICO (2012) X X X | MEXICO (2015) - X - | MEXICO (2018) X X X | MONTENEGRO (2012) - X - | MONTENEGRO (2016) - X - | NETHERLANDS (1998) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2002) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2006) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2010) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2017) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2021) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (1996) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2002) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2008) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2011) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2014) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2017) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2020) - X - | NORWAY (1997) - X - | NORWAY (2001) - X - | NORWAY (2005) - X - | NORWAY (2009) - X - | NORWAY (2013) - X - | NORWAY (2017) - X - | PERU (2000) X X - | PERU (2001) X X - | PERU (2006) X X - | PERU (2011) X X - | PERU (2016) X X - | PERU (2021) X X - | PHILIPPINES (2004) X X - | PHILIPPINES (2010) X - - | PHILIPPINES (2016) X X - | POLAND (1997) - X - | POLAND (2001) - X X | POLAND (2005) - X X | POLAND (2007) - X X | POLAND (2011) - X X | POLAND (2019) - X X | PORTUGAL (2002) - X - | PORTUGAL (2005) - X - | PORTUGAL (2009) - X - | PORTUGAL (2015) - X - | PORTUGAL (2019) - X - | ROMANIA (1996) X X - | ROMANIA (2004) X X X | ROMANIA (2009) X - - | ROMANIA (2012) - X X | ROMANIA (2014) X - - | ROMANIA (2016) - X X | RUSSIA (1999) - X - | RUSSIA (2000) X - - | RUSSIA (2004) X - - | SERBIA (2012) X X - | SLOVAKIA (2010) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2016) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2020) - X - | SLOVENIA (1996) - X - | SLOVENIA (2004) - X - | SLOVENIA (2008) - X - | SLOVENIA (2011) - X - | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) - X - | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2000) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2004) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2008) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2012) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2016) - X - | SPAIN (1996) - X - | SPAIN (2000) - X - | SPAIN (2004) - X - | SPAIN (2008) - X - | SWEDEN (1998) - X - | SWEDEN (2002) - X - | SWEDEN (2006) - X - | SWEDEN (2014) - X - | SWEDEN (2018) - X - | SWITZERLAND (1999) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2003) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2007) - X X | SWITZERLAND (2011) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2019) - X X | TAIWAN (1996) X X - | TAIWAN (2001) - X - | TAIWAN (2004) X - - | TAIWAN (2008) X - - | TAIWAN (2012) X X - | TAIWAN (2016) X X - | TAIWAN (2020) X X - | THAILAND (2001) - X - | THAILAND (2007) - X - | THAILAND (2011) - X - | THAILAND (2019) - X - | TUNISIA (2019) X X - | TURKEY (2011) - X - | TURKEY (2015) - X - | TURKEY (2018) X X - | UKRAINE (1998) - X - | UNITED STATES (1996) X X - | UNITED STATES (2004) X X X | UNITED STATES (2008) X X X | UNITED STATES (2012) X X X | UNITED STATES (2016) X X X | UNITED STATES (2020) X X X | URUGUAY (2009) X X X | URUGUAY (2019) X X X | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = Yes; - = No; * = See ELECTION STUDY NOTES below | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1015 | MODULE 2: B1015 | MODULE 3: C1015 | MODULE 4: D1015 | MODULE 5: E1015 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2001): IMD1009 | | The 2001 Belarusian lower house election took place on March 18, | 2000. The Presidential election was held on September 9, 2001. | The original election study primarily refers to the Presidential | election. However, leader evaluations, party evaluations, and | macro data refer to the legislative election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): IMD1009 | | Variables referring to the Presidential election in CSES IMD | refer to the direct elections in 1996 for the Israeli Prime | Ministership. During the 1992-1996 parliamentary session, the | Knesset decided to introduce a system of direct election for | the Prime Ministership. The move followed the so-called | "Dirty Trick" scandal of 1990 when Shimon Peres, then leader of | the Labor party (Alignment), attempted to form a minority | government made up of left-wing factions and ultra-orthodox | parties, at the expense of the national unity government formed | in 1988 and led by Likud's Yitzhak Shamir. While the national | unity government became the first government in the history of | Israel to be dismissed by a parliamentary motion of | no-confidence, Peres was unable to form a government and | Yitzak Shamir continued as Prime Minister, now leading a | right-wing coalition government excluding Labor. During the | attempts to form a Labor-led government, potential coalition | members publicly demanded financial inducements for their | support, prompting discussions of electoral reform. The direct | election for the Prime Ministership continued in the 1999 and | 2001 elections but was abandoned afterwards. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1010_1 >>> ELECTION STUDY WEIGHT: SAMPLE IMD1010_2 >>> ELECTION STUDY WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC IMD1010_3 >>> ELECTION STUDY WEIGHT: POLITICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Election Study Weights to compensate for a type of design effect. .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1010_ | | IMD1010_ detail the "Polity Weights" of the Standalone | CSES Modules, originally provided as variables A1012_, B1012_, | C1012_, D1012_ and E1010_2. They report standardized versions | (with a mean 1 within the polity) of the original weights | provided with the component election studies. They are the ratio | of each weighting factor to the mean weight of each type, | calculated within each polity. | | The derivative "Election Study Weights" (IMD1010_) have been | created so that for each weight (sample, demographic, political), | each respondent within the election study has a mean weight | of "1". If you are running a frequency, for instance, this weight | will work so that the N in your frequency table comes out to | approximately the same as the number of interviews in the | study. This derivative weight is created by dividing the | individual weight for each respondent within an election | study by the mean for that weight for all respondents in that | election study. | | The STATA code used to create the derivative variables in the | CSES dataset is available in the original documentation of | weighting variables, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the | Standalone CSES Modules. | | Use of weights is at the discretion of the analyst based upon | the considerations of her/his individual research question. | We recommend that analysts familiarize themselves with the | weights, their components, and their methods of creation | before applying them. For IMD1010_, users are advised to pay | special attention to the documentation of the original weights | provided by collaborators (A1010_, B1010_, C1010_, D1010_, | E1010_) and the factor variables reporting the mean weight of | each type (A1011_, B1011_, C1011_, D1011_, E1011_), available | in Codebook Parts 2 of the CSES MODULES. | | Additionally, analysts will want to keep in mind that these | weights are prepared to be election study weights, not country | weights. To convert the weights to country weights requires an | adjustment for those countries for which one or more polities | or election studies appear in the dataset. | | In the table below, we give an overview about what types of | weights were originally provided by collaborators. More | information on these weights is available in the Codebook Parts 2 | of the CSES MODULES and in the Design Reports provided by | collaborators. | In cases where a collaborator provides a single weight that | is a combination of one or more of the three weight categories | (sample, demographic, and political), the weight is duplicated | in the two or more appropriate variables. Thus, analysts using | two or more of the weights simultaneously will need to account | for this duplication. | Where a weight of a particular type is unavailable, these | variables are coded 1. | | +++ TABLE: TYPE OF ORIGINAL WEIGHTS BY INDIVIDUAL ELECTION | STUDIES | | Sample Demographic Political | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Weight Weight Weight | ----------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2013) - X - | AUSTRALIA (2019) X X - | AUSTRIA (2008) - X - | AUSTRIA (2013) - X - | AUSTRIA (2017) - X X | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999) - X X | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999) - X X | BELGIUM (2003) - X X | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) - X X | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) - X X | BRAZIL (2002) X X - | BRAZIL (2006) - X - | BRAZIL (2014) X - - | BULGARIA (2001) - X - | BULGARIA (2014) - X - | CANADA (1997) X - - | CANADA (2004) X - - | CANADA (2008) X - - | CANADA (2011) X - - | CANADA (2015) X - - | CANADA (2019) X X - | CHILE (1999) - - X | CHILE (2005) - X - | CHILE (2009) - X - | CHILE (2017) - X - | COSTA RICA (2018) - X - | CROATIA (2007) - X X | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2013) - - X | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2021) - X - | DENMARK (1998) - X X | DENMARK (2007) X - - | DENMARK (2019) - X X | EL SALVADOR (2019) - X X | ESTONIA (2011) - X - | FINLAND (2011) - - X | FINLAND (2015) - X X | FINLAND (2019) - X X | FRANCE (2002) - X - | FRANCE (2007) X X X | FRANCE (2012) - X X | FRANCE (2017) - X X | GERMANY (1998) X X X | GERMANY (2002 Mail-Back) X X - | GERMANY (2002 Telephone) X X - | GERMANY (2005) X X - | GERMANY (2009) X X - | GERMANY (2013) X X - | GERMANY (2017) X X - | GERMANY (2021) X X - | GREAT BRITAIN (1997) X - - | GREAT BRITAIN (2005) X X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) X X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) X X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2019) - X - | GREECE (2009) - - X | GREECE (2012) - X - | GREECE (2015 Jan) - X X | GREECE (2015 Sep) - X - | GREECE (2019) X X - | HONG KONG (2008) - X - | HONG KONG (2012) - X - | HONG KONG (2016) - X - | HUNGARY (1998) - X - | HUNGARY (2002) - X - | HUNGARY (2018) - X - | ICELAND (2007) - X - | ICELAND (2009) - X - | INDIA (2019) X X X | IRELAND (2002) X X - | IRELAND (2007) - X - | IRELAND (2011) - X X | IRELAND (2016) - X - | ISRAEL (2020) - X - | ITALY (2006) - X - | ITALY (2018) X X X | JAPAN (1996) X - - | JAPAN (2004) X - - | JAPAN (2007) X - - | JAPAN (2013) - X - | JAPAN (2017) X X - | KENYA (2013) X - - | LATVIA (2010) - X - | LATVIA (2011) X X - | LATVIA (2014) - X - | LATVIA (2018) - X - | LITHUANIA (1997) - X - | LITHUANIA (2016) - X - | LITHUANIA (2020) - X X | MEXICO (1997) X X - | MEXICO (2000) X X - | MEXICO (2003) X X X | MEXICO (2006) X X - | MEXICO (2009) X X - | MEXICO (2012) X X - | MEXICO (2015) - X - | MEXICO (2018) X X - | MONTENEGRO (2012) - X - | MONTENEGRO (2016) - X - | NETHERLANDS (1998) X X X | NETHERLANDS (2002) - X X | NETHERLANDS (2006) - X X | NETHERLANDS (2010) - X X | NETHERLANDS (2017) - X X | NETHERLANDS (2021) - X X | NEW ZEALAND (1996) X - X | NEW ZEALAND (2002) X X X | NEW ZEALAND (2008) - X X | NEW ZEALAND (2011) - X X | NEW ZEALAND (2014) - X X | NEW ZEALAND (2017) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2020) - X - | NORWAY (2013) - X - | NORWAY (2017) - X - | PERU (2006) - X X | PERU (2011) X X X | PERU (2016) X X X | PERU (2021) - X - | PHILIPPINES (2004) - X - | PHILIPPINES (2010) X - - | PHILIPPINES (2016) X - - | POLAND (1997) X X - | POLAND (2001) X X - | POLAND (2005) - X - | POLAND (2007) - X - | POLAND (2011) - X - | POLAND (2019) - X - | PORTUGAL (2002) - - X | PORTUGAL (2005) - X X | PORTUGAL (2009) - X - | PORTUGAL (2015) - X - | PORTUGAL (2019) - X X | ROMANIA (2009) - X - | ROMANIA (2012) X X X | ROMANIA (2014) X X X | ROMANIA (2016) X X X | RUSSIA (1999) X - - | RUSSIA (2000) X - - | RUSSIA (2004) X - - | SERBIA (2012) X X - | SLOVAKIA (2010) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2016) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2020) X X - | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) X - - | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) - X - | SPAIN (1996) - X - | SPAIN (2000) - X - | SPAIN (2004) - X - | SPAIN (2008) - X - | SWEDEN (2018) - X - | SWITZERLAND (1999) X - - | SWITZERLAND (2003) X - - | SWITZERLAND (2007) X - X | SWITZERLAND (2011) X - X | SWITZERLAND (2019) X - X | TAIWAN (2004) - X - | TAIWAN (2008) - X - | TAIWAN (2012) - X - | TAIWAN (2016) - X - | TAIWAN (2020) - X - | THAILAND (2011) X - - | TURKEY (2011) - X - | TURKEY (2015) - X - | TURKEY (2018) - X - | UNITED STATES (1996) X X - | UNITED STATES (2004) X X - | UNITED STATES (2008) X - - | UNITED STATES (2012) X X - | UNITED STATES (2016) X X - | UNITED STATES (2020) X X - | URUGUAY (2009) - - X | URUGUAY (2019) X X X | ----------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = available; - = not available. | | Sample weights include those intended to correct for unequal | selection probabilities resulting from "booster" samples, | procedures for selection within the household, non-response, | as well as other features of the sample design. | | Demographic weights adjust sample distributions of socio- | demographic characteristics to more closely resemble the | characteristics of the population. | | Political weights reconcile discrepancies in the reported | electoral behavior of the survey respondents from the | official vote counts. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1012_1, A1012_2, & A1012_3 | MODULE 2: B1012_1, B1012_2, & B1012_3 | MODULE 3: C1012_1, C1012_2, & C1012_3 | MODULE 4: D1012_1, D1012_2, & D1012_3 | MODULE 5: E1012_1, E1012_2, & E1012_3 | | Weights are unavailable for ALBANIA (2005, 2017), ARGENTINA | (2015), AUSTRALIA (1996, 2004, 2007), BELARUS (2001, 2008), | BRAZIL (2010, 2018), CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (1996, 2002, 2006, | 2010, 2017), DENMARK (2001), FINLAND (2003, 2007), HONG KONG | (1998, 2000, 2004), ICELAND (1999, 2003, 2013, 2016, 2017), | ISRAEL (1996, 2003, 2006, 2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), NORWAY (1997, | 2001, 2005, 2009), PERU (2000, 2001), ROMANIA (1996, 2004), | SLOVENIA (1996, 2004, 2008, 2011), SOUTH KOREA (2000, 2004, 2008, | 2012, 2016), SWEDEN (1998, 2002, 2006, 2014), TAIWAN (1996, | 2001), THAILAND (2001, 2007, 2019), TUNISIA (2019) and | UKRAINE (1998). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): IMD1010_3 | | The combined political and demographic weight (IMD1010_3) was not | constructed for 146 respondents due to the missing information | on the variables used for constructing weights. These cases were | recoded to 0 for the political weight variable and thus, are | dropped from analyses if IMD1010_3 is applied. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999): IMD1010_3 | | For 447 respondents, the weight is set to zero. This is the | result of missing data which was used to calculate the original | weight. Because the assignment of zero was a collaborator | decision and the weights appear this way in the original data | deposits, no change was made. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): IMD1010_3 | | The combined political and demographic weight (IMD1010_3) was not | constructed for 149 respondents due to the missing information | on the variables used for constructing weights. These cases were | recoded to 0 for the political weight variable and thus, are | dropped from analyses if IMD1010_3 is applied. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): IMD1010_2 | | We alert users that the demographic weight (IMD1010_2) was | constructed on all 1,456 respondents. However, the study includes | 28 respondents who did not provide information on their year of | birth. The voting eligibility of those 28 respondents can thus | not be ascertained. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): IMD1010_3 | | In the original deposited political weight (IMD1010_3), 671 | respondents were coded as system missing because there was no | information available for them on lower house vote choice | variables. After consulting with the Collaborator, these cases | were recoded to zero such that they will drop out of any analyses | in which the weight is applied. | Because the voting age differs between the lower house (18 years | and older) and the upper house (25 years and older), applying | any of the three weights adjusts the data for the lower house | electorate but not the upper house electorate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (1997): IMD1010_2 | | The 1997 Lithuanian study was meant to be representative of | the population from ages 15 to 74. Hence, the study includes | 49 respondents who were younger than 18 and ineligible to vote | at the time of the election. The originally deposited | demographic weight was calculated based on the full sample, | including those respondents who were ineligible to vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): IMD1010_2, IMD1010_3 | | For 287 respondents, the weight is set to zero. This is the | result of missing data which was used to calculate the original | weight. Because the assignment of zero was a collaborator | decision and the weights appear this way in the original data | deposits, no change was made. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): IMD1010_3 | | For 90 respondents in IMD1010_3, no weight value was provided | because one or multiple of the variables used for calculating the | weights were missing. | The 90 respondents in IMD1010_3 were recoded to 0 for the | political weight variable and are hence dropped from analyses | upon applying IMD1010_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): IMD1010_3 | | Because of compulsory voting in Peru, non-voters are coded as | zero in IMD1010_3 and are thus excluded from any analysis, | when the weight is applied. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): IMD1010_1-IMD1010_3 | | Political weights were not constructed for 123 respondents in | CSES Module 4. 105 of these respondents did not cast a vote in | the Presidential elections (IMD3001_PR_1) and the remaining 18 | respondents did not specify their vote choice in | the Presidential elections (IMD3002_PR_1). These cases were | set to zero for the political weight variable and thus, are | dropped from analyses if IMD1010_3 is applied. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): IMD1010_3 | | The Portuguese 2002 election study was administered during the | transition phase between CSES MODULES 1 and 2. Therefore, it | covered both the MODULE 1 and the MODULE 2 questionnaire. | As election study weights were not provided for Portugal (2002) | in CSES MODULE 1, the political weight for Portugal (2002) | included in CSES MODULE 2 was adopted for IMD. The respective | weight adjusts for the 2002 electoral results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2005): IMD1010_2 | | The demographic weight was constructed on the basis of Census | 2001 information about the distribution of 18+ years of age | residents in Continental Portugal on the basis of sex (2 | strata), age (3 strata), and education (3 strata). | | The demographic weight was initially deposited with 215 cases | having missing data. In the CSES data file, these cases are | coded "0." These are cases for which at least one relevant | demographic variable was missing for the respondent. The | collaborator preferred to assign a weight of "0" to these cases | given that the demographic information was not complete for the | case. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2005): IMD1010_3 | | The political weight was constructed on the basis of the 2005 | election results in order to weigh the results of the vote | recall question. | | The political weight was originally deposited with 428 cases | having missing data. In the CSES data file, these cases are | coded "0." These are cases for which at least one relevant | political variable was missing for the respondent. The | collaborator preferred to assign a weight of "0" to these | cases given that the political information was not complete | for the case. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2000): IMD1010_2 | | For one respondent, the weight is set to zero. This is the | result of missing data which was used to calculate the original | weight. Because the assignment of zero was a collaborator | decision and the weights appear this way in the original data | deposits, no change was made. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1011_M >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH IMD1011_D >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY IMD1011_Y >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [first round] election began. .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 99. MISSING DAY 01-31. DAY OF MONTH 99. MISSING YEAR 1996-2021. YEAR 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1011_ | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1011_ classify the start date of the election. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1016-A1018 | MODULE 2: B1016-B1018 | MODULE 3: C1016-C1018 | MODULE 4: D1016-D1018 | MODULE 5: E1016-E1018 | POLITY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA: IMD1011_ | | Conventionally, Czech parliamentary elections are held on two | consecutive days. Only the dates of the first election day are | characterized in the dataset. | [POLITY NOTES] - NORWAY: IMD1011_D | | Conventionally, elections in Norway are held on Mondays. | However, in some instances, municipalities were allowed to | open polling stations on the Sunday preceding election | day. In case of such an early voting, it usually occurs in | some, but not all areas of the country. For IMD1011_D, the | following Mondays are specified as election dates: | | Study (Year) Date of Election in IMD5025_1-3 | ----------------------------------------------------------- | NORWAY (1997) Monday, Sep. 15, 1997 | NORWAY (2001) Monday, Sep. 10, 2001 | NORWAY (2005) Monday, Sep. 12, 2005 | NORWAY (2009) Monday, Sep. 14, 2009 | NORWAY (2013) Monday, Sep. 09, 2013 | NORWAY (2017) Monday, Sep. 11, 2017 | | In CSES MODULE 3, the election day was classified as Sunday, | September 13, 2009 for the Norwegian 2009 study. To harmonize | IMD1011_ throughout all Norwegian election studies, IMD1011_D | has been recoded from "13" to "14" in CSES IMD. | | In CSES MODULE 4, the election day was classified as Sunday, | September 8, 2013 for the Norwegian 2013 study. To harmonize | IMD1011_ throughout all Norwegian election studies, IMD1011_D | has been recoded from "8" to "9" in CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GERMANY (1998): IMD1011_ | | In CSES MODULE 1, the Election Day is coded as September 28, | 1998. The election, however, took place on September 27, 1998, | which is how the data is classified in CSES IMD. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - INDIA (2019): IMD1011_ | | Elections were held across seven phases from April 11, 2019, to | May 19, 2019. Voting in each polling station took place in one of | the seven phases, meaning that voters cast their vote only once. | The start date (April 11) is characterized in the dataset. | Further details on the scheduling of the seven phases across | districts are available in ELECTION STUDY NOTES on E1016-E1018 | in Codebook Part 2 of CSES MODULE 5. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - ITALY (2006): IMD1011_D | | In CSES MODULE 3, the Election Day is coded as Monday, April 10, | 2006. The election, however, took place on two consecutive days, | starting one day earlier on Sunday, April 9, 2006. As IMD1011_ | classify the start day of the election, IMD1011_D was recoded | from "10" to "9" in CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SPAIN (1996): IMD1011_ | | In CSES MODULE 1, the Election Day is coded as March 11, 1996. | The election, however, took place on March 3rd, 1996, which is | how the data is classified in CSES IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1011_1 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYY-MM-DD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [first round] election began. .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1011_1 | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1011_1 classifies the start date of the election in the | format YYYY-MM-DD. | | Users are advised to consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES for variables | IMD1011_M, IMD1011_D, IMD1011_Y. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E1018_1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1011_2 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYYMM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [first round] election began. .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1011_2 | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1011_2 classifies the start date of the election in the | format YYYYMM. | | Users are advised to consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES for variables | IMD1011_M, IMD1011_D, IMD1011_Y. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E1018_2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1012_M >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH IMD1012_D >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY IMD1012_Y >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [second round] election began. .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO SECOND ROUND 99. MISSING DAY 01-31. DAY OF MONTH 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO SECOND ROUND 99. MISSING YEAR 1996-2021. YEAR 9996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO SECOND ROUND 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1012_ | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1012_ detail the start date of the second round of elections | (where applicable). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1019-A1021 | MODULE 2: B1019-B1021 | MODULE 3: C1019-C1021 | MODULE 4: D1019-D1021 | MODULE 5: E1019-E1021 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016 & 2020): IMD1012_ | | The second round of the Lithuanian 2016 and 2020 Parliamentary | elections were held in constituencies where no candidate won a | majority in the first round (i.e., more than half of the votes | cast by the voters who participated in elections, if at least | 40 percent of voters turned out or at least one-fifth of the | votes in case of a lower turnout). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1012_1 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYY-MM-DD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [second round] election began. .................................................................. 9996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO SECOND ROUND | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1012_1 | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1012_1 details the start date of the second round of the | election in the format YYYY-MM-DD, if applicable. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E1021_1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1012_2 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYYMM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [second round] election began. .................................................................. 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO SECOND ROUND | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1012_2 | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD1012_2 details the start date of the second round of the | election in the format YYYYMM, if applicable. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E1021_2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1013_M >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - MONTH IMD1013_D >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - DAY IMD1013_Y >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date questionnaire administered. .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 99. MISSING DAY 01-31. DAY OF MONTH 99. MISSING YEAR 1996-2022. YEAR 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1013_ | | IMD1013_ detail the date the questionnaire was administered, | i.e., the date of interview. | | In some cases the current dates of interviewing, coded in | IMD1013_ differ from the field period mentioned in the Design | Reports, available at http://www.cses.org. | This arises principally because the CSES IMD reports the | fieldwork dates relative to the fielding of the CSES component | of the study and concerning the relevant observations from an | election study included in the dataset. However, the Design | Report can refer to fieldwork dates for non-CSES components | of a study. For more details, see ELECTION STUDY NOTES in Parts 2 | of the respective Standalone Module Codebooks. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1026-A1028 | MODULE 2: B1026-B1028 | MODULE 3: C1026-C1028 | MODULE 4: D1026-D1028 | MODULE 5: E1032-E1034 | | Data for IMD1013_1 and IMD1013_2 are unavailable for POLAND | (2019), PORTUGAL (2015) and SOUTH KOREA (2012). | Data for IMD1013_2 are unavailable for FINLAND (2019). | Data for IMD1013_ are unavailable for LATVIA (2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1014_1 >>> INTERVIEW TIMING - NUMBER OF DAYS BETWEEN INTERVIEW AND FIRST ROUND OF ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of days elapsed between the first round of the election and the day the respondent was interviewed. .................................................................. 001.- 899. NUMBER OF DAYS 9995. NOT ASCERTAINED 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1014_1 | | IMD1014_1 details the number of days the interview was conducted | after the first day of the election and/or the first round. | | IMD1014_1 was created by subtracting the date of the first | round of election from the date of the interview. | IMD1014_1 was only calculated for respondents for whom the | exact day of the interview is known (i.e., for whom IMD1013_ is | not missing). Respondents for whom at least one variable of | IMD1013_ is set to missing are coded "9999. MISSING". | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E1035_1 | | Data are unavailable for ALBANIA (2005), AUSTRALIA (1996), | BELARUS (2001), DENMARK (1998), FINLAND (2019), GERMANY | (2002 Mail-Back, 2005), LATVIA (2018), NETHERLANDS (2010), | NEW ZEALAND (2002), PERU (2000, 2001, 2011), POLAND (2019), | PORTUGAL (2002, 2009, 2015), SOUTH KOREA (2008, 2012), RUSSIA | (1999, 2000) and THAILAND (2001, 2007). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - TUNISIA (2019): IMD1014_1 | | The original Module 5 variable E1035_1 was calculated based | on the first round of the 2019 Presidential election, held on | September 15, 2019. However, CSES Module 5 and CSES IMD regard | the 2019 parliamentary election as the main election, which | were held on October 6, 2019. | CSES IMD addresses the miscode in E1035_1 for Tunisia 2019 | by subtracting the date of the 2019 parliamentary contest | from the date of the interview. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1014_2 >>> INTERVIEW TIMING - NUMBER OF DAYS BETWEEN INTERVIEW AND SECOND ROUND OF ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of days elapsed between the second round of the election and the day the respondent was interviewed. .................................................................. 001.- 899. NUMBER OF DAYS 9995. NOT ASCERTAINED 9996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO SECOND ROUND 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1014_2 | | IMD1014_2 details the number of days from the first day of the | election of the second round for studies where the election | featured more than one round. | | The variable was created by subtracting the date of the first | round of election from the date of the interview. | IMD1014_2 was only calculated for respondents for whom the | exact day of the interview is known (i.e., for whom IMD1013_ is | not missing). Respondents for whom at least one variable of | IMD1013_ is set to missing are coded "9999. MISSING". | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E1035_2 | | Data are unavailable for PERU (2000, 2001) and THAILAND (2001). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): IMD1014_2 | | Even though the election in 1999 took place in two rounds, the | original study refers to the first round only. Hence, | some respondents were interviewed prior to the second | round. These cases are coded as "9995. NOT ASCERTAINED" here. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2005) AND PERU (2006): IMD1014_2 | | Chile (2005) and Peru (2006) elections were decided in the | second round. However, the two studies refer only to the first | round. Hence, these two studies are coded "9996. NOT | APPLICABLE" for the variable IMD1014_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): IMD1014_2 | | Even though the election in 1998 took place in two rounds, the | original study refers to the first round only. Hence, | a number of respondents were interviewed prior to the second | round. These cases are coded as "9995. NOT ASCERTAINED" here. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - TUNISIA (2019): IMD1014_2 | | The original Module 5 variable E1035_2 was calculated based | on the second round of the 2019 Presidential election, held on | October 13, 2019. However, CSES Module 5 and CSES IMD regard | the 2019 parliamentary election as the main election, which | did not feature a second round. | CSES IMD addresses the miscode in E1035_2 for Tunisia 2019 | by coding all respondents in IMD1014_2 to "9996. NOT APPLICABLE: | NO SECOND ROUND" for Tunisia 2019. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1015 >>> STUDY CONTEXT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timing of study relative to election. .................................................................. 1. POST-ELECTION STUDY 2. PRE-ELECTION AND POST-ELECTION STUDY 3. BETWEEN ROUNDS | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1015 | | IMD1015 details whether the respective election study was | included in a post-election study, was administered between | rounds or was fielded in a study operating a pre- and post- | election design. | Conventionally, the CSES questionnaire is only included in post- | election surveys. However, a small number of studies fielded the | CSES questionnaire between rounds, or a limited number of | questions before the election in cases where respondents were | interviewed before and after the election. | | Wherever possible, variables collected post-election were | selected for CSES Standalone Modules. For variables administered | prior to the election, there is a reference in the ELECTION STUDY | NOTES in Codebooks Part 2 of the Standalone Modules, alerting | users to the deviance. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1022 | MODULE 2: B1022 | MODULE 3: C1022 | MODULE 4: D1022 | MODULE 5: E1022 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1016_1 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - STUDY FIRST IMD1016_2 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - STUDY SECOND IMD1016_3 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - STUDY THIRD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Modes of interview used within the respective election study. .................................................................. 0. NOT APPLICABLE 1. IN PERSON, FACE-TO-FACE 2. TELEPHONE 3. MAIL OR SELF-COMPLETION SUPPLEMENT 4. INTERNET 5. IN PERSON, USING VIDEO CALL 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1016_ | | IMD1016_ detail the different interview modes used within an | election study, coded on a study level and NOT on the respondent | level. For instance, if an election study used a combination of | telephone and mail-back, variable IMD1016_1 would be coded as | "2. TELEPHONE" and IMD1016_2 would be coded as "3. MAIL OR SELF- | COMPLETED SUPPLEMENT", regardless of whether all respondents were | interviewed using both modes or not. For mixed-mode studies, the | different modes used are classified in IMD1016_ in no particular | order. | | Some practitioners may be familiar with other terminology | for different modes of interview. Below, we outline how some | alternative terms map to the classifications used by CSES: | - Face-to-face in-person interviews using a questionnaire on | paper are sometimes referenced as paper-and-pencil interviews | (PAPI). | - Face-to-face in-person interviews using an electronic or | computerized questionnaire are also known as computer-assisted | personal interviews (CAPI). Sometimes, such interviews may | include self-administered components - for e.g. for questions | deemed sensitive. Self-administered parts interviewers give to | respondents as part of a face-to-face protocol are also known | as computer-assisted self-interviewing (CASI). | - Telephone interviews are sometimes labeled computer-assisted | telephone interviews (CATI). | - Internet surveys are sometimes also referred to as computer- | assisted web interviews (CAWI) or computerized self- | administered questionnaire (CSAQ). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1023 | MODULE 2: B1023 | MODULE 3: C1023 | MODULE 4: D1023 | MODULE 5: E1024_1-E1024_3 | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): IMD1016_2 | | In CSES MODULE 1, the British 1997 study is classified as | "3. SELF-ADMINISTERED". However, while the MODULE 1 themed | questionnaire was fielded as a supplementary drop-off | mail-back survey, the preceding main interview covering | turnout, vote choice and demographics was conducted | face-to-face. Hence, IMD1016_1 and IMD1016_2 are coded | "3. MAIL OR SELF-COMPLETION SUPPLEMENT" and "1. IN PERSON, | FACE-TO-FACE", respectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1017 >>> INTERVIEWER GENDER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gender of interviewer. .................................................................. 1. MALE 2. FEMALE 5. OTHER 7. NOT APPLICABLE: SELF-ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1017 | | IMD1017 details the interviewer's gender for non-self- | administered studies in the CSES IMD. | | Code "5. OTHER" has been added for CSES MODULE 5 and is hence | not available for earlier studies from CSES MODULES 1-4. | | Code "7. NOT APPLICABLE: SELF-ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE" was | introduced in CSES MODULE 5. For CSES MODULES 1-4, IMD1017 was | coded not applicable if all modes of interview provided | in IMD1016_ are self-administered (codes "3. MAIL OR SELF- | COMPLETION SUPPLEMENT" or "4. INTERNET"). | | Researchers are advised that some respondents from CSES MODULE 5 | are coded "7. NOT APPLICABLE" in IMD1017, although IMD1016_1-3 | (Mode of Interview - Study) specify interviewer-administered | modes for their studies. All affected respondents originate from | self-administered components within mixed-mode studies. Modes of | interview on a respondent level are available in variables | E10125_1 - E1025_3 in CSES MODULE 5. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A1025 | MODULE 2: B1025 | MODULE 3: C1025 | MODULE 4: D1025 | MODULE 5: E1029 | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2019), | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), BULGARIA (2001, | 2014), BELARUS (2001), BRAZIL (2006, 2010), CANADA (1997, 2004, | 2008, 2011, 2015), CHILE (1999, 2005, 2009), CZECH REPUBLIC/ | CZECHIA (1996, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2013), DENMARK (1998, 2001), | FINLAND (2003), FRANCE (2002, 2012), GERMANY (1998, 2002 Tel., | 2005, 2009, 2017), GREAT BRITAIN (2015, 2017, 2019), GREECE | (2015 Sep), HONG KONG (2008), HUNGARY (1998, 2002, 2018), IRELAND | (2002, 2011, 2016), ICELAND (1999, 2007, 2009), ISRAEL (1996, | 2003), ITALY (2006), JAPAN (1996, 2004, 2007, 2013), KYRGYZSTAN | (2005), LATVIA (2018), MEXICO (1997, 2003, 2006, 2012, 2018), | NETHERLANDS (2002, 2006, 2010, 2017), NORWAY (2001, 2005, 2009), | PERU (2000, 2001, 2006, 2011), POLAND (2019), PORTUGAL (2002, | 2005, 2009, 2015, 2019), ROMANIA (2004, 2012, 2014, 2016), | RUSSIA (1999, 2000, 2004), SLOVAKIA (2016), SLOVENIA (1996, | 2004), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SOUTH KOREA (2008, 2012), SPAIN | (1996, 2000, 2004), SWEDEN (1998, 2002, 2006, 2014), SWITZERLAND | (2011), THAILAND (2001, 2007), TAIWAN (2001, 2004, 2008) and | UNITED STATES (2004). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1018 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY APPEARANCE IN CSES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of CSES Standalone Modules a polity appears in. .................................................................. 1. POLITY APPEARS IN ONE CSES MODULE 2. POLITY APPEARS IN TWO CSES MODULES 3. POLITY APPEARS IN THREE CSES MODULES 4. POLITY APPEARS IN FOUR CSES MODULES 5. POLITY APPEARS IN FIVE CSES MODULES 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1018 | | IMD1018 details the number of CSES Standalone Modules that | were administered in the respective polity. For example, a | polity included in CSES Modules 1 and 3 is coded "2. POLITY | APPEARS in TWO CSES MODULES". | | This variable is original to CSES IMD, and therefore there are | no corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1018_MOD_1 >>> ID COMPONENT - WHETHER POLITY ADMINISTERED MODULE 1 MULTIPLE TIMES IMD1018_MOD_2 >>> ID COMPONENT - WHETHER POLITY ADMINISTERED MODULE 2 MULTIPLE TIMES IMD1018_MOD_3 >>> ID COMPONENT - WHETHER POLITY ADMINISTERED MODULE 3 MULTIPLE TIMES IMD1018_MOD_4 >>> ID COMPONENT - WHETHER POLITY ADMINISTERED MODULE 4 MULTIPLE TIMES IMD1018_MOD_5 >>> ID COMPONENT - WHETHER POLITY ADMINISTERED MODULE 5 MULTIPLE TIMES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not a polity administered a CSES MODULE multiple times. .................................................................. 0. R IN POLITY THAT DID NOT ADMINISTER MODULE MULTIPLE TIMES 1. R IN POLITY THAT DID ADMINISTER MODULE MULTIPLE TIMES 7. NOT APPLICABLE: R NOT INCLUDED IN MODULE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1018_MOD_ | | IMD1018_MOD_ detail whether a CSES Standalone Module | Questionnaire was administered more than once in a polity or not. | | Conventionally, a CSES Module is intended to be administered | during a consecutive period of five years (see VARIABLE NOTES for | IMD1008_MOD_1-5 for details). Given that most electoral cycles | encompass a regular four-to-five-year period, the majority of | polities included in CSES IMD fielded the respective Standalone | Module Questionnaire once. | | However, in several polities that experienced more than one | election in the respective administration period, a CSES | Standalone Module was fielded twice. The table below lists | these instances by Module. | | +++ TABLE: POLITIES FIELDING A CSES MODULE TWICE | BY STANDALONE MODULE | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) CSES STANDALONE MODULE | ----------------------------------------------------------- | HONG KONG (1998 & 2000) CSES MODULE 1 | MEXICO (1997 & 2000) CSES MODULE 1 | PERU (2000 & 2001) CSES MODULE 1 | RUSSIA (1999 & 2000) CSES MODULE 1 | SPAIN (1996 & 2000) CSES MODULE 1 | | PORTUGAL (2002 & 2005) CSES MODULE 2 | TAIWAN (2001 & 2004) CSES MODULE 2 | | BRAZIL (2006 & 2010) CSES MODULE 3 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006 & 2010) CSES MODULE 3 | GERMANY (2005 & 2009) CSES MODULE 3 | FINLAND (2007 & 2011) CSES MODULE 3 | ICELAND (2007 & 2009) CSES MODULE 3 | MEXICO (2006 & 2009) CSES MODULE 3 | NETHERLANDS (2006 & 2010) CSES MODULE 3 | NORWAY (2005 & 2009) CSES MODULE 3 | POLAND (2005 & 2007) CSES MODULE 3 | | CANADA (2011 & 2015) CSES MODULE 4 | GREECE (2012 & Jan 2015) CSES MODULE 4 | LATVIA (2011 & 2014) CSES MODULE 4 | MEXICO (2012 & 2015) CSES MODULE 4 | NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014) CSES MODULE 4 | ROMANIA (2012 & 2014) CSES MODULE 4 | | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2017 & 2021) CSES MODULE 5 | GERMANY (2017 & 2021) CSES MODULE 5 | GREAT BRITAIN (2017 & 2019) CSES MODULE 5 | GREECE (2015 Sep & 2019) CSES MODULE 5 | ICELAND (2016 & 2017) CSES MODULE 5 | LITHUANIA (2016 & 2020) CSES MODULE 5 | NETHERLANDS (2017 & 2021) CSES MODULE 5 | NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020) CSES MODULE 5 | TAIWAN (2016 & 2020) CSES MODULE 5 | UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020) CSES MODULE 5 | ----------------------------------------------------------- | | Respondents not included in a Standalone Module are coded | "7. NOT APPLICABLE: R NOT INCLUDED IN MODULE", respectively. | For example, respondents originating from CSES MODULE 1 are | coded "NOT APPLICABLE" in IMD1018_MOD_2, IMD1018_MOD_3, | IMD1018_MOD_4 and IMD1018_MOD_5. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: not included | MODULE 2: not included | MODULE 3: not included | MODULE 4: not included | MODULE 5: E1039 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES (GERMANY 2002 Mail-back & Telephone): | IMD1018_MOD_2 | | Two election studies were run in Germany in 2002 - one was a | telephone study, and one was a mail-back study. Since both | studies pertain to the same election, IMD1018_MOD_2 is coded | "0. R IN POLITY THAT DID NOT ADMINISTER MODULE MULTIPLE TIMES" | for respondents from both studies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD1019 >>> STUDY TIMING WITH RESPECT TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timing of election/study relative to COVID-19 pandemic. .................................................................. 0. ELECTION/STUDY CONDUCTED ENTIRELY BEFORE COVID-19 PANDEMIC 1. ELECTION/STUDY CONDUCTED BEFORE & DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC 2. ELECTION/STUDY CONDUCTED ENTIRELY DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD1019 | | A pandemic is an epidemic of infectious disease that has spread | across a large region or multiple or worldwide and affecting a | substantial number of individuals. | | At the time of writing, COVID-19 was first discovered in November | 2019. However, it is possible human-to-human transmission of the | disease was occurring before this discovery. On January 11, 2020 | the World Health Organization (WHO) was notified by Chinese | authorities of a virus outbreak in Wuhan, China. On January 30, | 2020, the World Health Organization classified COVID-19 as a | Public Health Emergency of Concern before eventually declaring | the Health situation as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. | | An election (or election study) is classified as taking place | during the COVID-19 pandemic if the election itself took place | and/or the entire study fieldwork was administered on or after | March 11, 2020 to December 31, 2021, the end of the | CSES MODULE 5 fieldwork. March 11, 2020 is the day on which | the World Health Organization (WHO) officially classified the | COVID-19 Health Crisis as a pandemic. | An election (or election study) is classified as taking place | entirely pre the COVID-19 pandemic if the election was held and | the election study fieldwork was completed before March 11, 2020. | This applies to all election studies from CSES MODULES 1-4. | An election which took place before March 11, 2020 but in which | the fieldwork took place both before and/or after March 11, 2020 | is classified as an election taking place both pre and during the | COVID-19 pandemic. | | Source of data: World Health Organization (WHO) | https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/ | coronavirus-covid-19/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov | (Date accessed: January 11, 2022). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: not included | MODULE 2: not included | MODULE 3: not included | MODULE 4: not included | MODULE 5: E1038 =========================================================================== ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA =========================================================================== | The CSES demographic questions are the prerogative of national | collaborators. Users are advised that the Standalone CSES Module | questionnaire does not include filter instructions for the | demographic segment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2001_1 >>> AGE OF RESPONDENT (IN YEARS) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Age of respondent (in years). .................................................................. 015-115. AGE, IN YEARS 9997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2001_1 | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2001_Y & D1008 | MODULE 2: B2001 | MODULE 3: C2001 | MODULE 4: D2001 | MODULE 5: E2001_A | | In CSES MODULES 4 and 5, respondents were asked to provide their | month and year of birth. Hence, their age was calculated by | subtracting the year of birth from the election year in IMD. | | Data are unavailable for KYRGYZSTAN (2005) and PERU (2000, 2001). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ALBANIA (2005): IMD2001_1 | | Although the eligible voting age in Albania is 18 years of age, | the Albanian sample includes one observation aged 17. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): IMD2001_1 | | There are two respondents born in 2000, meaning that they were 17 | at the time of election and interview for the Chilean study, and | thus neither eligible to vote nor to participate in the study. | Data remain unchanged in the dataset. Collaborators note this is | most likely a typo. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): IMD2001_1 | | For 28 respondents, the year of birth is missing. The eligibility | of those 28 respondents is therefore unknown. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2001): IMD2001_1 | | Although the eligible voting age in Denmark is 18 years of age, | respondent's month of birth was not included in the study. | Consequently, the precise year of birth was not ascertainable | with potential differences of 1-year arising for some | respondents. | Consequently, although the voting age in Denmark is 18 years of | age, the Danish sample includes seven observations aged 17. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): IMD2001_1 | | There is one respondent born in 2002, meaning that she was 17 at | the time of election and interview for the Finnish study, and | thus not eligible to vote nor to participate in the study. Data | remain unchanged in the dataset. Finnish Collaborators note this | is most likely a typo by the surveyor, and this respondent was | most likely born in 2001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2002): IMD2001_1 | | Although the eligible voting age in Germany is 18 years of age, | respondent's month of birth was not included in the study. | Consequently, the precise year of birth was not ascertainable | with potential differences of 1-year arising for some | respondents. | Consequently, although the voting age in Germany is 18 years of | age, the German sample includes three observations aged 17. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2019): IMD2001_1 | | Users are advised that before the 2019 legislative elections, | voting age was reduced from 18 to 17. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (1997): IMD2001_1 | | The 1997 Lithuanian study was a representative sample of the | population from ages 15 to 74. Hence, the study includes | 49 respondents who are younger than 18 and ineligible to vote | at the time of the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): IMD2001_1 | | Four respondents reported being 17 at the time of the interview | even though the eligible voting age is 18. Respondents remained | in the sample, as the original study was a panel study with pre- | and post-election interviews, and age was collected prior to the | election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): IMD2001_1 | | Although the eligible voting age in the Netherlands is 18 years | of age, respondents' month of birth was not included in the | study. Consequently, the precise year of birth was not | ascertainable with potential differences of 1-year arising for | some respondents. | Consequently, although the voting age in the Netherlands is 18 y | years of age, the Netherlands sample includes four observations | aged 17. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): IMD2001_1 | | Although the eligible voting age in Montenegro is 18 years of | age, the Montenegrin sample includes two observations aged 17. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2001): IMD2001_1 | | Although the eligible voting age in Norway is 18 years of age, | respondent's month of birth was not included in the study. | Consequently, the precise year of birth was not ascertainable | with potential differences of 1-year arising for some | respondents. | Consequently, although the voting age in Norway is 18 years of | age, the Norwegian sample includes 16 observations aged 17. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): IMD2001_1 | | Although the eligible voting age in Norway is 18 years of age, | respondent's month of birth was not included in the study. | Consequently, the precise year of birth was not ascertainable | with potential differences of 1-year arising for some | respondents. | Consequently, although the voting age in Norway is 18 years of | age, the Norwegian sample includes seven observations aged 17. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): IMD2001_1 | | Respondents aged 76 years and older are captured in the single | category 75, with the meaning of the code "Older than 75 | years" in the Norway 2009 study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): IMD2001_1 | | For 153 respondents, the year of birth is missing. The | eligibility of those 153 respondents is therefore unknown. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - UNITED STATES (2008): IMD2001_1 | | Although the eligible voting age in the United States is 18 years | of age, respondents' month of birth was not included in the | study. Consequently, the precise year of birth was not | ascertainable with potential differences of 1-year arising for | some respondents. | Consequently, although the voting age in the United States is 18 | years of age, the USA sample includes three observations aged 17. | | The code "1" in the age variable in CSES MODULE 3 (C2001) for the | United States study (2008) is re-coded into 90 for the | continuous age variable in IMD (IMD2001_1). The meaning of the | code is "90 years or older." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): IMD2001_1 | | Respondents who were 90 years or older at the time of the | interview, that is, all respondents born in 1926 or earlier, are | coded as aged 90 (N = 22). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): IMD2001_1 | | Respondents who were 80 years or older at the time of the | election, that is, all respondents born before November 3, 1940, | are coded as aged 80 (N = 359). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2001_2 >>> AGE OF RESPONDENT (IN CATEGORIES) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Age of respondent (in categories listed below). .................................................................. 01. YOUNGEST - 24 YEARS 02. 25 - 34 YEARS 03. 35 - 44 YEARS 04. 45 - 54 YEARS 05. 55 - 64 YEARS 06. 65 YEARS - OLDEST 9997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2001_2 | | The youngest classification varies depending on age eligibility | to vote. | | This variable is original to CSES IMD, and therefore there are | no corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules. | | Data are unavailable for KYRGYZSTAN (2005). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000 & 2001): IMD2001_2 | | The original data for Peru 2000 and Peru 2001 was deposited in | age categories with slight deviations from the IMD age | categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 18-25 Years | 02. 26-35 Years | 03. 36-45 Years | 04. 46-65 Years | | Hence, category "4" for Peru on this variable contains all | respondents in the sample aged 46+. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2001_GG >>> BIRTH GENERATION: GREATEST GENERATION (BORN 1927 OR BEFORE) IMD2001_GS >>> BIRTH GENERATION: SILENT GENERATION (BORN FROM 1928 TO 1945) IMD2001_GBB >>> BIRTH GENERATION: BABY BOOMERS (BORN FROM 1946 TO 1964) IMD2001_GX >>> BIRTH GENERATION: GENERATION X (BORN FROM 1965 TO 1980) IMD2001_GY >>> BIRTH GENERATION: GENERATION Y (BORN FROM 1981 TO 1996) IMD2001_GZ >>> BIRTH GENERATION: GENERATION Z (BORN FROM 1997 ONWARDS) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Generations based on the respondent's year of birth. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT NOT PART OF GENERATION 1. RESPONDENT PART OF GENERATION 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2001_G | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | The IMD2001_G variables distinguish six demographic cohorts | of respondents represented in the CSES IMD, namely: | | IMD2001_GG: Generation Greatest, Rs. born before 1927 | IMD2001_GS: Silent Generation, Rs. born from 1928 to 1945 | IMD2001_GBB: Baby Boomers, Rs. born from 1946 to 1964 | IMD2001_GX: Generation X, Rs. born from 1965 to 1980 | IMD2001_GY: Generation Y, Rs. born from 1981 to 1996 | IMD2001_GZ: Generation Z, Rs. born from 1997 onwards | | Users are advised that the generational boundaries as described | above are primarily based on generational classifications | employed in advanced democracies. As generational experiences | are in part determined by social, cultural, political and/or | economic events that might be unique to a polity, users are | advised that generational classifications may differ in | particular polities and these classifications, based on theory, | merely act as a guide. | | In CSES MODULES 1-3, respondents were asked to provide their | age in years. Their year of birth underlying the IMD2001_G | classifications was calculated by subtracting their age from | the election year in IMD. | In CSES MODULES 4 and 5, respondents were asked to provide their | year of birth directly (variables D2001_Y and E2001_Y). | Hence, D2001_Y and E2001_Y formed the basis for grouping | respondents from MODULES 4 and 5. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E2001_GG - E2001_GZ | | Data are unavailable for KYRGYZSTAN (2005) and PERU (2000, 2001). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2002 >>> GENDER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gender of Respondent. .................................................................. 1. MALE 2. FEMALE 3. OTHER [SEE STANDALONE CSES MODULE CODEBOOK] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2002 | | Code "3. OTHER" has been added for CSES MODULE 4 and is hence | not available for earlier studies from CSES MODULES 1-3. | | For details on how election-study-specific scales were | harmonized to CSES standards, please refer to Codebooks Part 2 | of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2002 | MODULE 2: B2002 | MODULE 3: C2002 | MODULE 4: D2002 | MODULE 5: E2002 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2003 >>> EDUCATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Education of Respondent. .................................................................. 0. NONE (NO EDUCATION)/ILLITERATE 1. PRIMARY EDUCATION/LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION 2. HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION 3. POST-SECONDARY (NON-UNIVERSITY) EDUCATION 4. UNIVERSITY EDUCATION 6. OTHER [SEE STANDALONE CSES MODULE CODEBOOK] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2003 | | IMD2003 details respondents' attained level of education. | Following CSES conventions, the scale for IMD2003 is based on | the highest educational attainment, rather than on enrollment in | an educational program. For example, only respondents who have | obtained a university degree would be coded as "04. UNIVERSITY | EDUCATION". | | As there was no single unique coding classification for education | across CSES Modules, harmonization is based on re-coding | education variables from previous CSES Modules according to the | newly created scale presented above. | In what follows, we list how the original categories employed in | the Standalone CSES Modules were coded in CSES IMD. | | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF EDUCATION CODES IN CSES MODULES 1-3 | TO EDUCATION CODES IN CSES IMD | | IMD CODE CSES MODULE 1-3 CLASSIFICATION (CSES MODULE 1-3 CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. None/Incomplete Primary (1/2) | 1. Primary Completed/Incomplete Secondary (3/4) | 2. Secondary completed & University Undergraduate | Degree Incomplete (5/7) | 3. Post-Secondary Trade/Vocational School (6) | 4. University Undergraduate Degree Completed (8) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | In CSES MODULES 4 and 5, the ISCED scheme was introduced to | measure educational attainment, which includes two categories | for secondary education, lower and upper. Respondents coded as | "03. ISCED LEVEL 2 - LOWER SECONDARY" were coded into CSES IMD | code "02. PRIMARY EDUCATION/LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION" to ensure | consistency with other CSES Modules in which the category | "SECONDARY COMPLETED" referred to respondents who had attained | the minimum level of qualifications normally required for entry | into university or other degree-level higher education. | According to the ISCED coding scheme, only the completion of | an upper secondary educational program would allow for someone | to enter a degree program. Hence, the two secondary education | codes from CSES MODULES 4 and 5 were split. | | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF EDUCATION CODES IN CSES MODULES 4-5 | TO EDUCATION CODES IN CSES IMD | | IMD CODE CSES MODULE 4-5 CLASSIFICATION (CSES MODULE 4-5 CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. None/ISCED Level 0 - Early Childhood Education (0/96) | 1. ISCED Level 1 - Primary (2); ISCED Level 2 - Lower Secondary (3) | 2. ISCED Level 3 - Upper Secondary (4) | 3. ISCED Level 4 - Post-Secondary Non-Tertiary (5); | ISCED Level 5 - Short-Cycle Tertiary (6) | 4. ISCED Level 6 - Bachelor or equivalent (7) | ISCED Level 7 - Master or equivalent (8) | ISCED Level 8 - Doctoral or equivalent (9) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | For details on how election-study-specific scales were harmonized | to CSES standards, please refer to Codebooks Part 2 of the | Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2003 | MODULE 2: B2003 | MODULE 3: C2003 | MODULE 4: D2003 | MODULE 5: E2003 | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] MODULE 3 - IMD2003 | | The Education variable (C2003) in CSES Module 3 includes a | category "9. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES", with different meanings | of the code in different studies. This has been re-coded into | the following IMD categories: | | Election study CSES IMD code |----------------------------------------------------------------- | Austria (2008) 6 | Chile (2009) 0 | Czech R./Czechia (2006 & 2010) 6 | Philippines (2010) 4 | Slovakia (2010) 4 | South Africa (2009) 4 | | The original meanings of code "9" in different studies are | available in Part 2 of the CSES MODULE 3 Codebook, provided in | ELECTION STUDY NOTES for variable C2003. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2004): IMD2003 | | The Romania (2004) study had a category in the education variable | reading as "9. More than basic University degree". This category | was re-coded into "4. University Education" for CSES IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2004 >>> MARITAL STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent's marital or civil union status. .................................................................. 1. MARRIED OR LIVING TOGETHER AS MARRIED 2. WIDOWED 3. DIVORCED OR SEPARATED (MARRIED BUT SEPARATED/ NOT LIVING WITH LEGAL SPOUSE) 4. SINGLE, NEVER MARRIED 5. [SEE STANDALONE CSES MODULE CODEBOOKS] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2004 | | IMD2004 details the respondent's current marital status. | For instance, a person who is both divorced and living together | as married would be coded 1. | | With respect to the meaning of Code 5, users are advised to | refer to the Standalone CSES Module Codebooks Part 2. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2004 | MODULE 2: B2004 | MODULE 3: C2004 | MODULE 4: D2004 | MODULE 5: E2004 | | Data are unavailable for CHILE (1999, 2005), JAPAN (1996), | KYRGYZSTAN (2005), SOUTH KOREA (2000), and THAILAND (2001). | POLITY NOTES - BELGIUM: IMD2004 | | The marital status variable was obtained from the original | question "Do you live with a (permanent) partner?" Respondents | who answered with "yes" were coded into the CSES IMD category | "1. MARRIED OR LIVING TOGETHER AS MARRIED." Respondents who | answered with "no" were coded into CSES IMD category "4. SINGLE, | NEVER MARRIED." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): IMD2004 | | In the Dutch 2017 study, data on respondents' marital status has | not been collected in the survey but was obtained from | population registers. Respondents provided consent before data | collection. | Generally, register data are based on the most recent available | data, usually the year preceding data collection. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2005 >>> RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Religious denomination. .................................................................. 01. CATHOLIC 02. PROTESTANT 03. ORTHODOX/EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES 04. OTHER CHRISTIAN (NO DENOMINATION GIVEN; INDEPENDENT; NON-AFFILIATED; NON-TRADITIONAL PROTESTANTS; MORMONS) 05. JEWISH 06. ISLAM - SUNNI 07. ISLAM - OTHER 08. BUDDHISM 09. HINDUISM 10. INDIGENOUS 11. ETHNORELIGIONS 12. NON-BELIEVERS 13. AGNOSTICS 96. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2005 | | As there was no single unique coding classification for | religious denomination across CSES Modules, harmonization is | based on re-coding religious denomination variables from | Standalone CSES Modules according to the newly created scale | presented above. | | In what follows, we list how the original categories employed in | the Standalone CSES Modules were re-coded for the CSES IMD. | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION CODES IN | CSES MODULES 1-4 TO RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION CODES | IN CSES IMD | | IMD CODE CSES MODULE 1-4 CLASSIFICATION (CSES MODULE 1-4 CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Roman Catholic (1/1101) | Catholic, Other [see Election Study Notes] (1199) | 02. Protestant, no Denomination Given (2/1200) | Adventist (3/1201) | Episcopalian, Anglican, Church of England, | Church of Ireland (4/1300) | Baptist (5/1203) | Congregational (6/1204) | European Free Church (Anabaptists) (7/1205) | Holiness (8/1206) | Independent-Fundamentalist (9/1401) | Lutheran (10/1208) | Methodist (11/1209) | Pentecostal (12/1210) | Presbyterian (13/1211) | Christian Scientists (14/1501) | Unitarian; Universalist (16/1503) | Reformed Calvinist (not Presb) / Calvinist (91/1212) | Salvation Army/Salvationist (1213) | Christian Brethren (1214) | Churches of Christ (1215) | Reformed Churches (1216) | Protestant Church of The Netherlands (1217) | Protestant, Other [see Election Study Notes] | (1298/1299) | 03. Eastern Orthodox (Greek Rite Catholic) (17/1600) | Eastern Catholic Churches (e.g., Eastern Rite | Catholic, Greek Rite Cathole, Uniate) (19/1102) | Orthodox, Other [see Election Study Notes] (1699) | 04. Christian (no Denomination Given) (18/1000) | Mormons; Latter Day Saints (15/1502) | Apostolic (1410) | United Churches (1420) | Independent, Other [see Election Study Notes] (1499) | Jehovah's Witnesses (1504) | Non-traditional Protestant, Other [see Election | Study Notes] (1599) | 05. Jewish (20/2000) | 06. Sunni (33/3100) | 07. Muslim; Mohammedan; Islam (no Denomination Given) | (30/3000) | Kharijism (31) | Mu'tazilism (32) | Shi'ism (34/3200) | Isma'ilis (35/3210) | Baha'i (36/22) | Druse (37/3211) | 08. Buddhist (40/4000) | Theravada (41/4100) | Mahayana (42/4200) | Tantrism (43) | Tibetan Buddhism (44) | Shingon (45) | 09. Hindu (50/5000) | Jainism (51/5500) | Sikhism (52/5600) | Parsiism (53/5010) | Vedism (54) | Brahmanism (55) | Vaishnavism (56/5020) | Shaivism (57/5030) | Tantrism (58) | Shaktism (59/5040) | Folk Hinduism (60) | 10. Confucianism (71/6100) | Taoism (72/6200) | Shinto (73/6300) | Bahai (74) | I-Kuan-Tao (75/6401) | New Religionists (6400) | Traditional Folk Belief/Nichiren Shoshu (6500) | 11. Pagan, Heathen, Tribal Religionist, Traditional | Religionist, Animism, Shamanism (7100) | Ratana, Maori (7110) | Spiritism (7200) | Bahai (7500) | Ehtnoreligionist, Other [see Election Study Notes] | (7900/7901) | 12. Atheists (82/92/8200) | None (83/93/8300) | 13. Agnostics (81/91/8100) | 96. Other Religions (80) | Other: Not Specified (9600) | 97. Refused (97/9997) | 98. Don't Know (98/9998) | 99. Missing (99/9999) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | In the Table above, original Module codes with two digits refer | to codes applied in CSES MODULES 1 and 2, while Module codes with | four digits were used in CSES MODULES 3 and 4. | | There is a slight inconsistency in coding regarding three | non-traditional protestant groups: Christian Scientists, | Unitarian Universalists and Independent Fundamentalists. | These three groups have been coded as 02. PROTESTANT for | MODULE 1, but 04. OTHER CHRISTIAN (NO DENOMINATION GIVEN; | INDEPENDENT for MODULES 3 and 4 in the IMD. There are neither | Christian Scientists nor Unitarian Universalists in the MODULE 2 | dataset, but Independent Fundamentalists, who were likewise coded | 02. PROTESTANT. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2017 | MODULE 2: B2025 | MODULE 3: C2025 | MODULE 4: D2026 | MODULE 5: E2013 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD2005 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, DENMARK (1998, 2001, | 2007), ICELAND (1999, 2003, 2007, 2009), IRELAND (2011), JAPAN | (1996), LITHUANIA (1997), NORWAY (1997, 2001, 2005, 2009), PERU | (2000, 2001, 2006, 2011), SWEDEN (1998, 2002, 2006, 2014). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] MODULE 2 - IMD2005 | | The Religious denomination variable (B2025) in CSES MODULE 2 | contains six additional categories, with different meanings of | the codes in different studies. For the CSES IMD, all these codes | have been set to 96. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED. | For the original meaning of the codes in different studies, | please refer to CSES MODULE 2 Codebook, ELECTION STUDY NOTES for | variable B2025. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] MODULE 3 - IMD2005 | | The Religious denomination variable (C2025) in CSES MODULE 3 | contains four additional categories, with a different meaning of | the codes in different studies. This had been re-coded into | following IMD categories: | | Election study CSES IMD code |----------------------------------------------------------------- | Australia (2007) 96 | Chile (2009) 96 | Czech R./Czechia (2006&2010) 96 | Hong Kong (2008) 4 | Latvia (2010) 96 | Philippines (2010) 96 | Slovenia (2008) 96 | Taiwan (2008) 96 | | For the original meaning of the code in different studies, please | have a look at CSES MODULE 3 Codebook, ELECTION STUDY NOTES for | variable C2025. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): IMD2005 | | IMD Code MODULE 4 Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Seventh-Day Adventist (9003) | 03. Armenian Apostoli (9001) | 96. Latter-Day Saints (9002) | Other Non-Christian (9004) | Other, not further specified (9005) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): IMD2005 | | IMD Code MODULE 4 Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 96. Don't know/Agnostic (9001) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): IMD2005 | | IMD Code MODULE 4 Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 96. Some other Christian (9001) | Other, non-Christian (9002) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): IMD2005 | | IMD Code MODULE 4 Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 08. Tibetan Buddhist (9001) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): IMD2005 | | IMD Code MODULE 4 Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 96. Free Church of Tonga (9001) | Disciple living Mast (9002) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): IMD2005 | | IMD Code MODULE 4 Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 04. Israelites of the New Universal Pact (9001) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): IMD2005 | | IMD Code MODULE 4 Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Zionist Christian (9001) | Seventh Day Adventist (9002) | Dutch Reformed (e.g. NGK, NHK, GK, Mission, APK, | URC) (9003) | 96. Rastafarian (9004) | Assembly of God (9005) | St Johns Church (9006) | Twelve Apostles (9007) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): IMD2005 | | IMD Code MODULE 4 Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 08. White Lotus (9004) | Soka Gakkai (9005) | 96. Buddhism and Taoism (9001) | The Lord of Universe Church (9006) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (2012): IMD2005 | | IMD Code MODULE 4 Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Reform (9004) | 04. Religious Science; Science of Mind (not | Scientology, not Christian Science) (9002) | Conservative (9003) | 10. American Indian Religions, Native American | Religions (9006) | 96. Spiritualist (9001) | Other: More than one major religion (e.g., | Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) (9005) | Wicca; Wiccan (9007) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): IMD2005 | | The Uruguay (2009) study had multiple additional categories on | religious denomination variable in CSES Module 3 (C2025). These | categories were re-coded the following way for the IMD: | | IMD Code MODULE 4 Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 04. Christian, none religion (9001) | 96. Pantheistic (9002) | 96. Unification Church - Rev Moon (9003) | 96. Miracles of Jesus / New Apostolic / | Assembly of God (9004) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2005_1 >>> RELIGIOUS SERVICES ATTENDANCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attendance at religious services. .................................................................. 1. NEVER 2. ONCE A YEAR 3. TWO TO ELEVEN TIMES A YEAR 4. ONCE A MONTH 5. TWO OR MORE TIMES A MONTH 6. ONCE A WEEK/MORE THAN ONCE A WEEK 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2005_1 | | IMD2005_1 is an optional variable in the CSES. | As a result, it was not carried out in all studies. | In some studies, this item was included but with different | response categories. For more information on these diverging | response categories, see ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in | Codebook Parts 2 of the CSES Standalone Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2015 | MODULE 2: B2023 | MODULE 3: C2023 | MODULE 4: D2024 | MODULE 5: E2014 | | Because the CSES questionnaires of origin do not include | filter instructions in the demographic section, IMD2005_1 was | asked irrespectively of individuals' religious denomination. | | Data are unavailable for BRAZIL (2006, 2010), BULGARIA (2014), | CANADA (1997, 2004, 2008, 2011, 2015), CHILE (1999, 2005, 2009), | DENMARK (1998, 2007), ESTONIA (2011), FINLAND (2003, 2007, 2011), | ICELAND (1999), IRELAND (2011), ISRAEL (1996), JAPAN (1996), | LITHUANIA (1997), NORWAY (2005, 2009, 2013), PERU (2000, 2001, | 2011), SPAIN (1996, 2000, 2004, 2008), SOUTH KOREA (2000, 2016), | TAIWAN (2012) and THAILAND (2001). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - AUSTRALIA (2007): IMD2005_1 | | To harmonize Religious Service Attendance in the Australian | (2007) study with other Australian studies included in CSES, | IMD2005_1 has been recoded as follows for the CSES IMD: | | Election study Category CSES M3 Code IMD2005_1 |----------------------------------------------------------------- | At least once a month 5 4 | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - AUSTRALIA (2013): IMD2005_1 | | Researchers are advised that Australian respondents stating to | attend church "less than once a year" are coded as never | attending religious services (code 1) in 2013. | This differs from earlier Australian studies, which code such | respondents as attending services once a year (code 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): IMD2005_1 | | In the British 1997 Election Study, respondents who neither named | a religious denomination, nor a religion in which they were | brought up were not asked about their religious service | attendance. These respondents are coded "1. Never" in CSES | MODULE 1. This coding remains unchanged for the IMD. | Further, researchers are advised that British respondents | stating to attend church "less often than once a year" or | "varies too much to say" are coded "2. Once a year" in 1997. | This differs from later British Election Studies, which code | such respondents as never attending religious services (code 1). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND (2007): IMD2005_1 | | Religious Service Attendance for Switzerland (2007) has been | recoded for CSES IMD as follows: | | Election study Category CSES M3 Code IMD2005_1 |----------------------------------------------------------------- | Once a year 3 2 | Several times a year 4 3 | Once or twice per month 5 4 | Several times a week 7 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2005_2 >>> RELIGIOSITY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Religiosity. .................................................................. 1. HAVE NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS 2. NOT VERY RELIGIOUS 3. SOMEWHAT RELIGIOUS 4. VERY RELIGIOUS 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2005_2 | | As the CSES questionnaires of origin do not include | filter instructions in the demographic section, IMD2005_2 was | asked irrespective of individuals' religious denomination. | | In some studies, this item was included with different response | categories. For more information on these diverging response | response options, see ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in | Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2016 | MODULE 2: B2024 | MODULE 3: C2024 | MODULE 4: D2025 | MODULE 5: Not included | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, ARGENTINA (2015), | AUSTRALIA (1996, 2004, 2007, 2013), BELGIUM (2003), BELARUS | (2001), BRAZIL (2006, 2010), BULGARIA (2001), CHILE (2005, 2009), | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2010), DENMARK (1998, 2001, 2007), FRANCE | (2002), GERMANY (2002, MAIL-BACK), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), ICELAND | (1999), IRELAND (2002, 2007, 2011), ISRAEL (1996), JAPAN (1996), | KYRGYZSTAN (2005), LITHUANIA (1997), NETHERLANDS (2002), | NEW ZEALAND (1996, 2014), NORWAY (2001, 2005, 2009, 2013), | PERU (2000, 2001, 2006, 2011), SLOVENIA (2008), SOUTH KOREA | (2000), SPAIN (2000), SWITZERLAND (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011), | TAIWAN (2001, 2004, 2012) and UNITED STATES (2008, 2012). | [POLITY NOTES] - HUNGARY: IMD2005_2 | | The 1998 and 2002 Hungarian studies assessed religiosity with | the following survey question: | "Which of the statements that you see on this card would | describe you best?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. I have a different conviction, I am definitely | not religious | I am not religious | 2. I cannot tell whether I am religious or not | 3. I am religious in my own way | 4. I am religious, follow the teachings of the | church | | In the Hungarian (1998) study, code "2. I cannot tell whether | I am religious or not" was coded into "8. Don't know", but has | been harmonized for the CSES IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2006 >>> HOUSEHOLD INCOME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Household income quintile appropriate to the respondent. .................................................................. 1. LOWEST HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 2. SECOND HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 3. THIRD HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 4. FOURTH HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 5. HIGHEST HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2006 | | IMD2006 details respondents' household income in quintiles, where | income ranges shown represent sample quintiles (not population | quintiles). | | Where data were deposited in this format, income ranges shown | are as originally reported by collaborators, including gaps | between contiguous sets of ranges. | | Where deposited income data were not grouped into sample | quintiles, the data have been re-coded into quintiles, according | to sample proportions (not national statistics). For cases where | it was not possible to compute sample quintiles, the income | categories approximating sample quintiles the closest have been | used. Consequently, this variable may contain distributions that | do not really represent quintiles. | | In some polities, annual income data is collected from | respondents, while in others, monthly income data is collected. | Users are advised to consult the Standalone CSES Module Codebooks | for more precise information. | | In the ELECTION STUDY NOTES below, currency abbreviations are | given in the three-letter alphabetical ISO-4217 format as | described by the International Organization for Standardization. | An English-language description of the ISO-4217 standard can be | found here: | https://www.iso.org/iso-4217-currency-codes.html | (Date accessed: April 5, 2019) | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2012 | MODULE 2: B2020 | MODULE 3: C2020 | MODULE 4: D2020 | MODULE 5: E2010 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD2005 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Income data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, BELGIUM (2003), | KYRGYZSTAN (2005), LATVIA (2010), SOUTH AFRICA (2009) and | SOUTH KOREA (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ALBANIA (2005): IMD2006 | | This variable was derived from the original CSES MODULE 2 | question "D26. Taking everything together, with pensions, social | benefits, salaries, profit, and all other income from selling | products, money sent from abroad, and so forth, how much is the | total income of your household in a month after taxes?" | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 10,000 ALL | 02. 10,000 - 14,000 ALL | 03. 15,000 - 24,500 ALL | 04. 25,000 - 38,000 ALL | 05. 40,000 - 400,000 ALL | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 5,001 ARS | 02. 5,001 - 6,000 ARS | 03. 6,001 - 9,000 ARS | 04. 9,001 - 13,500 ARS | 05. more than 13,500 ARS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): IMD2006 | | This variable was derived from J12, MODULE 1 (User's Guide, | pp.101-102). Respondents were asked (Questionnaire, p.26): | "What is the gross annual income, before tax or other | deductions, for you and your family living with you from all | sources? Please include any pensions and allowances, and income | from interest or dividends" (J.12). Respondents were offered a | choice of 14 income categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 3,000 AUD | 3,001 - 5,000 AUD | 5,001 - 8,000 AUD | 8,001 - 12,000 AUD | 02. 12,001 - 16,000 AUD | 16,001 - 20,000 AUD | 20,001 - 25,000 AUD | 03. 25,001 - 30,000 AUD | 30,001 - 35,000 AUD | 35,001 - 40,000 AUD | 04. 40,001 - 50,000 AUD | 50,001 - 60,000 AUD | 05. 60,001 - 70,000 AUD | more than 70,000 AUD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2004): IMD2006 | | This variable was derived from the original MODULE 2 variable | i18. Respondents were asked (Questionnaire, p.26): "What is the | gross annual income, before tax or other deductions, for you and | your family living with you from all sources? Please include any | pensions and allowances, and income from interest or dividends". | | Respondents were offered a choice of 16 income categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 5,000 AUD | 5,001 - 10,000 AUD | 10,001 - 15,000 AUD | 15,001 - 20,000 AUD | 02. 20,001 - 25,000 AUD | 25,001 - 30,000 AUD | 30,001 - 35,000 AUD | 35,001 - 40,000 AUD | 03. 40,001 - 45,000 AUD | 45,001 - 50,000 AUD | 50,001 - 60,000 AUD | 04. 60,001 - 70,000 AUD | 70,001 - 80,000 AUD | 80,001 - 90,000 AUD | 05. 90,001 - 100,000 AUD | more than 100,000 AUD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): IMD2006 | | This variable was derived from the original MODULE 3 variable | H16. Respondents were asked: "What is the gross annual income, | before tax or other deductions, for you and your family living | with you from all sources? Please include any pensions and | allowances, and income from interest or dividends". | Respondents were offered a choice of 18 income categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 15,000 AUD | 02. 15,001 - 40,000 AUD | 03. 40,001 - 60,000 AUD | 04. 60,001 - 100,000 AUD | 05. more than 100,001 AUD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 30,000 AUD | 02. 30,001 - 60,000 AUD | 03. 60,001 - 90,000 AUD | 04. 90,001 - 140,000 AUD | 05. more than 140,000 up to 180,000 AUD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 1,350 EUR | 02. 1,350 - 1,949 EUR | 03. 1,950 - 2,399 EUR | 04. 2,400 - 3,599 EUR | 05. More than 3,600 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 1,200 EUR | 02. 1,200 - 2,000 EUR | 03. 2,000 - 2,800 EUR | 04. 2,800 - 3,600 EUR | 05. more than 3,600 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2001): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category: |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 86 BYR | 02. 87 - 145 BYR | 03. 146 - 195 BYR | 04. 196 - 260 BYR | 05. more than 260 BYR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): IMD2006 | | For this question, respondents in Belarus were asked to rate | their income on the following non-numeric scale instead of | proposing a quintile distribution based on the sample. 56% of | respondents chose the middle category; 93% of respondents are | located between categories 1 and 3. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Very low | 02. Rather low | 03. Medium | 04. Rather high | 05. High | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): IMD2006 | | This variable was constructed using several different surveys | items. The resulting code set was: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 49,999 BEF | 02. 50,000 - 69,999 BEF | 03. 70,000 - 89,999 BEF | 04. 90,000 - 114,999 BEF | 05. more than 115,000 BEF | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999): IMD2006 | | This variable was constructed using several different survey | items. The resulting code set was: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 40,000 BEF | 02. 40,000 - 65,000 BEF | 03. 65,000 - 90,000 BEF | 04. 90,000 - 115,000 BEF | 05. more than 115,000 BEF | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2002): IMD2006 | | Quintile ranges not provided. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): IMD2006 | | Quintile ranges were calculated proportionally to the sample. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than - 400 BRL | 02. 418 - 650 BRL | 03. 680 - 900 BRL | 04. 950 - 1,500 BRL | 05. more than 1,600 BRL | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): IMD2006 | | Quintile ranges were calculated proportionally to the sample. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 600 BRL | 02. 610 - 1,020 BRL | 03. 1,021 - 1,500 BRL | 04. 1,510 - 2,500 BRL | 05. more than 2,510 BRL | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): IMD2006 | | This variable was created based on two questions. An open- | ended question first asked respondents to report their income. | Those who did not respond were then asked if their income | fitted into one of seven income ranges that the interviewer | provided them with. Quintiles were created based on the | open-ended question. Four of the seven ranges in the second | income question fit the distribution of the quintiles and | were added to the variable. Respondents in the remaining | three categories were coded as missing. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 900 BRL | 02. 920 - 1,460 BRL | 03. 1,500 - 2,000 BRL | 04. 2,008 - 3,000 BRL | 05. more than 3,000 BRL | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2001): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | (Monthly Household Income) | 01. less than 120 BGN | 02. 120 - 196 BGN | 03. 197 - 285 BGN | 04. 286 - 390 BGN | 05. more than 390 BGN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 375 BGN | 02. 375 - 580 BGN | 03. 581 - 890 BGN | 04. 891 - 1,300 BGN | 05. more than 1,300 BGN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): IMD2006 | | This variable was constructed from two separate items: | (1) Respondents were asked what their household income was and | if they gave the raw figure, it was recorded; and (2) if they | were reluctant, respondents were given the option of identifying | the broad categories into which their household income fits | (reported in parentheses below). Roughly, the quintile | thresholds are: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 23,000 (< 20,000) CAD | 02. 23,000 - 38,000 (20,000-29,999) CAD | 03. 39,000 - 55,000 (30,000-49,999) CAD | 04. 56,000 - 78,000 (50,000-69,999) CAD | 05. more than 78,000 (>70,000) CAD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2004): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 20,000 CAD | 20,000 - 29,999 CAD | 02. 30,000 - 39,999 CAD | 40,000 - 49,999 CAD | 03. 50,000 - 59,999 CAD | 60,000 - 69,999 CAD | 04. 70,000 - 79,999 CAD | 80,000 - 89,999 CAD | 05. 90,000 - 99,999 CAD | more than 100,000 CAD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 30.000 CAD | 02. 30.000 - 49.999 CAD | 03. 50.000 - 69.999 CAD | 04. 70.000 - 99.999 CAD | 05. more than 100.000 CAD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): IMD2006 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. Respondents were | asked to answer according to their last year's household income. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 1,000 - 34,000 CAD | 02. 35,000 - 53,000 CAD | 03. 54,000 - 76,000 CAD | 04. 77,000 - 110,000 CAD | 05. 111,000 - 900,000 CAD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): IMD2006 | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. | Respondents were asked to answer according to their last year's | household income. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 1,000 - 40,000 CAD | 02. 41,000 - 70,000 CAD | 03. 71,000 - 100,000 CAD | 04. 101,000 - 140,000 CAD | 05. 141,000 - 900,000 CAD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): IMD2006 | | The income quintiles correspond roughly to the following | categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 120,000 CLP | 02. 121,000 - 180,000 CLP | 03. 181,000 - 290,000 CLP | 04. 291,000 - 600,000 CLP | 05. more than 601,000 CLP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2005): IMD2006 | | The income quintiles correspond roughly to the specified | distribution of the 2003 Socioeconomic Characterization Survey | (CASEN) (http://www.mideplan.cl/casen/): | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 112,000 CLP | 02. 112,000 - 180,000 CLP | 180,001 - 250,000 CLP | 03. 250,001 - 400,000 CLP | 04. 400,001 - 800,000 CLP | 800,001 - 1,000,000 CLP | 05. 1,000,001 - 1,500,000 CLP | 1,500,001 - 2,000,000 CLP | 2,000,001 - 3,000,000 CLP | more than 3,000,000 CLP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 165,000 CLP | 02. 165,000 - 200,000 CLP | 03. 200,001 - 300,000 CLP | 04. 300,001 - 700,000 CLP | 05. 700,001 - 1,000,000 CLP | 1,500,001 - 2,000,000 CLP | 2,000,001 - 3,000,000 CLP | more than 3,000,000 CLP | | Note that quintiles could not be calculated because the income | of respondents was asked in ranges. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 2,000 HRK | 02. 2,001 - 4,000 HRK | 03. 4,001 - 6,000 HRK | 04. 6,001 - 8,000 HRK | 05. more than 8,000 HRK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2002): IMD2006 | | Quintile ranges not provided. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006 & 2010): | IMD2006 | | Monthly income of household, in Czech Crowns (CZK): | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 13,999 CZK | 02. 14,000 - 22,999 CZK | 03. 23,000 - 29,999 CZK | 04. 30,000 - 39,999 CZK | 05. 40,000 or more CZK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 15,999 CZK | 02. 16,000 - 29,999 CZK | 03. 30,000 - 39,999 CZK | 04. 40,000 - 59,999 CZK | 05. more than 60,000 CZK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (1998): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 75,000 DKK | 75,000 - 99,999 DKK | 100,000 - 124,999 DKK | 125,000 - 149,999 DKK | 02. 150,000 - 174,999 DKK | 175,000 - 199,999 DKK | 03. 200,000 - 249,999 DKK | 250,000 - 299,999 DKK | 300,000 - 349,999 DKK | 04. 350,000 - 399,999 DKK | 450,000 - 499,999 DKK | 05. 500,000 - 599,999 DKK | 600,000 - 699,999 DKK | 700,000 - 799,999 DKK | more than 800,000 DKK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2001): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 75,000 DKK | 75,000 - 99,999 DKK | 100,000 - 124,999 DKK | 125,000 - 149,999 DKK | 150,000 - 174,999 DKK | 02. 175,000 - 199,999 DKK | 200,000 - 249,999 DKK | 250,000 - 299,999 DKK | 03. 300,000 - 349,999 DKK | 350,000 - 399,999 DKK | 400,000 - 449,999 DKK | 04. 450,000 - 499,999 DKK | 500,000 - 599,999 DKK | 05. 600,000 - 699,999 DKK | 700,000 - 799,999 DKK | 800,000 - 999,999 DKK | 1,000,000 or more DKK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 349,999 DKK | 02. 350,000 - 499,999 DKK | 03. 450,000 - 599,999 DKK | 04. 600,000 - 799,999 DKK | 05. more than 800,000 DKK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 3,300 EUR | 02. 3,312 - 5,100 EUR | 03. 5,112 - 6,900 EUR | 04. 6,912 - 12,000 EUR | 05. more than 12,000 EUR | | The Estonian question of origin refers to the monthly household | income, which was extrapolated to the yearly income. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2003): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 10,000 EUR | 02. 10,001 - 15,000 EUR | 15,001 - 20,000 EUR | 03. 20,001 - 25,000 EUR | 25,001 - 30,000 EUR | 04. 30,001 - 35,000 EUR | 35,001 - 40,000 EUR | 40,001 - 45,000 EUR | 05. 45,001 - 50,000 EUR | 50,001 - 55,000 EUR | 55,001 - 85,000 EUR | more than 85,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 15,001 EUR | 02. 15,001 - 30,000 EUR | 03. 30,001 - 40,000 EUR | 04. 40,001 - 55,000 EUR | 05. more than 55,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 15,001 EUR | 02. 15,001 - 25,000 EUR | 03. 25,001 - 40,000 EUR | 04. 40,001 - 60,000 EUR | 05. more than 60,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 11,999 EUR | 02. 12,000 - 22,999 EUR | 03. 23,000 - 39,999 EUR | 04. 40,000 - 59,999 EUR | 05. more than 60,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2002): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 2,000 or less EUR | 2,001 - 3,000 EUR | 3,001 - 5,000 EUR | 5,001 - 7,500 EUR | 02. 7,501 - 10,000 EUR | 03. 10,001 - 15,000 EUR | 04. 15,001 - 20,000 EUR | 05. 20,001 - 30,000 EUR | 30,001 - 40,000 EUR | 40,001 - 50,000 EUR | 50,001 or more EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 1,500 EUR | 02. 1,501 - 2,300 EUR | 03. 2,301 - 3,000 EUR | 04. 3,001 - 4,000 EUR | 05. more than 4,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): IMD2006 | | The French election study asked about ten ranges of | household income. Those were collapsed into five ranges. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 1,500 EUR | 02. 1,501 - 2,000 EUR | 03. 2,001 - 3,000 EUR | 04. 3,001 - 5,000 EUR | 05. more than 5,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): IMD2006 | | Note provided with the re-coded deposit: Figures are based on a | recode of 20 income classes. Due to missing official figures, | quintiles are based on survey responses. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2002 Mail-Back): IMD2006 | | This variable is re-coded from a question asking respondents to | identify an income class. The income range for each quintile is | reported here: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 1,499 or less EUR | 02. 1,500 - 1,999 EUR | 03. 2,000 - 2,999 EUR | 04. 3,000 - 3,999 EUR | 05. more than 5,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2002 Telephone): IMD2006 | | This question was asked in two stages: Those respondents who did | not identify an income level initially were presented with | income categories from which to choose. As indicated in the | table below, both question formats were used to create the | income quintiles reported in the data (the categorical response | format is denoted in parentheses with a 'C'). | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 150 - 1,280 EUR | less than 500 EUR (C) | 500 - 499 EUR (C) | 1,000 - 1,499 EUR (C) | 02. 1,281 - 1,850 EUR | 1,500 - 1,999 EUR (C) | 03. 1,851 - 2,450 EUR | 2,000 - 2,999 EUR (C) | 04. 2,451 - 3,400 EUR | 3,000 - 3,999 EUR (C) | 05. 3,401 - 19,000 EUR | 4,000 - 4,999 EUR (C) | 5,000 or more EUR (C) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 1,000 EUR | 02. 1,001 - 1,500 EUR | 03. 1,501 - 2,100 EUR | 04. 2,101 - 3,000 EUR | 05. more than 3,001 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 1,200 EUR | 02. 1,201 - 1,499 EUR | 03. 1,500 - 1,999 EUR | 04. 2,000 - 2,799 EUR | 05. more than 2,799 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): IMD2006 | | The original household income variable had 13 categories. Due to | the distribution, the data does not approximate to quintiles | very well. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 1,250 EUR | 02. 1,250 to less than 1,500 EUR | 03. 1,500 to less than 2,000 EUR | 04. 2,000 to less than 3,000 EUR | 05. 3,000 to less than 10,000 EUR | 10,000 EUR or more | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): IMD2006 | | One section of the sample (approximately half) was asked: | "Which of the letters on this card represents the total income | of your household from all sources before tax - including | benefits, saving and so on? Please just tell me the letter." | | The other section was asked: "What is the total income of your | household from all sources before tax - including benefits, | savings and so on? Please just tick one of the boxes on this | form. When you have finished, please fold the form and put it | into the envelope. RETRIEVE ENVELOPE" | | This variable is based on the combined data from these two | questions. In both cases, the answer options were: | | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | WEEKLY income ANNUAL income | BEFORE tax BEFORE tax | 01. less than 77 GBP less than 3,999 GBP | 78 - 115 GBP 4,000 - 5,999 GBP | 116 - 154 GBP 6,000 - 7,999 GBP | 02. 155 - 192 GBP 8,000 - 9,999 GBP | 193 - 230 GBP 10,000 - 11,999 GBP | 231 - 289 GBP 12,000 - 14,999 GBP | 03. 290 - 346 GBP 15,000 - 17,999 GBP | 347 - 385 GBP 18,000 - 19,999 GBP | 386 - 442 GBP 20,000 - 22,999 GBP | 04. 443 - 500 GBP 23,000 - 25,999 GBP | 501 - 558 GBP 26,000 - 28,999 GBP | 559 - 615 GBP 29,000 - 31,999 GBP | 05. 616 - 673 GBP 32,000 - 34,999 GBP | 674 - 730 GBP 35,000 - 37,999 GBP | 731 - 788 GBP 38,000 - 40,999 GBP | 789 or more GBP 41,000 or more GBP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2005): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 9,999 GBP | 02. 10,000 - 17,999 GBP | 03. 18,000 - 25,999 GBP | 04. 26,000 - 43,999 GBP | 05. 44,000 or more GBP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): IMD2006 | | Quintiles were calculated on the basis of an originally | 15-scaled variable. The resulting distributions are not even. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 10,399 GBP | 02. 10,400 - 20,788 GBP | 03. 20,800 - 36,399 GBP | 04. 36,400 - 59,999 GBP | 05. more than 59,999 GBP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 10,000 EUR | 02. 10,001 - 15,000 EUR | 03. 15,001 - 25,000 EUR | 04. 25,001 - 40,000 EUR | 05. more than 40,000 EUR | | Note that the distribution of respondents' income does not match | quintiles. However, the Greek questionnaire asked for the income | categories in the way mentioned above. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): IMD2006 | | The distribution does not approximate to quintiles as the | original questions asked respondents to place themselves | in one of the five closed categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 10,000 EUR | 02. 10,001 - 15,000 EUR | 03. 15,001 - 25,000 EUR | 04. 25,001 - 40,000 EUR | 05. more than 40,001 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. no income | up to 3,999 HKD | 4,000 - 5,999 HKD | 6,000 - 7,999 HKD | 8,000 - 9,999 HKD | 02. 10,000 - 14,999 HKD | 03. 15,000 - 19,999 HKD | 20,000 - 24,999 HKD | 04. 25,000 - 29,999 HKD | 30,000 - 39,999 HKD | 05. 40,000 - 59,999 HKD | 60,000 or more HKD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. no income | up to 3,999 HKD | 4,000 - 5,999 HKD | 6,000 - 7,999 HKD | 02. 8,000 - 9,999 HKD | 10,000 - 14,999 HKD | 03. 15,000 - 19,999 HKD | 04. 20,000 - 24,999 HKD | 25,000 - 29,999 HKD | 05. 30,000 - 39,999 HKD | 40,000 - 59,999 HKD | 60,000 or more HKD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2004): IMD2006 | | The following table shows the conversion of the original | categories into approximate income quintiles: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. No income | up to 3,999 HKD | 4,000 - 5,999 HKD | 02. 6,000 - 7,999 HKD | 8,000 - 9,999 HKD | 03. 10,000 - 14,999 HKD | 04. 15,000 - 19,999 HKD | 20,000 - 24,999 HKD | 05. 25,000 - 29,999 HKD | 30,000 - 39,999 HKD | 40,000 - 59,999 HKD | 60,000 or more HKD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): IMD2006 | | Hong Kong implemented two additional categories (see below) | while no missing data were included. Here, the value "9 | MISSING" refers to all observations reporting "NO FIXED INCOME". | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 9,999 HKD | 02. 10,000 - 19,999 HKD | 03. 20,000 - 29,999 HKD | 04. 30,000 - 49,999 HKD | 05. more than 50,000 HKD | 06. No income | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): IMD2006 | | In the original data, there were eight categories for ranges of | income and two further categories, "no income", and "no fixed | income". These were re-coded into CSES category 01. After | re-coding, the five categories do not match quintiles well. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 19,999 HKD | 02. 10,000 - 19,999 HKD | 03. 20,000 - 29,999 HKD | 04. 30,000 - 49,000 HKD | 05. 50,000 or more HKD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): IMD2006 | | The data come from the pre-election wave of the survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2002): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 12,000 - 49,800 HUF | 02. 50,000 - 75,000 HUF | 03. 75,200 - 101,800 HUF | 04. 102,000 - 142,000 HUF | 05. 142,400 - 930,000 HUF | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2003): IMD2006 | | Quintile ranges not provided. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): IMD2006 | | Monthly household income, before tax and other deductions | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 200,000 ISK | 02. 201,000 - 345,000 ISK | 03. 346,000 - 490,000 ISK | 04. 491,000 - 650,000 ISK | 05. more than 650,000 ISK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): IMD2006 | | Monthly household income, before tax and other deductions | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 192,000 ISK | 02. 193,000 - 350,000 ISK | 03. 351,000 - 500,000 ISK | 04. 501,000 - 700,000 ISK | 05. more than 700,000 ISK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 260,000 ISK | 02. 261,000 - 440,000 ISK | 03. 441,000 - 630,000 ISK | 04. 631,000 - 900,000 ISK | 05. more than 900,000 ISK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2002): IMD2006 | | This item was asked in a branched format: Respondents were asked | to identify a broad income category (denoted below), and then | were asked to identify a more narrow category from within that | broad category. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Under 240: less than 100 EUR | Under 240: 100-150 EUR | Under 240: 151-200 EUR | Under 240: 201-240 EUR | Under 240 EUR | 241-450: 241-280 EUR | 02. 241-450: 281-350 EUR | 241-450: 351-400 EUR | 03. 241-450: 401-450 EUR | 241-450 EUR | 451-700: 451-500 EUR | 451-700: 501-570 EUR | 04. 451-700: 571-630 EUR | 451-700: 631-700 EUR | 451-700 EUR | 701 or more: 701-825 EUR | 05. 701 or more: 826-950 EUR | 701 or more: 951-1,200 EUR | 701 or more: more than 1,201 EUR | 701 or more EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): IMD2006 | | Household income per week. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 240 EUR | 02. 241 - 450 EUR | 03. 451 - 700 EUR | 04. 701 - 1,000 EUR | 05. more than 1,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 20,000 EUR | 02. 20,000 - 29,999 EUR | 03. 30,000 - 39,999 EUR | 04. 40,000 - 49,999 EUR | 05. more than 50,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): IMD2006 | | 239 cases coded "0" in the deposited data represented 'Refused' | and have been moved to "9. Missing" for CSES IMD. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2003): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 4,300 ILS | 02. 4,301 - 6,000 ILS | 03. 6,001 - 8,000 ILS | 04. 8,001 - 11,000 ILS | 05. 11,001 or more ILS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 3,999 ILS | 02. 4,000 - 5,499 ILS | 03. 5,500 - 8,000 ILS | 04. 8,001 - 12,999 ILS | 05. more than 12,999 ILS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): IMD2006 | | Respondents in Israel were asked to place their | household income within the five ranges below. Accordingly, | the data does not match quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 4,500 ILS | 02. 4,501 - 8,000 ILS | 03. 8,001 - 12,000 ILS | 04. 12,001 - 16,000 ILS | 05. more than 16,000 ILS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2006): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 386 EUR | 387 - 645 EUR | 646 - 903 EUR | 904 - 1,161 EUR | 02. 1,162 - 1,419 EUR | 1,420 - 1,677 EUR | 03. 1,678 - 1,935 EUR | 1,936 - 2,193 EUR | 04. 2,194 - 2,452 EUR | 05. 2,453 - 3,872 EUR | 3,873 - 5,163 EUR | 5,164 or more EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 2,000,000 JPY | 2,000,000 - 3,999,999 JPY | 02. 4,000,000 - 5,999,999 JPY | 03. 6,000,000 - 7,999,999 JPY | 04. 8,000,000 - 9,999,999 JPY | 05. 10,000,000 - 11,999,999 JPY | 12,000,000 - 13,999,999 JPY | more than 14,000,000 JPY | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2004): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 3,000,000 JPY | 02. 3,000,000 - 4,000,000 JPY | 03. 4,000,000 - 6,000,000 JPY | 04. 6,000,000 - 8,000,000 JPY | 05. more than 8,000,000 JPY | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 3,000,000 JPY | 02. 3,000,000 - 5,000,000 JPY | 03. 5,000,000 - 7,000,000 JPY | 04. 7,000,000 - 10,000,000 JPY | 05. more than 10,000,000 JPY | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): IMD2006 | | The data provided does not reflect true quintiles derived from | continuous data. The national collaborators asked people about | their income using a 5-point scale. The ranges were designed to | capture an accurate image of the income distribution of people | in Japan. However, responses were underrepresented in the | sample of the lowest income category because income is a very | sensitive issue in Japan. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 2,000,000 JPY | 02. 2,000,000 - 3,500,000 JPY | 03. 3,500,000 - 5,500,000 JPY | 04. 5,500,000 - 8,000,000 JPY | 05. more than 8,000,000 JPY | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): IMD2006 | | The deposited income data were not grouped into quintiles. As | the original variable consists of discrete answer categories, | quintiles could only be approximated. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 2,501 KES | 02. 2,600 - 5,000 KES | 03. 5,500 - 10,000 KES | 04. 10,500 - 20,000 KES | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): IMD2006 | | Analysts should be aware that the Latvian election study | deviates from the CSES convention. Respondents were asked for | the last months' after-tax salary per family member in the | household. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 85 EUR | 02. 85 - 127 EUR | 03. 130 - 169 EUR | 04. 170 - 247 EUR | 05. more than 247 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): IMD2006 | | The Latvian election study deviated from the CSES convention. | Respondents were asked for the last months' after-tax salary per | family member in the household. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 0 - 150 EUR | 02. 159 - 230 EUR | 03. 234 - 300 EUR | 04. 320 - 450 EUR | 05. 460 - 3000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): IMD2006 | | These categories only roughly correspond to quintiles because | nearly forty percent of respondents fall into one category, as | constructed and deposited by the collaborator. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 1,000 MXN | 02. 1,001 - 3,000 MXN | 03. 3,001 - 5,000 MXN | 04. 5,001 - 7,000 MXN | 05. 7,001 - 10,000 MXN | 10,000 - 30,000 MXN | more than 30,000 MXN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): IMD2006 | | The income variable results from the combination of variables | SE12 and SE12A. | | SE12 is the direct answer to the question, "What is your | family's monthly income?" To those who did not answer, we asked | "Is your family's monthly income between these categories?"; | this is SE12A. V99 results from the combination of both | questions grouped in quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 0 - 1,400 MXN | 02. 1,401 - 2,300 MXN | 03. 2,301 - 3,500 MXN | 04. 3,501 - 6,000 MXN | 05. 6,001 or more MXN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2003): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 200 - 1,500 MXN | 02. 1,500 - 2,400 MXN | 03. 2,500 - 3,900 MXN | 04. 4,000 - 6,000 MXN | 05. 6,200 - 100,000 MXN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): IMD2006 | | Ranges reflect annual family income. | Research should pay attention to the distribution in IMD2006, | for Mexico (2006), which does not represent income quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 52,560 MXN | 02. 52,561 - 87,600 MXN | 03. 87,601 - 122,640 MXN | 04. 122,641 - 175,200 MXN | 05. more than 175,200 MXN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): IMD2006 | | Quintile ranges reflect annual family income. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 29,400 MXN | 02. 29,400 - 45,600 MXN | 03. 45,600 - 70,800 MXN | 04. 70,800 - 94,800 MXN | 05. more than 94,800 MXN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 2,000 MXN | 02. 2,000 - 3,500 MXN | 03. 3,501 - 5,000 MXN | 04. 5,001 - 7,200 MXN | 05. more than 7,200 MXN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 3,601 MXN | 02. 3,700 - 5,000 MXN | 03. 5,200 - 6,500 MXN | 04. 6,600 - 9,000 MXN | 05. more than 9,100 MXN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 200 EUR | 02. 200 - 400 EUR | 03. 401 - 550 EUR | 04. 551 - 800 EUR | 05. more than 800 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 0 - 28,000 NLG | 02. 28,000 - 38,000 NLG | 03. 38,000 - 52,000 NLG | 04. 52,000 - 73,000 NLG | 05. 73,000 or more NLG | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2002): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 20,500 EUR | 02. 20,500 - 28,500 EUR | 03. 28,500 - 34,000 EUR | 04. 34,000 - 56,000 EUR | 05. more than 56,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): IMD2006 | | The original variable "V413 Disposable income of household | (after taxes)" was grouped into 20 categories, each containing | approximately 5% of respondents. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 19,592 EUR | 02. 19,592 - 26,878 EUR | 03. 26,879 - 34,895 EUR | 04. 34,896 - 45,682 EUR | 05. more than 45,683 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): IMD2006 | | The original variable "V451 Spendable income of household" | was grouped into 20 categories, each containing approximately | 5% of respondents. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 24,889 EUR | 02. 24,889 - 34,120 EUR | 03. 34,121 - 44,127 EUR | 04. 44,128 - 60,354 EUR | 05. more than 60,354 EUR | 08. Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): IMD2006 | | Earlier release of this data file classified respondents | differently. The collaborators have more recently provided an | updated version of this variable, with income quintile | corresponding to the following categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 18,000 NZD | 02. 18,800 - 28,799 NZD | 03. 28,800 - 44,199 NZD | 04. 44,200 - 67,399 NZD | 05. 67,400 or more NZD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2002): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. No income | less than 14,900 NZD | 02. 14,900 - 32,399 NZD | 03. 32,400 - 51,099 NZD | 04. 51,100 - 101,099 NZD | 05. more than 101,100 NZD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 27,000 NZD | 02. 27,000 - 45,999 NZD | 03. 46,000 - 70,999 NZD | 04. 71,000 - 108,999 NZD | 05. more than 109,000 NZD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 28,900 NZD | 02. 28,900 - 51,399 NZD | 03. 51,400 - 76,099 NZD | 04. 76,100 - 110,799 NZD | 05. more than 110,800 NZD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 31,000 NZD | 02. 31,001 - 55,000 NZD | 03. 55,001 - 76,100 NZD | 04. 76,001 - 110,800 NZD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (1997): IMD2006 | | The CSES income quintiles correspond to the following income | levels: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 139,000 NOK | 02. 140,000 - 249,000 NOK | 03. 250,000 - 349,000 NOK | 04. 350,000 - 464,000 NOK | 05. more than 465,000 NOK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2001): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 0 - 190,000 NOK | 02. 191,000 - 300,000 NOK | 03. 301,000 - 450,000 NOK | 04. 451,000 - 570,000 NOK | 05. 571,000 or more NOK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 190,999 NOK | 02. 191,000 - 300,999 NOK | 03. 301,000 - 450,999 NOK | 04. 451,000 - 570,999 NOK | 05. more than 570,999 NOK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 340,001 NOK | 02. 340,001 - 500,000 NOK | 03. 500,001 - 700,000 NOK | 04. 700,001 - 900,000 NOK | 05. more than 900,001 NOK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 0 - 385,000 NOK | 02. 390 - 580,000 NOK | 03. 600 - 800,000 NOK | 04. 805 - 1,000,000 NOK | 05. 1,001,000 - 5,000,000 NOK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000 & 2001): IMD2006 | | This classification scheme only roughly corresponds to quintiles | (frequencies are reported in parentheses above). Further, there | is some concern that this classification serves to distinguish | those living in extreme poverty (Codes 1, 2 and 3), from those | living in poverty (Code 4), from everyone else (the income | groups corresponding to Code 5 include the lower middle through | upper classes). | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 300 PEN | 02. 300 - 600 PEN | 03. 601 - 1,000 PEN | 04. 1,001 - 1,500 PEN | 1,501 - 2,000 PEN | 05. 2,001 - 3,000 PEN | 3,001 - 5,000 PEN | 5,001 - 10,000 PEN | more than 10,000 PEN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2006): IMD2006 | | This variable records the average household monthly income. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Min - 300 PEN | 02. 301 - 450 PEN | 03. 451 - 700 PEN | 04. 701 - 1,200 PEN | 05. more than 1,200 PEN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 450 PEN | 02. 450 - 1,000 PEN | 03. 1,000 - 1,600 PEN | 04. 1,600 - 2,700 PEN | 05. more than 2,700 PEN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 700 PEN | 02. 700 - 1,200 PEN | 03. 1,200 - 2,000 PEN | 04. 2,000 - 3,400 PEN | 05. more than 3,400 PEN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2004): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 0 - 2,000 PHP | 02. 2,001 - 4,000 PHP | 03. 4,001 - 6,000 PHP | 04. 6,001 - 11,400 PHP | 05. 11,401 or more PHP | 06. No fixed income | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 3,999 PHP | 02. 4,000 - 5,999 PHP | 03. 6,000 - 9,999 PHP | 04. 10,000 - 14,999 PHP | 05. more than 14,999 PHP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 5,000 PHP | 02. 5,000 - 7,200 PHP | 03. 7,201 - 10,000 PHP | 04. 10,001 - 17,000 PHP | 05. more than 17,000 PHP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2001): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 1 - 900 PLN | 02. 901 - 1,300 PLN | 03. 1,301 - 1,800 PLN | 04. 1,801 - 2,500 PLN | 05. 2,501 - 70,000 PLN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005 & 2007): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 849 PLN | 02. 850 - 1,200 PLN | 03. 1,201 - 1,699 PLN | 04. 1,700 - 2,299 PLN | 05. more than 2,299 PLN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 115 - 890 PLN | 02. 900 - 1,500 PLN | 03. 1,520 - 2,300 PLN | 04. 2,375 - 3,400 PLN | 05. 3,500 - 30,000 PLN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002 & 2005): IMD2006 | | The income levels included here were adapted from those included | in other surveys, namely the ISSP (International Social Survey | Program), carried out in Portugal in 1997 for the first time. | The lowest level shown is approximately the legal minimum | monthly salary in Portugal. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 300 EUR | 02. 301 - 750 EUR | 03. 751 - 1,500 EUR | 04. 1,501 - 2,500 EUR | 05. more than 2,500 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): IMD2006 | | In general, CSES guidelines request that income be | categorized in quintiles. However, the Portuguese questionnaire | asked for categories as mentioned below. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 300 EUR | 02. 301 - 750 EUR | 03. 751 - 1,500 EUR | 04. 1,501 - 2,500 EUR | 05. more than 2,500 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): IMD2006 | | In general, CSES guidelines request that income be | categorized in sample quintiles. However, to be | consistent with prior Portuguese election studies, | the Portuguese questionnaire asked for the categories | mentioned below. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 300 EUR | 02. 301 - 750 EUR | 03. 751 - 1,500 EUR | 04. 1,501 - 2,500 EUR | 05. more than 2,500 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2004): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 2,800,000 ROL | 02. 2,800,000 - 4,700,000 ROL | 03. 4,700,000 - 7,000,000 ROL | 04. 7,000,000 - 11,000,000 ROL | 05. more than 11,000,000 ROL | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 500 RON | 02. 501 - 1,000 RON | 03. 1,001 - 1,408 RON | 04. 1,409 - 2,000 RON | 05. more than 2,001 RON | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 600 RON | 02. 601 - 1,000 RON | 03. 1,001 - 1,450 RON | 04. 1,451 - 2,000 RON | 05. more than 2,001 RON | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 635 RON | 02. 640 - 1,100 RON | 03. 1,118 - 1,500 RON | 04. 1,530 - 2,200 RON | 05. more than 2,300 RON | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999 & 2000): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | (Total Household Income over last 30 days) | 01. less than 540 RUB | 02. 541 - 999 RUB | 03. 1,000 - 1,500 RUB | 04. 1,501 - 2,999 RUB | 05. more than 3,000 RUB | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2004): IMD2006 | | Quintile ranges not provided. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 19,000 RSD | 02. 20,000 - 29,999 RSD | 03. 30,000 - 49,999 RSD | 04. 50,000 - 69,999 RSD | 05. more than 70,000 RSD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 400 EUR | 02. 401 - 600 EUR | 03. 601 - 800 EUR | 04. 800 - 1,200 EUR | 05. more than 1,200 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): IMD2006 | | Respondents in the original survey could place themselves in | one of 11 different income categories. These were re-coded as | shown below, such that the distribution within the CSES | categories approximates quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 150 EUR | 151 - 300 EUR | 301 - 450 EUR | 451 - 600 EUR | 601 - 750 EUR | 02. 751 - 900 EUR | 03. 901 - 1,200 EUR | 04. 1,201 - 1,500 EUR | 05. 1,501 - 2,000 EUR | 2,001 - 3,000 EUR | more than 3,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2004): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 30 - 140 SIT | 02. 141 - 210 SIT | 03. 211 - 290 SIT | 04. 291 - 400 SIT | 05. 401 or more SIT | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 801 EUR | 02. 801 - 1,200 EUR | 03. 1,201 - 1,700 EUR | 04. 1,701 - 2,500 EUR | 05. more than 2,500 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 700 EUR | 02. 740 - 1,100 EUR | 03. 1,150 - 1,400 EUR | 04. 1,500 - 2,000 EUR | 05. more than 2,100 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 0 - 1,500 ZAR | 02. 1,501 - 3,000 ZAR | 03. 3,001 - 5,000 ZAR | 04. 5,001 - 7,500 ZAR | 05. 7,501 - 30,001 ZAR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2000): IMD2006 | | Documentation for South Korean income ranges corresponding to | CSES categories were provided as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 667 KRW | 02. 667 - 1,083 KRW | 03. 1,084 - 1,833 KRW | 04. 1,834 - 2,917 KRW | 05 more than 2,917 KRW | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2004): IMD2006 | | Quintile ranges not provided. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): IMD2006 | | Quintile ranges were not provided by the national collaborator. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2004): IMD2006 | | Note that the income ranges below are as originally reported by | the collaborator and do not correspond to sample quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 450 EUR | 02. 451 - 900 EUR | 03. 901 - 1,650 EUR | 04. 1,651 - 3,000 EUR | 05. 3,001 or more EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 600 EUR | 02. 601 - 900 EUR | 03. 901 - 1,200 EUR | 04. 1,201 - 2,100 EUR | 05. more than 2,101 EUR | | The Spanish questionnaire covers the total monthly income | of the household, taking all sources into account. | The coded CSES variable does not fit income quintiles, due to | the original coding of the Spanish income variable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (1998): IMD2006 | | This variable reports R's income rather than R's household's | income. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 74,000 SEK | 02. 75,000 - 138,000 SEK | 03. 139,000 - 181,000 SEK | 04. 182,000 - 232,000 SEK | 05. 233,000 or more SEK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2002): IMD2006 | | This variable is divided into five portions: 15-20-30-20-15. | The lowest quintile includes the lowest 15% of incomes, the | second quintile includes the next 20% of incomes and so on and | so forth. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 61,130 or less SEK | 02. 61,131 - 142,218 SEK | 03. 142,219 - 214,785 SEK | 04. 214,786 - 290,802 SEK | 05. 290,803 or more SEK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): IMD2006 | | The income variable (D20) is divided into 20-20-20-20-20 and | includes all respondents in the dataset. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 161,253 SEK | 02. 161,254 - 244,408 SEK | 03. 244,409 - 337,166 SEK | 04. 337,167 - 432,251 SEK | 05. more than 432,251 SEK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 261,036 SEK | 02. 261,037 - 411,247 SEK | 03. 411,248 - 608,282 SEK | 04. 608,283 - 795,813 SEK | 05. more than 795,814 SEK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): IMD2006 | | The original categories have been re-coded in the following way | to roughly fit the quintiles: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 2,000 CHF | 2,001 - 3,000 CHF | 3,001 - 4,000 CHF | 02. 4,001 - 5,000 CHF | 03. 5,001 - 6,000 CHF | 6,001 - 7,000 CHF | 04. 7,001 - 8,000 CHF | 8,001 - 9,000 CHF | 05. 9,001 - 10,000 CHF | 10,001 - 12,000 CHF | more than 12,000 CHF | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2003): IMD2006 | | IMD2006 provides an approximate categorization based on the | original variable with eleven categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 2,000 CHF - 4,000 CHF | 02. 4,001 CHF - 6,000 CHF | 03. 6,001 CHF - 8,000 CHF | 04. 8,001 CHF - 10,000 CHF | 05. 10,001 CHF - more than 12,000 CHF | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): IMD2006 | | Income in Switzerland was measured using the following question: | "Could you please tell me what is the monthly income of your | household? Please include the income of all the persons who | contribute to the household budget, taking into account not | only salaries but also all other sources of income." Respondents | were offered a choice of 11 income categories, which were then | recoded into quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 4,000 CHF | 02. 4,001 - 6,000 CHF | 03. 6,001 - 8,000 CHF | 04. 8,001 - 10,000 CHF | 05. more than 10,000 CHF | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 5,000 CHF | 02. 5,001 - 7,000 CHF | 03. 7,001 - 9,000 CHF | 04. 9,000 - 12,000 CHF | 05. more than 12,000 CHF | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2001): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 38,000 TWD | 02. 38,000 - 56,000 TWD | 03. 56,000 - 75,000 TWD | 04. 75,000 - 103,000 TWD | 05. more than 103,000 TWD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2004): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 25,000 TWD | 02. 25,001 - 36,000 TWD | 36,001 - 45,000 TWD | 03. 45,001 - 53,000 TWD | 53,001 - 62,000 TWD | 04. 62,001 - 71,000 TWD | 71,001 - 83,000 TWD | 83,001 - 100,000 TWD | 05. 100,001 - 130,000 TWD | more than 130,000 TWD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD2006 | | In the Taiwanese 2008 sample, income was not coded into | even quintiles but was calculated to reflect the real income | distribution. The original data contained ten value codes: | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 47,000 TWD | 02. 47,001 - 65,000 TWD | 03. 65,001 - 88,000 TWD | 04. 88,001 - 138,000 TWD | 05. more than 138,000 TWD | 08. Hard to say | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 25,000 TWD | 02. 25,000 - 45,000 TWD | 03. 45,001 - 75,000 TWD | 04. 75,001 - 100,000 TWD | 05. more than 100,000 TWD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2001): IMD2006 | | This item reports quintiles based on R's "income last month". | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 1,000 THB | 02. 1,001 - 3,000 THB | 03. 3,001 - 6,000 THB | 04. 6,001 - 9,000 THB | 9,001 - 15,000 THB | 05. more than 15,001 THB | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): IMD2006 | | Note that the coding of IMD2006 does not follow the CSES manner | for Thailand (2007). The variable includes a category for no | income and only four additional categories on the actual income | of respondents. Moreover, the distribution of the data does not | reflect income quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. No income | 02. less than 5,000 THB | 03. 5,001 - 10,000 THB | 04. 10,001 - 10,000 THB | 05. more than 15,000 THB | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): IMD2006 | | The income ranges are not distributed as quintiles, | and could not be recalculated in such a manner. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 5,000 THB | 02. 5,001 - 15,000 THB | 03. 15,001 - 30,000 THB | 04. 30,001 - 50,000 THB | 05. more than 50,000 THB | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 600 TRY | 02. 600 - 850 TRY | 03. 851 - 1,000 TRY | 04. 1,001 - 1,700 TRY | 05. more than 1,700 TRY | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 1,000 TRY | 02. 1,000 - 1,250 TRY | 03. 1,280 - 1,600 TRY | 04. 1,700 - 2,400 TRY | 05. more than 2,400 TRY | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 2,999 USD | 3,000 - 4,999 USD | 5,000 - 6,999 USD | 7,000 - 8,999 USD | 9,000 - 9,999 USD | 02. 10,000 - 10,999 USD | 11,000 - 11,999 USD | 12,000 - 12,999 USD | 13,000 - 13,999 USD | 14,000 - 14.999 USD | 03. 15,000 - 16,999 USD | 17,000 - 19,999 USD | 20,000 - 21,999 USD | 22,000 - 24,999 USD | 25,000 - 29,999 USD | 04. 30,000 - 34,999 USD | 35,000 - 39,999 USD | 40,000 - 44,999 USD | 45,000 - 49,999 USD | 50,000 - 59,999 USD | 05. 60,000 - 74,999 USD | 75,000 - 89,999 USD | 90,000 - 104,999 USD | 105,000 or more USD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2004): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 2,999 USD | 3,000 - 4,999 USD | 5,000 - 6,999 USD | 7,000 - 8,999 USD | 9,000 - 10,999 USD | 11,000 - 12,999 USD | 13,000 - 14,999 USD | 15,000 - 16,999 USD | 17,000 - 19,999 USD | 02. 20,000 - 21,999 USD | 22,000 - 24,999 USD | 25,000 - 29,999 USD | 30,000 - 34,999 USD | 35,000 - 39,999 USD | 03. 40,000 - 44,999 USD | 45,000 - 49,999 USD | 50,000 - 59,999 USD | 04. 60,000 - 69,999 USD | 70,000 - 79,999 USD | 80,000 - 89,999 USD | 05. 90,000 - 104,999 USD | 105,000 - 119,000 USD | 120,000 or more USD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): IMD2006 | | The US-American questionnaire asked for the monthly household | income of married respondents. Incomes for the remaining | respondents base on the complete household, as long as all other | household members were under the age of 18, or on the | respondents' income, exclusively. | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 16,999 USD | 02. 17,000 - 34,999 USD | 03. 35,000 - 49,999 USD | 04. 50,000 - 89,999 USD | 05. more than 90,000 USD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): IMD2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 5,000 - 12,499 USD | 02. 12,500 - 27,499 USD | 03. 27,500 - 44,999 USD | 04. 45,000 - 74,999 USD | 05. 75,000 - 250,000 or more USD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): IMD2006 | | For those respondents who refused to report a household income, | IMD2006 was imputed by the Uruguayan collaborators, based on | respondents' occupation and the "wage agreements that determine | the official level of pay of that occupation." | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 11,200 USD | 02. 11,201 - 17,400 USD | 03. 17,401 - 25,000 USD | 04. 25,001 - 38,700 USD | 05. more than 38,700 USD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2007 >>> RURAL OR URBAN RESIDENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rural/Urban Residence. .................................................................. 1. RURAL AREA OR VILLAGE 2. SMALL OR MIDDLE-SIZED TOWN 3. SUBURBS OF LARGE TOWN OR CITY 4. LARGE TOWN OR CITY 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2007 | | Instead of using the CSES coding scheme, some countries employ | the amount of inhabitants for the size of respondents' place of | residence. These measurements do not fit the categories | generally used for IMD2007. Consequently, we advise users to | carefully read the ELECTION STUDY NOTES of the current variable, | which are available in Part 2 of the Codebooks for the respective | CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2022 | MODULE 2: B2030 | MODULE 3: C2030 | MODULE 4: D2031 | MODULE 5: E2022 | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), BELGIUM-FLANDERS | (1999), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), BRAZIL (2014), CANADA (2008, | 2011, 2015), CHILE (1999, 2005, 2009), GERMANY (2002 Mail-Back), | GREAT BRITAIN (1997, 2017, 2019), HONG KONG (1998, 2000, 2004, | 2008, 2012, 2016), ITALY (2018), JAPAN (1996), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), | LATVIA (2018), TAIWAN (2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020), THAILAND | (2001), and UNITED STATES (2008, 2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2008 >>> REGION OF RESIDENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent's region of residence. .................................................................. ARGENTINA 001032. Buenos Aires Capital 002032. Buenos Aires State 003032. Chaco 004032. Cordoba 005032. Corrientes 006032. Entre Rios 007032. Jujuy 008032. La Rioja 009032. Mendoza 010032. Neuquen 011032. Rio Negro 012032. Santa Fe 013032. Santiage del Estero 014032. Tucuman AUSTRALIA 001036. Australian Capital Territory 002036. New South Wales 003036. Northern Territory 004036. Queensland 005036. South Australia 006036. Tasmania 007036. Victoria 008036. Western Australia AUSTRIA 001040. Burgenland 002040. Carinthia 003040. Lower Austria 004040. Upper Austria 005040. Salzburg 006040. Styria 007040. Tyrol 008040. Vienna 009040. Vorarlberg BELARUS 001112. Brest 002112. Gomel 003112. Grodno 004112. Minsk - SEE POLITY NOTES 005112. Mogilev 006112. Vitebsk BELGIUM 001056. Brussels - SEE POLITY NOTES 002056. Flanders - SEE POLITY NOTES 003056. Wallonia - SEE POLITY NOTES BRAZIL 001076. Midwest - SEE POLITY NOTES 002076. North - SEE POLITY NOTES 003076. Northeast - SEE POLITY NOTES 004076. Southeast - SEE POLITY NOTES 005076. South - SEE POLITY NOTES BULGARIA 001100. Blagoevgrad 002100. Bourgas 003100. Dobrich 004100. Gabrovo 005100. Haskovo 006100. Kardzhali 007100. Kyustendil 008100. Lovech 009100. Montana 010100. Pazardzhik 011100. Pernik 012100. Pleven 013100. Plovdiv 014100. Razgrad 015100. Rousse 016100. Shoumen 017100. Silistra 018100. Sliven 019100. Smolyan 020100. Sofia city 021100. Sofia region 022100. Stara Zagora 023100. Targovishte 024100. Varna 025100. Veliko Tarnovo 026100. Vidin 027100. Vratsa 028100. Yambol CANADA 001124. Newfoundland 002124. Prince Edward Island 003124. Nova Scotia 004124. New Brunswick 005124. Quebec 006124. Ontario 007124. Manitoba 008124. Saskatchewan 009124. Alberta 010124. British Columbia 011124. Yukon Territories 012124. Northwest Territories CHILE 001152. Region de Tarapaca 002152. Region de Antofagasta 003152. Region de Atacama 004152. Region de Coquimbo 005152. Region de Valparaiso 006152. Region del Libertador Bernardo OHiggins 007152. Region del Maule 008152. Region del Bio Bio 009152. Region de la Araucania 010152. Region de Los Lagos 011152. Region de Aisen del General Carlos Ibanez del Campo 012152. Region de Magallanes y la Antartica Chilena 013152. Region Metropolitana 014152. Region de los Rios 015152. Arica y Parinacota CROATIA 001191. Dalmatia 002191. Istria, Rijeka, Northern Croatian Maritimes and Gorski Kotar 003191. Lika and Banovina 004191. Northern Croatia 005191. Slavonia 006191. Zagreb and Zagreb County CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA 001203. Central Bohemia - SEE POLITY NOTES 002203. Hradec Kralove region - SEE POLITY NOTES 003203. Karlovy Vary region - SEE POLITY NOTES 004203. Liberec region - SEE POLITY NOTES 005203. Moravian-Silesian region - SEE POLITY NOTES 006203. Olomouc region - SEE POLITY NOTES 007203. Pardubice region - SEE POLITY NOTES 008203. Pilsen region - SEE POLITY NOTES 009203. Prague - SEE POLITY NOTES 010203. South Bohemia - SEE POLITY NOTES 011203. South Moravia - SEE POLITY NOTES 012203. Usti region - SEE POLITY NOTES 013203. Vysocina region - SEE POLITY NOTES 014203. Zlin region - SEE POLITY NOTES DENMARK 001208. Copenhagen and Frederiksberg - SEE POLITY NOTES 002208. Danish Islands - SEE POLITY NOTES 003208. Jutland - SEE POLITY NOTES ESTONIA 001233. Central Estonia 002233. North Estonia 003233. North-East Estonia 004233. South Estonia 005233. West Estonia FINLAND 001246. Central Finland 002246. Central Ostrobothnia 003246. Etela-Savo 004246. Ita-Uusimaa 005246. Kainuu 006246. Kanta-Hame 007246. Kymenlaakso 008246. Lapland 009246. North Karelia 010246. North Ostrobothnia 011246. Ostrobothnia 012246. Paijat-Hame 013246. Pirkanmaa 014246. Pohjois-Savo 015246. Satakunta 016246. South Karelia 017246. South Ostrobothnia 018246. Uusimaa 019246. Varsinais-Suomi FRANCE 001250. West - SEE POLITY NOTES 002250. South West - SEE POLITY NOTES 003250. South East - SEE POLITY NOTES 004250. Center - SEE POLITY NOTES 005250. East - SEE POLITY NOTES 006250. Paris Area - SEE POLITY NOTES 007250. North - SEE POLITY NOTES GERMANY 001276. Baden-Wuerttemberg 002276. Bavaria 003276. Berlin 004276. Brandenburg 005276. Bremen 006276. Hamburg 007276. Hesse 008276. Lower Saxony 009276. Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 010276. North Rhine-Westphalia 011276. Rhineland Palatinate 012276. Saarland 013276. Saxony 014276. Saxony-Anhalt 015276. Schleswig-Holstein 016276. Thuringia GREAT BRITAIN 001826. East of England 002826. East Midlands 003826. London - SEE POLITY NOTES 004826. North 005826. North West 006826. Scotland 007826. South East 008826. South West 009826. Wales 010826. West Midlands 011826. Yorkshire and the Humber GREECE 001300. Aegean Islands and Crete - SEE POLITY NOTES 002300. Attica - SEE POLITY NOTES 003300. Central and Western Macedonia - SEE POLITY NOTES 004300. Central Greece - SEE POLITY NOTES 005300. Eastern Macedonia and Thrace - SEE POLITY NOTES 006300. Epirus and Ionian Islands - SEE POLITY NOTES 007300. Peloponnese - SEE POLITY NOTES 008300. Thessalia - SEE POLITY NOTES 009300. Western Greece - SEE POLITY NOTES HONG KONG 001344. Hong Kong Island 002344. Kowloon West 003344. Kowloon East 004344. New Territories West 005344. New Territories East HUNGARY 001348. Budapest and Pest County - SEE POLITY NOTES 002348. East - SEE POLITY NOTES 003348. North - SEE POLITY NOTES 004348. North-West - SEE POLITY NOTES 005348. South-East - SEE POLITY NOTES 006348. South-West - SEE POLITY NOTES ICELAND 001352. Capital area 002352. East 003352. West 004352. Westfjords 005352. North-East 006352. North-West 007352. Reykjanes Peninsula 008352. South ITALY 001380. Abruzzi 002380. Basilicata 003380. Calabria 004380. Campania 005380. Emilia-Romagna 006380. Friuli V.G. 007380. Lazio 008380. Liguria 009380. Lombardia 010380. Marche 011380. Molise 012380. Piemonte 013380. Puglia 014380. Sardegna 015380. Sicilia 016380. Toscana 017380. Umbria 018380. V. Aosta 019380. Veneto JAPAN 001392. Chubu - SEE POLITY NOTES 002392. Chugoku - SEE POLITY NOTES 003392. Hokkaido - SEE POLITY NOTES 004392. Kanto - SEE POLITY NOTES 005392. Kinki - SEE POLITY NOTES 006392. Kyusyu and Okinawa - SEE POLITY NOTES 007392. Shikoku - SEE POLITY NOTES 008392. Tohoku - SEE POLITY NOTES KYRGYZSTAN 001417. Batken 002417. Bishkek 003417. Chuy 004417. Issyk-Kul 005417. Jalabad 006417. Naryn 007417. Osh 008417. Talas LATVIA 001428. Kurzeme 002428. Latgale 003428. Riga 004428. Vidzeme 005428. Zemgale LITHUANIA 001440. Aukstaitija 002440. Dzukija 003440. South East Lithuania 004440. Suvalkija 005440. Zemaitija MONTENEGRO 001499. Center - SEE POLITY NOTES 002499. North - SEE POLITY NOTES 003499. South - SEE POLITY NOTES NETHERLANDS 001528. East 002528. North 003528. South 004528. West NEW ZEALAND 001554. Auckland Urban - SEE POLITY NOTES 002554. Rest of North Island - SEE POLITY NOTES 003554. South Island - SEE POLITY NOTES NORWAY 001578. Inner East of Norway 002578. Northern Norway 003578. Oslofjord 004578. Southern Norway 005578. Trandelag 006578. Western Norway PERU 001604. Ancash 002604. Arequipa 003604. Ayacucho 004604. Cajamarca 005604. Cusco 006604. Huancavelica 007604. Huanuco 008604. Ica 009604. Junin 010604. La Libertad 011604. Lambayeque 012604. Lima metropolitan area - SEE POLITY NOTES 013604. Loreto 014604. Piura 015604. Puno 016604. San Martin 017604. Tacna 018604. Ucayali PHILIPPINES 001608. Balance Luzon 002608. Mindanao 003608. National capital region 004608. Visayas POLAND 001616. Dolnoslaskie 002616. Kujawsko-pomorskie 003616. Lubelskie 004616. Lubuskie 005616. Lodzkie 006616. Malopolskie 007616. Mazowieckie 008616. Opolskie 009616. Podkarpackie 010616. Podlaskie 011616. Pomorskie 012616. Slaskie 013616. Swietokrzyskie 014616. Warminsko-mazurskie 015616. Wielkopolskie 016616. Zachodniopomorskie PORTUGAL 001620. Alentejo 002620. Algarve 003620. Center 004620. Lisbon and Tagus Valley 005620. North ROMANIA 001642. Banat 002642. Bucuresti 003642. Crisana-Maramures 004642. Dobrogea 005642. Moldova 006642. Muntenia 007642. Oltenia 008642. Transylvania RUSSIA 001643. Altaiskii krai 002643. Amurskaya obl. 003643. Chelyabinskaya obl. 004643. Chuvashskaya respublika 005643. Kabardino-Balkarskaya resp. 006643. Kaluzhskaya obl. 007643. Volgogradskaya obl. 008643. Krasnodarskii krai 009643. Krasnoyarskii krai 010643. Kurganskaya obl. 011643. Leningradskaya obl. 012643. Lipetskaya obl. 013643. Moscow 014643. Moskovskaya obl. 015643. Nizhegorodskaya obl. 016643. Novosibirskaya obl. 017643. Orenburgskaya obl. 018643. Penzenskaya obl. 019643. Permskaya obl. 020643. Primorskii krai 021643. Respublika Komi 022643. Rostovskaya obl. 023643. Saratovskaya obl. 024643. Smolenskaya obl. 025643. Stavropol'skii krai 026643. St. Petersburg 027643. Tambovskaya obl. 028643. Tatarstan respublika 029643. Tomskaya obl. 030643. Tul'skaya obl. 031643. Tverskaya obl. 032643. Udmurtskaya resp. SERBIA 001688. Belgrade area 002688. South and East Serbia 003688. Sumadija and Western Serbia 004688. Vojvodina SLOVAKIA 001703. Banska Bystrica 002703. Bratislava 003703. Kosice 004703. Nitra 005703. Presov 006703. Trencin 007703. Trnava 008703. Zilina SLOVENIA 001705. Gorenjska 002705. Goriska 003705. JV Slovenija 004705. Koroska 005705. Notranjsko-kraska 006705. Obalno-kraska 007705. Osrednjeslovenska 008705. Podravska 009705. Pomurska 010705. Savinjska 011705. Spodnjeposavska 012705. Zasavska SOUTH AFRICA 001710. Eastern Cape 002710. Free State 003710. Gauteng 004710. KwaZulu Natal 005710. Limpopo 006710. Mpumalanga 007710. Northern Cape 008710. North West 009710. Western Cape SOUTH KOREA 001410. Busan 002410. Chungcheongbuk 003410. Chungcheongnam 004410. Daegu 005410. Daejeon 006410. Gangwon 007410. Gwangju 008410. Gyeonggi 009410. Gyeongsangbuk 010410. Gyeongsangnam 011410. Incheon 012410. Jeollabuk 013410. Jeollanam 014410. Seoul 015410. Ulsan SPAIN 001724. Andalucia 002724. Aragon 003724. Asturias 004724. Baleares 005724. Canarias 006724. Cantabria 007724. Castilla-Leon 008724. Castilla-Lamancha 009724. Cataluna 010724. Comunidad Valenciana 011724. Extremadura 012724. Galicia 013724. La Rioja 014724. Madrid 015724. Murcia 016724. Navarra 017724. Pais Vasco SWEDEN 001752. Stockholm 002752. Norrbotten 003752. Uppsala 004752. Sodermanlands 005752. Ostergotlands 006752. Jonkopings 007752. Kronobergs 008752. Kalmar 009752. Gotland 010752. Blekinge 011752. Vasterbotten 012752. Skane 013752. Halland 014752. Vastra gotaland 015752. Jamtland 016752. Vasternorrland 017752. Varmland 018752. Orebro 019752. Vastmanland 020752. Kopparberg 021752. Gavleborg SWITZERLAND 001756. Zurich 002756. Bern 003756. Luzern 004756. Uri 005756. Schwyz 006756. Obwalden 007756. Nidwalden 008756. Glarus 009756. Zug 010756. Fribourg 011756. Solothurn 012756. Basel-Stadt 013756. Basel-Land 014756. Schaffhausen 015756. Appenzell AR 016756. Appenzell AI 017756. St. Gallen 018756. Graubuenden 019756. Aargau 020756. Thurgau 021756. Ticino 022756. Vaud 023756. Valais 024756. Neuchatel 025756. Geneve 026756. Jura TAIWAN 001158. East Taiwan - SEE POLITY NOTES 002158. Middle Taiwan - SEE POLITY NOTES 003158. North Taiwan - SEE POLITY NOTES 004158. South Taiwan - SEE POLITY NOTES 005158. Tao-Chu-Mieu - SEE POLITY NOTES THAILAND 001764. Central - SEE POLITY NOTES 002764. East 003764. North 004764. Northeast 005764. South TURKEY 001792. Aegean 002792. Black Sea - SEE POLITY NOTES 003792. Central Anatolia 004792. Eastern Anatolia - SEE POLITY NOTES 005792. Istanbul 006792. Marmara - SEE POLITY NOTES 007792. Mediterranean 008792. Southeast Anatolian 009792. West Anatolia UKRAINE: 001804. Central 002804. Crimea 003804. Eastern 004804. Kyiv 005804. Northern 006804. North-Eastern 007804. North-Western 008804. Southern 009804. South-Eastern 010804. South-Western 011804. Western UNITED STATES 001840. Northeast - SEE POLITY NOTES 002840. North Central - SEE POLITY NOTES 003840. South - SEE POLITY NOTES 004840. West - SEE POLITY NOTES URUGUAY 001858. East 002858. Metropolitan 003858. North-Center 004858. South 005858. West 999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2008 | | IMD2008 details the respondent's region of residence. | Regions are usually (but not always) based upon the social, | cultural, or historical differences (though some correspond | to administrative regions) that manifest themselves in | political cleavages. | | In CSES IMD, each region receives a unique numerical identifier | that is consistent across modules. This six-digit numerical | identifier contains information on the polity and a unique | numerical value to distinguish the region. Codes are listed in | alphabetical order of polity. | | The first three digits of the identifier consist of the | numerical codes ranging from 001 to 999, with each region | assigned a value that remains consistent across Modules. The | remaining three digits consist of the three-digit UN Polity | Identifier Code. | In assigning the first three digits, regions in most polities | were assigned numbers randomly beginning with "001". In cases | where this practice deviates, it is detailed in POLITY NOTES. | | Users are advised to consult CSES Standalone Module Codebooks | for more details on how regions are classified in Standalone | Modules. | In some polities, the region of residence variable was collected | differently in the same polity across time. As the region of | residence variable in CSES IMD is harmonized, some aggregation | of data has been applied. Details of specific aggregations are | listed in POLITY NOTES. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2019 | MODULE 2: B2027 | MODULE 3: C2027 | MODULE 4: D2028 | MODULE 5: E2020 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD2008 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, ALBANIA (2005), | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (1996), DENMARK (2001), HONG KONG (2004, | 2012), ICELAND (1999, 2003), IRELAND (2002, 2007, 2011), ISRAEL | (1996, 2003, 2006, 2013), KENYA (2013), MEXICO (1997, 2000, 2003, | 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015), PERU (2000, 2001, 2011), POLAND (1997, | 2001), ROMANIA (1996) and SWITZERLAND (2007). | POLITY NOTES - BELARUS: IMD2008 | | 004112. Minsk: In the 2008 study, residency in Minsk was | measured through two categories - Minsk (County) | and Minsk (Capital). For IMD, both categories were | collapsed into code 004112. Minsk. | POLITY NOTES - BELGIUM: IMD2008 | | For IMD, the region of residence categories employed in the 1999 | Belgium-Flanders and Belgium-Wallonia studies were collapsed | into the following three categories: | | 001056. Brussels: Brussels | | 002056. Flanders: Antwerp, Limburg, East-Flanders, Brabant- | Vlaams, West Flanders | | 003056. Wallonia: Brabant-Walloon, Hainaut, Liege, Luxembourg, | Namur | POLITY NOTES - BRAZIL: IMD2008 | | The region of residence variable was obtained from the original | five categories of the Brazilian 2010 and 2014 studies. The | region of residence categories for the 2002 and 2006 studies | were allocated in CSES IMD as follows: | | 001076. Midwest: Mato Grosso Do Sul, Mato Grosso, Goias, | Distrito Federal | | 002076. North: Rondonia, Acre, Amazonas, Roraima, Para, Amapa, | Tocantins | | 003076. Northeast: Maranhao, Piaui, Ceara, Rio Grande Do Norte, | Paraiba, Pernanbuco, Alagoas, Sergipe, Bahia | | 004076. Southeast: Minas Gerais, Espirito Santo, Rio De Janeiro, | Sao Paulo | | 005076. South: Parana, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande Do Sul | POLITY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA: IMD2008 | | The region of residence variable was obtained from the original | fourteen categories of the Czech 2002 and 2010 studies. The | region of residence categories for the 2006 and 2013 studies | were allocated in CSES IMD as follows: | | 001203. Central Bohemia: Benesov, Kladno, Beroun, Kolin, Kutna | Hora, Melnik, Mlada Boleslav, Nymburk, Prague-East, | Prague-West, Pribram, Rakovnik | | 002203. Hradec Kralove region: Hradec Kralove, Jicin, Nachod, | Rychnov nad Kneznou, Trutnov | | 003203. Karlovy Vary region: Cheb, Karlovy Vary, Sokolov | | 004203. Liberec region: Ceska Lipa, Jablonec nad Nisou, Liberec, | Semily | | 005203. Moravian-Silesian region: Bruntal, Frydek-Mistek, | Karvina, Novy Jicin, Opava, Ostrava-town | | 006203. Olomouc region: Jesenik, Olomouc, Prostejov, Prerov, | Sumperk | | 007203. Pardubice region: Chrudim, Pardubice, Svitavy, Usti nad | Orlici | | 008203. Pilsen region: Domazlice, Klatovy, Plzen-town, Plzen- | South, Plzen-North, Rokycany | | 009203. Prague: Prague | | 010203. South Bohemia: Ceske Budejovice, Cesky Krumlov, | Jindrichuv Hradec, Pisek, Prachatice, Tabor | | 011203. South Moravia: Blansko, Brno-town, Brno-countryside, | Breclav, Hodonin, Vyskov, Znojmo | | 012203. Usti region: Decin, Chomutov, Litomerice, Louny, Most, | Teplice, in Bohemia, Usti nad Labem | | 013203. Vysocina region: Havlickuv Brod, Jihlava, Pelhrimov, | Trebic, Zdar nad Sazavou | | 014203. Zlin region: Kromeriz, Uherske Hradiste, Vsetin, Zlin | | Data for the 1996 study cannot be harmonized with the region | classifications employed in CSES IMD. Consequently, data for | 1996 is unavailable in CSES IMD. | POLITY NOTES - DENMARK: IMD2008 | | For the 2007 study, category "3. South Denmark" is not included | as it cannot be harmonized with the region classifications for | Denmark used in CSES IMD. | | 001208. Copenhagen and Frederiksberg: For 1998, this category | includes category "1. Kobenhavn-Frederiksberg". | From 2007, it includes category "1. Copenhagen". | | 002208. Danish Islands: For 1998, this category includes | category "2. Oerne". From 2007, it consists of category | "2. Zealand". | | 003208. Jutland: For 1998, this category includes category | "3. Jylland". For 2007, it consists of categories "4. Mid | Jutland" and "5. North Jutland". | POLITY NOTES - FRANCE: IMD2008 | | The region of residence variable was obtained from the original | seven categories of the French 2017 study. The region of | residence categories for the 2002, 2007, and 2012 studies | were allocated in CSES IMD as follows: | | 001250. West comprises the following areas by study: | 2002: Ouest | 2007: Pays de la Loire, Bretagne, Pitou-Charentes | 2012: Pays de la Loire, Bretagne, Pitou-Charentes | | 002250. South West comprises the following areas by study: | 2002: Sud Ouest | 2007: Aquitaine, Midi-Pyrenees, Languedoc-Roussillon | 2012: Aquitaine, Midi-Pyrenees, Languedoc-Roussillon | | 003250. South East comprises the following areas by study: | 2002: Sud East, Mediterranee | 2007: Corse, Rhone-Alpes, Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur | 2012: Rhone-Alpes, Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur | | 004250. Center comprises the following areas by study: | 2007: Centre, Limousin, Auvergne | 2012: Centre, Limousin, Auvergne | | 005250. East comprises the following areas by study: | 2002: Est | 2007: Bourgogne, Lorraine, Alsace, Franche-Comte | 2012: Bourgogne, Lorraine, Alsace, Franche-Comte | | 006250. Paris comprises the following areas by study: | 2002: Ile de France, Bassin Parisien Est, Bassin | Parisien Ouest | 2007: Ile de France | 2012: Ile de France | | 007250. North comprises the following areas by study: | 2002: Nord | 2007: Champagne-Ardennes, Picardie, Haute-Normandie, | Basse-Normandie, Nord-Pas-de-Calais | 2012: Champagne-Ardennes, Picardie, Haute-Normandie, | Basse-Normandie, Nord-Pas-de-Calais | POLITY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN: IMD2008 | | 003826. London: In the 2005 study, residency in London was | measured through two categories - London (Capital) | and London (Outer). For IMD, both categories were | collapsed into code 003826. London. | POLITY NOTES - GREECE: IMD2008 | | The region of residence variable was obtained from the original | nine categories of the Greek 2012 studies. The region of | residence categories for the 2009 and 2015 studies were | allocated in CSES IMD as follows: | | 001300. Aegean Islands and Crete: Dodecanese, Heraklion, | Cyclades, Lasithi, Lesbos, Rethymno, Samos, Chania, | Chios | | 002300. Attica: Athens A, Athens B, Piraeus A, Piraeus B, Attica | | 003300. Central and Western Macedonia: Grevena, Imathia, | Kastoria, Kilkis, Kozani, Pella, Pieria, Serres, Florina, | Chalkidiki | | 004300. Central Greece: Aetolia-Acarnania, Boeotia, Euboea, | Evrytania, Phthiotis, Phocis, Thessaloniki A, | Thessaloniki B | | 005300. Eastern Macedonia and Thrace: Drama, Evros, Kavala, | Xanthi, Rhodope | | 006300. Epirus and Ionian Islands: Arta, Zakynthos, Thesprotia, | Ioannina, Corfu, Kefalonia and Ithaca, Lefkada, Preveza | | 007300. Peloponnese: Argolis, Arcadia, Corinthia, Laconia, | Messenia | | 008300. Thessalia: Karditsa, Larissa, Magnesia, Trikala | | 009300. Western Greece: Achaea, Elis | POLITY NOTES - HUNGARY: IMD2008 | | The region of residence variable was obtained from the original | nine categories of the Hungarian 1998 study. The region of | residence categories for the 2002 study were allocated in CSES | IMD as follows: | | 001348. Budapest and Pest County: Budapest, Pest | | 002348. East: Hajdu-Bihar, Szabolcs-Szatmar-Bereg, | Jasz-Nagykun-Szolnok | | 003348. North: BAZ (Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen), Heves, Nograd | | 004348. North-West: Fejer, Gyor-Moson-Sopron, Komarom-Esztergom, | Vas, Veszprem | | 005348. South-East: Bacs-Kiskun, Bekes, Csongrad | | 006348. South-West: Baranya, Somogy, Tolna, Zala | POLITY NOTES - JAPAN: IMD2008 | | The region of residence variable was obtained from the original | eight categories of the 1996 study. The region of residence | categories for the 2004, 2007 and 2013 studies were allocated | in CSES IMD as follows: | | 001392. Chubu: Niigata, Toyama, Ishikawa, Fukui, Yamanashi, | Nagano, Gifu, Shizuoka, Aichi (and Houriku and Toukai, | classified in the 2004 study). | | 002392. Chugoku: Tottori, Shimane, Okayama, Hiroshima, Yamaguchi | | 003392. Hokkaido: Hokkaido | | 004392. Kanto: Ibaragi, Tochigi, Gunma, Saitama, Chiba, Tokyo, | Kanagawa | | 005392. Kinki: Mie, Shiga, Kyoto, Osaka, Hyogo, Nara, Wakayama | | 006392. Kyusyu and Okinawa: Fukuoka, Saga, Nagasaki, Kumamoto, | Ooita, Miyazaki, Kagoshima, Okinawa (and Minami-Kyusyu | and Kita Kyusyu classified in the 2004 study). | | 007392. Shikoku: Tokushima, Kagawa, Ehime, Kouchi | | 008392. Tohoku: Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi, Akita, Yamagata, | Fukushima | | For the 2004 study, category "5. Touzan" is not included as it | cannot be harmonized with the region classifications in CSES IMD. | POLITY NOTES - MEXICO: IMD2008 | | Data for each study measured different regional aspects, meaning | harmonization was not possible in CSES IMD. Consequently, data is | unavailable for all Mexican studies in CSES IMD. | POLITY NOTES - MONTENEGRO: IMD2008 | | The region of residence variable was obtained from the original | three categories of the 2016 study (CSES MODULE 5). The region | of residence categories for the 2012 study were allocated in | CSES IMD as follows: | | 001499. Center: Cetinje, Danilovgrad, Niksic, Podgorica | | 002499. North: Andrijevica, Berane, Bijelo Polje, Kolasin, | Mojkovac, Plav, Pljevlja, Pluzine, Rozaje, Savnik, | Zabljak | | 003499. South: Budva, Bar, Herceg Novi, Kotor, Tivat, Ulcinj | POLITY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND: IMD2008 | | The region of residence variable was obtained from the original | three categories of the 2011 and 2014 studies. The region of | residence categories for the 1996, 2002, and 2008 studies | were allocated in CSES IMD as follows: | | 001554. Auckland Urban: | 1996: Auckland Region | 2002: No differentiation possible - Auckland included | in Rest of North Island (see 002554). | 2008: Auckland City and Suburbs | | 002554. Rest of North Island: | 1996: Central North Island, Wellington Region | 2002: North Island, South Center North Island | 2008: Northland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Central North | Island, Other North Island, Wellington City | and Suburbs | | 003554. South Island: | 1996: Canterbury Region, Otago Region | 2002: South Island | 2008: South Island | | For the 1996 study, Maori electorates are not included in the | regional classification as these electorates are distributed | across both islands. | POLITY NOTES - PERU: IMD2008 | | The region of residence variable was obtained from the original | eighteen categories of the 2006 and 2016 studies. | | 012604. Lima Metropolitan Area: In the 2006 study, residency in | Lima was measured through two categories - Lima and | Lima Metropolitan - Callao. In the 2016 study, residency | in Lima was measured through three categories - Lima, | San Martin, and Callao. | | Data for the 2000 and 2001 studies cannot be harmonized with the | region classifications in CSES IMD. Consequently, data for 2000 | and 2001 are unavailable in CSES IMD. | POLITY NOTES - POLAND: IMD2008 | | Data for the 1997 and 2001 studies cannot be harmonized with the | region classifications in CSES IMD. Consequently, data for 1997 | and 2001 are unavailable in CSES IMD. | POLITY NOTES - ROMANIA: IMD2008 | | Data for the 1996 study cannot be harmonized with the region | classifications in CSES IMD. Consequently, data for 1996 is | unavailable in CSES IMD. | POLITY NOTES - SWITZERLAND: IMD2008 | | Data for the 2007 study cannot be harmonized with the region | classifications in CSES IMD. Consequently, data for 2007 is | unavailable in CSES IMD. | POLITY NOTES - TAIWAN: IMD2008 | | The region of residence variable was obtained from the original | five categories of the 1996 study. The region of residence | categories for the 2001, 2004, and 2008 studies were allocated | in CSES IMD as follows: | | 001158. East Taiwan: Taitung County, Hualien County, Taichung | City | | 002158. Middle Taiwan: Taichung City, Changhua County, Nantou | County, Yunlin County | | 003158. North Taiwan: Taipei County, Yilan County, Keelung City, | Taipei City | | 004158. South Taiwan: Chiayi County, Tainan County, Kaohsiung | County, Pingtung County, Penghu County, Chiayi City, | Tainan City, Kaohsiung City (and Hsinchu and Miaoli | classified in the 2012 study). | | 005158. Tao-Chu-Mieu: Taoyuan County, Hsinchu County, Miaoli | County, Hsinchu City | POLITY NOTES - THAILAND: IMD2008 | | 001764. Central: For the 2011 study, residency in Bangkok, | Thailand's capital, was allocated here. | POLITY NOTES - TURKEY: IMD2008 | | 002792. Black Sea: In the 2015 study, residency in the Black Sea | was measured through two categories - Western Black Sea | and Eastern Black Sea. | | 004792. Eastern Anatolia: In the 2015 study, residency in East | Anatolia was measured through two categories - North | Eastern Anatolia and Central Eastern Anatolia. | | 006792. Marmara: In the 2015 study, residency in Marmara was | measured through two categories - Western Marmara and | Eastern Marmara. | POLITY NOTES - UNITED STATES: IMD2008 | | The region of residence variable was obtained from the original | four categories of the USA 1996 and 2004 election studies. | The region of residence categories from 2008 and 2012 were | allocated in CSES IMD as follows: | | 001840. Northeast: The states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, | New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. | | 002840. North Central: The states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, | Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, | North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. | | 003840. South: The states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, | Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, | Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, | Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and the | District of Columbia. | | 004840. West: The states of Arizona, California, Colorado, | Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and | Washington. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2010 >>> RACE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Race of respondent. .................................................................. 01. WHITE 02. ASIAN (INCLUDING SOUTH ASIAN INDIAN, CHINESE, ETC.) 03. BLACK 04. PACIFIC ISLANDER (MELANESIAN, MICRONESIAN, POLYNESIAN) 05. INDIGENOUS / FIRST PEOPLES 06. MIXED 96. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2010 | | As there was no single consistent coding classification for race | across CSES Modules, harmonization is based on recoding race | variables from previous CSES Modules according to the newly | created scale presented above. | | CSES MODULES 1 and 2 included a standardized coding scheme that | was updated for CSES IMD. | In what follows, we list how the original categories employed in | the Standalone CSES MODULES 1 and 2 were coded in CSES IMD. | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF CODES FOR RACE IN CSES MODULES 1-2 | TO CODES FOR RACE IN CSES IMD | | IMD CODE CSES MODULES 1-2 CLASSIFICATION (CSES MODULES 1-2 CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. European (Caucasian) (1) | 02. Asian (2) | Indian (4) | 03. African (Negroid) (3) | 04. Polynesian (5) | Micronesian (6) | Melanesian (7) | 05. Australoid (8) | American Indian (9) | | CSES MODULES 3 and 4 coded IMD2010 according to national | standards. For the CSES IMD, these individual scales were | harmonized following the coding scheme outlined above. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2020 | MODULE 2: B2028 | MODULE 3: C2028 | MODULE 4: D2029 | MODULE 5: E2015 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD2010 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | See also VARIABLE NOTES for variable IMD2011 (Ethnicity). | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, ARGENTINA (2015), | AUSTRALIA (2007, 2013), AUSTRIA (2008, 2013), BELARUS (2008), | BRAZIL (2006), BULGARIA (2014), CANADA (2008, 2011, 2015), | CHILE (2009), CROATIA (2007), CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006, 2010, | 2013), DENMARK (2007), ESTONIA (2011), FINLAND (2007, 2011, | 2015), FRANCE (2007, 2012), GERMANY (2005, 2009, 2013), GREAT | BRITAIN (2015), GREECE (2009, 2012, 2015 Jan), HONG KONG (2008, | 2012), HUNGARY (1998, 2002), ICELAND (2007, 2009, 2013), IRELAND | (2007, 2011), ISRAEL (2006, 2013), JAPAN (2007, 2013), KENYA | (2013), LATVIA (2010, 2011, 2014), NETHERLANDS (2006, 2010), NEW | ZEALAND (1996, 2011, 2014), NORWAY (2005, 2009, 2013), POLAND | (2005, 2007, 2011), ROMANIA (2009), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA | (2010, 2016), SLOVENIA (2008, 2011), SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2006, | 2014), SWITZERLAND (2007, 2011), TAIWAN (2008, 2012) and TURKEY | (2011, 2015). | [POLITY NOTES] - MEXICO: IMD2010 | | All Mexican studies included in the CSES Standalone Modules 1-4 | employed the same scale for measuring race or ethnicity, | distinguishing between Whites, Indigenous Peoples, Mestizos and | other groups. | However, while the Standalone CSES MODULES 1 and 2 coded data | for Mexico 1997, 2000, and 2003 into ethnicity, later CSES | Modules coded data into race. The CSES IMD harmonizes coding | by including the available data in IMD2010 (Race). | Consequentially, IMD2011 (Ethnicity) is coded missing for all | Mexican studies. | The following table lists how the original categories employed | in the Mexican studies were coded in CSES IMD: | | IMD Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. White | 05. Indigenous | 06. Mestizo | 96. Other | [POLITY NOTES] - PERU: IMD2010 | | The Peruvian 2011 and 2016 studies distinguish between four | ethnic groups, namely: Indigenous people, Afro-Peruvians, | Whites and Mestizos. As these groups match the IMD coding scheme | for respondents' race, the Peruvian data is coded into IMD2010, | while IMD2011 (Ethnicity) has been recoded to missing. | The following table lists how the original categories employed | in the respective Peruvian studies were coded in CSES IMD: | | IMD Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. White | 03. Afro-Peruvian | 05. Indigenous | 06. Mestizo | [POLITY NOTES] - UNITED STATES: IMD2010 | | The U.S. 1996 study does not differentiate between Asians and | Pacific Islanders. Hence, the category "02. ASIAN" includes | respondents of either origin. Researchers are advised that | respondent's race (IMD2010) was assessed by the interviewer, | while ethnic identity (IMD2011) was reported by the respondent. | Further, the U.S. 2004, 2008, and 2012 studies included separate | categories for Latinos and Hispanics. Respondents classified as | either Latino or Hispanic were recoded to 96. OTHER in the IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - CANADA (2008): IMD2010 | | The race variable for the Canadian 2008 election study | distinguishes respondents from racial minorities from other | respondents in the sample. As this approach is challenging | to translate to the IMD2010 coding scheme, data for Canada | (2008) have been set to missing in the IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GREAT BRITAIN (1997 & 2005): IMD2010 | | The British 1997 and 2005 election studies included both data | for respondents' race (IMD2010) and respondents' ethnicity | (IMD2011). Harmonizing data for the CSES IMD revealed that | the British 1997 and 2005 data for ethnicity were collapsed | into more general categories for coding race in the Standalone | CSES Modules. Therefore, the CSES IMD includes the respective | data in IMD2010 (Race), while IMD2011 (Ethnicity) is coded | missing. | The following table lists how the original categories employed | in the respective British studies were coded in CSES IMD: | | IMD Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. White (European) | White (Other) | 02. Asian (Chinese) | Asian (Other) | Asian (Indian) | Asian (Pakistani) | Asian (Bangladeshi) | 03. Black (African) | Black (Caribbean) | Black (Other) | 06. Mixed | 96. Other | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - HUNGARY (1998): IMD2010 | | The race variable for the Hungarian 1998 election study includes | data on the interviewer's assessment of whether the respondent | was Romani or not. | As the Roma are an ethnic rather than racial group, the IMD | includes the respective data in IMD2011 (Ethnicity), while | IMD2010 (Race) is coded missing. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NEW ZEALAND (1996): IMD2010 | | The New Zealand 1996 election study included both data for | respondents' race (IMD2010) and respondents' ethnicity (IMD2011). | Harmonizing data for the CSES IMD revealed that the New Zealand | 1996 data for ethnicity were collapsed into more general | categories for coding race in CSES MODULE 1. | As data included in the ethnicity variable was found to be more | accurate and fine-grained, IMD2010 was set to missing for | New Zealand (1996). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NEW ZEALAND (2008): IMD2010 | | The 2008 New Zealand study differentiates between respondents | of Maori and other origins. For the IMD, respondents of Maori | origin are coded as 5. INDIGENOUS, while the remaining | respondents are coded as 96. OTHER. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2011 >>> ETHNICITY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ethnicity of Respondent (for Coding Scheme employed, see VARIABLE NOTES). .................................................................. EUROPEAN 10000. EUROPEAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 11000. WEST EUROPEAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 11010. AUSTRIAN 11020. BELGIAN 11030. BRITISH [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 11031. ENGLISH 11033. SCOTTISH 11035. WELSH 11039. BRITISH, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 11040. DUTCH 11048. DUTCH CITY OR REGION, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 11049. DUTCH, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 11050. FRENCH 11059. FRENCH, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 11070. GERMAN 11077. GERMAN DIASPORA/ETHNIC GERMANS 11079. GERMAN, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 11080. IRISH 11089. IRISH, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 11090. LUXEMBOURGISH 11100. SWISS 11990. WEST EUROPEAN, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 12000. NORTH EUROPEAN (NORDIC) [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 12010. DANISH 12020. FINNISH 12021. SWEDISH-SPEAKING FINNISH 12030. ICELANDIC 12040. NORWEGIAN 12060. SWEDISH 12990. NORTH EUROPEAN, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED (INCL. SCANDINAVIAN) 13000. SOUTH EUROPEAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 13030. GREEK 13040. ITALIAN 13049. ITALIAN, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 13060. PORTUGUESE 13069. PORTUGUESE NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 13070. SPANISH 14000. SOUTH-EAST EUROPEAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 14010. ALBANIAN 14016. ALBANIAN, GHEG 14017. ALBANIAN, TOSK 14020. BOSNIAK/BOSNIAN 14030. BULGARIAN 14040. CROATIAN 14060. MACEDONIAN 14070. MOLDOVAN 14080. MONTENEGRIN 14090. ROMANIAN 14100. ROMA/GYPSY/SINTI 14110. SERBIAN 14120. SLOVENE 14130. VLACH 14160. YUGOSLAV 14990. SOUTH-EAST EUROPEAN NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED (INCL. YUGOSLAVIAN AND "POMAK") 15000. EAST EUROPEAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 15010. BELARUSIAN 15020. CZECH 15029. CZECH, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 15030. ESTONIAN 15040. HUNGARIAN 15050. LATVIAN 15060. LITHUANIAN 15080. MORAVIAN 15090. POLISH 15110. RUSSIAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 15113. UKRAINIAN RUSSIAN 15118. RUSSIAN CITY OR REGION NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 15119. RUSSIAN, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 15130. SLOVAK 15140. UKRAINIAN 15990. EAST EUROPEAN, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED (INCL. CZECHOSLOVAK) NORTH AFRICAN, MIDDLE EASTERN AND CENTRAL ASIAN 20000. NORTH AFRICAN, MIDDLE EASTERN AND CENTRAL ASIAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 21000. ARAB [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 21020. ARAB ISRAELI 21050. EGYPTIAN 21080. JORDANIAN 21100. LEBANESE 21130. MOROCCAN 21190. SYRIAN 22000. JEWISH [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 22010. JEWISH ISRAELI 22990. JEWISH, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 23000. TURKISH [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 23007. TURKISH DIASPORA/ETHNIC TURK 24000. IRANIAN AND CENTRAL ASIAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 24020. AZERI/AZERBAIJANI 24040. IRANIAN (INCL. PERSIAN) 24050. KAZAKH 24060. KYRGYZ 24080. TAJIK 24090. TATAR 24120. UZBEK 24130. BASHKIR 24140. CHUVASH 24150. MORDVA 24990. IRANIAN AND CENTRAL ASIAN NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 25000. OTHER NORTH AFRICAN AND MIDDLE EASTERN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 25010. ARMENIAN 25060. GEORGIAN 25070. ISRAELI 25080. KURDISH 25130. KARBADIAN 25990. OTHER NORTH AFRICAN AND MIDDLE EASTERN NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN 30000. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN (INCL. AFRICAN, NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) SOUTH AND SOUTH-EAST ASIAN 40000. SOUTH AND SOUTH-EAST ASIAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 41000. SOUTH ASIAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 41010. BANGLADESHI 41030. INDIAN 41035. SIKH 41080. PAKISTANI 41110. SRI LANKAN 41120. TAMIL 42000. MAINLAND AND BUDDHIST SOUTH-EAST ASIAN 42020. BURMESE/BAMAR 42050. KHMER 42060. LAO 42080. THAI 42090. VIETNAMESE 43000. MARITIME AND MUSLIM SOUTH-EAST ASIAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 43030. MALAY EAST ASIAN 50000. EAST ASIAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 51000. CHINESE ASIAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 51010. CHINESE [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 51012. CHINESE DIASPORA 51013. MAINLAND CHINESE 51019. CHINESE NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 51030. TAIWANESE CHINESE 51031. TAIWANESE MIN-NAN 51032. TAIWANESE HAKKA 51033. TAIWANESE ABORIGINAL 51038. TAIWANESE CITY OR REGION, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 51039. TAIWANESE, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 52000. NORTH-EAST ASIAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 52010. JAPANESE 52019. JAPANESE, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 52020. KOREAN LATIN AMERICAN 60000. LATIN AMERICAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] (INCL. LATINO AND HISPANIC) 60010. AMERINDIAN (INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA) NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 60020. CREOLE 61000. SOUTH AMERICAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 61050. BRAZILIAN 61070. COLOMBIAN 61990. SOUTH AMERICAN NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED (INCL. MESTIZO) 62000. CENTRAL AMERICAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 62020. CUBAN 62030. DOMINICAN (DOMINICAN REPUBLIC) 62040. FILIPINO [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 620401. AKLANON (FILIPINO) 620402. ANTIQUENO (FILIPINO) 620403. BADJAO (FILIPINO) 620404. BAGOBO (FILIPINO) 620405. BANTAYANON (FILIPINO) 620406. BATAAN (FILIPINO) 620407. BATANGUENO (FILIPINO) 620408. BICOLANO (FILIPINO) 620409. BIKIDNON (FILIPINO) 620410. B'LAAN (FILIPINO) 620411. BOHOLANON (FILIPINO) 620412. BULAKENO (FILIPINO) 620413. CAGAYANO (FILIPINO) 620414. CAPIZIANON (FILIPINO) 620415. CEBUANO (FILIPINO) 620416. CHABAKANO (FILIPINO) 620417. CUYUNON (FILIPINO) 620418. DAVAOENO (FILIPINO) 620419. DUMAGAT (FILIPINO) 620420. HIGAONON (FILIPINO) 620421. HIGAONON (FILIPINO) 620422. IBANAG (FILIPINO) 620423. ICOLANO (FILIPINO) 620424. IFUGAO (FILIPINO) 620425. IGOROT (FILIPINO) 620426. ILOCANO (FILIPINO) 620427. ILONGGO (FILIPINO) 620428. IRANUN (FILIPINO) 620429. ITAWIS (FILIPINO) 620430. JAMINDANON (FILIPINO) 620431. KAMAYO (FILIPINO) 620432. KAPAMPANGAN (FILIPINO) 620433. KENKANEY (FILIPINO) 620434. KINARAY-A (FILIPINO) 620435. LEYTE O (FILIPINO) 620436. MAGUINDANAO (FILIPINO) 620437. MALAUEG (FILIPINO) 620438. MANDAYA (FILIPINO) 620439. MANOBO (FILIPINO) 620440. MAPUN (FILIPINO) 620441. MARANAO (FILIPINO) 620442. MASBATENO (FILIPINO) 620443. MUSLIM (FILIPINO) 620444. PALAWENO (FILIPINO) 620445. PANGASINENSE (FILIPINO) 620446. PANGGALATOK (FILIPINO) 620447. PULANGION, BISAYA (FILIPINO) 620448. SIQUIJODNON (FILIPINO) 620449. SUBANIN (FILIPINO) 620450. SURIGAONON (FILIPINO) 620451. TAGALOG (FILIPINO) 620452. TAGON-ON/SURIGAONON (FILIPINO) 620453. TAUSUG (FILIPINO) 620454. T'BOLI (FILIPINO) 620455. TIRURAY (FILIPINO) 620456. VISAYA/BISAYA (FILIPINO) 620457. WARAY (FILIPINO) 620458. YAKAN (FILIPINO) 620459. ZAMBAL (FILIPINO) 620460. ZAMBALENO (FILIPINO) 62080. MEXICAN 62110. PUERTO RICAN 62120. SALVADOREAN 62990. CENTRAL AMERICAN NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED CARIBBEAN 70000. CARIBBEAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 71000. ENGLISH-SPEAKING CARIBBEAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] (INCL. WEST INDIAN) 71030. BAHAMIAN 71040. BARBADIAN 71070. GUYANESE 71080. JAMAICAN 71090. TRINIDADIAN 71990. ENGLISH-SPEAKING CARIBBEAN, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 72000. FRENCH OR DUTCH-SPEAKING CARIBBEAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 72040. HAITIAN NORTH AMERICAN AND AUSTRALASIAN 80000. NORTH AMERICAN AND AUSTRALASIAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 81000. NORTH AMERICAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 81010. AMERICAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 81011. AFRICAN AMERICAN 81012. HISPANIC AMERICAN 81013. ASIAN AMERICAN 81019. AMERICAN, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED (INCL. HAWAIIAN) 81030. CANADIAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 81031. QUEBECOIS/FRENCH CANADIAN (INCL. ACADIAN) 81032. BLACK CANADIAN 81033. ASIAN CANADIAN 81039. CANADIAN, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 81040. NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN INDIAN (INCL. INUIT, METIS) 81990. NORTH AMERICAN, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 82000. AUSTRALASIAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 82010. AUSTRALIAN [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 82011. AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL 82019. AUSTRALIAN, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 82030. MAORI 82040. NEW ZEALANDER [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 82041. NEW ZEALAND EUROPEAN (INCL. PAKEHA) 82042. NEW ZEALAND ASIAN 82990. AUSTRALASIAN NEC 999980. NONE 999996. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE ETHNICITY (NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO CLASSIFY) 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2011 | | In the Standalone CSES Modules, IMD2011 was coded according to | national standards. For the CSES IMD, these individual scales | were harmonized in accordance with the coding scheme outlined | above. | | Coding conventions for IMD2011 are based on the European | Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ESCEG), | developed by Anthony Heath and Silke Schneider for the | European Social Survey (ESS). | | The ESCEG Classification of respondents' ethnicity distinguishes | between the following levels of detail: | - Broad groups (1st digit) | - Narrow groups (2nd digit) | - National / cross-border groups (3rd and 4th digit) | - Sub-national groups (5th digit) | | Where deemed necessary, ESCEG was extended for CSES IMD to | incorporate additional ethnic groups. | | Further, users are advised that the scale above only lists | ethnicities represented in the IMD dataset. An English-language | description of the full ESCEG Classification can be found here: | | Heath, Anthony F., Silke L. Schneider, and Luca Salini. 2019. | "European Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups | (ESCEG) ESS9 ed. 2.0". p. 27-37 in ESS Round 9 Documentation | Report Appendix A6 ed. 1.0 - Classifications and Coding | Standards, ESS9-2018, edited by the European Social Survey. | Bergen: European Social Survey Data Archive NSD - Norwegian | Centre for Research Data, Norway - Data Archive and distributor | of ESS data for ESS ERIC. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2021 | MODULE 2: B2029 | MODULE 3: C2029 | MODULE 4: D2030 | MODULE 5: E2016 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD2011 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, ARGENTINA (2015), | AUSTRALIA (2007), AUSTRIA (2008, 2013), BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999), | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), BELGIUM (2003), BRAZIL (2006, 2010, | 2014), CANADA (2004), CHILE (1999, 2005, 2009), CZECH REPUBLIC/ | CZECHIA (2002, 2006, 2010, 2013), DENMARK (1998, 2001, 2007), | FINLAND (2015), FRANCE (2002, 2007, 2012), GERMANY (1998, 2002, | 2005, 2013), GREAT BRITAIN (1997, 2005), HONG KONG (1998, 2000, | 2004, 2008, 2012), HUNGARY (1998), ICELAND (1999, 2003, 2007, | 2009, 2013), IRELAND (2002, 2007, 2011), ITALY (2006), JAPAN | (1996, 2004, 2007, 2013), KENYA (2013), LATVIA (2010), MEXICO | (1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015), NETHERLANDS (1998, | 2002, 2006, 2010), NORWAY (1997, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2013), PERU | (2000, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016), POLAND (1997, 2001, 2005, 2007, | 2011), PORTUGAL (2002, 2005, 2009, 2015), SLOVENIA (2004), | SOUTH AFRICA (2009, 2014), SOUTH KOREA (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012), | SPAIN (1996, 2000, 2004, 2008), SWEDEN (1998, 2002, 2006, 2014), | SWITZERLAND (2007, 2011), TAIWAN (2004), THAILAND (2001), | TURKEY (2011, 2015) and UNITED STATES (2012). | POLITY NOTES - AUSTRALIA: IMD2011 | | Data on ethnicity for the Australian 1996 and 2004 studies refer | to respondents' country of birth. In the Standalone CSES Modules | 1 and 2, data had been categorized based on social meaning in | Australia, as well as on the frequency of major geographical | areas, or language groups, of origin represented in the sample. | For the CSES IMD, these categories have been recoded as follows: | | IMD Code 1996 and 2004 Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 82010. Australia | 11039. British Isles (United Kingdom, Republic of | Ireland) | 80000. Other English Speaking (New Zealand, North | America) | 10000. Northern Europe (Germany, Netherlands, Austria, | France, Switzerland, Sweden Western/Northern | Europe) | 10000. Southern Europe (Italy, Greece, Malta, Portugal, | Spain, South-Eastern Europe, Bosnia, Croatia, | Cyprus, Macedonia, Yugoslavia) | other Southern Europe) | 10000. Eastern Europe (Poland, Romania, Hungary, | Lithuania, USSR and Baltic States, other Eastern | Europe) | 999996. Asia (Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, | Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, China, Japan, | India, Sri Lanka, South East Asia, Northeast | Asia, Southern Asia) | 20000. Middle East and North Africa (Egypt, Kuwait, | Lebanon, Syria, Turkey) | 999996. Other | | The Australian 2013 study distinguishes between Aboriginals/ | Torres Strait Islanders and respondents of other origins. | For the IMD, data has been classified as follows: | | IMD Code 2013 Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 82011. Aboriginal / Torres Strait Islander | 82019. Non-aboriginal | | Hence, while code 82010 refers to respondents with Australia as | country of birth in 1996 and 2004, code 82019 in the | Australian 2013 study refers to Non-Aboriginals / Islanders, a | different definition of "Australian". | POLITY NOTES - BULGARIA: IMD2011 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 14990. Bulgarian Muslim / Pomak | POLITY NOTES - ISRAEL: IMD2011 | | The Israeli 1996, 2003 and 2006 studies distinguish between Jews | from different (parental) origins. For the IMD, they were | classified as follows: | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 22990. Jew - North Africa / Ethiopia (1) | Jew - Asia (2) | Jew - East Europe (3) | Jew - Western and Central Europe (4) | Jew - America, Australia, South Africa (5) | 22010. R. native of Israel, father born in Israel (6) | R. native of Israel, father born in North Africa/ | Ethiopia (7) | R. native of Israel, father born in Asia (8) | R. native of Israel, father born in | East Europe (9) | R. native of Israel, father born in Western or | Central Europe (10) | R. native of Israel, father born in America, | Australia, or South Africa (11) | 21020. Arab | | The Israeli 2013 study differentiates Jews (code 22010) from | Arabs (code 21020). | [POLITY NOTES] - MEXICO: IMD2011 | | All Mexican studies included in the CSES Standalone Modules | employed the same scale for measuring race or ethnicity, | distinguishing between Whites, Indigenous Peoples, Mestizos and | other groups. | However, while the Standalone CSES MODULES 1 and 2 coded data | for Mexico 1997, 2000, and 2003 into ethnicity, later CSES | Modules coded data into race. The CSES IMD harmonizes coding | by including the available data in IMD2010 (Race). | Consequentially, IMD2011 (Ethnicity) is coded missing for all | Mexican studies. | POLITY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND: IMD2011 | | The New Zealand 1997, 2002, and 2008 studies differentiate | between the following groups: | | IMD Code 1997, 2002 and 2008 Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 82030. Maori | 82040. New Zealander | 82041. New Zealand European; | Pakeha | 82042. Generic Asian/ Other Asian | 82990. Pacific Islander; | Polynesian/Melanesian; | European/Maori; | Maori/Pacific Islander | 10000. Other European | 20000. Middle East | 30000. African; Afro American | 40000. South East Asian | 41000. Indian, Sri Lankan | 50000. Asian North East (Chinese, Korean) | 51010. Chinese | 81040. American Indian | 82011. Australian Aboriginal | 999996. Other multiple identification | including/excluding European | | However, researchers are advised that the New Zealand 2011 and | 2014 studies distinguish four generic groups only: Europeans, | Maori, Pasifika and Asians. To fit the New Zealand context, | these groups have been classified as follows in IMD: | | IMD Code 2011 and 2014 Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 82030. Maori | 82041. European | 82042. Asian | 82990. Pasifika | [POLITY NOTES] - PERU: IMD2011 | | The Peruvian 2011 and 2016 studies distinguish between four | ethnic groups, namely: Indigenous people, Afro-Peruvians, | Whites and Mestizos. As these groups match the IMD coding scheme | for respondents' race, the Peruvian data is coded into IMD2010 | (Race), while IMD2011 has been recoded to missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2002): IMD2011 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10000. European | 20000. Turkish / Syrio-Lebanese | 21000. Arabian nations | 30000. African | 60010. Indian-Brazil | 61000. South American | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): IMD2011 | | For the Canadian (1997) election study, IMD2011 refers to | respondents' ancestry, asking "To what ethnic or cultural group | did you, or your ancestors belong on first coming to this | continent?". Answers were classified as follows: | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 1 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10000. Finnish/Baltic (7) | Greek/Macedonian (10) | Other Europe (30) | 11000. German/Austrian (9) | 15990. Czech/Slovak/Serb (6) | 20000. Islamic/Arab/Mid East (26) | 41000. Indian/Pakistani, etc. (12) | 71000. West Indian (24) | 81032. Black (17) | 81033. Asian / S. Pacific (29) | | Later Canadian studies ask about identification with cultural or | ethnic groups without referring to ancestry. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2004): IMD2011 | | In the Standalone CSES MODULE 2, 80 percent of the Canadian | (2004) data are coded missing. Therefore, IMD2011 has not been | harmonized for Canada (2004) but set to missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008, 2011 & 2015): IMD2011 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10000. Other European ethnicity | 11048. Holland | 25990. Arabic/Middle Eastern ethnicity | 30000. Other African ethnicity | 61990. Other South American ethnicity | 62990. Other Central American ethnicity | 70000. Other Caribbean ethnicity | 81031. Quebecois, French Canadian, Francophone | Acadian | 81032. Black/African | 81033. Other Asian ethnicity | 81039. Anglo Saxon/White Anglo-Saxon Protestant/ | Caucasian/White, etc. | 81990. Mennonite | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GREAT BRITAIN (1997 & 2005): IMD2011 | | The British 1997 and 2005 election studies included both data | for respondents' race (IMD2010) and respondents' ethnicity | (IMD2011). Harmonizing data for the CSES IMD revealed that | the British 1997 and 2005 data for ethnicity were collapsed | into more general categories for coding race in the Standalone | CSES Modules. Therefore, the CSES IMD includes the respective | data in IMD2010 (Race), while IMD2011 (Ethnicity) is coded | missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): IMD2011 | | The British 2015 election study incorporates a coding scheme | combining racial and ethnic groups. Based on the advice by | the authors of ESCEG, categories from the 2015 BES were | classified as follows: | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10000. Any other white | 11030. English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British | 11080. Irish | 21000. Arab | 70000. Caribbean | White and black Caribbean | 30000. African | White and black African | Any other black/African/Caribbean | 40000. Any other Asian | White and Asian | 41030. Indian | 41080. Pakistani | 41010. Bangladeshi | 51010. Chinese | 999996. Any other mixed/multiple ethnic Background | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): IMD2011 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 14990. Muslim | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999 & 2000): IMD2011 | | The Russian 1999 and 2000 election studies include respondents | from a variety of backgrounds, reflecting ethnic diversity in | Russia. Whenever possible, respondents were coded into existing | categories. As many of the non-classifiable groups are just | represented by one or two respondents, they were grouped into | existing ESCEG categories as follows: | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 15118. Udmurt | Karelian | Kuban Cossack | Balkar | Komi | Komi-Permyak | 15119. Citizen of Russia | 15990. Bessarabian | Russian, 50 percent Polish | 23007. Meskhetian Turk | 24990. Udin | Cossack | 25990. Abkhaz | Abazin | 999996. Mariian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2004): IMD2011 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 15118. Udmurt | Komi | 15119. Rossiyanin | 999996. Internationalist | Man of the world | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (1996): IMD2011 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 14990. Muslim | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999 & 2003): IMD2011 | | The Swiss election studies do not include a survey question | about respondents' ethnicity. Data in CSES MODULES 1 and 2 from | the Swiss 1999 and 2003 election studies refer to the | language in which the interview was conducted. | The original ESCEG coding scheme employed for coding IMD2011 | foresees one single code for Swiss language regions, namely | 11101. SWISS LANGUAGE REGION NEC (Including Swiss-French, | Swiss-German, Swiss-Italian, Romansch). | However, to preserve information from the original data in the | CSES IMD, respondents have been coded as follows: | | IMD Code MODULE Category (MODULE Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 11079. German (1) | 11059. French (2) | 13049. Italian (3) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD2011 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 51012. Overseas Chinese | 51039. Taiwanese Hakka/Min-Nan | Taiwanese Hakka/Mainlander | Taiwanese Hakka/Aboriginal | Taiwanese Hakka/Overseas Chinese | Taiwanese Min-Nan/Mainlander | Taiwanese Min-Nan/Aboriginal | Taiwanese Min-Nan/Foreigner | Mainlander/Aboriginal | 51019. Mainlander/Foreigner | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): IMD2011 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 51012. Overseas Chinese | 51030. Taiwanese Chinese | 51038. Kinmen | 51039. Taiwanese Benshengren --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2012_1 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD IN TOTAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total number of persons in the household. .................................................................. 01.-90. NUMBER OF PERSONS 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2012_1 | | IMD2012_1 details the total number of persons living in a | household - that is, the number of persons living together in | the housing unit excluding paid employees and persons who pay | rent for a room. | | Some election studies include right-censored data for IMD2012_1, | such that the highest number of household members in the sample | represents all households of an equal or bigger size. | One example is the 2004 Canadian election study, for which the | code 8 in IMD2012_1 is used for all households including eight | or more members. | Further, there are some instances in which respondents state to | live in unusually large households or empty households (zero- | member households). | These instances, for which data remained unchanged, are | documented in ELECTION STUDY NOTES, which are available in the | Codebooks Part 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2013 | MODULE 2: B2021 | MODULE 3: C2021 | MODULE 4: D2021 | MODULE 5: E2012 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD2012_1 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, AUSTRALIA (1996, 2004, | 2007, 2013), BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), | BELGIUM (2003), CHILE (2005, 2009), DENMARK (1998, 2007), | GREAT BRITAIN (2015, 2017), ISRAEL (2006, 2013), KYRGYZSTAN | (2005), SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2002), THAILAND (2001) and UNITED | STATES (2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2012_2 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD UNDER AGE 18 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of persons in the household under the age of 18. .................................................................. 00.-90. NUMBER OF PERSONS 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2012_2 | | Also see VARIABLE NOTES on IMD2012_1 (Number in Household | in Total). | | Some election studies include right-censored data for IMD2012_2, | such that the highest number of underaged household members in | the sample represents all households with an equal or bigger | number of persons under 18. One example is the 2008 Canadian | election study, for which the code 8 in IMD2012_2 is used for | all households including eight or more household members younger | than 18. | Further, there are some studies for which IMD2012_2 refers to | the number of household members under the age of 16, not 18. | These instances, for which data remained unchanged, are | documented in ELECTION STUDY NOTES, which are available in the | Codebooks Part 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2014 | MODULE 2: B2022 | MODULE 3: C2022 | MODULE 4: D2022 | MODULE 5: Not included | | In some rare instances, respondents state to live in households | with an unusually large number of children. These data remain | unchanged. | | Further, there are some instances in which the number of persons | in the household is equal to or less than the number of persons | under age 18. These data also remain unchanged and are listed | in the table below. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON IMD2012_2 FOR HOUSEHOLDS WHERE THE | NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IS EQUAL OR BIGGER | THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS | (IMD2012_1) | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) EQUAL BIGGER | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ALBANIA (2005) 22 2 | ARGENTINA (2015) - 3 | AUSTRIA (2008) 17 1 | AUSTRIA (2013) 4 - | BELARUS (2008) 2 - | BRAZIL (2002) 44 36 | BRAZIL (2014) 48 6 | CANADA (1997) 290 162 | CANADA (2004) 2 - | CANADA (2008) 2 - | CANADA (2011) 8 3 | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (1996) 4 - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2002) 2 2 | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2010) - 1 | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2013) 4 - | DENMARK (2001) 87 - | FINLAND (2007) 2 1 | FINLAND (2011) 12 4 | FINLAND (2015) 10 11 | FRANCE (2002) 4 - | GERMANY (2002 TELEPHONE) 3 1 | GERMANY (1998) 852 - | GERMANY (2005) 48 2 | GREECE (2012) 3 - | GREECE (2015) 22 - | HONG KONG (1998) 4 - | HONG KONG (2000) 2 - | HONG KONG (2012) 10 - | ICELAND (2003) 3 1 | ICELAND (2007) 5 - | ICELAND (2013) 2 - | IRELAND (2002) 13 - | IRELAND (2007) 4 - | IRELAND (2011) 5 - | ISRAEL (1996) 2 - | ISRAEL (2003) 5 2 | ITALY (2006) 49 3 | JAPAN (2007) 7 - | JAPAN (2013) 2 - | KENYA (2013) 16 12 | LATVIA (2010) 7 - | LATVIA (2011) 2 - | MEXICO (1997) 27 13 | MEXICO (2000) 19 24 | MEXICO (2003) 5 - | MEXICO (2006) 13 - | MEXICO (2009) 7 - | MEXICO (2015) 3 2 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 6 - | NETHERLANDS (2006) 1 - | NEW ZEALAND (1996) 1 - | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 3 - | PERU (2000) 10 5 | PERU (2001) 253 2 | PHILIPPINES (2004) 2 - | POLAND (1997) 2 1 | POLAND (2007) 90 - | PORTUGAL (2009) 10 - | ROMANIA (2009) 1 - | SLOVENIA (1996) 12 8 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 16 1 | SOUTH KOREA (2004) 5 1 | SPAIN (1996) 19 3 | SPAIN (2000) 6 15 | SPAIN (2004) 23 3 | SWEDEN (2006) - 1 | SWITZERLAND (2011) 8 - | TAIWAN (1996) 1 - | TAIWAN (2001) 6 1 | TAIWAN (2012) 2 - | THAILAND (2007) 13 3 | THAILAND (2011) 10 2 | UKRAINE (1998) 2 - | ------------------------------------------------------------- | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, AUSTRALIA (1996, 2004, | 2007, 2013), BELGIUM FLANDERS (1999), BRAZIL (2006), CHILE (1999, | 2005, 2009), DENMARK (1998), FRANCE (2012), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), | JAPAN (1996), ISRAEL (2006, 2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), LITHUANIA | (1997), PERU (2011), SERBIA (2012), SOUTH KOREA (2000), SPAIN | (2008) and SWITZERLAND (2007). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2013 >>> LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Language usually spoken in the respondent's household. .................................................................. 001. AFRIKAANS 002. ALBANIAN, ARVANITIKA 003. ALBANIAN, GHEG 004. ALBANIAN, TOSK 005. ALLEMANNISCH 006. ALSATIAN 007. ARABIC, JUDEO-MOROCCAN 008. ARABIC, LEVANTINE (ISRAEL) 301. ARABIC, NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED 009. ARMENIAN 201. ASHANTI (GHANA) 237. ASYRIAN 012. AYMARA, CENTRAL (ARGENTINA, PERU) 231. AZERI 234. BALKAR 313. BALOCHI 150. BANAKAN (PHILIPPINES) 013. BASQUE 014. BELORUSSIAN 016. BENGALI, BANGLADESHI, BANGLA (INDIA) 303. BERBER 244. BICOLANO (PHILIPPINES) 265. BISAYA (PHILIPPINES) 270. B'LAAN (PHILIPPINES) 202. BLUCH (PAKISTAN) 263. BOHOLANO (PHILIPPINES) 335. BORANA (KENYA) 018. BOSNIAN 019. BRETON 317. BUKHORI 020. BULGARIAN 340. BURMESE 260. CAGAYANO (PHILIPPINES) 258. CANTILAGNON (PHILIPPINES) 273. CAPIZNON (PHILIPPINES) 021. CATALAN 316. CAUCASIAN 241. CEBUANO (PHILIPPINES) 276. CENTRAL THAI 203. CHINESE, CANTONESE 023. CHINESE, HAKKA 024. CHINESE, MANDARIN 025. CHINESE, MIN NAN 300. CHINESE, NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED 026. CHUVASH (RUSSIA) 027. CROATIAN 149. CUYUNON (PHILIPPINES) 028. CZECH 029. DANISH 204. DORIC (SCOTLAND) 031. DUTCH 326. EMBU (KENYA) 032. ENGLISH 205. ESAN (NIGERIA) 034. ESTONIAN 304. ETHIOPIAN 206. EWE (GHANA) 209. FARSI (IRAN) 302. FILIPINO, NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED 035. FINNISH 036. FRENCH 208. GAELIC (SCOTLAND) 041. GALICIAN 044. GERMAN, STANDARD 315. GERMAN, TRANSYLVANIAN SAXON 045. GREEK 047. GUJARATI (SOUTH AFRICA, INDIA) 048. HEBREW 266. HIGAONON (PHILIPPINES) 274. HILIGAYNON (PHILIPPINES) 051. HINDI 049. HUNGARIAN 147. IBANAG (PHILIPPINES) 259. IFUGAO (PHILIPPINES) 242. ILOCANO (PHILIPPINES) 243. ILONGGO (PHILIPPINES) 210. INDONESIAN 254. IRANUN (PHILIPPINES) 309. IRAQI 278. ISAN THAI 052. ITALIAN 249. ITAWES (PHILIPPINES) 275. JAMINDANON (PHILIPPINES) 054. JAPANESE 325. KALENJIN (KENYA) 257. KAMAYO (PHILIPPINES) 324. KAMBA (KENYA) 055. KANNADA (INDIA) 245. KAPAMPANGAN (PHILIPPINES) 261. KARAY-AY (PHILIPPINES) 233. KARBADIN 321. KIKUYU (KENYA) 327. KISII (KENYA) 235. KOMI 066. KOREAN 232. KURDISH 282. KYRGYZ 277. LANNA THAI 063. LATVIAN 305. LEBANESE 065. LESSER ANTILLEAN CREOLE 268. LEYTENO (PHILIPPINES) 068. LITHUANIAN 323. LUHYA (KENYA) 322. LUO (KENYA) 329. MAASAI (KENYA) 073. MACEDONIAN 251. MAGUINDANAON (PHILIPPINES) 267. MALAUEG (PHILIPPINES) 075. MALAY 076. MALAYALAM (INDIA) 229. MALLORQUIN 214. MALTESE 079. MANDINKA (SENEGAL) 253. MANOBO (PHILIPPINES) 080. MAORI 148. MAPUN (PHILIPPINES) 146. MARANAO (PHILIPPINES) 250. MASBATENO (PHILIPPINES) 337. MAYA 328. MERU (KENYA) 330. MIJIKENDA (KENYA) 085. MONTENEGRIN 306. MORAVIAN 255. MUSLIM (PHILIPPINES) 144. NDEBELE (SOUTH AFRICA) 088. NORWEGIAN 336. OROMO (KENYA) 093. OSETIN (GEORGIA) 218. PAHARI (PAKISTAN) 246. PANGASINENSE (PHILIPPINES) 094. PANJABI, EASTERN (INDIA) 236. PERSIAN 334. POKOMO (KENYA) 332. POKOT (KENYA) 096. POLISH 097. PORTUGUESE 320. PORTUNOL 098. PROVENCAL 248. PULANGI-ON (PHILIPPINES) 219. PUSHTO (PAKISTAN) 339. QUECHUA, NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED 103. ROMANI, BALKAN 318. ROMANI, BALTIC 104. ROMANI, CARPATHIAN 311. ROMANI, RUSSIA 105. ROMANI, VLACH 106. ROMANIAN 108. ROMANIAN, MACEDO 109. RUSSIAN 319. RUTHENIAN 308. SAMOAN 111. SCHWYZERDUTSCH (SWITZERLAND) 112. SERBIAN 113. SERBO-CROATIAN 264. SIBANIN (PHILIPPINES) 307. SILESIAN 272. SIPIANON (PHILIPPINES) 117. SLOVAK 118. SLOVENIAN 221. SOMALI 262. SORIGAONON (PHILIPPINES) 119. SOTHO, NORTHERN (SOUTH AFRICA) 120. SOTHO, SOUTHERN (SOUTH AFRICA) 281. SOUTHERN THAI 121. SPANISH 222. SWAHILI 122. SWATI (SOUTH AFRICA) 123. SWEDISH 240. TAGALOG (PHILIPPINES) 256. TAGON-ON (PHILIPPINES) 331. TAITA (KENYA) 312. TAJIK 124. TAMIL (INDIA) 125. TATAR (RUSSIA) 269. T'BOLI (PHILIPPINES) 333. THARAKA (KENYA) 128. TICANESE (SWITZERLAND) 314. TIGRINYA 252. TIRURAY (PHILIPPINES) 129. TONGA (ZAMBIA) 310. TONGAN (TONGA) 338. TOTONACAN 131. TSONGA (SOUTH AFRICA) 132. TSWANA (SOUTH AFRICA) 133. TUMBUKA (ZAMBIA) 134. TURKISH 230. UDMURT 135. UKRAINIAN 136. URDU (INDIA) 228. VALENCIANO 145. VENDA (SOUTH AFRICA) 225. VIETNAMESE 247. WARAY (PHILIPPINES) 139. WELSH 138. XHOSA (SOUTH AFRICA) 142. YIDDISH 271. ZAMBAL (PHILIPPINES) 143. ZULU 992. OTHER: LOCAL DIALECT 993. OTHER: PACIFIC ISLAND LANGUAGE 994. OTHER: FIRST PEOPLES / INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE 995. OTHER: TWO OR MORE LANGUAGES 996. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2013 | | The Standalone CSES Modules 1-4 included several auxiliary | codes 980 to 995, for languages originally not envisaged by the | CSES coding scheme. For the CSES IMD, these codes have now been | fully harmonized, thereby expanding the existing coding scheme | by codes 300 to 340. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2018 | MODULE 2: B2026 | MODULE 3: C2026 | MODULE 4: D2027 | MODULE 5: E2019 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD2013 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, AUSTRALIA (1996, 2004, | 2007), BRAZIL (2006, 2010, 2014), CANADA (2011, 2015), CHILE | (1999, 2005, 2009), CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006, 2010, 2013), | DENMARK (1998, 2001, 2007), FRANCE (2002), GERMANY (1998, 2002 | Mail-Back), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), GREECE (2009), HUNGARY (1998, | 2002), ICELAND (1999, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2013), IRELAND (2002, | 2007, 2011), JAPAN (1996, 2007), LITHUANIA (1997), MEXICO (1997, | 2000), NETHERLANDS (1998, 2002, 2006, 2010), NORWAY (2001, 2005, | 2009, 2013), PERU (2000, 2001, 2006, 2011), POLAND (1997, 2001, | 2005, 2007), PORTUGAL (2005, 2009, 2015), SLOVAKIA (2016), | SLOVENIA (1996, 2008, 2011), SOUTH KOREA (2008), SPAIN (2008), | SWEDEN (2006), SWITZERLAND (2011) and UNITED STATES (1996, 2004, | 2012). | POLITY NOTES - SWITZERLAND: IMD2013 | | The Swiss election studies do not include a survey question | about the language usually spoken at home. Data in CSES Modules | 1 to 3 from the Swiss 1999, 2003 and 2007 election studies | refer to the language in which the interview was conducted. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] MODULE 1 - IMD2013 | | The variable referring to the language usually spoken at home | (A2018) in CSES MODULE 1 contains several additional categories, | with different meanings of the codes in different studies. For | the CSES IMD, these categories were recoded as follows: | | Election study CSES IMD MODULE 1 Category | code (MODULE 1 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | CANADA (1997) 996 Other, Not Specified (227) | GREAT BRITAIN (1997) 997 Not Answered (998) | SOUTH KOREA (2000) 066 Korean (227) | NEW ZEALAND (1996) 996 Other Asian (310) | 996 Other European (311) | 993 Pacific Island Language (312) | PORTUGAL (2002) 996 Other than Portuguese (999) | ROMANIA (1996) 999 Unknown Meaning of Code (227)* | SWEDEN (1998) 999 Unaccounted For (163) | THAILAND (2001) 992 Only Local Dialect (300) | 992 Mostly Local Dialect (301) | 276 Mostly Central Thai (302) | 276 Only Central Thai (303) | | * No response category corresponding to code 227 was provided by | the Romanian collaborator. However, nine out of the ten | respondents included in this category identify with the Roma | ethnicity. Therefore, it is likely that the respective response | category indicates a dialect of Romany not fitting into the | CSES classification scheme. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2014 >>> CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current employment status of respondent. .................................................................. IN LABOR FORCE: 00. EMPLOYED - NO HOURS SPECIFIED 01. EMPLOYED - FULL-TIME (32 OR MORE HOURS WEEKLY) 02. EMPLOYED - PART-TIME (15-32 HOURS WEEKLY) 03. EMPLOYED - LESS THAN 15 HOURS 04. HELPING FAMILY MEMBER 05. UNEMPLOYED NOT IN LABOR FORCE: 06. STUDENT, IN SCHOOL, IN VOCATIONAL TRAINING 07. RETIRED 08. HOMEMAKER, HOME DUTIES 09. PERMANENTLY DISABLED 10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE OTHER: 11. ON TEMPORARY JOB LEAVE (MATERNITY LEAVE, SICK LEAVE, ETC.) 12. CIVIL / MILITARY SERVICE 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2014 | | Respondents who are temporarily unemployed are coded UNEMPLOYED. | Respondents on "workfare" or enrolled in a government job | training program are coded EMPLOYED. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2007 | MODULE 2: B2010 | MODULE 3: C2010 | MODULE 4: D2010 | MODULE 5: E2006 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD2014 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | There is some inconsistency between studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (IMD2014) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (IMD2016-IMD2018). The CSES standard is that the | occupation variables are asked from those in the labor force. | However, in some cases, for respondents categorized as not in the | labor force in IMD2014 (codes 6-12), the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupations that belong to respondents not in the | labor force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | | Some studies do not include information on the weekly working | time. In studies distinguishing between "full time" and "part | time" employment, respondents are coded as working full | time or part-time, respectively, regardless of their actual | weekly working time. Other studies group all employed spouses | into one general category. In these cases, respondents are coded | as "00. EMPLOYED - NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED". | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, Brazil (2006), Denmark | (2001) and Thailand (2001). | [POLITY NOTES] - CANADA: IMD2014 | | There is some inconsistency for the Canadian election studies | in how answer categories for respondent's employment status | were coded in the CSES Standalone Modules. | Data have been harmonized for IMD where possible. However, some | of the inconsistencies remain, as it was not always possible to | disentangle the respective codes from other groups for IMD. | The table below provides further information on the affected | answer categories: | Canada Canada Canada Canada | Election Study Category 2004 2008 2011 2015 |---------------------------------------------------------------- | Student and working for pay 2 6 2 2 | Retired and working for pay 2 7 2 2 | Caring for family and | working for pay 2 8 2 2 | Self-employed 1 1 1 1 | Works at two or more jobs 1 1 1 1 | | Self-employed respondents and respondents working at two or more | jobs were assigned election-study-specific codes in the Canadian | 2008 study (MODULE 3), but were recoded to "1. EMPLOYED - FULL | TIME" in CSES IMD, in line with the other Canadian studies. | Respondents who were retired and working for pay or caring for a | family and working for pay were assigned election-study-specific | codes in the Canadian 2011 and 2015 studies (MODULE 4). For the | IMD, the respective groups were coded to "2. EMPLOYED - PART- | TIME" in line with the 2004 Canadian study. The same applies to | working students, who used to be coded "3. EMPLOYED - LESS THAN | PART-TIME" in 2011 and 2015. | POLITY NOTES - GERMANY: IMD2014 | | In the German 1998, 2002 Telephone, and 2013 studies, code | "10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE" may refer to respondents either | on maternity/parental leave, within civil/military service, | engaged in a voluntary work program, or to other groups outside | of the labor force. Coding remains unchanged, as it was not | possible to disentangle the respective groups for IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - AUSTRALIA (2013): IMD2014 | | As the Australian 2013 study was conducted as a mail self- | completion survey, 184 respondents gave ambiguous or multiple | answers to IMD2014. In CSES MODULE 4, these cases were assigned | the code "11. See Election Study Notes". For the CSES IMD, they | have been recoded to 99. MISSING. | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 99. Multiple/ambiguous answers to IMD2014 (11) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - AUSTRIA (2008): IMD2014 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10. Professional/vocational retraining (12) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2001): IMD2014 | | The Belarusian 2001 study groups respondents on maternity leave | together with homemakers in "08. HOMEMAKER, HOME DUTIES". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): IMD2014 | | In the Belgium-Flanders 1999 study, code "10. OTHERS, NOT IN | LABOR FORCE" includes 84 respondents either on job, sick or | maternity leave, job-seekers or respondents "doing something | else". Coding remains unchanged, as it was not possible to | disentangle the respective groups for IMD. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (1996): IMD2014 | | The Czech 1996 study groups respondents on maternity leave | together with homemakers in "08. HOMEMAKER, HOME DUTIES". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (1998): IMD2014 | | Respondents engaged in military service are coded together with | other employed respondents ("0. EMPLOYED - NO HOURS SPECIFIED"), | as it was not possible to separate them for IMD. The same | applies to respondents on job leave, who are coded together with | other non-occupied respondents ("10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR | FORCE"). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007 & 2015): IMD2014 | | The Finnish 2007 and 2015 studies group respondents on parental | leave together with homemakers in "08. HOMEMAKER, HOME DUTIES". | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - FRANCE (2007): IMD2014 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10. Professional/vocational retraining (12) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): IMD2014 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10. On a government-sponsored training scheme (12) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - HONG KONG (2008 & 2012): IMD2014 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10. Not applicable/never employed (11) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - KYRGYZSTAN (2005): IMD2014 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 2 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Peasant (11) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NETHERLANDS (2006): IMD2014 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10. Not in labor force (not further specified) (11) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NETHERLANDS (2010): IMD2014 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 03. Works less than 12h/week (02) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NEW ZEALAND (2011): IMD2014 | | To harmonize data with the New Zealand 2002 study, data from the | New Zealand 2011 study has been recoded as follows for the IMD: | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 2 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10. Unpaid work outside the home (4) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NEW ZEALAND (2014): IMD2014 | | In the New Zealand 2014 study, 86 respondents gave multiple | answers to IMD2014. In CSES MODULE 4, these cases were assigned | the code "11. See Election Study Notes". For the CSES IMD, they | have been recoded to "99. MISSING". | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 99. Multiple answers to IMD2014 (11) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - ROMANIA (2009): IMD2014 | | In the Romanian 2009 study, code "10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE" | includes 13 respondents either on parental leave or others, not | in labor force. Coding remains unchanged, as it was not possible | to disentangle the respective groups for IMD. | Further, the study includes the following groups in the labor | force for which no working hours were specified: | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Entrepreneur, business owner, self-employed (11) | Day laborer (12) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999 & 2000): IMD2014 | | Respondents on maternity leave are coded together with homemakers | ("8. HOMEMAKER, HOME DUTIES"), as it was not possible to separate | them for IMD in the Russian 1999 and 2000 studies. The same | applies to respondents working on a contractual basis who are | coded together with other non-occupied respondents ("10. OTHERS, | NOT IN LABOR FORCE"). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SLOVENIA (2008): IMD2014 | | To harmonize data with the Slovenian 2004 study, data from the | Slovenian 2008 study has been recoded as follows for the IMD: | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 2 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Self-employed (11) | 07. Retired with additional employment (12) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SPAIN (2000 & 2008): IMD2014 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Self-employed (11) | Liberal Professional / Employer (12) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - TAIWAN (2004): IMD2014 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 2 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10. Never worked before (12) | 98. Uncertain (11) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - UNITED STATES (2008 & 2012): IMD2014 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Temporarily laid off (11) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2015_ISCO_88 >>> MAIN OCCUPATION (CSES MODULES 1-3) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Main occupation of respondent (ISCO-88 Two-Digit Codes). .................................................................. ARMED FORCES 01. ARMED FORCES LEGISLATORS, SENIOR OFFICIALS, AND MANAGERS 10. LEGISLATORS, SENIOR OFFICIALS, AND MANAGERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 11. LEGISLATORS AND SENIOR OFFICIALS 12. CORPORATE MANAGERS 13. GENERAL MANAGERS PROFESSIONALS 20. PROFESSIONALS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 21. PHYSICAL, MATHEMATICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE 22. LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 23. TEACHING PROFESSIONALS 24. OTHER PROFESSIONALS TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONALS 30. TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONALS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 31. PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 32. LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 33. TEACHING ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 34. OTHER ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS CLERKS 40. CLERKS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 41. OFFICE CLERKS 42. CUSTOMER SERVICES CLERKS 43. ADMINISTRATION OF CHARITABLE OR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS SERVICES WORKERS AND SHOP AND MARKET SALES WORKERS 50. SERVICES WORKERS AND SHOP AND MARKET SALES WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 51. PERSONAL AND PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS 52. MODELS, SALES PERSONS AND DEMONSTRATORS 53. TRADE, CONSUMER SERVICES SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS 60. SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 61. MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS 62. SUBSISTENCE AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS CRAFT AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 70. CRAFT AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 71. EXTRACTION AND BUILDING TRADE WORKERS 72. METAL, MACHINERY AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 73. PRECISION, HANDICRAFT, PRINTING AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 74. OTHER CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS 80. PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 81. STATIONARY-PLANT AND RELATED OPERATORS 82. MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS 83. DRIVERS AND MOBILE-PLANT OPERATORS 84. OTHER PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 90. ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 91. SALES AND SERVICES ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 92. AGRICULTURAL, FISHERY AND RELATED LABORERS 93. LABORERS IN MINING, CONSTRUCTION, MANUFACTURING AND TRANSPORT 94. OTHER POSITIONS IN ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 996. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS (NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO CLASSIFY) 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | NOTES: IMD2015_ISCO_88 | | Also see VARIABLE NOTES for IMD2015_ISCO_08 (Main Occupation, | CSES MODULE 4) and IMD2014 (Current Employment Status). | | The IMD2015_ISCO_ variables report the respondent's main | occupation; that is, the job at which the respondent spends the | most time or if the respondent spends an equal amount of time on | two jobs, it is the one from which the respondent earns the most | money. For respondents who are currently employed, these | variables report their current occupation. For respondents who | are retired or not currently working, these variables report | respondent's last occupation. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2008 | MODULE 2: B2011 | MODULE 3: C2011 | MODULE 4: D2011, inc. in IMD2015_ISCO_08 (SEE VAR. NOTES BELOW) | MODULE 5: E2007, to be included in IMD2015_ISCO_08 (SEE VAR. | NOTES BELOW) | | Coding conventions for CSES MODULES 1-3 employ the first two | out of four digits of the 1988 ISCO / ILO International Standard | Classification of Occupations Code from the International | Labor Organization, CH-1211, Geneva 22, Switzerland. | | As the 1988 ISCO Classification has been updated in 2008, | CSES MODULES 4 and 5 employ this revised ISCO 08 Classification | for coding occupation. | According to the ILO, 2008 updates to ISCO "imply a break in | series between statistics ... at all levels in the classification | hierarchy" (ILO, 2008, p.22). CSES only makes use of the broader | levels of the coding scheme, meaning that a multitude of | categories cannot be reclassified unambiguously. Hence, CSES IMD | provides ISCO 88 codes for CSES MODULES 1-3 and ISCO 08 codes | for CSES MODULE 4 in two separate variables. | | Source of data: | International Labor Organization, 2016. "ISCO-08 Structure, | index correspondence with ISCO-88", available at | https://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco08/ | index.htm (Date accessed: July 27, 2020). | | An English-language description of the ISCO-88 standard can be | found here: | https:// | www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco88/major.htm | (Date accessed: July 27, 2020) | | CSES MODULE 1 categories "0. NOT APPLICABLE" and | "97. NO OCCUPATION" were recoded to "999. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | In some cases, it has not been possible to strictly adhere to | the two-digit ISCO/ILO conventions. Users will find that some | categories have been added to the ISCO/ILO list to accommodate | the occupations of respondents who were not easily classified. | These include categories referring to the first digit of the | 1988 ISCO / ILO occupations code. In these cases, zeros were | added to preserve the two-digit structure (e.g., | 90. ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED]). Please | refer to the ELECTION STUDY NOTES for clarification of the | meaning of the additional codes, available in Codebook Parts 2 | of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | Data are unavailable for ALBANIA (2005), BRAZIL (2006, 2010), | BULGARIA (2001), CHILE (1999, 2005, 2009), DENMARK (1998), | FRANCE (2002), GERMANY (2002 Mail-Back), ITALY (2006), JAPAN | (1996), LITHUANIA (1997), MEXICO (1997, 2000), PERU (2000, 2001, | 2006), RUSSIA (2004), SLOVAKIA (2010), SLOVENIA (1996, 2008) and | THAILAND (2001). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] MODULE 1 - IMD2015_ISCO_88 | | The variable referring to respondents' main occupation (A2008) | in CSES MODULE 1 contains additional categories not envisaged | by the ISCO-88 Classification, with a different meaning of the | codes in different studies. For the CSES IMD, these categories | were recoded as follows: | | Election study CSES IMD MODULE 1 Category | code (MODULE 1 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | CANADA (1997) 023 Teachers (28) | 061 Forestry (63) | 996 Other non-classified | Occupation (94) | NORWAY (1997) 999 Unknown meaning of code | (25, 63, 64) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - CANADA (2004): IMD2015_ISCO_88 | | IMD Code MODULE 2 Category (MODULE 2 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10. Mid-manager (20) | 23. Special teaching (30) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - JAPAN (2004): IMD2015_ISCO_88 | | In the Japanese 2004 study, code 90 refers to "No occupation". | For the IMD, this code has been recoded to "999. MISSING". | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - LATVIA (2010): IMD2015_ISCO_88 | | The Latvian 2010 election study groups respondents' occupations | into six broad categories, similar but not equal to the major | ISCO-88 groups. In CSES Module 3, "skilled workers" from the | Latvian 2010 study were classified as "60. Skilled Agricultural | and fisheries workers". However, as skilled workers might also | refer to additional groups like craft and related trade workers | or plant and machine operators, they were recoded to | 996. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS for the CSES IMD. | | IMD Code MODULE 3 Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 996. Skilled worker (60) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SWEDEN (2006): IMD2015_ISCO_88 | | In the Swedish 2006 study, code 97 refers to "Never been | working". For the IMD, this code has been recoded to | "999. MISSING". | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - UNITED STATES (2004): IMD2015_ISCO_88 | | Occupation codes for the U.S. 2004 study are based on the 1990 | U.S. Census groups (71-category collapsed variable). | In CSES Module 2, code 50 refers to the US census group "sales | professionals, finance and business services", distinguishing | them from general and retail sales workers coded as 51-53. | However, as the ISCO-88 scheme employs a separate category for | "Finance and sales associate professionals" (code 3410), the | associated respondents were recoded to 34. OTHER ASSOCIATED | PROFESSIONALS in IMD. | | IMD Code MODULE 2 Category (MODULE 2 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 34. Sales professionals, finance and business | services (50) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2015_ISCO_08 >>> MAIN OCCUPATION (CSES MODULE 4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Main occupation of respondent (ISCO-08 Two-Digit Codes). .................................................................. ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS 00. ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 01. COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS 02. NON-COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS 03. ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS, OTHER RANKS MANAGERS 10. MANAGERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 11. CHIEF EXECUTIVES, SENIOR OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATORS 12. ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMERCIAL MANAGERS 13. PRODUCTION AND SPECIALIZED SERVICES MANAGERS 14. HOSPITALITY, RETAIL AND OTHER SERVICES MANAGERS PROFESSIONALS 20. PROFESSIONALS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 21. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 22. HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 23. TEACHING PROFESSIONALS 24. BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONALS 25. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS 26. LEGAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PROFESSIONALS TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 30. TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 31. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 32. HEALTH ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 33. BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 34. LEGAL, SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND RELATED ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 35. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIANS CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS 40. CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 41. GENERAL AND KEYBOARD CLERKS 42. CUSTOMER SERVICES CLERKS 43. NUMERICAL AND MATERIAL RECORDING CLERKS 44. OTHER CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS SERVICE AND SALES WORKERS 50. SERVICE AND SALES WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 51. PERSONAL SERVICE WORKERS 52. SALES WORKERS 53. PERSONAL CARE WORKERS 54. PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKERS SKILLED AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY WORKERS 60. SKILLED AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 61. MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED AGRICULTURAL WORKERS 62. MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED FORESTRY, FISHING AND HUNTING WORKERS 63. SUBSISTENCE FARMERS, FISHERS, HUNTERS AND GATHERERS CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 70. CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 71. BUILDING AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS, EXCLUDING ELECTRICIANS 72. METAL, MACHINERY AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 73. HANDICRAFT AND PRINTING WORKERS 74. ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC TRADES WORKERS 75. FOOD PROCESSING, WOOD WORKING, GARMENT AND OTHER CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS, AND ASSEMBLERS 80. PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS, AND ASSEMBLERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 81. STATIONARY PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS 82. ASSEMBLERS 83. DRIVERS AND MOBILE PLANT OPERATORS ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 90. ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 91. CLEANERS AND HELPERS 92. AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY LABORERS 93. LABORERS IN MINING, CONSTRUCTION, MANUFACTURING AND TRANSPORT 94. FOOD PREPARATION ASSISTANTS 95. STREET AND RELATED SALES AND SERVICE WORKERS 96. REFUSE WORKERS AND OTHER ELEMENTARY WORKERS OTHER CSES CODES 996. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS (NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO CLASSIFY) 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2015_ISCO_08 | | Also see VARIABLE NOTES for IMD2015_ISCO_88 (Main Occupation, | CSES MODULES 1-3) and IMD2014 (Current Employment Status). | | The IMD2015_ISCO_ variables report the respondent's main | occupation; that is, the job at which the respondent spends the | most time or if the respondent spends an equal amount of time on | two jobs, it is the one from which the respondent earns the most | money. For respondents who are currently employed, these | variables report their current occupation. For respondents who | are retired or not currently working, these variables report | respondent's last occupation. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2008, inc. in IMD2015_ISCO_88 (SEE BELOW VAR. NOTES) | MODULE 2: B2011, inc. in IMD2015_ISCO_88 (SEE BELOW VAR. NOTES) | MODULE 3: C2011, inc. in IMD2015_ISCO_88 (SEE BELOW VAR. NOTES) | MODULE 4: D2011 | MODULE 5: E2007 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD2015_ISCO_08 are available in the Standalone CSES | MODULE 5 dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES | IMD. | | Coding conventions for CSES MODULE 4 employ the first two | out of four digits of the 2008 ISCO / ILO International Standard | Classification of Occupations Code from the International | Labor Organization, CH-1211, Geneva 22, Switzerland. | | In the earlier CSES MODULES 1-3, occupation codes were based on | the first two digits of the 1988 ISCO Classification. | According to the ILO, 2008 updates to ISCO "imply a break in | series between statistics ... at all levels in the classification | hierarchy" (ILO, 2008, p.22). CSES only makes use of the broader | levels of the coding scheme, meaning that a multitude of | categories cannot be reclassified unambiguously. Hence, CSES IMD | provides ISCO88 codes for CSES MODULES 1-3 and ISCO-08 codes | for CSES MODULE 4 in two separate variables. | | Source of data: | International Labor Organization, 2016. "ISCO-08 Structure, | index correspondence with ISCO-88", available at | https://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco08/ | index.htm (Date accessed: July 27, 2020). | | An English-language description of the ISCO-08 standard can be | found here: | http:// | www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/docs/resol08.pdf | (Date accessed: July 27, 2020) | | In some cases, it has not been possible to strictly adhere to | the two-digit ISCO/ILO conventions. Users will find that some | categories have been added to the ISCO/ILO list to accommodate | the occupations of respondents who were not easily classified. | These include categories referring to the first digit of the | 2008 ISCO / ILO occupations code. In these cases, zeros | were added to preserve the two-digit structure (e.g., | 90. ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED]). Please | refer to the Election Study Notes for clarification of the | meaning of the additional codes. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, BRAZIL (2014), KENYA | (2013), SOUTH AFRICA (2014) and UNITED STATES (2012). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] MODULE 4 - IMD2015_ISCO_08 | | The variable referring to respondents' main occupation (D2011) | in CSES MODULE 4 contains additional categories not envisaged | by the ISCO-08 Classification, with a different meaning of the | codes in different studies. For the CSES IMD, these categories | were recoded as follows: | | Election study CSES IMD MODULE 4 Category | code (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRIA (2013) 999 Unknown meaning of code (552) | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2013) 21 Science and engineering | professionals (150) | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 999 Unknown meaning of code (942) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2016 >>> SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent's socio-economic status. .................................................................. 1. WHITE COLLAR 2. WORKER 3. FARMER 4. SELF-EMPLOYED 5. OTHER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2016 | | The categories are intended to distinguish among the following | groups: | | 1. White Collar: | Broad occupational grouping of workers engaged in non-manual | labor: Managers, salaried professionals, office workers, | sales personnel, and proprietors are generally included in | the category. | | 2. Worker: | Broad occupational grouping of workers engaged in manual labor. | | 3. Farmer: | Normally persons self-employed in farming. | | 4. Self-Employed: | Self-employed occupations of all kinds, excluding self-employed | farming. Includes, for example entrepreneurs, shop keepers, | professionals like lawyers, medical doctors etc. | | For some studies, IMD2016 is not based on a separate survey | question, but derived from respondents' main occupation | (IMD2015). Details on the applied recodes for IMD2016 are | provided in ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in Codebook Parts 2 | of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B2012 | MODULE 3: C2012 | MODULE 4: D2012 | MODULE 5: E2008 | | The Standalone CSES MODULES 2-5 included two auxiliary codes | 5 and 6, for categories originally not envisaged by the CSES | coding scheme. For the CSES IMD, these codes have now been | integrated into the above coding scheme whenever possible. | The remaining codes were either set to 5. OTHER, with | explanation given in ELECTION STUDY NOTES, or set to missing | in cases where they concerned respondents out of the labor force | (homemakers, full-time students, etc.). | | There is some inconsistency between studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (IMD2014) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (IMD2015-IMD2018). The CSES standard is that the | occupation variables are asked from those in the labor force. | However, in some cases, for respondents categorized as not in | labor force in IMD2014 (codes 6-12), the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupations that belong to respondents not in the | labor force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | | Data on IMD2016 for respondents out of labor force are available | for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2007, 2013), BELARUS (2008), | BULGARIA (2014), COSTA RICA (2018), CROATIA (2007), | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006, 2010, 2013, 2017, 2021), DENMARK | (2019), EL SALVADOR (2019), FINLAND (2007, 2011, 2015, 2019), | FRANCE (2007, 2012, 2017), GERMANY (2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, | 2021), GREAT BRITAIN (2015, 2017, 2019), GREECE (2012, 2015 Jan), | HUNGARY (2018), ICELAND (2007, 2013, 2016, 2017), IRELAND (2007), | ISRAEL (2006, 2013, 2020), JAPAN (2007), KENYA (2013), LATVIA | (2014), LITHUANIA (2020), MEXICO (2015, 2018), MONTENEGRO (2012, | 2016), NETHERLANDS (2010, 2017, 2021), NEW ZEALAND (2008, 2011, | 2014, 2017, 2020), NORWAY (2005, 2009, 2013, 2017), PERU (2016), | POLAND (2005, 2007, 2011, 2019), ROMANIA (2009, 2012, 2014, | 2016), SLOVAKIA (2016, 2020), SLOVENIA (2008), SOUTH AFRICA | (2014), SOUTH KOREA (2008), SWEDEN (2006, 2014, 2018), | SWITZERLAND (2011), THAILAND (2007, 2011, 2019) and URUGUAY | (2019). | | See also VARIABLE NOTES for IMD2014 (Current Employment Status). | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1 and AUSTRALIA (2019), | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), BRAZIL (2006, | 2010, 2014, 2018), BULGARIA (2001), CANADA (2008, 2011, 2015, | 2019), CHILE (2005, 2017), DENMARK (2007), FRANCE (2002), | GREECE (2015 Sep), HONG KONG (2016), IRELAND (2011, 2016), | PERU (2006), PORTUGAL (2005, 2009, 2015, 2019), ROMANIA (2004), | RUSSIA (2004), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2010), SLOVENIA (2004, | 2011), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SPAIN (2008), SWITZERLAND (2003, | 2007, 2019), TAIWAN (2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020), TUNISIA | (2019) and UNITED STATES (2008, 2012, 2016, 2020). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - AUSTRIA (2008): IMD2016 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Public sector/official (5) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006 & 2010): | IMD2016 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Armed forces | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2002 Telephone): IMD2016 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Family-helping employed | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GERMANY (2009): IMD2016 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Academic (5) | Civil Servant (6) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - INDIA (2019): IMD2016 | | The variable assessing respondents' socio-economic status in the | Indian 2019 study only distinguishes between self-employed and | respondents working part-time or full-time. | | IMD Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 04. Self-employed | 05. Full time (~30 hours) | Part time (< 30 hours) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): IMD2016 | | The Irish 2007 study employs a binary variable for respondents' | socio-economic status, distinguishing self-employed respondents | from employed respondents. For both the Standalone MODULE 3 and | the CSES IMD, the self-employed are coded "4. SELF-EMPLOYED", | while employed respondents are coded as "5. OTHER". | | IMD Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 04. Self-employed | 05. Employed, not further specified | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - ITALY (2006): IMD2016 | | In the 2006 Italian study, work-related questions refer to the | the "head of family" instead of the respondent. Thus, | information in IMD2016 is only available for those respondents | identifying as the head of the family. In CSES MODULE 2, all | other respondents were coded "5. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES". | For the IMD, they have been recoded to "9. MISSING". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2018): IMD2016 | | For the Mexican 2018 study, IMD2016 originates from the same | variable as IMD2017 (Employment Type). In IMD2016, the variable | distinguishes between self-employed respondents and all other | groups: | | IMD Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 04. Business owner | Independent practice | 05. Government (Federal, State or Municipal) | Government company (parastatal) or decentralized | agency | Private company | Non-profit association, company or institution | Mixed | 09. Currently not working | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): IMD2016 | | The variable assessing respondents' socio-economic status in the | Dutch 2017 study only distinguishes between self-employed and | salaried respondents. | | IMD Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 04. Independent | 05. Salaried employee | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2021): IMD2016 | | For the Dutch 2021 study, IMD2016 originates from the same | variable as IMD2017 (Employment Type). In IMD2016, the variable | distinguishes between self-employed respondents and all other | groups: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 04. Independent | 05. Salaried employee in a business | Salaried employee in government institution | Salaried employee in a practice | Salaried employee in a foundation | | Collaborators note the term "practice" (or "praktijk" in Dutch) | may refer to the work by (and for) a lawyer, notary, or doctor. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2002): IMD2016 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Armed forces | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2021): IMD2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Unpaid family worker | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): IMD2016 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Armed forces | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SLOVENIA (2008): IMD2016 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 04. Freelancer (5) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SWEDEN (2006): IMD2016 | | In the Swedish 2006 study, respondents who "Never have been | working" were coded "6. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES". For the IMD, | these respondents have been recoded to "9. MISSING". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2004): IMD2016 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Armed forces --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2017 >>> EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether respondent's employment is private or public. .................................................................. 1. PUBLIC SECTOR 2. PRIVATE SECTOR 3. MIXED 4. "THIRD SECTOR"/NON-PROFIT SECTOR 5. OTHER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2017 | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2009 | MODULE 2: B2013 | MODULE 3: C2013 | MODULE 4: D2013 | MODULE 5: E2009 | | The coding scheme for employment type applied in CSES IMD | follows the classification used in CSES MODULES 2-5. | However, the coding classification for respondents' employment | type in CSES MODULE 1 diverges significantly from later modules. | In what follows, we list how the original categories employed in | the Standalone CSES MODULE 1 were translated into CSES IMD: | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF EMPLOYMENT TYPE CODES IN CSES MODULE 1 | TO EMPLOYMENT TYPE CODES IN CSES IMD | | IMD CODE CSES MODULE 1 CLASSIFICATION (CSES MODULE 1 CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Works for Government / Works for Government-owned | firm (1/2) | 2. Does not work for government or government-owned | firm (but not self-employed) / self-employed (4/5) | 3. Mixed (3) | 5. See Variable Notes (7) | 9. Missing / Not applicable (Not in labor force, | never had a job (9/0) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | Further, some studies distinguish farmers and/or self-employed | respondents from other employment types. In the Standalone | CSES Modules, these groups were coded into residual categories | with meaning specific to individual election studies. For the | CSES IMD, farmers and the self-employed have been re-classified | into "2. PRIVATE SECTOR" as follows: | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF RESIDUAL EMPLOYMENT TYPE CODES IN CSES | STANDALONE MODULES TO EMPLOYMENT TYPE CODES IN CSES | IMD | | IMD CODE CSES STANDALONE MODULE CLASSIFICATION (CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 2. Farmer; Employee in family business or farm (5/6) | 2. Self-Employed; Own Business; Independent business | person; Independent or self-employed; Independent | practice; Autonomous (5/6) | 2. Unpaid family worker (5/6) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | There is some inconsistency between studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (IMD2014) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (IMD2016-IMD2018). The CSES standard is that the | occupation variables are asked from those in the labor force. | However, in some cases, for respondents categorized as not in | the labor force in IMD2014 (codes 6-12), the occupation variables | may report the respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupations that belong to respondents not in the | labor force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | | Data on IMD2017 for respondents out of labor force are available | for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2007, 2013), BELARUS (2008), | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), BRAZIL (2010, | 2014, 2018), CANADA (2008, 2011, 2015, 2019), CROATIA (2007), | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006, 2010, 2013, 2017, 2021), DENMARK | (2019), FINLAND (2015, 2019), FRANCE (2007, 2012, 2017), GERMANY | (2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, 2021), GREAT BRITAIN (2019), GREECE | (2012, 2015 Jan, 2015 Sep), HUNGARY (2018), ICELAND (2007, 2013, | 2016), IRELAND (2007), ISRAEL (2006, 2013, 2020), JAPAN (2007), | KENYA (2013), LATVIA (2014, 2018), LITHUANIA (2020), MEXICO | (2018), MONTENEGRO (2012, 2016), NETHERLANDS (2017, 2021), | NEW ZEALAND (2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020), NORWAY (2005, 2009, | 2013), PERU (2016, 2021), POLAND (2005, 2007, 2011, 2019), | PORTUGAL (2009, 2015, 2019), ROMANIA (2009, 2012, 2014, 2016), | SLOVAKIA (2010), SLOVENIA (2008, 2011), SOUTH AFRICA (2009, | 2014), SOUTH KOREA (2008), SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2006, 2014, | 2018), SWITZERLAND (2007, 2011, 2019), TAIWAN (2008, 2012, 2016, | 2020), THAILAND (2007, 2011, 2019), UNITED STATES (2008, 2020) | and URUGUAY (2019). | | See also VARIABLE NOTES for IMD2014 (Current Employment Status). | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRIA (2008, 2013), BELGIUM-FLANDERS | (1999), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), BRAZIL (2006), CHILE (1999, | 2005), FRANCE (2002), GREAT BRITAIN (2015, 2017), JAPAN (1996), | KYRGYZSTAN (2005), NETHERLANDS (2006, 2010), PERU (2000), | RUSSIA (1999, 2000, 2004), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2016, 2020), | SOUTH KOREA (2016) and UNITED STATES (2012, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): IMD2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Agricultural worker | Registered home stay employee | Unregistered home stay employee | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006 & 2010): | IMD2017 | | The Czech 2006 and 2010 studies include a category "5. State, | State Administration and Self-Government Administration". | The associated respondents have been recoded to "1. PUBLIC | SECTOR" in the IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - DENMARK (2001): IMD2017 | | In the 2001 Danish study, respondents who were "Not employed" | were coded "6. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES". For the IMD, these | respondents have been recoded to "9. MISSING". | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GREAT BRITAIN (2005): IMD2017 | | The 2005 British election study includes an election-study | specific code "5" with unknown meaning. The five associated | respondents were set to "9. MISSING" in the CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - HONG KONG (1998 & 2000): IMD2017 | | In the 1998 and 2000 Hong Kong studies, several respondents were | coded to 7, an election-study-specific code with unknown meaning. | These cases (11 for Hong Kong 1998 and nine for Hong Kong 2000) | were set to "9. MISSING" in the CSES IMD. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2003): IMD2017 | | IMD Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 5. Labor/Union | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - ITALY (2006): IMD2017 | | In the 2006 Italian study, work-related questions refer to the | the "head of family" instead of the respondent. Thus, | information in IMD2017 is only available for those respondents | identifying as the head of the family. In CSES MODULE 2, all | other respondents were coded "5. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES". | For the IMD, they have been recoded to "9. MISSING". | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - JAPAN (2004): IMD2017 | | In the 2004 Japanese study, respondents who were "Not in labor | force" were coded "6. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES". For the IMD, | these respondents have been recoded to "9. MISSING". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2021): IMD2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Independent or other occupation | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2004): IMD2017 | | IMD Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 5. Unpaid Family Worker/Others | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SLOVENIA (2004 & 2008): IMD2017 | | There is some inconsistency for the Slovenian 2004 and 2008 | studies in how answer categories for respondent's employment | type were coded in the CSES Standalone Modules 2 and 3. | Data remain unchanged, as it was not possible to disentangle | the respective codes from other groups for IMD. | The table below provides further information on the affected | answer categories: | Slovenia Slovenia | Election Study Category 2004 Code 2008 Code |---------------------------------------------------------------- | Public administration, military, police 1 1 | Self-employed 2 2 | Farmer 2 3 | Company (mainly) privately owned 2 3 | Company (mainly) owned by state 3 3 | Agricultural cooperative 3 3 | Public institution (Health, education) 3 1 | Public company (energy, traffic, etc.) 3 1 | | Agricultural cooperatives and farmers were assigned an | election-study specific code "5" in CSES MODULE 3, but were | recoded to "3. MIXED" in CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SWEDEN (2006): IMD2017 | | In the Swedish 2006 study, respondents who "Never have been | working" were coded "6. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES". For the IMD, | these respondents have been recoded to "9. MISSING". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): IMD2017 | | IMD Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Other (i.e., joint ventures, third sector) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): IMD2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Active duty U.S. Armed Forces or Commissioned | Corps --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2018 >>> INDUSTRIAL SECTOR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Industrial sector of respondent's employment. .................................................................. 1. PRIMARY SECTOR: AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY, FISHERIES 2. SECONDARY SECTOR: INDUSTRY: MINING, CONSTRUCTION MANUFACTURING 3. TERTIARY SECTOR: TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES, WHOLESALE TRADE, RETAIL TRADE, PERSONAL SERVICES, FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, AND REPAIR SERVICES, ENTERTAINMENT AND REPAIR SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED SERVICES, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ACTIVE MILITARY DUTY 4. OTHER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2018 | | There is some inconsistency among studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (IMD2014) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (IMD2016-IMD2018). The CSES standard is that the | occupation variables are asked from those in the labor force. | However, in some cases, for respondents categorized as not in the | labor force in IMD2014 (codes 6-12), the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupations that belong to respondents not in the | labor force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2010 | MODULE 2: B2014 | MODULE 3: C2014 | MODULE 4: D2014 | MODULE 5: Not included | | The CSES MODULE 1 category "0. NOT APPLICABLE" referring to | to respondents not in labor force has been recoded to | "9. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | Further, users are advised that definitions of secondary and | tertiary sectors differ slightly between CSES MODULE 1 and later | CSES Modules. In Module 1, these sectors were defined as follows: | | 2. Secondary Sector: Industry: Mining, Energy, Machine, | Chemical, Metal Extraction, Engineering, Metal Goods, | Manufacturing Industry, Building, Construction | 3. Tertiary Sector: Transportation and Communication, | Trade, Retail Business, Distribution, Personal Services, | Repair Services, Banking, Insurance, Finance, Public | Administration, Health, Culture, Education, Recreation, | Research, Science, Museum, Library, Sport | | Data on IMD2018 for respondents out of labor force are available | for ARGENTINA (2015), BELARUS (2008), BRAZIL (2010, 2014), | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013), CROATIA (2007), FRANCE (2012), | GERMANY (2005, 2009, 2013), GREECE (2012, 2015), ICELAND (2007, | 2013), ISRAEL (2006, 2013), JAPAN (2007), LATVIA (2014), MEXICO | (2015), MONTENEGRO (2012), NETHERLANDS (2010), NEW ZEALAND | (2008, 2011, 2014), NORWAY (2009, 2013), PERU (2016), | POLAND (2007, 2011), ROMANIA (2009, 2012, 2014), SOUTH AFRICA | (2009, 2014), SOUTH KOREA (2008), SWEDEN (2006), and THAILAND | (2007, 2011). | | See also VARIABLE NOTES for IMD2014 (Employment Status). | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, AUSTRALIA (1996, 2004, | 2007, 2013), AUSTRIA (2008), CANADA (2008, 2011, 2015), CHILE | (1999, 2005, 2009), CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006, 2010), GERMANY | (2002 Mail-Back), DENMARK (1998, 2001, 2007), FINLAND (2003, | 2007, 2011, 2015), FRANCE (2007), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), IRELAND | (2007, 2011), JAPAN (1996), KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), | LITHUANIA (1997), NETHERLANDS (1998), PERU (2000, 2001, 2006, | 2011), POLAND (2005), PORTUGAL (2005, 2009, 2015), RUSSIA (2004), | SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2010, 2016), SLOVENIA (1996, 2008, | 2011), SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2014), SWITZERLAND (1999, 2003, | 2007, 2011), TAIWAN (2004, 2008, 2012), and UNITED STATES | (2008, 2012). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - BRAZIL (2006): IMD2018 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 3. Public/State enterprises/NGOP (4) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GERMANY (2002 Telephone): IMD2018 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 2 Code) |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 3. Public services / Public enterprises (4) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - HONG KONG (1998): IMD2018 | | In the 1998 Hong Kong study, 18 respondents were coded as 7, | an election-study-specific code with unknown meaning. | The respective cases were set to "9. MISSING" in the CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - IRELAND (2002): IMD2018 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 2 Code) |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 3. Extra-territorial organizations (4) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - ITALY (2006): IMD2018 | | In the 2006 Italian study, work-related questions refer to the | the "head of family" instead of the respondent. Thus, | information in IMD2017 is only available for those respondents | identifying as the head of the family. In CSES MODULE 2, all | other respondents were coded "5. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES". | For the IMD, they have been recoded to "9. MISSING". | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NETHERLANDS (2006): IMD2018 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 3. Public/State enterprises/NGOP (4) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SLOVENIA (2004): IMD2018 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 2 Code) |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 3. Private households with employed persons; | Extra-territorial organizations (4) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SWEDEN (2006): IMD2018 | | In the Swedish 2006 study, respondents who "Never have been | working" were coded "4. OTHER". For the IMD, these respondents | have been recoded to "9. MISSING". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2019_1 >>> UNION MEMBERSHIP OF RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Union membership of respondent. .................................................................. 0. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A UNION 1. R IS MEMBER OF A UNION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2019_1 | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2005 | MODULE 2: B2005 | MODULE 3: C2005 | MODULE 4: D2005 | MODULE 5: E2005 | | Data are unavailable for CHILE (1999, 2005, 2009), DENMARK | (1998), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), LITHUANIA (1997), MEXICO (2015), | PERU (2000, 2001, 2006), SOUTH KOREA (2016), SPAIN (2008), | THAILAND (2001) and TAIWAN (2004). | POLITY NOTES - BELGIUM: IMD2019_1 | | For all the Belgian 1999 and 2003 studies, IMD2019_1 reports a | respondent's membership in trade unions or organizations of | employers or the self-employed, not distinguishing between | different memberships. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): IMD2019_ | | The 1997 Canadian election study did not differentiate union | membership of respondents and other household members, but | assessed whether the respondent or any other household member | belonged to a union. Like in CSES MODULE 1, answers have been | coded into IMD2019_1, while IMD2019_2 is coded to missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007 & 2012): IMD2019_1 | | In the French 2007 and 2012 studies, the original question | related to union membership includes responses for both | professional associations and unions combined. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997 & 2015): IMD2019_1 | | In the British 1997 and 2015 studies, IMD2019_1 assesses | a respondent's membership in both trade unions and staff | associations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2019_2 >>> UNION MEMBERSHIP OF OTHERS IN HOUSEHOLD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Someone in household other than respondent is a member of a union. .................................................................. 0. NO ONE ELSE (OTHER THAN R) IS A MEMBER OF A UNION 1. SOMEONE ELSE (OTHER THAN R) IS MEMBER OF A UNION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2019_2 | | See also VARIABLE NOTES for variable IMD2019_1. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2006 | MODULE 2: B2006 | MODULE 3: C2006 | MODULE 4: D2006 | MODULE 5: Not included | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, BELGIUM (2003), CANADA | (1997), CHILE (1999, 2005, 2009), DENMARK (1998, 2001, 2007), | FINLAND (2007, 2011, 2015), FRANCE (2002), GERMANY (2002 Mail- | Back), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), ICELAND (2007, 2009, 2013), IRELAND | (2002, 2007), JAPAN (1996), KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), | LITHUANIA (1997), MEXICO (2015), NETHERLANDS (2002), NORWAY | (2001, 2005, 2009, 2013), PERU (2000, 2001, 2006, 2011), POLAND | (2005, 2007, 2011), RUSSIA (1999, 2000), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA | (2010, 2016), SLOVENIA (1996, 2008, 2011), SOUTH KOREA (2000), | SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2014), SWITZERLAND (2003, 2007, 2011), | THAILAND (2001) and TAIWAN (2004). | POLITY NOTES - AUSTRALIA: IMD2019_2 | | Instead of asking respondents whether other household members | were a member of a trade union, the Australian questionnaires | ask about the respondent's spouse. | POLITY NOTES - BELGIUM: IMD2019_2 | | For both the Belgian Flanders and Wallonia 1999 studies, | IMD2019_2 reports membership in trade unions or organizations of | employers or the self-employed, not distinguishing between | different memberships. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): IMD2019_ | | The 1997 Canadian election study did not differentiate union | membership of respondents and other household members, but | assessed whether the respondent or any other household member | belonged to a union. Like in CSES MODULE 1, answers have been | coded into IMD2019_1, while IMD2019_2 is coded to missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007 & 2012): IMD2019_2 | | In the French 2007 and 2012 studies, the original question | related to union membership includes responses for both | professional associations and unions combined. | Further, for the French 2007 study, data in IMD2019_2 refers | to the respondent's partner, disregarding other household | members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997 & 2005): IMD2019_2 | | In the British 1997 and 2005 studies, IMD2019_2 assesses | membership in both trade unions and staff associations. | Further, for the British 2005 study, data in IMD2019_2 refers | to the respondent's partner, disregarding other household | members. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2020 >>> SPOUSE: CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current employment status of respondent's spouse. .................................................................. IN LABOR FORCE: 00. EMPLOYED - NO HOURS SPECIFIED 01. EMPLOYED - FULL-TIME (32 OR MORE HOURS WEEKLY) 02. EMPLOYED - PART-TIME (15-32 HOURS WEEKLY) 03. EMPLOYED - LESS THAN 15 HOURS 04. HELPING FAMILY MEMBER 05. UNEMPLOYED NOT IN LABOR FORCE: 06. STUDENT, IN SCHOOL, IN VOCATIONAL TRAINING 07. RETIRED 08. HOMEMAKER, HOME DUTIES 09. PERMANENTLY DISABLED 10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE OTHER: 11. ON TEMPORARY JOB LEAVE (MATERNITY LEAVE, SICK LEAVE, ETC.) 12. CIVIL / MILITARY SERVICE 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2020 | | Spouses who are temporarily unemployed are coded UNEMPLOYED. | Spouses on "workfare" or enrolled in a government job | training program are coded EMPLOYED. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B2015 | MODULE 3: C2015 | MODULE 4: D2015 | MODULE 5: Not included | | There is some inconsistency among studies in the way | responses to the questions about current employment status | of spouses (IMD2020) were administered, affecting the | application of the follow-up occupation variables (IMD2021- | IMD2024). The CSES standard is that the occupation variables are | asked for those in the labor force. However, in some cases, | for spouses categorized as not in the labor force in IMD2020 | (codes 6-12), the occupation variables may report their previous | or last occupation. | | Some studies do not include information on the weekly working | time. In studies distinguishing between "full time" and "part | time" employment, spouses are coded as working full time or | part-time, respectively, regardless of their actual weekly | working time. Other studies group all employed spouses into one | general category. In these cases, respondents are coded as | "00. EMPLOYED - NO WORKING HOURS SPECIFIED". | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1, CSES MODULE 5, and | AUSTRIA (2008), BELGIUM (2003), BRAZIL (2006), BULGARIA (2001), | CANADA (2004, 2008, 2011, 2015), CHILE (2005, 2009), DENMARK | (2001, 2007), FINLAND (2007, 2011, 2015), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), | ICELAND (2003, 2007, 2009, 2013), IRELAND (2002, 2011), ITALY | (2006), KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), MEXICO (2015), | NETHERLANDS (2010), PERU (2006, 2011, 2016), SLOVAKIA (2010), | SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SWEDEN (2002, 2006, 2014) and TAIWAN (2001, | 2004). | | Additionally, there is variation in the way the questions about | respondent's spouse were administered in different election | studies. In some cases, only those categorized as "married or | living together" in IMD2004 were asked the spouse questions, | while in some surveys, other responses could also lead to a | respondent being asked these questions. Consequently, IMD2020 | sometimes includes information about spouses from respondents | who reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (IMD2004 is not coded 1.). These data remain unchanged. | For further details and explanations, see ELECTIONS STUDY NOTES | on IMD2004, available in the Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone | CSES Modules. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON IMD2020 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT | PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT | SPOUSE/PARTNER LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ALBANIA (2005) 14 | AUSTRALIA (2004) 39 | AUSTRALIA (2007) 44 | BRAZIL (2002) 9 | BRAZIL (2014) 237 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2002) 17 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006) 35 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2010) 45 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013) 205 | GERMANY (2002, MAIL-BACK) 55 | GERMANY (2005) 221 | HONG KONG (2004) 6 | HONG KONG (2008) 239 | HONG KONG (2012) 255 | HUNGARY (2002) 13 | IRELAND (2007) 49 | ISRAEL (2003) 6 | MEXICO (2012) 887 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 79 | NETHERLANDS (2002) 119 | NETHERLANDS (2006) 50 | NEW ZEALAND (2002) 65 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 35 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 22 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 10 | PHILIPPINES (2004) 5 | POLAND (2005) 130 | POLAND (2007) 119 | POLAND (2011) 153 | ROMANIA (2009) 6 | ROMANIA (2012) 4 | SERBIA (2012) 7 | SLOVAKIA (2016) 40 | SLOVENIA (2008) 30 | SLOVENIA (2011) 37 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 20 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 2 | SPAIN (2004) 3 | SPAIN (2008) 227 | SWITZERLAND (2003) 94 | SWITZERLAND (2011) 104 | TAIWAN (2012) 118 | THAILAND (2007) 33 | THAILAND (2011) 47 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - AUSTRALIA (2013): IMD2020 | | As the Australian 2013 study was conducted as a mail self- | completion survey, 96 respondents gave ambiguous or multiple | answers to IMD2020. In CSES MODULE 4, these cases were assigned | the code "11. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES". For the CSES IMD, they | have been recoded to "99. MISSING". | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 99. Multiple/ambiguous answers to IMD2020 (11) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2002 Telephone & 2013): IMD2020 | | In the German 2002 Telephone and 2013 studies, code | "10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE" may refer to respondents either | on maternity/parental leave, within civil/military service, | engaged in a voluntary work program, or to other groups outside | of the labor force. Coding remains unchanged, as it was not | possible to disentangle the respective groups for IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - HONG KONG (2008 & 2012): IMD2020 | | Most respondents stating not to have a partner in IMD2004 | (Marital Status) are coded "Not applicable/never employed" in | IMD2020. This concerns 230 respondents in the 2008 and 249 | respondents in the 2012 Hong Kong study. Data remain unchanged. | For harmonization purposes, all spouses coded "Not applicable/ | never employed" in the 2008 and 2012 studies have been recoded | to "10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE". | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10. Not applicable/never employed (11) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2003): IMD2020 | | 408 respondents stating not to have a partner in IMD2004 | (Marital Status) are coded "97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED" in | IMD2020. Data remain unchanged. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - MEXICO (2012): IMD2020 | | Respondents in the Mexican 2012 study without a partner or | spouse were coded "11. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES" in MODULE 4. | For the IMD, they have been recoded to "99. MISSING". | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 99. No partner or spouse (11) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NEW ZEALAND (2011): IMD2020 | | To harmonize data with the New Zealand 2002 study, data from the | New Zealand 2011 study has been recoded as follows for the IMD: | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 2 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 10. Unpaid work outside the home (4) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NEW ZEALAND (2014): IMD2020 | | In the New Zealand 2014 study, 47 respondents gave multiple | answers to IMD2020. In CSES MODULE 4, these cases were assigned | the code "11. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES". For the CSES IMD, they | have been recoded to "99. MISSING". | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 99. Multiple answers to IMD2020 (11) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - ROMANIA (2009): IMD2020 | | In the Romanian 2009 study, code "10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE" | includes spouses either on parental leave or others, not in | labor force. Coding remains unchanged, as it was not possible to | disentangle the respective groups for IMD. | Further, the study includes the following groups in the labor | force for which no working hours were specified: | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Entrepreneur, business owner, self-employed (11) | Day laborer (12) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SLOVENIA (2008): IMD2020 | | To harmonize data with the Slovenian 2004 study, data from the | Slovenian 2008 study has been recoded as follows for the IMD: | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 2 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Self-employed (11) | 07. Retired with additional employment (12) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SPAIN (2008): IMD2020 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Self-employed (11) | Employer (12) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - UNITED STATES (2008 & 2012): IMD2020 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Employed - no weekly hours specified (12) | 05. Temporarily laid off (11) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2021_ISCO_88 >>> SPOUSE: MAIN OCCUPATION (CSES MODULES 1-3) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spouse's main occupation (ISCO-88 Two-Digit Codes). .................................................................. ARMED FORCES 01. ARMED FORCES LEGISLATORS, SENIOR OFFICIALS, AND MANAGERS 10. LEGISLATORS, SENIOR OFFICIALS, AND MANAGERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 11. LEGISLATORS AND SENIOR OFFICIALS 12. CORPORATE MANAGERS 13. GENERAL MANAGERS PROFESSIONALS 20. PROFESSIONALS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 21. PHYSICAL, MATHEMATICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE 22. LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 23. TEACHING PROFESSIONALS 24. OTHER PROFESSIONALS TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONALS 30. TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONALS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 31. PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 32. LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 33. TEACHING ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 34. OTHER ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS CLERKS 40. CLERKS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 41. OFFICE CLERKS 42. CUSTOMER SERVICES CLERKS 43. ADMINISTRATION OF CHARITABLE OR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS SERVICES WORKERS AND SHOP AND MARKET SALES WORKERS 50. SERVICES WORKERS AND SHOP AND MARKET SALES WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 51. PERSONAL AND PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS 52. MODELS, SALES PERSONS AND DEMONSTRATORS 53. TRADE, CONSUMER SERVICES SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS 60. SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 61. MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS 62. SUBSISTENCE AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS CRAFT AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 70. CRAFT AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 71. EXTRACTION AND BUILDING TRADE WORKERS 72. METAL, MACHINERY AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 73. PRECISION, HANDICRAFT, PRINTING AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 74. OTHER CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS 80. PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 81. STATIONARY-PLANT AND RELATED OPERATORS 82. MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS 83. DRIVERS AND MOBILE-PLANT OPERATORS 84. OTHER PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 90. ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 91. SALES AND SERVICES ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 92. AGRICULTURAL, FISHERY AND RELATED LABORERS 93. LABORERS IN MINING, CONSTRUCTION, MANUFACTURING AND TRANSPORT 94. OTHER POSITIONS IN ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 996. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS (NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO CLASSIFY) 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2021_ISCO_88 | | Also see VARIABLE NOTES for IMD2021_ISCO_08 (Spouse: Main | Occupation, CSES MODULE 4) and IMD2020 (Spouse: Current | Employment Status). | | The IMD2021_ISCO_ variables report the respondent's spouse's | main occupation; that is, the job at which the respondent's | spouse spends the most time, or if the respondent's spouse | spends an equal amount of time on two jobs, it is the one from | which the respondent's spouse earns the most money. | For spouses who are currently employed, these variables report | their current occupation. For spouses who are retired or not | currently working, these variables report the spouse's last | occupation. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2011 | MODULE 2: B2016 | MODULE 3: C2016 | MODULE 4: D2016, included in IMD2015_ISCO_08 (See below) | MODULE 5: Not included | | Coding conventions for CSES MODULES 1-3 employ the first two | out of four digits of the 1988 ISCO / ILO International Standard | Classification of Occupations Code from the International | Labor Organization, CH-1211, Geneva 22, Switzerland. | | As the 1988 ISCO Classification has been updated in 2008, | CSES MODULE 4 employs this revised ISCO08 Classification for | coding occupation. | According to the ILO, 2008 updates to ISCO "imply a break in | series between statistics at all levels in the classification | hierarchy" (ILO, 2008, p.22). CSES only makes use of the broader | levels of the coding scheme, meaning that a multitude of | categories cannot be reclassified unambiguously. Hence, CSES IMD | provides ISCO88 codes for CSES MODULES 1-3 and ISCO-08 codes | for CSES MODULE 4 in two separate variables. | | Source of data: | International Labor Organization, 2016. "ISCO-08 Structure, | index correspondence with ISCO-88", available at | https://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco08/ | index.htm (Date accessed: July 27, 2020). | | An English-language description of the ISCO-88 standard can be | found here: | https:// | www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco88/major.htm | (Date accessed: July 27, 2020) | | CSES MODULE 1 categories "0. NOT APPLICABLE" and | "97. NO OCCUPATION" were recoded to "999. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | Further, users are advised that data in CSES MODULE 1 may refer | either to the "chief wage earner" of the household, or to | respondents' spouse. For more information, please see ELECTION | STUDY NOTES, available in Codebook Part 2 of CSES MODULE 1 | (variable A2011). | | In some cases, it has not been possible to strictly adhere to | the two-digit ISCO/ILO conventions. Users will find that some | categories have been added to the ISCO/ILO list to accommodate | the occupations of respondents who were not easily classified. | These include categories referring to the first digit of the | 1988 ISCO / ILO occupations code. In these cases, zeros were | added to preserve the two-digit structure (e.g., | 90. ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED]). Please | refer to the ELECTION STUDY NOTES for clarification of the | meaning of the additional codes, available in Codebook Parts 2 | of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, ALBANIA (2005), | AUSTRIA (2008), BELARUS (2001), BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999), | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), BELGIUM (2003), BRAZIL (2006, 2010), | BULGARIA (2001), CANADA (1997, 2004, 2008), CHILE (1999, 2005, | 2009), DENMARK (1998, 2001), FINLAND (2007, 2011), FRANCE (2002), | GERMANY (2002 Mail-Back), IRELAND (2002), ISRAEL (1996), | ITALY (2006), JAPAN (1996), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), MEXICO (1997, | 2000), LITHUANIA (1997), NETHERLANDS (2006, 2010), PERU (2000, | 2001, 2006, 2011), POLAND (2005), RUSSIA (1999, 2000, 2004), | SLOVAKIA (2010), SLOVENIA (1996, 2008), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), | SWEDEN (2002, 2006), TAIWAN (2001), THAILAND (2001) and | UNITED STATES (2004, 2008). | | There is variation in how the questions about the respondent's | spouse were administered in different election studies. | In some cases, only those categorized as "married or living | together" in IMD2004 were asked the spouse questions, while in | some surveys other responses could also lead to a respondent | being asked these questions. Consequently, IMD2021_ISCO_ | sometimes include information of spouses from respondents who | reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (IMD2004 is not coded 1.). These data remain unchanged. | For further details and explanations, see Elections Study Notes | on IMD2004, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone | CSES Modules. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON IMD2021_ISCO_88 FOR RESPONDENTS | WITHOUT PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT | SPOUSE/PARTNER LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (1996) 26 | AUSTRALIA (2004) 45 | AUSTRALIA (2007) 54 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (1996) 225 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2002) 12 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006) 28 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2010) 25 | FINLAND (2003) 3 | GERMANY (1998) 39 | GERMANY (2002, Telephone) 1 | GERMANY (2005) 208 | HONG KONG (1998) 225 | HONG KONG (2000) 23 | HONG KONG (2004) 4 | HONG KONG (2008) 3 | HUNGARY (1998) 136 | HUNGARY (2002) 13 | ICELAND (2007) 1 | IRELAND (2007) 44 | ISRAEL (2003) 6 | MEXICO (2003) 4 | NETHERLANDS (1998) 193 | NETHERLANDS (2002) 98 | NEW ZEALAND (1996) 151 | NEW ZEALAND (2002) 43 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 22 | PHILIPPINES (2004) 2 | POLAND (1997) 309 | POLAND (2007) 65 | ROMANIA (1996) 180 | ROMANIA (2009) 8 | SOUTH KOREA (2004) 5 | SPAIN (1996) 299 | SPAIN (2000) 448 | SPAIN (2004) 4 | SPAIN (2008) 217 | SWEDEN (1998) 48 | SWITZERLAND (1999) 132 | SWITZERLAND (2003) 91 | TAIWAN (1996) 214 | TAIWAN (2004) 9 | THAILAND (2007) 27 | UKRAINE (1998) 272 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] MODULE 1 - IMD2021_ISCO_88 | | The variable referring to respondents' main occupation (A2008) | in CSES MODULE 1 contains additional categories not envisaged | by the ISCO-88 Classification. For the CSES IMD, these categories | were recoded to missing: | | Election study CSES IMD MODULE 1 Category | code (MODULE 1 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | HONG KONG (1998) 999 Unknown meaning of code (95) | HONG KONG (2000) 999 Unknown meaning of codes | (5, 7, 8) | NORWAY (1997) 999 Unknown meaning of codes | (25, 63, 64) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - JAPAN (2004): IMD2021_ISCO_88 | | In the Japanese 2004 study, code 90 refers to "No occupation". | For the IMD, this code has been recoded to "999. MISSING". | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - LATVIA (2010): IMD2021_ISCO_88 | | The Latvian 2010 election study groups spouses' occupations | into six broad categories, similar but not equal to the major | ISCO-88 groups. In CSES MODULE 3, "skilled workers" from the | Latvian 2010 study were classified as "60. Skilled Agricultural | and fisheries workers". However, as skilled workers might also | refer to additional groups like craft and related trade workers | or plant and machine operators, they were recoded to | "996. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS" for the CSES IMD. | | IMD Code MODULE 3 Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 996. Skilled worker (60) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2021_ISCO_08 >>> SPOUSE: MAIN OCCUPATION (CSES MODULE 4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spouse's main occupation (ISCO-08 Two-Digit Codes). .................................................................. ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS 00. ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 01. COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS 02. NON-COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS 03. ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS, OTHER RANKS MANAGERS 10. MANAGERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 11. CHIEF EXECUTIVES, SENIOR OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATORS 12. ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMERCIAL MANAGERS 13. PRODUCTION AND SPECIALIZED SERVICES MANAGERS 14. HOSPITALITY, RETAIL AND OTHER SERVICES MANAGERS PROFESSIONALS 20. PROFESSIONALS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 21. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 22. HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 23. TEACHING PROFESSIONALS 24. BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONALS 25. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS 26. LEGAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PROFESSIONALS TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 30. TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 31. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 32. HEALTH ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 33. BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 34. LEGAL, SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND RELATED ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 35. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIANS CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS 40. CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 41. GENERAL AND KEYBOARD CLERKS 42. CUSTOMER SERVICES CLERKS 43. NUMERICAL AND MATERIAL RECORDING CLERKS 44. OTHER CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS SERVICE AND SALES WORKERS 50. SERVICE AND SALES WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 51. PERSONAL SERVICE WORKERS 52. SALES WORKERS 53. PERSONAL CARE WORKERS 54. PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKERS SKILLED AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY WORKERS 60. SKILLED AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 61. MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED AGRICULTURAL WORKERS 62. MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED FORESTRY, FISHING AND HUNTING WORKERS 63. SUBSISTENCE FARMERS, FISHERS, HUNTERS AND GATHERERS CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 70. CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 71. BUILDING AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS, EXCLUDING ELECTRICIANS 72. METAL, MACHINERY AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 73. HANDICRAFT AND PRINTING WORKERS 74. ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC TRADES WORKERS 75. FOOD PROCESSING, WOOD WORKING, GARMENT AND OTHER CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS, AND ASSEMBLERS 80. PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS, AND ASSEMBLERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 81. STATIONARY PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS 82. ASSEMBLERS 83. DRIVERS AND MOBILE PLANT OPERATORS ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 90. ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 91. CLEANERS AND HELPERS 92. AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY LABORERS 93. LABORERS IN MINING, CONSTRUCTION, MANUFACTURING AND TRANSPORT 94. FOOD PREPARATION ASSISTANTS 95. STREET AND RELATED SALES AND SERVICE WORKERS 96. REFUSE WORKERS AND OTHER ELEMENTARY WORKERS OTHER CSES CODES 996. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS (NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO CLASSIFY) 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2021_ISCO_08 | | Also see VARIABLE NOTES for IMD2021_ISCO_88 (Spouse: Main | Occupation, CSES MODULES 1-3) and IMD2020 (Spouse: Current | Employment Status). | | The IMD2021_ISCO_ variables report the respondent's spouse's | main occupation; that is, the job at which the respondent's | spouse spends the most time, or if the respondent's spouse | spends an equal amount of time on two jobs, it is the one from | which the respondent's spouse earns the most money. | For spouses who are currently employed, these variables report | their current occupation. For spouses who are retired or not | currently working, these variables report the spouse's last | occupation. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2011, inc. in IMD2015_ISCO_88 (SEE VAR. NOTES BELOW) | MODULE 2: B2016, inc. in IMD2015_ISCO_88 (SEE VAR. NOTES BELOW) | MODULE 3: C2016, inc. in IMD2015_ISCO_88 (SEE VAR. NOTES BELOW) | MODULE 4: D2016 | MODULE 5: Not included | | Coding conventions for CSES MODULE 4 employ the first two | out of four digits of the 2008 ISCO / ILO International Standard | Classification of Occupations Code from the International | Labor Organization, CH-1211, Geneva 22, Switzerland. | | In the earlier CSES MODULES 1-3, occupation codes were based on | the first two digits of the 1988 ISCO Classification. | According to the ILO, 2008 updates to ISCO "imply a break in | series between statistics at all levels in the classification | hierarchy" (ILO, 2008, p.22). CSES only makes use of the broader | levels of the coding scheme, meaning that a multitude of | categories cannot be reclassified unambiguously. Hence, CSES IMD | provides ISCO88 codes for CSES MODULES 1-3 and ISCO-08 codes | for CSES MODULE 4 in two separate variables. | | Source of data: | International Labor Organization, 2016. "ISCO-08 Structure, | index correspondence with ISCO-88", available at | https://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco08/ | index.htm (Date accessed: July 27, 2020). | | An English-language description of the ISCO-08 standard can be | found here: | http:// | www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/docs/resol08.pdf | (Date accessed: July 27, 2020) | | In some cases, it has not been possible to strictly adhere to | the two-digit ISCO/ILO conventions. Users will find that some | categories have been added to the ISCO/ILO list to accommodate | the occupations of respondents who were not easily classified. | These include categories referring to the first digit of the | 2008 ISCO / ILO occupations code. In these cases, zeros | were added to preserve the two-digit structure (e.g., | 90. ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED]). Please | refer to the ELECTION STUDY NOTES for clarification of the | meaning of the additional codes, available in Codebook Parts 2 | of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, BRAZIL (2014), BULGARIA | (2014), CANADA (2011, 2015), FINLAND (2015), GREAT BRITAIN | (2015), ICELAND (2013), IRELAND (2011), KENYA (2013), MEXICO | (2015), PERU (2016), SOUTH AFRICA (2014), SWEDEN (2014) and | UNITED STATES (2012). | | There is variation in how the questions about the respondent's | spouse were administered in different election studies. | In some cases, only those categorized as "married or living | together" in IMD2004 were asked the spouse questions, while in | some surveys other responses could also lead to a respondent | being asked these questions. Consequently, IMD2021_ISCO_ | sometimes include information of spouses from respondents who | reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (IMD2004 is not coded 1.). These data remain unchanged. | For further details and explanations, see Elections Study Notes | on IMD2004, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone | CSES Modules. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON IMD2021_ISCO_08 FOR RESPONDENTS | WITHOUT PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT | SPOUSE/PARTNER LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD | ------------------------------------------------------------- | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013) 185 | HONG KONG (2012) 1 | ISRAEL (2013) 2 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 77 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 21 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 9 | POLAND (2011) 63 | ROMANIA (2012) 2 | SERBIA (2012) 2 | SLOVAKIA (2016) 16 | SLOVENIA (2011) 14 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 2 | SWITZERLAND (2011) 103 | TAIWAN (2012) 83 | THAILAND (2011) 24 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NEW ZEALAND (2011): IMD2021_ISCO_08 | | The New Zealand 2011 election study includes three additional | categories for IMD2021_ISCO_08 not envisaged by the ISCO-08 | Classification. As the meaning of these codes is unknown, | the associated respondents were recoded to missing. | | IMD Code MODULE 4 Category (MODULE 4 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 999. Unknown meaning of code (245, 533, 913) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2022 >>> SPOUSE: SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spouse's socio-economic status. .................................................................. 1. WHITE COLLAR 2. WORKER 3. FARMER 4. SELF-EMPLOYED 5. OTHER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2022 | | The categories are intended to distinguish among the | following groups: | | 1. White Collar: | Broad occupational grouping of workers engaged in non-manual | labor: Managers, salaried professionals, office workers, | sales personnel, and proprietors are generally included in | the category. | | 2. Worker: | Broad occupational grouping of workers engaged in manual labor. | | 3. Farmer: | Normally persons self-employed in farming. | | 4. Self-Employed: | Self-employed occupations of all kinds, excluding self-employed | farming. Included, for example, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, | professionals, such as lawyers, medical doctors etc. | | For some studies, IMD2022 is not based on a separate survey | question, but derived from spouses' main occupation (IMD2021). | Details on the applied recodes for IMD2022 are provided in | ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the | Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B2017 | MODULE 3: C2017 | MODULE 4: D2017 | MODULE 5: Not included | | The Standalone CSES MODULES 2-4 included two auxiliary codes | 5 and 6, for categories originally not envisaged by the CSES | coding scheme. For the CSES IMD, these codes have now been | integrated into the above coding scheme whenever possible. | The remaining codes were either set to 5. OTHER, with | explanation given in ELECTION STUDY NOTES, or set to missing | in cases where they concerned respondents out of the labor force | (homemakers, full-time students, etc.). | | There is some inconsistency among studies in the way the | responses to the questions about the current employment status of | spouses (IMD2020) affected the application of the follow-up | occupation variables (IMD2021-IMD2024). The CSES standard | is that the occupation variables are asked from those in the | labor force. However, in some cases, for spouses categorized as | not in labor force in IMD2020 (codes 6-12), the occupation | variables may report a spouse's last occupation. Hence, the | responses concerning occupation that belong to respondents with | spouses not in the labor force presumably reflect their previous | or last occupation. | | Data on IMD2022 for spouses out of labor force are available for | ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2007, 2013), BELARUS (2008), | BULGARIA (2014), CROATIA (2007), CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006, | 2010, 2013), FRANCE (2007, 2012), GERMANY (2005), GREECE (2012, | 2015), IRELAND (2007), ISRAEL (2006), JAPAN (2007), LATVIA | (2014), MONTENEGRO (2012), NEW ZEALAND (2008, 2011, 2014), NORWAY | (2005, 2009, 2013), POLAND (2007, 2011), ROMANIA (2009, 2012, | 2014), SLOVENIA (2008), SOUTH AFRICA (2014), SOUTH KOREA (2008), | SWITZERLAND (2003, 2011) and THAILAND (2007, 2011). | | See also VARIABLE NOTES for IMD2020 (Spouse: Employment Status). | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1, CSES MODULE 5, ALBANIA | (2005), AUSTRIA (2008), BELGIUM (2003), BRAZIL (2006, 2010, | 2014), BULGARIA (2001), CANADA (2004, 2008, 2011, 2015), CHILE | (2005, 2009), DENMARK (2001, 2007), FINLAND (2003, 2007, 2011, | 2015), FRANCE (2002), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), ICELAND (2003, 2007, | 2009, 2013), IRELAND (2002, 2011), ISRAEL (2013), ITALY (2006), | KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), MEXICO (2015), NETHERLANDS | (2006, 2010), PERU (2006, 2011, 2016), POLAND (2005), PORTUGAL | (2005, 2009, 2015), ROMANIA (2004), RUSSIA (2004), SERBIA (2012), | SLOVAKIA (2010, 2016), SLOVENIA (2004, 2011), SOUTH AFRICA | (2009), SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2006, 2014), SWITZERLAND (2007), | TAIWAN (2001, 2004, 2008, 2012) and UNITED STATES (2004, 2008, | 2012). | | Moreover, there is variation in the ways in which the questions | about respondent's spouse were administered in different | election studies. In some cases, only those categorized as | "married or living together" in IMD2004 were asked the spouse | questions, while in some surveys other responses could also lead | to a respondent being asked these questions. Consequently IMD2022 | sometimes includes information about spouses from respondents | who reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (IMD2004 is not code 1). These data remained unchanged. | For further details and explanations, see ELECTIONS STUDY NOTES | on IMD2004, available in the Codebooks Part 2 of the Standalone | CSES Modules. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON IMD2022 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER | OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT | SPOUSE/PARTNER LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2004) 45 | AUSTRALIA (2007) 50 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2002) 12 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006) 799 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2010) 777 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013) 770 | GERMANY (2002, MAIL-BACK) 52 | GERMANY (2005) 203 | HONG KONG (2004) 2 | HONG KONG (2012) 1 | HUNGARY (2002) 12 | IRELAND (2007) 45 | ISRAEL (2003) 6 | MEXICO (2003) 4 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 4 | NETHERLANDS (2002) 99 | NEW ZEALAND (2002) 44 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 20 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 23 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 9 | PHILIPPINES (2004) 2 | POLAND (2007) 70 | POLAND (2011) 63 | ROMANIA (2009) 8 | ROMANIA (2012) 2 | SLOVENIA (2008) 26 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 11 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 2 | SPAIN (2004) 4 | SWEDEN (2002) 39 | SWITZERLAND (2011) 102 | THAILAND (2007) 17 | THAILAND (2011) 17 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - BRAZIL (2002): IMD2022 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Helping family member (6) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006 & 2010): | IMD2022 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Armed forces | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2002 Telephone): IMD2022 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Family-helping employed | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GERMANY (2009): IMD2022 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Civil Servant (6) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): IMD2022 | | The Irish 2007 study employs a binary variable for spouses' | socio-economic status, distinguishing self-employed spouses from | employed spouses. For both the Standalone MODULE 3 and the CSES | IMD, the self-employed are coded "4. SELF-EMPLOYED", while | employed spouses are coded as "5. OTHER". | | IMD Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 04. Self-employed | 05. Employed, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2002): IMD2022 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Armed forces | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): IMD2022 | | IMD Code Election Study Category |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Armed forces | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SLOVENIA (2008): IMD2022 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 3 Code) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 04. Freelancer (5) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2023 >>> SPOUSE: EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether spouse's employment is private or public. .................................................................. 1. PUBLIC SECTOR 2. PRIVATE SECTOR 3. MIXED 4. "THIRD SECTOR"/NON-PROFIT SECTOR 5. OTHER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2023 | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B2018 | MODULE 3: C2018 | MODULE 4: D2018 | MODULE 5: Not included | | Some studies distinguish farmers and/or self-employed spouses | from other employment types. In the Standalone CSES Modules, | these groups were coded into residual categories with meaning | specific to individual election studies. For the CSES IMD, | farmers and the self-employed have been re-classified into | "2. PRIVATE SECTOR" as follows: | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF RESIDUAL EMPLOYMENT TYPE CODES IN CSES | STANDALONE MODULES TO EMPLOYMENT TYPE CODES IN CSES | IMD | | IMD CODE CSES STANDALONE MODULE CLASSIFICATION (CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 2. Farmer; Employee in family business or farm (5/6) | 2. Self-Employed; Own Business; Independent business | person; Independent or self-employed; Independent | practice; Autonomous (5/6) | 2. Unpaid family worker (5/6) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | There is some inconsistency among studies in the way the | responses to the questions about the current employment status of | spouses (IMD2020) affected the application of the follow-up | occupation variables (IMD2021-IMD2024). The CSES standard | is that the occupation variables are asked from those in the | labor force. However, in some cases, for spouses categorized as | not in labor force in IMD2020 (codes 6-12), the occupation | variables may report a spouse's last occupation. Hence, the | responses concerning occupations that belong to respondents not | in the labor force presumably reflect their previous or last | occupation. | | Data on IMD2023 for spouses out of labor force are available | for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2007, 2013), BELARUS (2008), | BRAZIL (2010, 2014), CROATIA (2007), CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA | (2006, 2010, 2013), FRANCE (2007, 2012), GERMANY (2005, 2009), | GREECE (2012, 2015), IRELAND (2007), ISRAEL (2006), JAPAN (2007), | LATVIA (2014), MONTENEGRO (2012), NEW ZEALAND (2008, 2011, 2014), | NORWAY (2005, 2009, 2013), PORTUGAL (2009, 2015), ROMANIA (2009, | 2012, 2014), SOUTH AFRICA (2014), SOUTH KOREA (2008), | SPAIN (2008), SWITZERLAND (2007, 2011), TAIWAN (2012) and | THAILAND (2007, 2011). | | See also notes for IMD2020 (Spouse: Employment Status). | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1, CSES MODULE 5, AUSTRIA | (2008, 2013), BELGIUM (2003), BRAZIL (2006), CANADA (2004, 2008, | 2011, 2015), CHILE (2005, 2009), DENMARK (2001, 2007), FINLAND | (2007, 2011, 2015), FRANCE (2002), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), ICELAND | (2003, 2007, 2009, 2013), IRELAND (2002, 2011), ISRAEL (2013), | ITALY (2006), KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), LATVIA (2014), | MEXICO (2015), NETHERLANDS (2006, 2010), PERU (2006, 2011, 2016), | POLAND (2005, 2007, 2011), RUSSIA (2004), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA | (2010, 2016), SLOVENIA (2008, 2011), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SWEDEN | (2002, 2006, 2014), TAIWAN (2001, 2008) and UNITED STATES (2004, | 2008, 2012). | | Moreover, there is variation in the ways in which the questions | about respondent's spouse were administered in different | election studies. In some cases, only those categorized as | "married or living together" in IMD2004 were asked the spouse | questions, while in some surveys other responses could also lead | to a respondent being asked these questions. Consequently IMD2023 | sometimes includes information about spouses from respondents who | reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (IMD2004 is not code 1.). These data remained unchanged. | For further details and explanations, see ELECTIONS STUDY NOTES | on IMD2004, available in Codebooks Part 2 of the CSES Standalone | Module Datasets. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON IMD2023 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER | OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT | SPOUSE/PARTNER LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ALBANIA (2005) 15 | AUSTRALIA (2004) 49 | AUSTRALIA (2007) 54 | BRAZIL (2014) 139 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2002) 12 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006) 24 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2010) 33 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013) 192 | GERMANY (2002, MAIL-BACK) 54 | GERMANY (2005) 205 | HONG KONG (2004) 2 | HONG KONG (2012) 1 | HUNGARY (2002) 12 | IRELAND (2007) 418 | ISRAEL (2003) 6 | MEXICO (2003) 4 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 3 | NETHERLANDS (2002) 99 | NEW ZEALAND (2002) 47 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 187 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 236 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 8 | PHILIPPINES (2004) 2 | ROMANIA (2004) 4 | ROMANIA (2009) 8 | ROMANIA (2012) 3 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 47 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 2 | SPAIN (2004) 6 | SPAIN (2008) 209 | SWITZERLAND (2003) 92 | SWITZERLAND (2011) 89 | TAIWAN (2004) 9 | TAIWAN (2012) 83 | THAILAND (2007) 16 | THAILAND (2011) 5 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006 & 2010): | IMD2023 | | The Czech 2006 and 2010 studies include a category "5. State, | State Administration and Self-Government Administration". | The associated spouses have been recoded to "1. PUBLIC SECTOR" | in the IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GREAT BRITAIN (2005): IMD2023 | | The 2005 British election study includes one spouse coded as 5, | an election-study-specific code "5" with unknown meaning. | The affected spouse was set to "9. MISSING" in the CSES IMD. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2003): IMD2023 | | IMD Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 5. Labor/Union | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - JAPAN (2004): IMD2023 | | In the 2004 Japanese study, spouses who were "Not in labor | force" were coded "6. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES". For the IMD, | these spouses have been recoded to 9. MISSING. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2004): IMD2023 | | IMD Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 5. Unpaid Family Worker/Others | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): IMD2023 | | IMD Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 5. Other (i.e., joint ventures, third sector) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2024 >>> SPOUSE: INDUSTRIAL SECTOR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Industrial sector of spouse's employment. .................................................................. 1. PRIMARY SECTOR: AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY, FISHERIES 2. SECONDARY SECTOR: INDUSTRY: MINING, CONSTRUCTION MANUFACTURING 3. TERTIARY SECTOR: TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES, WHOLESALE TRADE, RETAIL TRADE, PERSONAL SERVICES, FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, AND REPAIR SERVICES, ENTERTAINMENT AND REPAIR SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED SERVICES, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ACTIVE MILITARY DUTY 4. OTHER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2024 | | There is some inconsistency among studies in the way the | responses to the questions about the current employment status of | spouses (IMD2020) affected the application of the follow-up | occupation variables (IMD2021-IMD2024). The CSES standard is that | the occupation variables are asked from those in the labor force. | However, in some cases, for spouses categorized as not in labor | force in IMD2020 (codes 6-12), the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupations that belong to respondents with spouses | not in the labor force presumably reflect their previous or last | occupation. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B2019 | MODULE 3: C2019 | MODULE 4: D2019 | MODULE 5: Not included | | Data on IMD2024 for spouses out of labor force are available for | ARGENTINA (2015), BELARUS (2008), BRAZIL (2010, 2014), CROATIA | (2007), CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013), FRANCE (2012), GERMANY | (2005, 2009), GREECE (2012, 2015), ISRAEL (2006), JAPAN (2007), | MONTENEGRO (2012), NEW ZEALAND (2008, 2011, 2014), NORWAY (2005, | 2009, 2013), POLAND (2007, 2011), ROMANIA (2009, 2012, 2014), | SOUTH KOREA (2008) and THAILAND (2007, 2011). | | See also VARIABLE NOTES for IMD2020 (Spouse: Employment Status). | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1, CSES MODULE 5, ALBANIA | (2005), AUSTRALIA (2004, 2007, 2013), AUSTRIA (2008), BELGIUM | (2003), BRAZIL (2006), CANADA (2004, 2008, 2011, 2015), CHILE | (2005, 2009), CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006, 2010), DENMARK (2001, | 2007), FINLAND (2003, 2007, 2011, 2015), FRANCE (2007), GERMANY | (2002 Mail-Back), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), HUNGARY (2002), ICELAND | (2003, 2007, 2009, 2013), IRELAND (2002, 2007, 2011), ISRAEL | (2013), ITALY (2006), KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), LATVIA | (2014), MEXICO (2015), NETHERLANDS (2006, 2010), PERU (2006, | 2011, 2016), POLAND (2005), PORTUGAL (2005, 2009, 2015), RUSSIA | (2004), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2010, 2016), SLOVENIA (2008, | 2011), SOUTH AFRICA (2009, 2014), SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2002, | 2006, 2014), SWITZERLAND (2003, 2007, 2011), TAIWAN (2001, 2004, | 2008, 2012) and UNITED STATES (2004, 2008, 2012). | | Moreover, there is variation in the ways in which the questions | about respondent's spouse were administered in different | election studies. In some cases, only those categorized as | "married or living together" in IMD2004 were asked the spouse | questions, while in some surveys other responses could also lead | to a respondent being asked these questions. Consequently IMD2024 | sometimes includes information about spouses from respondents who | reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (IMD2004 is not code 1.). These data remained unchanged. | For further details and explanations, see Elections Study Notes | on IMD2004, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the CSES Standalone | Module Datasets. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON IMD2024 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER | OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT | SPOUSE/PARTNER LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD | ------------------------------------------------------------- | BRAZIL (2014) 130 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2002) 12 | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013) 769 | GERMANY (2005) 205 | HONG KONG (2004) 2 | HONG KONG (2012) 1 | ISRAEL (2003) 6 | MEXICO (2003) 4 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 1 | NETHERLANDS (2002) 98 | NEW ZEALAND (2002) 41 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 21 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 19 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 9 | PHILIPPINES (2004) 2 | POLAND (2007) 64 | POLAND (2011) 63 | ROMANIA (2004) 5 | ROMANIA (2009) 5 | ROMANIA (2012) 4 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 2 | SPAIN (2004) 16 | THAILAND (2007) 18 | THAILAND (2011) 18 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GERMANY (2002 Telephone): IMD2024 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 2 Code) |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 3. Public services / Public enterprises (4) | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SLOVENIA (2004): IMD2024 | | IMD Code Election Study Category (MODULE 2 Code) |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 3. Private households with employed persons; | Extra-territorial organizations (4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2025 >>> BUSINESS OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent is a member of a business or employers' association. .................................................................. 0. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A BUSINESS OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION 1. R IS A MEMBER OF A BUSINESS OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2025 | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B2007 | MODULE 3: C2007 | MODULE 4: D2007 | MODULE 5: Not included | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1, CSES MODULE 5, ARGENTINA | (2015), AUSTRALIA (2007, 2013), AUSTRIA (2008, 2013), BULGARIA | (2014), CANADA (2011, 2015), CHILE (2005, 2009), DENMARK (2001, | 2007), FINLAND (2003, 2011, 2015), FRANCE (2002, 2012), GERMANY | (2002 Mail-Back), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), HUNGARY (2002), ICELAND | (2003, 2007, 2009), IRELAND (2002, 2007, 2011), ISRAEL (2013), | KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), MEXICO (2015), NETHERLANDS | (2002), PERU (2006, 2011), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2010, 2016), | SLOVENIA (2008, 2011), SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2014), SWITZERLAND | (2003, 2011), TAIWAN (2001, 2004) and UNITED STATES (2004, 2008, | 2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): IMD2025 | | The 2014 South African study does not distinguish between | membership in business or employers' associations, farmers' | associations and professional associations. Instead, respondents | were asked whether they were a member of one of these | associations in one single question. Respondents' answers are | included in IMD2025, IMD2026 (Farmers' Association Membership) | and IMD2027 (Professional Association Membership. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2026 >>> FARMERS' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent is a member of a farmers' association. .................................................................. 0. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A FARMERS' ASSOCIATION 1. R IS A MEMBER OF A FARMERS' ASSOCIATION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2026 | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B2008 | MODULE 3: C2008 | MODULE 4: D2008 | MODULE 5: Not included | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1, CSES MODULE 5, ALBANIA | (2005), ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2007, 2013), AUSTRIA (2008, | 2013), BRAZIL (2006, 2010), CANADA (2004, 2011, 2015), CHILE | (2005, 2009), DENMARK (2001, 2007), FINLAND (2011, 2015), FRANCE | (2002, 2007, 2012), GERMANY (2002 Mail-Back). GREAT BRITAIN | (2015), HUNGARY (2002), ICELAND (2003, 2007, 2009), IRELAND | (2002, 2007, 2011), ISRAEL (2013), KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN | (2005), MEXICO (2015), NETHERLANDS (2002, 2006, 2010), PERU | (2006), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2010, 2016), SLOVENIA (2008, | 2011), SPAIN (2008), SWITZERLAND (2007, 2011), TAIWAN (2001, | 2004) and UNITED STATES (2004, 2008, 2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): IMD2026 | | The 2014 South African study does not distinguish between | membership in business or employers' associations, farmers' | associations and professional associations. Instead, respondents | were asked whether they were a member of one of these | associations in one single question. Respondents' answers are | included in IMD2025 (Business or Employers' Association | Membership), IMD2026 and IMD2027 (Professional Association | Membership). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD2027 >>> PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent is a member of a professional association. .................................................................. 0. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 1. R IS A MEMBER OF A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD2027 | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B2009 | MODULE 3: C2009 | MODULE 4: D2009 | MODULE 1: Not included | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1, CSES MODULE 5, ARGENTINA | (2015), AUSTRALIA (2007, 2013), AUSTRIA (2008, 2013), CANADA | (2011, 2015), CHILE (2005, 2009), DENMARK (2001, 2007), FINLAND | (2011, 2015), FRANCE (2002, 2012), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), HUNGARY | (2002), ICELAND (2003, 2007, 2009), IRELAND (2002, 2007, 2011), | IRELAND (2007, 2011), ISRAEL (2013), KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN | (2005), MEXICO (2015), PERU (2006), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA | (2010, 2016), SLOVENIA (2008, 2011), SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2002, | 2006, 2014), SWITZERLAND (2003, 2007, 2011), TAIWAN (2001, 2004) | and UNITED STATES (2004, 2008, 2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): IMD2027 | | Membership in a professional organization was asked | simultaneously with union membership, see IMD2019_1 (Union | Membership). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): IMD2027 | | The 2014 South African study does not distinguish between | membership in business or employers' associations, farmers' | associations and professional associations. Instead, respondents | were asked whether they were a member of one of these | associations in one single question. Respondents' answers are | included in IMD2025 (Business or Employers' Association | Membership), IMD2026 (Farmers' Association Membership) | and IMD2027. =========================================================================== ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: MICRO-LEVEL (SURVEY) DATA =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3001 >>> TURNOUT: MAIN ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the main election. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 9999993. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS [IF APPLICABLE] 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3001 | | IMD3001 ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot | in the main election, regardless of whether or not it was valid. | The wording of this item, which is to record voting in the | national election, follows national standards. | | In case of a single election taking place, e.g., a lower house | election only, then IMD3001 reports the turnout decision for that | particular election. In cases where multiple elections took | place, e.g., a Presidential and a lower house election, IMD3001 | reports the turnout decision in the main election. | | CSES classifies the main election based on the regime | (executive) type and the election in which the CSES survey has | been administered. For polities rated as parliamentary systems, | CSES classifies the main election as elections to the lower house | for most studies. It deviates for a few cases when elections to | the upper house constitutes the main election, usually due to the | respective CSES study focusing on the upper house contest. | For polities rated as Presidential systems, CSES conventionally | classifies the main election as the Presidential election. It | sometimes deviates when data for the Presidential election is | unavailable (e.g., when the CSES survey was administered in a | midterm election). For polities rated as mixed systems, CSES | has tended to classify the main election as elections to the | lower house. However, it sometimes deviates depending on data | availability. Users are advised to consult the table below | specifying the main election for each study in CSES for specific | details. | | +++ TABLE: ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF MAIN ELECTION | | Presidential Lower House Upper House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election Election Election | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ALBANIA (2005) - X - | ALBANIA (2017) - X - | ARGENTINA (2015) X - - | AUSTRALIA (1996) - X - | AUSTRALIA (2004) - X - | AUSTRALIA (2007) - X - | AUSTRALIA (2013) - X - | AUSTRALIA (2019) - X - | AUSTRIA (2008) - X - | AUSTRIA (2013) - X - | AUSTRIA (2017) - X - | BELARUS (2001) X - - | BELARUS (2008) - X - | BELGIUM (2003) - X - | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999) - X - | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999) - X - | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) - X - | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) - X - | BRAZIL (2002) X - - | BRAZIL (2006) X - - | BRAZIL (2010) X - - | BRAZIL (2014) X - - | BRAZIL (2018) X - - | BULGARIA (2001) - X - | BULGARIA (2014) - X - | CANADA (1997) - X - | CANADA (2004) - X - | CANADA (2008) - X - | CANADA (2011) - X - | CANADA (2015) - X - | CANADA (2019) - X - | CHILE (1999) X - - | CHILE (2005) X - - | CHILE (2009) X - - | CHILE (2017) X - - | COSTA RICA (2018) X - - | CROATIA (2007) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (1996) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2002) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2006) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2010) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2013) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2017) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2021) - X - | DENMARK (1998) - X - | DENMARK (2001) - X - | DENMARK (2007) - X - | DENMARK (2019) - X - | EL SALVADOR (2019) X - - | ESTONIA (2011) - X - | FINLAND (2003) - X - | FINLAND (2007) - X - | FINLAND (2011) - X - | FINLAND (2015) - X - | FINLAND (2019) - X - | FRANCE (2002) X - - | FRANCE (2007) - X - | FRANCE (2012) X - - | FRANCE (2017) X - - | GERMANY (1998) - X - | GERMANY (2002 Mb.) - X - | GERMANY (2002 Tel.) - X - | GERMANY (2005) - X - | GERMANY (2009) - X - | GERMANY (2013) - X - | GERMANY (2017) - X - | GERMANY (2021) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (1997) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2005) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2019) - X - | GREECE (2009) - X - | GREECE (2012) - X - | GREECE (2015 Jan) - X - | GREECE (2015 Sep) - X - | GREECE (2019) - X - | HONG KONG (1998) - X - | HONG KONG (2000) - X - | HONG KONG (2004) - X - | HONG KONG (2008) - X - | HONG KONG (2012) - X - | HONG KONG (2016) - X - | HUNGARY (1998) - X - | HUNGARY (2002) - X - | HUNGARY (2018) - X - | ICELAND (1999) - X - | ICELAND (2003) - X - | ICELAND (2007) - X - | ICELAND (2009) - X - | ICELAND (2013) - X - | ICELAND (2016) - X - | ICELAND (2017) - X - | INDIA (2019) - X - | IRELAND (2002) - X - | IRELAND (2007) - X - | IRELAND (2011) - X - | IRELAND (2016) - X - | ISRAEL (1996) - X - | ISRAEL (2003) - X - | ISRAEL (2006) - X - | ISRAEL (2013) - X - | ISRAEL (2020) - X - | ITALY (2006) - X - | ITALY (2018) - X - | JAPAN (1996) - X - | JAPAN (2004) - - X | JAPAN (2007) - - X | JAPAN (2013) - - X | JAPAN (2017) - X - | KENYA (2013) X - - | KYRGYZSTAN (2005) X - - | LATVIA (2010) - X - | LATVIA (2011) - X - | LATVIA (2014) - X - | LATVIA (2018) - X - | LITHUANIA (1997) X - - | LITHUANIA (2016) - X - | LITHUANIA (2020) - X - | MEXICO (1997) - X - | MEXICO (2000) X - - | MEXICO (2003) - X - | MEXICO (2006) X - - | MEXICO (2009) - X - | MEXICO (2012) X - - | MEXICO (2015) - X - | MEXICO (2018) X - - | MONTENEGRO (2012) - X - | MONTENEGRO (2016) - X - | NETHERLANDS (1998) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2002) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2006) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2010) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2017) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2021) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (1996) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2002) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2008) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2011) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2014) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2017) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2020) - X - | NORWAY (1997) - X - | NORWAY (2001) - X - | NORWAY (2005) - X - | NORWAY (2009) - X - | NORWAY (2013) - X - | NORWAY (2017) - X - | PERU (2000) X - - | PERU (2001) X - - | PERU (2006) X - - | PERU (2011) X - - | PERU (2016) X - - | PERU (2021) X - - | PHILIPPINES (2004) X - - | PHILIPPINES (2010) X - - | PHILIPPINES (2016) X - - | POLAND (1997) - X - | POLAND (2001) - X - | POLAND (2005) - X - | POLAND (2007) - X - | POLAND (2011) - X - | POLAND (2019) - X - | PORTUGAL (2002) - X - | PORTUGAL (2005) - X - | PORTUGAL (2009) - X - | PORTUGAL (2015) - X - | PORTUGAL (2019) - X - | ROMANIA (1996) - X - | ROMANIA (2004) - X - | ROMANIA (2009) X - - | ROMANIA (2012) - X - | ROMANIA (2014) X - - | ROMANIA (2016) - X - | RUSSIA (1999) - X - | RUSSIA (2000) X - - | RUSSIA (2004) X - - | SERBIA (2012) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2010) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2016) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2020) - X - | SLOVENIA (1996) - X - | SLOVENIA (2004) - X - | SLOVENIA (2008) - X - | SLOVENIA (2011) - X - | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) - X - | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2000) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2004) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2008) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2012) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2016) - X - | SPAIN (1996) - X - | SPAIN (2000) - X - | SPAIN (2004) - X - | SPAIN (2008) - X - | SWEDEN (1998) - X - | SWEDEN (2002) - X - | SWEDEN (2006) - X - | SWEDEN (2014) - X - | SWEDEN (2018) - X - | SWITZERLAND (1999) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2003) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2007) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2011) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2019) - X - | TAIWAN (1996) X - - | TAIWAN (2001) - X - | TAIWAN (2004) X - - | TAIWAN (2008) X - - | TAIWAN (2012) X - - | TAIWAN (2016) X - - | TAIWAN (2020) X - - | THAILAND (2001) - X - | THAILAND (2007) - X - | THAILAND (2011) - X - | THAILAND (2019) - X - | TUNISIA (2019) - X - | TURKEY (2011) - X - | TURKEY (2015) - X - | TURKEY (2018) X - - | UKRAINE (1998) - X - | UNITED STATES (1996) X - - | UNITED STATES (2004) X - - | UNITED STATES (2008) X - - | UNITED STATES (2012) X - - | UNITED STATES (2016) X - - | UNITED STATES (2020) X - - | URUGUAY (2009) X - - | URUGUAY (2019) X - - | ------------------------------------------------------------- | | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: not included | MODULE 2: not included | MODULE 3: not included | MODULE 4: not included | MODULE 5: E3012 | | The use of invalid voting codes differs across studies. Users | are advised to consult the CSES Standalone Module Codebooks for | further details on these differences. | | Data are unavailable for THAILAND (2001). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - ROMANIA (1996): IMD3001 | | Even though the 1996 Presidential elections in Romania were the | main election, the lower house turnout variable is coded here. | The reason is that the Presidential turnout variable which | was originally deposited refers to the second rather than the | first round of the 1996 Presidential elections. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3001_PR_1 >>> TURNOUT: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 1 IMD3001_PR_2 >>> TURNOUT: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the first/second round of the Presidential elections. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 9999993. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS [IF APPLICABLE] 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS/ NO SECOND ROUND 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3001_PR_ | | IMD3001_PR_1 ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a | ballot in the first/second round of the Presidential elections, | regardless of whether or not it was valid. | | If the data collection occurs between rounds in a two-round | election, IMD3001_PR_2 should ascertain whether or not the | respondent intends to cast a ballot in the second round, | regardless of whether or not it will be valid. | If the data collection occurs after the second round in a | two-round election, IMD3001_PR_2 should ascertain whether or not | the respondent cast a ballot in the second round, regardless of | whether or not it was valid. | | The wordings of IMD3001_PR_, which are to record voting in the | national election, follow national standards. | | In order to differentiate between respondents who already voted | and those who express their will to vote, please consider IMD1015 | (STUDY CONTEXT). | | Separate micro-level turnout variables referring to a distinct | type of election (Presidential, lower house, upper house) were | only introduced in CSES MODULE 4. Before, turnout was captured | by one (A2028) or two (B3004_, C3021_) general variables. In | these cases, information about the type of election the turnout | variable referred to were provided in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | For the CSES INTEGRATED MODULE DATASET, micro-level turnout | variables were harmonized according to the standard established | in MODULE 4. | | Inconsistency response categories from CSES MODULE | 1 coded as "6. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: VOTED; NO VOTE CHOICE | INDICATED" and "7. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: DID NOT VOTE; VOTE | CHOICE INDICATED" were included in IMD as "1. RESPONDENT CAST A | BALLOT" and "0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT." The | inconsistency response category "4. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R | reported not casting a ballot but reported a vote choice" was | coded as "0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT" in IMD. | | Inconsistency response category from CSES MODULE 2 coded as | "4. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported not casting a ballot but | reported a vote choice" was coded as "0. RESPONDENT DID NOT | CAST A BALLOT" in IMD. | | For further information and restrictions, see ELECTION STUDY | NOTES for each of the variables in the original Codebooks Part 2 | of the respective Standalone CSES MODULES. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2028 | MODULE 2: B3004_1 (IMD3001_PR_1) & B3004_2 (IMD3001_PR_2) | MODULE 3: C3021_1 (IMD3001_PR_1) & C3021_2 (IMD3001_PR_2) | MODULE 4: D3005_PR_1 (IMD3001_PR_1) & D3005_PR_2 (IMD3001_PR_2) | MODULE 5: E3012_PR_1 (IMD3001_PR_1) & E3012_PR_2 (IMD3001_PR_2) | | Data for IMD3001_PR_1 are unavailable for ROMANIA (1996). | | Data for IMD3001_PR_2 are unavailable for BELARUS (2001), | BRAZIL (2006), CHILE (1999, 2005, 2009), LITHUANIA (1997), | PERU (2000, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016), and URUGUAY (2009). | [POLITY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND: IMD3001_PR_ | | There is a role in Switzerland known as President of the Federal | Council, with the title assigned to one of the seven members | of the Federal Council of Switzerland, which is elected by the | Federal Assembly (composed of the Council of States and National | Council) for a four-year term. Conventionally, the role of | President of the Council rotates among members, depending on | members' seniority. The President of the Federal Council has no | power above the other six members of the Council, and the role is | largely ceremonial. The President of the Federal Council is | not considered the Head of State - instead, the Federal Council | is classified as not only the Head of State but also the Head | of Government. Consequently, this variable is coded | "9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): IMD3001_PR_1 | | The data refers to the 1996 Prime Ministerial election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3001_LH >>> TURNOUT: CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the lower house election. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 9999993. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS [IF APPLICABLE] 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3001_LH | | IMD3001_LH ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot | in the lower house election, regardless of whether or not it was | valid. | | The wording of IMD3001_LH, which is to record voting in the | national election, follows national standards. | | Inconsistency response categories from CSES MODULE 1 coded as | "6. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: VOTED; NO VOTE CHOICE INDICATED" and | "7. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: DID NOT VOTE; VOTE CHOICE INDICATED" | were included in IMD as "1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT" and | "0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT." The inconsistency | response category "4. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported not | casting a ballot but reported a vote choice" was coded as | "0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT" in IMD. | | Inconsistency response category from CSES MODULE 2 coded as | "4. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported not casting a ballot but | reported a vote choice" was coded as "0. RESPONDENT DID NOT | CAST A BALLOT" in IMD. | | For further information and restrictions, see ELECTION STUDY | NOTES for each of the variables in the original Codebooks Part 2 | of the respective Standalone CSES MODULES. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2028 | MODULE 2: B3004_1 | MODULE 3: C3021_1 | MODULE 4: D3005_LH | MODULE 5: E3012_LH | | Data are unavailable for MEXICO (2018) and UNITED STATES (2008). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] DENMARK (2001) - IMD3001_LH | | The turnout variable in CSES MODULE 2 for Denmark (2001) had a | category "Not eligible to vote." This has been coded into | "9999993. RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS." | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] POLAND (2001) - IMD3001_LH | | The turnout variable in CSES MODULE 2 for POLAND (2001) had a | category "Not eligible to vote." This has been coded into | "9999993. RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS." | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] PORTUGAL (2002 & 2005) - IMD3001_LH | | The turnout variable in CSES MODULE 2 for both Portugal studies | (2002 and 2005) had a category "Not eligible to vote." This has | been coded into "9999993. RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL | LISTS." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3001_UH >>> TURNOUT: CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the upper house election. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 9999993. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS [IF APPLICABLE] 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3001_UH | | IMD3001_UH ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot | in the upper house election, regardless of whether or not it was | valid. | | The wording of IMD3001_UH, which is to record voting in the | national election, follows national standards. | | In order to differentiate between respondents who already voted | and those who express their will to vote, please consider IMD1015 | (STUDY CONTEXT). | | Separate micro-level turnout variables referring to a distinct | type of election (Presidential, lower house, upper house) were | only introduced in CSES MODULE 4. Before, turnout was captured | by one (A2028) or two (B3004_, C3021_) general variables. In | these cases, information about the type of election the turnout | variable referred to were provided in the election study notes. | | For the CSES IMD, micro-level turnout variables were harmonized | according to the standard established in CSES MODULE 4. | | Inconsistency response categories from CSES MODULE 1 coded as | "6. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: VOTED; NO VOTE CHOICE INDICATED" and | "7. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: DID NOT VOTE; VOTE CHOICE INDICATED" | were included in IMD as "1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT" and | "0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT." The inconsistency | response category "4. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported not | casting a ballot but reported a vote choice" was coded as | "0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT" in IMD. | For further information and restrictions, researchers are | encouraged to look at the ELECTION STUDY NOTES for | each of the micro-level turnout variables in the original | Codebooks Part 2 of the respective Standalone CSES MODULES. | | Inconsistency response category from CSES MODULE 2 coded as | "4. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported not casting a ballot but | reported a vote choice" was coded as "0. RESPONDENT DID NOT | CAST A BALLOT" in IMD. | | For further information and restrictions, see ELECTION STUDY | NOTES for each of the variables in the original Codebooks Part 2 | of the respective Standalone CSES MODULES. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2028 | MODULE 2: B3004_1 & B3004_2 | MODULE 3: C3021_1 | MODULE 4: D3005_UH | MODULE 5: E3012_UH | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (1996, | 2007), BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), BRAZIL | (2006), MEXICO (1997, 2000, 2018), POLAND (1997, 2005, 2007, | 2011), ROMANIA (1996), SPAIN (1996, 2000), SWITZERLAND (1999) | and UNITED STATES (1996, 2008). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2004): IMD3001_UH | | The original variable in CSES MODULE 2 for Japan (2004) study, | which refers to the Upper House Election, distinguishes between | turnout in single-member constituencies (B3004_1) and turnout | in a single nationwide constituency (B3004_2). The second one, | turnout in the single nationwide constituency, is used for the | turnout variable in the IMD file. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] POLAND (2001) - IMD3001_UH | | The turnout variable in CSES MODULE 2 for POLAND (2001) had a | category "Not eligible to vote." This has been coded into | "9999993. RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3001_TS >>> TURNOUT: TURNOUT SWITCHER BETWEEN CURRENT ELECTION AND PREVIOUS ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not the respondent reports voting in the current and previous election. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT ABSTAINED IN BOTH ELECTIONS 1. RESPONDENT ABSTAINED IN CURRENT ELECTION BUT VOTED IN PREVIOUS ELECTION 2. RESPONDENT VOTED IN CURRENT ELECTION BUT ABSTAINED IN PREVIOUS ELECTION 3. RESPONDENT VOTED IN BOTH CURRENT AND PREVIOUS ELECTION 5. RESPONDENT ABSTAINED IN CURRENT ELECTION BUT INELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN PREVIOUS ELECTION 6. RESPONDENT VOTED IN CURRENT ELECTION BUT INELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN PREVIOUS ELECTION 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3001_TS | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | IMD3001_TS is constructed based on the respondent's reported | turnout in the current and previous main election. | In polities where multiple elections took place simultaneously, | IMD3001_TS reports the turnout decision in the main election. | | CSES classifies the main election based on the regime | (executive) type and the election in which the CSES survey has | been administered. For polities rated as parliamentary systems, | CSES classifies the main election as elections to the lower house | for most studies. It deviates for a few cases when elections to | the upper house constitutes the main election, usually due to the | respective CSES study focusing on the upper house contest. | For polities rated as Presidential systems, CSES conventionally | classifies the main election as the Presidential election. It | sometimes deviates when data for the Presidential election is | unavailable (e.g., when the CSES survey was administered in a | midterm election). For polities rated as mixed systems, CSES | has tended to classify the main election as elections to the | lower house. However, it sometimes deviates depending on data | availability. Users are advised to consult the table listed in | VARIABLE NOTES for IMD3001 specifying the main election for | each study in CSES for specific details. | | In instances when the previous turnout refers to a different type | of election, e.g., current main elections are Presidential, but | previous turnout variable refers to lower house election only, | these studies are set to missing for IMD3001_TS. | | The data has been included in CSES IMD in the way it was | published in Standalone Modules. | In some election studies, the previous turnout variable was not | asked directly in a survey, but generated from previous vote | choice, under the assumption that all respondents reporting vote | choice had voted. In other instances, the previous turnout | variable was not constructed even when previous vote choice was | available. In this latter case, these studies are classified as | "9. MISSING" for variable IMD3001_TS. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: not included | MODULE 2: not included | MODULE 3: not included | MODULE 4: not included | MODULE 5: E3012_TS | | Data are unavailable for all studies in CSES MODULE 1 as previous | turnout was not asked. Data are also unavailable for AUSTRALIA | (2007), AUSTRIA (2008), DENMARK (2001), FRANCE (2007), ITALY | (2006), JAPAN (2004, 2007, 2013), MEXICO (2006, 2009, 2012, | 2015), PHILIPPINES (2016), PORTUGAL (2009), REPUBLIC OF KOREA | (2008), ROMANIA (2009), RUSSIA (2004), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), | SPAIN (2008), and TAIWAN (2008, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): IMD3001_TS | | The main election in Taiwan is the Presidential election. Data | on respondents' turnout of the second round of the Presidential | election was, however, not available. Therefore, IMD3001_TS is | based on turnout variables of the current and previous lower | house election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3002_PR_1 >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 1 IMD3002_PR_2 >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent's vote choice for President in the first/second round of election. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION/ NO SECOND ROUND 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3002_PR_ | | IMD3002_PR_ detail the respondent's vote choice for President in | the first/second round of election, if applicable and a | respondent cast a ballot in the Presidential election. | | If the data collection occurs between rounds in a two-round | election, IMD3002_PR_2 should report the respondent's vote choice | intention for President in the second round. | If the data collection occurs after the second round in a | two-round election, IMD3002_PR_2 should report the respondent's | vote choice for President in the second round. | | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | Presidential election (IMD3001_PR_) but report a vote choice | are included, as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Such deviations are reported in the | Standalone CSES Module ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2029 | MODULE 2: B3005_1 (IMD3002_PR_1) & B3005_2 (IMD3002_PR_2) | MODULE 3: C3023_PR_1 (IMD3002_PR_1) & C3023_PR_2 (IMD3002_PR_2) | MODULE 4: D3006_PR_1 (IMD3002_PR_1) & D3006_PR_2 (IMD3002_PR_2) | MODULE 5: E3013_PR_1 (IMD3002_PR_1) & E3013_PR_2 (IMD3002_PR_2) | | CSES MODULE 1 categories "99. APPLICABLE BUT NOT ASCERTAINED - | DON'T KNOW, REFUSED" and "98 Respondent cast invalid ballot/did | not vote" were coded as "9999999. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "94. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported | casting a ballot, but T did not vote." has been coded into | "9999999. MISSING" for the IMD. | | Data for IMD3002_PR_1 are unavailable for ROMANIA (1996). | | Data for IMD3002_PR_2 are unavailable for BELARUS (2001), | CHILE (1999, 2005, 2009), LITHUANIA (1997), and PERU (2000, | 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016). | [POLITY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND: IMD3002_PR_ | | There is a role in Switzerland known as President of the Federal | Council, with the title assigned to one of the seven members | of the Federal Council of Switzerland, which is elected by the | Federal Assembly (composed of the Council of States and National | Council) for a four-year term. Conventionally, the role of | President of the Council rotates among members, depending on | members' seniority. The President of the Federal Council has no | power above the other six members of the Council, and the role is | largely ceremonial. The President of the Federal Council is | not considered the Head of State - instead, the Federal Council | is classified as not only the Head of State but also the Head | of Government. Consequently, this variable is coded | "9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): IMD3002_PR_1 | | The data refers to the 1996 Prime Ministerial election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KYRGYZSTAN (2005): IMD3002_PR_1 | | Kyrgyz Presidential elections are technically not party-based, | i.e., there is no straightforward connection between the | Presidential candidates and political parties. Hence, they are | labeled as independent candidates in CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - RUSSIA (2000): IMD3002_PR_1 | | In MODULE 1, 24 respondents are coded as "96" for this variable | and no further information about the meaning is provided. This | code refers to the original category "96. AGAINST ALL | CANDIDATES." These respondents were re-coded to "9999988. NONE OF | THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES" for IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3002_LH_PL >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION - PARTY LIST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent's vote choice for party list in Lower House elections. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NOT A LIST SYSTEM 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3002_LH_PL | | IMD3002_LH_PL details the respondent's vote choice for party list | in the current Lower House elections, if applicable and a | respondent cast a ballot in the Lower House legislative election. | | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | lower house election (IMD3001_LH) but report a vote choice | are included, as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. For further details on these | inconsistencies, see Standalone CSES Module Codebooks. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2030 | MODULE 2: B3006_1 | MODULE 3: C3023_LH_PL | MODULE 4: D3006_LH_PL | MODULE 5: E3013_LH_PL | | CSES MODULE 1 categories "99. APPLICABLE BUT NOT ASCERTAINED - | DON'T KNOW, REFUSED" and "98 Respondent cast invalid ballot/did | not vote" were coded as "9999999. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "94. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported | casting a ballot, but R did not vote." has been coded into | "9999999. MISSING" for the IMD. | | Data are unavailable for PERU (2000) and THAILAND (2001). | POLITY NOTES - GERMANY: IMD3002_LH_PL | | Respondents indicating that they voted either for the CDU | (2760002) or the CSU (2760003) were assigned the same IMD Code, | 2760001. The latter code refers to the "CDU/CSU Union." | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): IMD3002_LH_PL | | In MODULE 1, 54 respondents are coded as "12." In the absence of | information about the exact meaning, these respondents were | coded as "9999999. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999): IMD3002_LH_PL | | In MODULE 1, two respondents are coded as "30" and six | respondents are coded as "50." In the absence of information | about the exact meaning, these respondents were coded as | "9999999. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): IMD3002_LH_PL | | This variable refers to the first round of the 1998 Hungarian | lower house elections. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - HONG KONG (2000): IMD3002_LH_PL | | There are 44 respondents in MODULE 1 who are coded as "12" | without further information about the meaning of this code | provided. On the basis of the original questionnaire, these | respondents were re-coded to "9999998. DON'T KNOW" for CSES IMD. | Three additional respondents are coded as "13" in MODULE 1. In | the absence of further information, these respondents were | coded as "9999999. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): IMD3002_LH_PL | | In the 2018 lower house elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For voters who voted for a party list and a | district candidate, split-ticket voting was not permitted. The | ballots of voters who voted for either a party list or a | district candidate were treated as a fused vote, i.e., the vote | for a party list was automatically extended to the lists' | respective district candidate (and vice-versa, i.e., a vote for | a district candidate was extended to the candidate's party | list). IMD3002_LH_PL reports the votes of those reporting to have | cast a list vote and those who reported voting for both a party | list and a district candidate. Respondents' vote choices for | those who reported voting only for a district candidate were | coded in IMD3002_LH_DC. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - PERU (2001): IMD3002_LH_PL | | In MODULE 1, 65 respondents are coded as "10." In the absence of | information about the exact meaning, these respondents were | coded as "9999999. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - RUSSIA (1999): IMD3002_LH_PL | | In MODULE 1, 37 respondents are coded as "96" for this variable | and no further information about the meaning is provided. This | code refers to the original category "96. AGAINST ALL | CANDIDATES AND BLOCS." These respondents were re-coded to | "9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES" for IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3002_LH_DC >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent's vote choice for district candidate in Lower House elections. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO DISTRICT CANDIDATE VOTE 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3002_LH_DC | | IMD3002_LH_DC details the respondent's vote choice for district | candidate in Lower House elections, if applicable and a | respondent cast a ballot in the Lower House legislative election. | | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | lower house election (IMD3001_LH) but report a vote choice | are included, as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. For further details on these | inconsistencies, see Standalone CSES Module Codebooks. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2031 | MODULE 2: B3006_1 & B3006_2 | MODULE 3: C3023_LH_DC | MODULE 4: D3006_LH_DC | MODULE 5: E3013_LH_DC | | CSES MODULE 1 categories "99. APPLICABLE BUT NOT ASCERTAINED - | DON'T KNOW, REFUSED" and "98 Respondent cast invalid ballot/did | not vote" were coded as "9999999. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "94. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported | casting a ballot, but R did not vote." has been coded into | "9999999. MISSING" for the IMD. | | Data are unavailable for RUSSIA (1999), THAILAND (2001), and | UKRAINE (1998). | POLITY NOTES - GERMANY: IMD3002_LH_DC | | Respondents indicating that they voted either for the CDU | (2760002) or the CSU (2760003) were assigned the same IMD Code, | 2760001. The latter code refers to the "CDU/CSU Union." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): IMD3002_LH_DC | | IMD3002_LH_DC refers to the first round of the 1998 Hungarian | lower house elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): IMD3002_LH_DC | | In the 2018 lower house elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For those who voted for a party list and a | district candidate, split-ticket voting was not permitted. The | ballots of voters who voted for either a party list or a | district candidate were treated as a fused vote, i.e., the vote | for a party list was automatically extended to the lists' | respective district candidate (and vice-versa, i.e., a vote for | a district candidate was extended to the candidate's party | list). IMD3002_LH_DC reports the votes of those reporting to have | cast a district candidate vote. Respondents' vote choices for | those who reported having cast a party list vote or both a party | list and a district candidate vote were coded in IMD3002_LH_PL. | Respondents who reported a district candidate vote were asked to | to name the party list or coalition of the candidate they voted | for which was used to code IMD3002_LH_DC. | 56 Respondents named a candidate of one of the two large | coalitions, i.e., the center-right and the center-left | coalition. They were further asked which of the coalition | members they liked most. The answer to the latter was coded as | the respondent's vote choice in IMD3002_LH_DC as coalitions were | not assigned numerical party codes. Finally, 13 respondents who | reported to have voted for one of the two coalitions did not | like any particular party from the coalition. These respondents | were coded to have voted for the leading party of the respective | coalition, namely, Lega (LN) for the center-right coalition and | the Democratic Party for the center-left coalition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016 & 2020): IMD3002_LH_DC | | The data refer to the first rounds of the elections, held on | October 9, 2016, and October 11, 2020, respectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3002_UH_PL >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - PARTY LIST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent's vote choice for party list in Upper House elections. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION OR LIST VOTE 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3002_UH_PL | | IMD3002_UH_PL details the respondent's vote choice for party list | in Upper House elections, if applicable and a respondent cast a | ballot in the Upper House legislative election. | | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | upper house election (IMD3001_UH) but report a vote choice are | included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Such deviations are reported in the | Standalone CSES Module ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "94. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported | casting a ballot, but R did not vote." has been coded into | "9999999. MISSING" for the IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2030 | MODULE 2: B3007_1 & B3007_2 | MODULE 3: C3023_UH_PL | MODULE 4: D3006_UH_PL | MODULE 5: E3013_UH_PL | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), BELGIUM-FLANDERS | (1999), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), and ROMANIA (1996). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): IMD3002_UH_PL | | In the 2018 Upper House elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For those who voted for a party list and a | district candidate, split-ticket voting was not permitted. The | ballots of voters who voted for either a party list or a | district candidate were treated as a fused vote, i.e., the vote | for a party list was automatically extended to the lists' | respective district candidate (and vice-versa, i.e., a vote for | a district candidate was extended to the candidate's party | list). IMD3002_UH_PL reports the votes of those reporting to have | cast a list vote and those who reported voting for both a party | list and a district candidate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3002_UH_DC_1 >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 1 IMD3002_UH_DC_2 >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 2 IMD3002_UH_DC_3 >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 3 IMD3002_UH_DC_4 >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent's vote choice for district candidate/s in Upper House elections. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION OR CANDIDATE VOTE 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3002_UH_DC_ | | IMD3002_UH_DC_ detail the respondent's vote choice for district | candidate/s in Upper House elections, if applicable and a | respondent cast a ballot in the Upper House legislative election. | | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | upper house election (IMD3001_UH) but report a vote choice are | included, as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Such deviations are reported in the | Standalone CSES Module ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "94. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported | casting a ballot, but R did not vote." has been coded into | "9999999. MISSING" for the IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2031 | MODULE 2: B3007_1, B3007_2, B3007_3, & B3007_4 | MODULE 3: C3023_UH_DC_1, C3023_UH_DC_2, C3023_UH_DC_3, & | C3023_UH_DC_4 | MODULE 4: D3006_UH_DC | MODULE 5: E3013_UH_DC_1, E3013_UH_DC_2 | | Data are unavailable for KENYA (2013), POLAND (2011) and | UNITED STATES (1996). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3013_UH_DC_1 | | In the 2018 Upper House elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For those who voted for a party list and a | district candidate, split-ticket voting was not permitted. The | ballots of voters who voted for either a party list or a | district candidate were treated as a fused vote, i.e., the vote | for a party list was automatically extended to the lists' | respective district candidate (and vice-versa, i.e., a vote for | a district candidate was extended to the candidate's party | list). IMD3002_UH_DC_1 reports the votes of those reporting to | have cast a district candidate vote. Respondents' vote choices | for those who reported having cast a party list vote or both a | party list and a district candidate vote were coded in | IMD3002_UH_PL. | Respondents who reported a district candidate vote were asked to | to name the party list or coalition of the candidate they voted | for which was used to code IMD3002_UH_DC_1. | 48 Respondents named a candidate of one of the two large | coalitions, i.e., the center-right and the center-left | coalition. They were further asked which of the coalition | members they liked most. The answer to the latter was coded as | the respondent's vote choice in IMD3002_UH_DC_1 as coalitions | were not assigned numerical party codes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3002_OUTGOV >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE FOR OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not the respondent cast a ballot for the outgoing incumbent. .................................................................. 0. DID NOT VOTE FOR THE OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT) 1. VOTED FOR THE OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT) 9999996. NOT ASCERTAINED/ INCUMBENT CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT CONTEST 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3002_OUTGOV | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | IMD3002_OUTGOV ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a | ballot for the outgoing incumbent, regardless of whether or not | it was valid. | | IMD3002_OUTGOV is constructed based on the respondent's reported | vote choice in the current main election. | | In case of a single election taking place, e.g., a lower house | election only, this variable reports the voting decision for | that particular election. | In polities where multiple elections took place simultaneously, | IMD3002_OUTGOV reports the voting behavior in the main election. | | CSES classifies the main election based on the regime | (executive) type and the election in which the CSES survey has | been administered. For polities rated as parliamentary systems, | CSES classifies the main election as elections to the lower house | for most studies. It deviates for a few cases when elections to | the upper house constitutes the main election, usually due to the | respective CSES study focusing on the upper house contest. | For polities rated as Presidential systems, CSES conventionally | classifies the main election as the Presidential election. It | sometimes deviates when data for the Presidential election is | unavailable (e.g., when the CSES survey was administered in a | midterm election). For polities rated as mixed systems, CSES | has tended to classify the main election as elections to the | lower house. However, it sometimes deviates depending on data | availability. The classification of the main election by election | study is listed in the VARIABLE NOTES Table below. | | In case of a Presidential election as main election, | IMD3002_OUTGOV refers to the incumbent President and/or the | incumbent President's party. In all other cases, IMD3002_OUTGOV | refers to the party/parties which was/were part of the outgoing | cabinet. | | In mixed electoral systems where voters have a list vote and a | district candidate vote, the list vote was used to determine if | the respondent voted for the outgoing government or not. | | In case of a caretaker government, the party affiliation of its | members was used to code IMD3002_OUTGOV. Cabinet members without | a formal party affiliation were not considered for this variable. | | For election studies included in CSES MODULES 1 and 2, the coding | was based on a variety of sources. For CSES MODULES 3 and 4, the | information in the macro variables about the party of the | incumbent President and the cabinet membership were used. | | +++ TABLE: ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF MAIN ELECTION | | Presidential Lower House Upper House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election Election Election | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ALBANIA (2005) - X - | ALBANIA (2017) - X - | ARGENTINA (2015) X - - | AUSTRALIA (1996) - X - | AUSTRALIA (2004) - X - | AUSTRALIA (2007) - X - | AUSTRALIA (2013) - X - | AUSTRALIA (2019) - X - | AUSTRIA (2008) - X - | AUSTRIA (2013) - X - | AUSTRIA (2017) - X - | BELARUS (2001) X - - | BELARUS (2008) - X - | BELGIUM (2003) - X - | BELGIUM-F. (1999) - X - | BELGIUM-W. (1999) - X - | BELGIUM-F. (2019) - X - | BELGIUM-W. (2019) - X - | BRAZIL (2002) X - - | BRAZIL (2006) X - - | BRAZIL (2010) X - - | BRAZIL (2014) X - - | BRAZIL (2018) X - - | BULGARIA (2001) - X - | BULGARIA (2014) - X - | CANADA (1997) - X - | CANADA (2004) - X - | CANADA (2008) - X - | CANADA (2011) - X - | CANADA (2015) - X - | CANADA (2019) - X - | CHILE (1999) X* - - | CHILE (2005) X - - | CHILE (2009) X* - - | CHILE (2017) X - - | COSTA RICA (2018) X - - | CROATIA (2007) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (1996) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2002) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2006) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2010) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2013) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2017) - X - | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2021) - X - | DENMARK (1998) - X - | DENMARK (2001) - X - | DENMARK (2007) - X - | DENMARK (2019) - X - | EL SALVADOR (2019) X - - | ESTONIA (2011) - X - | FINLAND (2003) - X - | FINLAND (2007) - X - | FINLAND (2011) - X - | FINLAND (2015) - X - | FINLAND (2019) - X - | FRANCE (2002) X - - | FRANCE (2007) - X - | FRANCE (2012) X - - | FRANCE (2017) X - - | GERMANY (1998) - X - | GERMANY (2002 Mb.) - X - | GERMANY (2002 Tel.) - X - | GERMANY (2005) - X - | GERMANY (2009) - X - | GERMANY (2013) - X - | GERMANY (2017) - X - | GERMANY (2021) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (1997) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2005) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2019) - X - | GREECE (2009) - X - | GREECE (2012) - X* - | GREECE (2015 Jan) - X - | GREECE (2015 Sep) - X - | GREECE (2019) - X - | HONG KONG (1998) - X* - | HONG KONG (2000) - X* - | HONG KONG (2004) - X* - | HONG KONG (2008) - X* - | HONG KONG (2012) - X* - | HONG KONG (2016) - X* - | HUNGARY (1998) - X - | HUNGARY (2002) - X - | HUNGARY (2018) - X - | ICELAND (1999) - X - | ICELAND (2003) - X - | ICELAND (2007) - X - | ICELAND (2009) - X - | ICELAND (2013) - X - | ICELAND (2016) - X - | ICELAND (2017) - X - | INDIA (2019) - X - | IRELAND (2002) - X - | IRELAND (2007) - X - | IRELAND (2011) - X - | IRELAND (2016) - X - | ISRAEL (1996) - X - | ISRAEL (2003) - X - | ISRAEL (2006) - X - | ISRAEL (2013) - X - | ISRAEL (2020) - X - | ITALY (2006) - X - | ITALY (2018) - X - | JAPAN (1996) - X - | JAPAN (2004) - - X | JAPAN (2007) - - X | JAPAN (2013) - - X | JAPAN (2017) - X - | KENYA (2013) X* - - | KYRGYZSTAN (2005) X* - - | LATVIA (2010) - X - | LATVIA (2011) - X - | LATVIA (2014) - X - | LATVIA (2018) - X - | LITHUANIA (1997) X* - - | LITHUANIA (2016) - X - | LITHUANIA (2020) - X - | MEXICO (1997) - X - | MEXICO (2000) X - - | MEXICO (2003) - X - | MEXICO (2006) X - - | MEXICO (2009) - X - | MEXICO (2012) X - - | MEXICO (2015) - X - | MEXICO (2018) X - - | MONTENEGRO (2012) - X - | MONTENEGRO (2016) - X - | NETHERLANDS (1998) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2002) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2006) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2010) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2017) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2021) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (1996) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2002) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2008) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2011) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2014) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2017) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2020) - X - | NORWAY (1997) - X - | NORWAY (2001) - X - | NORWAY (2005) - X - | NORWAY (2009) - X - | NORWAY (2013) - X - | NORWAY (2017) - X - | PERU (2000) X - - | PERU (2001) X* - - | PERU (2006) X* - - | PERU (2011) X - - | PERU (2016) X* - - | PERU (2021) X - - | PHILIPPINES (2004) X - - | PHILIPPINES (2010) X - - | PHILIPPINES (2016) X - - | POLAND (1997) - X - | POLAND (2001) - X - | POLAND (2005) - X - | POLAND (2007) - X - | POLAND (2011) - X - | POLAND (2019) - X - | PORTUGAL (2002) - X - | PORTUGAL (2005) - X - | PORTUGAL (2009) - X - | PORTUGAL (2015) - X - | PORTUGAL (2019) - X - | ROMANIA (1996) - X - | ROMANIA (2004) - X - | ROMANIA (2009) X - - | ROMANIA (2012) - X - | ROMANIA (2014) X* - - | ROMANIA (2016) - X* - | RUSSIA (1999) - X - | RUSSIA (2000) X* - - | RUSSIA (2004) X - - | SERBIA (2012) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2010) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2016) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2020) - X - | SLOVENIA (1996) - X - | SLOVENIA (2004) - X - | SLOVENIA (2008) - X - | SLOVENIA (2011) - X - | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) - X - | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) X - - | SOUTH KOREA (2000) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2004) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2008) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2012) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2016) - X - | SPAIN (1996) - X - | SPAIN (2000) - X - | SPAIN (2004) - X - | SPAIN (2008) - X - | SWEDEN (1998) - X - | SWEDEN (2002) - X - | SWEDEN (2006) - X - | SWEDEN (2014) - X - | SWEDEN (2018) - X - | SWITZERLAND (1999) - X* - | SWITZERLAND (2003) - X* - | SWITZERLAND (2007) - X* - | SWITZERLAND (2011) - X* - | SWITZERLAND (2019) - X* - | TAIWAN (1996) X - - | TAIWAN (2001) - X - | TAIWAN (2004) X - - | TAIWAN (2008) X - - | TAIWAN (2012) X - - | TAIWAN (2016) X - - | TAIWAN (2020) X - - | THAILAND (2001) - X - | THAILAND (2007) - X* - | THAILAND (2011) - X - | THAILAND (2019) - X* - | TUNISIA (2019) - X - | TURKEY (2011) - X - | TURKEY (2015) - X - | TURKEY (2018) X - - | UKRAINE (1998) - X - | UNITED STATES (1996) X - - | UNITED STATES (2004) X - - | UNITED STATES (2008) X - - | UNITED STATES (2012) X - - | UNITED STATES (2016) X - - | UNITED STATES (2020) X - - | URUGUAY (2009) X - - | URUGUAY (2019) X - - | ------------------------------------------------------------- | * = Incumbent not identified - see ELECTION STUDY NOTES below | | The incumbent could not be identified for BELARUS (2008), | CHILE (1999, 2009), GREECE (2012), HONG KONG (1998, 2000, 2004, | 2008, 2012, 2016), KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), LITHUANIA | (1997), PERU (2001, 2006, 2016), ROMANIA (2014, 2016), RUSSIA | (2000), SWITZERLAND (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2019), and THAILAND | (2007, 2019). | Those election studies are coded as "9999996. NOT ASCERTAINED/ | INCUMBENT CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT CONTEST". Further explanations | are provided in the POLITY NOTES and ELECTION STUDY NOTES below. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E3013_OUTGOV | | Data are unavailable for THAILAND (2001). | POLITY NOTES - HONG KONG: IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The Chief Executive (CE) in Hong Kong is the highest government | official, but they do not belong to any political party. Hence, | IMD3002_OUTGOV was coded as "9999996. NOT ASCERTAINED/INCUMBENT | CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT CONTEST." | POLITY NOTES - SWITZERLAND: IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The Federal Council of Switzerland functions as the collective | executive in Switzerland. Because the Federal President rotates | among its members from each of the parties on a fixed, annual | basis, no incumbent was coded. | POLITY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA: IMD3002_OUTGOV | | For all South Korean Studies in the CSES IMD, IMD3002_OUTGOV is | coded based on the party affiliation of the incumbent President | at the time of the respective election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The incumbent President at the time of the election, Alexander | Lukashenko, was not a member officially of any party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | This variable is coded for outgoing incumbents in the Belgium | national government. Thus, all respondents who reported voting | for "Christian Democratic and Flemish (CD&V)" or "Open Flemish | Liberals and Democrats (Open Vld)" are set to "1. VOTED FOR THE | OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT)" for IMD3002_OUTGOV for the | Belgium-Flanders study. | The Belgium Government was also composed of "Reformist Movement | (MR)" from Wallonia. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | This variable is coded for outgoing incumbents in the Belgium | national government. Thus, all respondents who reported voting | for "Reformist Movement (MR)" are set to "1. VOTED FOR THE | OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT)" for IMD3002_OUTGOV for the | Belgium-Wallonia study. | The Belgium Government was also composed of "Christian Democratic | and Flemish (CD&V)" and "Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats | (Open Vld)" from Flanders. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | For Brazil 2018, respondents are coded as having voted for the | incumbent if they voted for Dilma Rousseff's party, the Workers' | Party (PT), in the current Presidential election. | Rousseff was elected as President of Brazil in the 2014 election. | However, she was impeached in 2016. Former Vice President Michel | Temer (Brazilian Democratic Movement Party) succeeded Rousseff | in office. | Nevertheless, IMD3002_OUTGOV is coded based on voters for the | Workers' Party because more respondents reported having voted for | the PT, and because Dilma Rousseff was the elected leader in the | 2014 election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The incumbent President at that time, Tagle, was a member of the | Christian Democratic Party. He was elected in 1993 with the | support of the alliance, Concertation, which the Christian | Democracy Party was a member of. In the 1999 election, however, | the Concertation alliance supported Ricardo Lagos from the Party | for Democracy. Because the numerical party codes in CSES MODULE | 1 referred to the individual parties and not the alliance, | respondents were coded as "9999996. NOT ASCERTAINED/INCUMBENT | CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT CONTEST." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2005): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The incumbent President at the time of the 2005 Chilean | Presidential Election, Ricardo Lagos, was a member of the Party | for Democracy. He was elected in 2000 with the support of the | alliance Concertation, of which the Party for Democracy was a | member. In the 2005 Presidential election, however, the | Concertation alliance supported Michelle Bachelet from the | Socialist Party of Chile. Because the numerical party codes for | vote choice in the 2005 Chilean Presidential Election | (IMD3002_PR_1) refer to the individual parties and not the | alliance, voters who stated to have voted for the Socialist Party | in IMD3002_PR_1 were coded as having voted for the party of the | incumbent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The incumbent President, Michelle Bachelet (Socialist Party), | did not stand for election in the 2009 Chilean Presidential | elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013): | IMD3002_OUTGOV | | Prior to the election, the Czech Republic/Czechia was governed by | a caretaker government led by Jiri Rusnok. 14 of the 15 cabinet | members had no formal party membership. Thus, only respondents | who voted for the Christian Democratic Union - Czech People's | Party (KDU-CSL), the party of the 15th cabinet member, were | coded as "1. VOTED FOR THE OUTGOING GOVERNMENT" here. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2021): | IMD3002_OUTGOV | | For the Czech Republic/Czechia 2021, respondents are coded as | having voted for the incumbent if they voted for the Action of | Dissatisfied Citizens party (ANO 2011) or the Czech Social | Democratic Party (CSSD), which formed a minority government ahead | of the 2021 election. | While the minority government was backed by the Communist Party | of Bohemia and Moravia (KSCM), this party was not formally part | of the cabinet and hence, is not included as an incumbent party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | Finland went through a government crisis in 2017 when the Finns | Party split. The Finns Party was a member of the governing | coalition in Finland. In 2017, after Jussi Halla-aho was elected | as the Finns Party President, other coalition members (Center | Party and National Coalition Party) declared that they did not | want to continue cooperation with the Finns Party. As a result, | the Finns Party went into opposition. However, 20 MPs abandoned | the Finns Party and formed a new parliamentary group, which | continued to support the governing coalition and hold ministers | in Finland's government. This group became a new political party | in Finland - Blue Reform. | Thus, supporters of the Center Party, National Coalition Party | and Blue Reform are coded as voters of outgoing incumbents. | Voters of the Finns Party were coded as those who did not vote | for the outgoing incumbent government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The government at the time of the election was a caretaker | government (May 6, 2012, to June 17, 2012). All of its members | were independents. Hence, IMD3002_OUTGOV was coded as "9999996. | NOT ASCERTAINED/INCUMBENT CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT CONTEST." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2019): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | After the September 2015 Greek legislative election, the | Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) formed a coalition | government headed by Alexis Tsipras with the Independent | Greeks - National Patriotic Alliance (ANEL). However, ANEL | left the coalition in early 2019 after disagreements over the | Macedonian naming dispute. As ANEL further did not participate | in the 2019 legislative elections, only respondents voting for | Syriza are coded as incumbent voters in IMD3002_OUTGOV. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | 20 respondents were coded as not applicable for the lower house | vote choice variable in MODULE 1, A2030. These respondents are | coded as missing here. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The March 2020 election was the third general election in Israel | in the space of 12 months. Previous elections in April 2019 and | September 2019 resulted in a hung parliament, where no new | coalition government could be formed. Consequently, from April | 9, 2019, Israel was governed by a caretaker coalition led by | Benjamin Netanyahu as caretaker Prime Minister, comprising the | following parties: Likud, Kulanu, Shas, United Torah Judaism, | Jewish Home, and the New Right. The outgoing government variable | for Israel classifies this caretaker government as the incumbent | administration for the 2020 contest. | Respondents who are classified as "9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY | (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED)" in variable IMD3002_LH_PL are coded as | "9999996. NOT ASCERTAINED/INCUMBENT CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT | CONTEST" in IMD3002_OUTGOV. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | In the 2018 lower house elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For those respondents reporting to have cast a | list vote and those who reported voting for both a party list | and a district candidate, IMD3002_OUTGOV was coded based on | IMD3002_LH_PL. For respondents who reported voting for a district | candidate only, IMD3002_OUTGOV was coded based on IMD3002_LH_DC. | Users are advised to consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES on | IMD3002_LH_PL and IMD3002_LH_DC for further details on the | Italian electoral system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | Because the 2013 Japanese election study in MODULE 4 referred to | the upper house elections, the incumbent variable was coded on | the basis of the lower house and the Abe government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The incumbent Mwai Kibaki (Party of National Unity, PNU) did not | contest in the 2013 Presidential elections because of term | limitations, which permitted him to run for a third term. Also | the PNU did not field a candidate of its own in 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KYRGYZSTAN (2005): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The Presidential office was held by the interim Kurmanbek | Bakiev, who had taken over the office three and a half months | prior to the election after then-President Akayev fled the | country because of protests. Hence, IMD3002_OUTGOV was coded as | "9999996. NOT ASCERTAINED/INCUMBENT CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT | CONTEST." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2018): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | After the 2014 Parliamentary elections in Latvia, a coalition was | formed by Unity, the Union of Greens and Farmers and the | National Alliance with Laimdota Straujuma from Unity as Prime | Minister. A year later, she resigned following increasing | tensions within the ruling coalition. The same coalition formed | a new government with Maris Kucinskis of the Union of Greens and | Farmers as the new Prime Minister. Even though it was a turbulent | term, the same coalition governed Latvia from 2014 to 2018, and | those who voted for one of these parties in the 2018 elections | are coded as voters of outgoing incumbents for the IMD3002_OUTGOV | variable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (1997): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The incumbent President Algirdas Brazauskas (Democratic Labour | Party of Lithuania, LDDP) did not contest for another term and | his party, the LDDP, did not field or support another candidate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2018): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | For Mexico 2018, respondents are coded as having voted for the | incumbent if they voted for Enrique Pena Nieto's party, the | Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), in the current | Presidential election. | Pena Nieto was elected as Mexican President to serve a six-year | term in the previous 2012 election. However, since all Mexican | Presidents are constitutionally limited to a single term, Pena | Nieto was not eligible for re-election. | For the 2018 Presidential election, PRI nominated Jose Antonio | Meade Kuribrena (LEADER C). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU 2000: IMD3002_OUTGOV | | For Peru (2000), IMD3002_OUTGOV is coded based on the incumbent | President Alberto Fujimori's electoral coalition "Peru 2000", | for which he contested the 2000 elections. Technically, At that | time, Fujimori was a member of the party Let's Go Neighbor (VV), | a member party of Peru 2000. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2001): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The party of the incumbent President, Alberto Fujimori, Cambio | 90 did not field a candidate in the 2001 Presidential elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2006): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The party of the incumbent President Alejandro Toledo (Possible | Peru) nominated Rafael Aubry for the 2006 elections. Three | months before the elections, however, Aubry withdrew his | candidacy. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The alliance Peru Wins, which had supported the incumbent, | Ollanta Humala, did not field a candidate in the 2016 elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2021): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | For Peru 2021, respondents are coded as having voted for the | incumbent if they voted for Francisco Sagasti's party, the | Purple Party (PM), in the current Presidential election. | However, Francisco Sagasti was not elected President of Peru in | the 2016 elections. While there were many changes in the | presidency, Sagasti finished the 2016-2021 term from November | 16, 2020, to July 28, 2021, which was started by Pedro Pablo | Kuczynski of the Peruvians for Change party on July 28, 2016. | Nevertheless, users should be aware that only 12 respondents | voted for the Purple Party (PM) in the current Presidential | election, so the meaningfulness is limited. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2004): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | IMD3002_OUTGOV is coded based on the party affiliation of | Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (LAKAS-CMD), the incumbent President at | the time of the 2004 Philippine Presidential election. Arroyo | originally got elected as the Vice President in the 1998 | Presidential election on a separate ticket, but became President | of the Philippines in 2001, after an impeachment of then | President Joseph Estrada. Arroyo ran for re-election in 2004 | and won the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The lower house election was chosen as the main election for | 1996 because the data for the Presidential election in MODULE 1 | refers to the second round. Hence, the incumbent party here was | the party of the then Prime Minister, Nicolae Vacaroiu (Romanian | Party of Social Democracy, PSD, which was known then as the Party | of Social Democracy in Romania, PDSR). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | While the incumbent President Basescu technically ran on a | Democrat Liberal Party (PDL) ticket in 2009, Romanian Presidents | cannot be legally a member of a party. According to the macro | report from MODULE 4, Basescu was also closer to the People's | Movement Party (PMP) during the second half of his term. Hence, | respondents were coded as "9999996. NOT ASCERTAINED/INCUMBENT | CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT CONTEST." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2016): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | In November 2015, Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta resigned | following protests sparked by a fire in a nightclub in Bucharest, | Romania, in which 64 people died. President Klaus Iohannis | appointed Dacias Ciolos as the new Prime Minister. Ciolos | proposed a technocratic cabinet, which was approved in the | Parliament, through votes from all major Romanian parties, | including the two biggest: Social Democrats (PSD) and | National Liberals (PNL). However, in all these parties, | including the two biggest, a number of legislators defied the | leadership to vote against the cabinet. | IMD3002_OUTGOV was coded as "9999996. NOT ASCERTAINED /INCUMBENT | CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT CONTEST." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The incumbent President, Boris Yeltsin (Independent), did not | stand for re-election in the 2000 Russian Presidential | elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2004): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | Vladimir Putin formally ran as an Independent candidate in | the previous Russian Presidential elections in 2000 and the | the 2004 election. Hence, he was identified as the | incumbent President. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2004): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | IMD3002_OUTGOV is coded based on the party affiliation of Goh Kun | (Millennium Democratic Party) the incumbent President at the time | of the 2004 South Korean legislative election held on April 15, | 2004. A month before the election, the National Assembly, South | Korea's unicameral parliament, voted in favor of an impeachment | of then-President Roh Moo-hyun (Our Party). However, South | Korea's Constitutional Court overturned the impeachment one month | after the election, such that Roh reassumed office in May 2004. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | The 2007 Thailand elections were the first after a military | junta had overthrown the previous government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): IMD3002_OUTGOV | | At the time of the election, Thailand's incumbent Prime Minister | was Prayut Chan-o-cha, leader of the State Power Party (PPRP). | As Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, Prayut headed a | coup d'etat in May 2014. Since the outset of the resulting | junta government, Prayut acted as Prime Minister. As Prayut | was not a popularly elected leader at the time of the 2019 | election, IMD3002_OUTGOV is coded "9999996. NOT ASCERTAINED / | INCUMBENT CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT CONTEST". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3002_VS_1 >>> VOTE CHOICE: VOTE SWITCHER BETWEEN CURRENT ELECTION AND PREVIOUS ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not the respondent reports voting for the same party/coalition in the current and previous main election. .................................................................. 0. DID NOT SWITCH (VOTED FOR SAME PARTY/COALITION IN CURRENT & PREVIOUS ELECTION) 1. SWITCHER (CHANGED VOTE IN CURRENT ELECTION FROM PREVIOUS ELECTION) 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3002_VS_1 | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | IMD3002_VS_1 ascertains whether or not the respondent reports | voting for the same party/coalition in the current and previous | election or whether the respondent reports voting for a different | party/ coalition in the current election from the previous | election. | | IMD3002_VS_1 is constructed based on the respondent's reported | vote choice in the current and previous main election. | In polities where multiple elections took place simultaneously, | IMD3002_VS_1 reports the vote switching behavior in the main | election. | | CSES classifies the main election based on the regime | (executive) type and the election in which the CSES survey has | been administered. For polities rated as parliamentary systems, | CSES classifies the main election as elections to the lower house | for most studies. It deviates for a few cases when elections to | the upper house constitutes the main election, usually due to the | respective CSES study focusing on the upper house contest. | For polities rated as Presidential systems, CSES conventionally | classifies the main election as the Presidential election. It | sometimes deviates when data for the Presidential election is | unavailable (e.g., when the CSES survey was administered in a | midterm election). For polities rated as mixed systems, CSES | has tended to classify the main election as elections to the | lower house. However, it sometimes deviates depending on data | availability. Users are advised to consult the table listed in | VARIABLE NOTES for IMD3002_OUTGOV specifying the main election | for each study in CSES for specific details. | | Respondents are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" when they | expressed vote choice for the same party/coalition in the current | and previous election. In instances when a coalition is | competing in the current or previous election, and the parties | that comprise that coalition are competing individually in the | previous/current election, respondents who report voting for | the coalition and/or one of the parties comprising the coalition | are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH." Details of these cases | are specified in ELECTION STUDY NOTES below. | | Respondents are classified as "1. SWITCHER" when their reported | vote in the current election differs from their reported vote | in the previous election. Further, respondents are classified as | "1. SWITCHER" when they report voting in one election (current | or previous) for a party/coalition that did not exist or | contest in the other (current or previous) election. | | Respondents are classified as "9. MISSING" when data about | their vote choice in the current and/or previous election is | unavailable, if they report that they don't know who they | voted for, or if they refused to answer the question. | Additionally, respondents who report voting for an independent | candidate or other parties without further specification are | classified as "9. MISSING." | In instances where current and previous vote choice refer to | different types of elections, e.g., a current main election is | Presidential, but previous vote choice refers to the lower | house election only, these studies are set to "9. MISSING". | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E3013_VS_1 | | Data are unavailable for all studies in CSES MODULE 1 as previous | vote choice was not asked. Data are also unavailable for AUSTRIA | (2008), BELARUS (2008), CANADA (2004), CHILE (2005, 2009), | FRANCE (2002, 2007), IRELAND (2007), JAPAN (2004, 2007, 2013), | KYRGYZSTAN (2005), MEXICO (2003, 2006, 2012, 2015, 2018), | PHILIPPINES (2016), PORTUGAL (2009), ROMANIA (2009), | RUSSIA (2004), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SOUTH KOREA (2004, 2008), | SPAIN (2008), and TAIWAN (2001, 2012, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ALBANIA (2005): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "008100. Union for Victory" | was a coalition that appeared in the previous election. This | coalition was comprised of the following parties: Democratic | Party of Albania, Liberal Democratic Union, Movement of Legality | Party, National Front, and Republican Party of Albania. | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | current election, and for Union for Victory in the previous | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "0320002. Let's Change | (Cam)" was a coalition that appeared in the current election. | This coalition was comprised of the following parties: Republican | Proposal (PRO), Radical Civic Union (UCR), and Civic Coalition | ARI (CC-ARI). Respondents who reported voting for one of these | parties in the previous election, and for Let's Change (Cam) in | the current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "0320003. United for a New | Alternative (UNA)" was a coalition that appeared in the current | election. This coalition was comprised of the following parties: | Popular Union (UP) and other smaller parties. Respondents who | reported voting for one of these parties in the previous | election, and for United for a New Alternative (UNA) in the | current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Numerical code "0400017. Communist Party of Austria and Platform | PLUS - Open List" was a joint party list between Communist Party | of Austria (KPO, numerical code: 0400006) and an independent | political youth organization, the Young Greens, formed for the | current lower house election. | Respondents who reported voting for the KPO in the previous | election, and for the joint list in the current election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): IMD3002_VS_1 | | In the current 2018 Presidential election, Social Liberal Party | (PSL, numerical code: 0760024) formed an alliance with | Brazilian Labor Renewal Party (PRTB, numerical code: 0760032). | Respondents who reported voting for the Brazilian Labor Renewal | Party in the previous election, and for the Social Liberal Party | in the current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "1000004. Reformist Bloc | (RB)" was a coalition that appeared in the current election. | This coalition was comprised of the following parties: United | Democratic Forces (UDF) and Bulgaria for Citizens Movement (BNG). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for Reformist Bloc (RB) in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): IMD3002_VS_1 | | In the current 2017 Presidential election, Independent Democratic | Union (UDI, numerical code: 1520002) formed a coalition with | National Renewal (RN, numerical code: 1520003), in support of | RN's Presidential candidate Sebastian Pinera. | Respondents who reported voting for the Independent Democratic | Union in the previous election, and for National Renewal in the | current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | | In the current 2017 Presidential election, Equality Party | (numerical code: 1520024) and the Green Ecologist Party | (numerical code: 1520025) formed an alliance "Broad Front" with | Democratic Revolution (RD, numerical code: 1520008). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for Democratic Revolution in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2002): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "2030087. Coalition KDU-CSL | and US-DEU" was a coalition that appeared in the current | election. This coalition was comprised of the following parties: | Christian Democratic Union - Czech People's Party (KDU-CSL), | Civic Democratic Alliance (ODA), Freedom Union - Democratic Union | (US-DEU), and Freedom Union (US). Respondents who reported voting | for one of these parties in the previous election, and for | Coalition KDU-CSL and US-DEU in the current election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2006): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "2030087. Coalition KDU-CSL | and US-DEU" was a coalition that appeared in the previous | election. This coalition was comprised of the following parties: | Christian Democratic Union - Czech People's Party (KDU-CSL), | Civic Democratic Alliance (ODA), Freedom Union - Democratic Union | (US-DEU), and Freedom Union (US). Respondents who reported voting | for one of these parties in the current election, and for the | Coalition KDU-CSL and US-DEU in the previous election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2021): IMD3002_VS_1 | | In the current 2021 parliamentary election, Civic Democratic | Party (ODS, numerical code: 2030002) formed an alliance with TOP | 09 (numerical code: 2030010) and Christian and Democratic Union- | Czechoslovak People's Party (KDU-CSL, numerical code: 2030003). | Respondents who reported voting for TOP 09 or KDU-CSL in the | previous election, and for the SPOLU alliance in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | In the current 2021 parliamentary election, The Czech Pirate | Party (Pi, numerical code: 2030012) formed an alliance with | Mayors and Independents (STAN, numerical code: 2030015). | Respondents who reported voting for STAN in the previous | election, and for the PirStan alliance in the current election | are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | In the current 2021 parliamentary election, Tricolour Citizen's | Movement (Trikolora) formed an alliance with Party of Free | Citizens (Svobodni, numerical code: 2030077). | Respondents who reported voting for Svobodni in the previous | election, and for the Trikolora-Svobodni-Soukromnici alliance in | the current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): IMD3002_VS_1 | | In the current 2017 Presidential election, Democratic Movement | (MoDem, numerical code: 2500003) supported The Republic Onwards' | candidate, Emmanuel Macron (numerical code: 2500017). | Respondents who reported voting for the Democratic Movement in | the previous election, and for The Republic Onwards in the | current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | | Jean-Luc Melenchon, the former head of the Left Party (PG) | competed for the newly founded Indomitable France (FI, numerical | code: 2500031) in the current 2017 Presidential election. | Respondents who reported voting for Indomitable France in the | current election and for Left Front (FG, numerical code: | 2500006), Melenchon's preceding platform, in the previous | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | After withdrawing their own candidate from the current 2017 | Presidential election, Europe Ecology - The Greens (EELV, | numerical code: 2500005) supported Benoit Hamon from the | Socialist Party (PS, numerical code: 2500002). | Respondents who reported voting for the Greens in the previous | election, and for the Socialist Party in the current election | are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015 Sep): IMD3002_VS_1 | | The Democratic Coalition (DISI, numerical code: 3000100) was an | electoral coalition that formed for the September 2015 lower | house election. This coalition was comprised of the following | parties: Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK, numerical code: | 3000001) and Democratic Left (DIMAR, numerical code: 3000012). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for the Democratic Coalition in the | current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2019): IMD3002_VS_1 | | The Democratic Coalition (DISI, numerical code: 3000100) was an | electoral alliance formed for the previous lower house election. | This coalition was composed of the Panhellenic Socialist Movement | (PASOK) and the Democratic Left (DIMAR). | Together with other smaller parties, PASOK and DIMAR merged into | Movement for Change (KINAL, numerical code: 3000008) in 2018. | Respondents who reported voting for the Democratic Coalition in | the previous election, and for KINAL in the current election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | However, researchers are advised that DIMAR left KINAL in early | 2019, affiliating to Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza, | numerical code: 3000003). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): IMD3002_VS_1 | | People Power - League of Social Democrats (PP - LSD, numerical | code: 3440100) was a joint list by People Power (numerical code: | 3440004) and League of Social Democrats (LSD, numerical code: | 3440007) for the current 2016 election. | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for the joint list in the current election | are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2002): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "3480012. MDF - FIDESZ - | MPP Joint Candidate" was a coalition that appeared in the | current election. This coalition was comprised of the following | parties: Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Party Alliance Party (Fidesz - | MPP), and Hungarian Democratic Forum (MDF). Respondents who | reported voting for one of these parties in the previous | election, and for MDF - FIDESZ - MPP Joint Candidate in the | current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Unity (numerical code: 3480101) was an electoral coalition that | formed for the previous lower house election. This coalition was | composed of the following parties: Hungarian Socialist Party | (MSZP) - Dialogue for Hungary (numerical code: 3480100), | Democratic Coalition (DK, numerical code: 3480015) and the | Hungarian Liberal Party (MLP). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | current election, and for Unity in the previous election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "3760011. Likud - The | Consolidation (L) - Yisrael Beiteinu (L - YB)" was a coalition | that appeared in the current election. This coalition was | comprised of the following parties: Likud - The Consolidation | (L) and Yisrael Beiteinu (YB). Respondents who reported voting | for one of these parties in the previous election, and for | Likud - The Consolidation (L) - Yisrael Beiteinu (L - YB) in | the current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Labor-Gesher-Meretz (numerical code: 3760105) was a joint | electoral list formed to run in the 2020 Israeli legislative | election. The list was composed of three parties: The Israeli | Labor Party, Gesher, and Meretz. Respondents who reported voting | for Labor-Gesher (numerical code: 3760107) or Democratic Union | (numerical code: 3760108) in the previous election, and for the | electoral list in the current election are classified as "0. DID | NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1 because Democratic Union (numerical | code: 3760108) included party Meretz in their electoral alliance | in 2019 that was part of the electoral list Labor-Gesher-Meretz | in the 2020 election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2006): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "3800038. The Olive | (Ulivo)" was a coalition that appeared in the current election. | This coalition was comprised of the following parties: Federation | of the Greens (FdV), Party of Italian Communists (PdCI), | Democrats of the Left (DS), Communist Refoundation Party (PRC), | Italy of Values (IdV), Daisy - Democracy is Freedom (DL), The | Socialists, and Pensioners' Party (PP). Respondents who reported | voting for one of these parties in the previous election, and for | The Olive (Ulivo) in the current election are classified as | "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): IMD3002_VS_1 | | In the 2018 Italian lower house election, voters could vote for | a party list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a | district candidate only. However, in the previous 2013 election, | Italy used a list vote system only, such that there is no data | on district candidate vote for the previous election. Therefore, | IMD3002_VS_1 is based on party-list votes only for Italy (2018). | | Us with Italy - Christian Democratic Union (NcI-UdC, numerical | code: 3800100) was an electoral alliance for the current 2018 | lower house election formed between Us with Italy (NcI) and Union | of the Centre (UdC, numerical code: 3800012). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for Us with Italy - Christian Democratic | Union in the current election are classified as "0. DID NOT | SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | Left Ecology Freedom (SEL, numerical code: 3800046) merged into | Italian Left (SI) before the current 2018 lower house election, | a member of the joint list Free and Equal (LeU, numerical code: | 3800010). | Respondents who reported voting for Left Ecology Freedom in the | previous election, and for Free and Equal in the current election | are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Before the Kenya 2013 election, Party of National Unity (PNU, | numerically coded 4040016) entered a tentative election pact | with The National Alliance (TNA, numerically coded 4040100), and | supported Uhuru Kenyatta's Presidential bid (Presidential | candidate of PNU). Thus, respondents who reported voting for | Party of National Unity (PNU) in the previous election, and for | The National Alliance (TNA) in the current election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "4280002. Unity (V)" is a | party which competed in the Latvian 2010 election. This party was | founded as a merger of the following parties: New Era (JL) and | Society for Different Politics (SCP). Respondents who reported | voting for one of these parties in the previous election, and for | Unity (V) in the current election are classified as "0. DID NOT | SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Before the current 2016 lower house election, Liberal and Centre | Union (LiCS, numerical code: 4400033) and Political Party "Yes" | (numerical code: 4400034) merged to form Lithuanian Freedom Union | (Liberals) (LLS, numerical code: 4400032). | Respondents who reported voting for LiCS or "Yes" in the previous | election and for the Lithuanian Freedom Union in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | Coalition of Anti-Corruption and Poverty (JL-LTS, numerical code: | 4400201) was an electoral alliance formed by Young Lithuania (JL, | numerical code: 4400007) and the Lithuanian Nationalist and | Republican Union (LTS). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for the Coalition of Anti-Corruption and | Poverty in the current election are classified as "0. DID NOT | SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2020): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Before the current 2020 lower house election, Order and Justice | (TT, numerical code: 4400025) and Lithuanian Freedom Union | (Liberals, LLS, numerical code: 4400032) merged to form Freedom | and Justice (LT, numerical code: 4400031). | Respondents who reported voting for TT or LLS in the previous | election and for Freedom and Justice in the current election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | Anti-Corruption Coalition (LCP-LPP, numerical code: 4400200) was | an electoral alliance formed by Lithuanian Centre Party - | Nationalists (CPT, numerical code: 4400024) and the Lithuanian | Pensioners' Party (LPP) for the previous 2016 Lithuanian | parliamentary election. | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | current election, and for the Anti-Corruption Coalition in the | previous election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "4990012. Democratic Front | (DF)" was a coalition that appeared in the current election. | This coalition was comprised of the following parties: New Serb | Democracy (NSD) and Movement for Changes (PZP). Respondents who | reported voting for one of these parties in the previous | election, and for Democratic Front (DF) in the current election | are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Key Coalition (numerical code: 4990100) was an electoral | coalition participating in the current 2016 lower house election. | This coalition consisted of the following parties: Democratic | Alliance (DEMOS, numerical code: 4990015), Socialist Peoples | Party of Montenegro (SNP, numerical code: 4990003) and United | Reform Action (URA, numerical code: 4990026). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for the Key Coalition in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | Albanians Decisively (FORCA-DUA-AA, numerical code: 4990101) was | an electoral coalition that formed for the current lower house | election. This coalition was composed of the following member | parties: New Democratic Power - Forca (numerical code: 4990038), | Democratic Union of Albanians (DUA, numerical code: 4990014), and | Albanian Alternative (AA, numerical code: 4990043). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for Albanians Decisively in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | Coalition "For a European Montenegro" (numerical code: 4990011) | was an electoral coalition formed for the previous lower house | election. This coalition was composed of the following parties: | Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro (DPS, numerical | code: 4990001), Social Democratic Party of Montenegro (SDP, | numerical code: 4990004) and the Liberal Party (LP). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | current election, and for "For a European Montenegro" in the | previous election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Presidential candidate of party/coalition, numerically coded as | "6040008. Possible Peru" was supported by the following parties: | We Are Peru (PDSP) and Popular Action (AP). Respondents who | reported voting for one of these parties in the previous | election, and for Possible Peru in the current election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6040050. Peru Wins (UPP)" | was a coalition comprised of the Peruvian Nationalist Party (PNP) | and other smaller parties. Respondents who reported voting for | Peruvian Nationalist Party (PNP) in the previous election, and | for Peru Wins (UPP) in the current election are classified as | "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6040051. Alliance for the | Great Change (APGC)" was a coalition comprised of the following | parties: Alliance for Progress (APP), National Restoration (RN) | and the Christian People's Party (PPC). Respondents who reported | voting for one of these parties in the previous election, and for | Alliance for the Great Change (APGC) in the current election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): IMD3002_VS_1 | | In the previous election, the Presidential candidate of the | coalition "6040008. Possible Peru" was supported by the following | parties: We Are Peru (PDSP) and Popular Action (AP). Respondents | who reported voting for one of these parties in the current | election, and for Possible Peru in the previous election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2001): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6160070. Coalition Of The | Alliance Of The Democratic Left - The Union of Labor (SLD-UP)" | was a coalition that appeared in the current election. This | coalition was comprised of the following parties: Labor Union | (UP), and Democratic Left Alliance (SLD). Respondents who | reported voting for one of these parties in the previous election | and for Coalition Of The Alliance Of The Democratic Left - The | Union of Labor (SLD-UP) in the current election are classified | as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6160081. Coalition | Electoral Solidarity" was a coalition that appeared in the | previous election. This coalition was comprised of the following | parties: Civic Platform (PO), Law and Justice (PiS), and | Christian National Union (ZChN). Respondents who reported voting | for one of these parties in the current election, and for | Coalition Electoral Solidarity in the previous election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6160070. Coalition Of The | Alliance Of The Democratic Left - The Union of Labor (SLD-UP)" | was a coalition that appeared in the previous election. This | coalition was comprised of the following parties: Labor Union | (UP), and Democratic Left Alliance (SLD). Respondents who | reported voting for one of these parties in the current election, | and for Coalition Of The Alliance Of The Democratic Left - The | Union of Labor (SLD-UP) in the previous election are classified | as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6160020. Left and | Democrats (LiD)" was a coalition that appeared in the current | election. This coalition was comprised of the following parties: | Labor Union (UP), Democratic Left Alliance (SLD), Democratic | Party (PD), and Social Democracy of Poland (SDPL). Respondents | who reported voting for one of these parties in the previous | election, and for Left and Democrats (LiD) in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6160020. Left and | Democrats (LiD)" was a coalition that appeared in the previous | election. This coalition was comprised of the following parties: | Labor Union (UP), Democratic Left Alliance (SLD), Democratic | Party (PD), and Social Democracy of Poland (SDPL). Respondents | who reported voting for one of these parties in the current | election, and for Left and Democrats (LiD) in the previous | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2019): IMD3002_VS_1 | | In the current 2019 parliamentary election, several parties | formed alliances which were taken into account when coding | IMD3002_VS_1. | | Civic Platform (PO, numerical code: 6160001) formed an alliance | with Modern (Nowo, numerical code: 6160022). Respondents who | reported voting for Modern (Nowo) in the previous election, and | for Civic Platform (PO) in the current election are classified as | "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | The Polish People's Party (PSL, numerical code: 6160003) formed | an alliance with Kukiz'15 (numerical code: 6160025). Respondents | who reported voting for Kukiz'15 in the previous election, and | for the Polish People's Party in the current election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH". | | The Democratic Left Alliance (SLD, numerical code: 6160009) | formed an alliance with Left Together (numerical code: 6160021) | and Spring (Wiosna, numerical code: 6160033). Respondents who | reported voting for either Left Together or Spring (Wiosna) in | the previous election, and for the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) | in the current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH". | | The Confederation Liberty and Independence Party (Konfederacia, | numerical code: 6160127) formed an alliance with New Hope | (KORWiN, numerical code: 6160023). Respondents who reported | voting for New Hope (KORWiN) in the previous election, and for | the Confederation Liberty and Independence Party in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6200011. Portugal Ahead | (PSD - CDS-PP)" was a coalition that appeared in the current | election. This coalition was comprised of the following parties: | Social Democratic Party (PSD), Democratic and Social Centre - | People's Party (CDS-PP). Respondents who reported voting for one | of these parties in the previous election, and for Portugal | Ahead (PSD - CDS-PP) in the current election are classified as | "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2004): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6420026. Justice and Truth | Alliance (DA)" was comprised of the following parties: National | Liberal Party (PNL) and Democratic Party (PD). Respondents who | reported voting for one of these parties in the previous | election, and for Justice and Truth Alliance (DA) in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6420041. National Alliance | PSD+PUR (PSD - PUR)" was comprised of the following parties: | Romanian Party of Social Democracy (PSD) and Romanian Humanist | Party (PUR). Respondents who reported voting for one of these | parties in the previous election, and for National Alliance | PSD+PUR (PSD - PUR) in the current election are classified as | "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6420011. Social Liberal | Union (USL)" was comprised of the following parties/alliances: | Social Democratic Party - Conservative Party (PSD - PC), | National Liberal Party (PNL), Conservative Party (PC), National | Union for the Progress of Romania (UNPR). Respondents who | reported voting for one of these parties/alliances in the | previous election, and for Social Liberal Union (USL) in the | current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6420200. Alliance for a | Just Romania (ARD)" was comprised of the Democratic Liberal | Party (P-DL) and other smaller parties. Respondents who reported | voting for Democratic Liberal Party (P-DL) in the previous | election, and for Alliance for a Just Romania (ARD) in the | current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6420101. PSD-UNPR-PC | Electoral Alliance (PSD - UNPR - PC)" was comprised of the | following parties/alliances: Social Democratic Party - | Conservative Party (PSD - PC) and National Union for the | Progress of Romania (UNPR). Respondents who reported voting for | one of these parties/alliances in the previous election, and for | PSD-UNPR-PC Electoral Alliance (PSD - UNPR - PC) in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "6420102. Christian-Liberal | Alliance (ACL)" was comprised of the following parties: National | Liberal Party (PNL) and Democratic Liberal Party (P-DL). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for Christian-Liberal Alliance (ACL) in | the current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2016): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Social Liberal Union (numerical code: 6420011) was an electoral | alliance of the Social Democratic Party (PSD, numerical code: | 6420001), the National Liberal Party (PNL, numerical code: | 6420005), the National Union for Romania's Progress Party (UNPR, | numerical code: 6420012) and the Conservative Party (PC). This | coalition contested in the Romanian 2012 elections (previous | elections). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | current election, and for the Social Liberal Union in the | previous election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | Users are advised that Romania changed its electoral system. | Whilst previous vote choice was based on the district candidate | vote, current vote choice is based on the party list vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Hungarian Community Togetherness (numerical code: 7030101) was an | electoral coalition participating in the current 2020 lower house | election. This coalition consisted of the following parties: | Party of the Hungarian Community (SMK-MKP, numerical code: | 7030034), Hungarian Forum (MF), and Osszefogas-Spolupatricnost. | Respondents who reported voting for SMK-MKP in the previous | election, and for Hungarian Community Togetherness in the | current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Before the current 2016 lower house election, Democratic United | Party (DUP, numerical code: 4100004) and the New Political Vision | Party (NPVP) merged to form the Democratic Party of Korea (DP, | numerical code: 4100008). | Respondents who reported voting for the DUP in the previous | election and for the DP in the current election are classified | as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): IMD3002_VS_1 | | Party/coalition, numerically coded as "7640014. People's Power | Party (PPP)" had most MPs coming from the Thai Rak Thai Party. | Thus, the People's Power Party (PPP) was seen as the de facto | reincarnation of Thai Rak Thai Party, with former prime | minister Thaksin Shinawatra as its leader. Thus, respondents | who reported voting for the Thai Rak Thai Party in previous | election, and for People's Power Party (PPP) in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for IMD3002_VS_1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3002_LR_CSES >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE FOR LEFTIST/CENTER/RIGHTIST - CSES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not the respondent reports voting for a leftist/center/ rightist party/candidate of the party, based on CSES Collaborators experts' judgment of parties' ideology. .................................................................. 1. VOTED FOR LEFTIST PARTY/CANDIDATE 2. VOTED FOR CENTER PARTY/CANDIDATE 3. VOTED FOR RIGHTIST PARTY/CANDIDATE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3002_LR_CSES | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | IMD3002_LR_CSES details whether or not the respondent reports | voting for a leftist/center/rightist party/candidate of the | party. The classification is based on CSES Collaborators experts' | judgment of parties' ideology and the respondents' reported vote | choice. | | IMD3002_LR_CSES is available for voters who reported voting for a | party where expert judgments are available (i.e., for parties | receiving an alphabetical classification by CSES). For more | details on which parties/coalitions receive alphabetical | classification, see "CSES IMD ALPHABETICAL PARTY/COALITION | CODING - RELATIONAL DATA" in CSES IMD Codebook Part 2. | | IMD3002_LR_CSES differentiates voters based on expert judgments | of the CSES Collaborators on the left-right ideology scale. | Collaborators assign parties scores on an 11-point scale ranging | from "0. LEFT" to "10. RIGHT" for all parties assigned an | alphabetical code by CSES. The expert judgment data by party | is available in variable IMD5012_. | | The coding of IMD3002_LR_CSES is based on IMD3100_LR_CSES. | For IMD3100_LR_CSES, CSES linked the CSES Collaborator expert | judgment with the reported vote choice of the respondent in the | main election. A respondent who reports voting for a party/ | candidate of PARTY A is assigned the value the CSES Collaborator | gave to PARTY A in the said election on the left-right scale | (and so on for PARTY B, PARTY C etc...). CSES reports these | values in variable IMD3100_LR_CSES. | | These scores provided in IMD3100_LR_CSES have then been | re-classified for IMD3002_LR_CSES to establish whether a | respondent voted for a leftist, center or rightist party/ | candidate. Scores assigned by collaborators are recoded into a | trichotomy as follows: | | IMD3002_LR_CSES CSES Collaborators Rating |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 0 - 3 | 02. 4 - 6 | 03. 6 - 10 | | In polities where multiple elections took place simultaneously, | this variable reports the vote choice in the main election. | | CSES classifies the main election based on the regime | (executive) type and the election in which the CSES survey has | been administered. For polities rated as parliamentary systems, | CSES classifies the main election as elections to the lower house | for most studies. It deviates for a few cases when elections to | the upper house constitutes the main election, usually due to the | respective CSES study focusing on the upper house contest. | For polities rated as Presidential systems, CSES conventionally | classifies the main election as the Presidential election. It | sometimes deviates when data for the Presidential election is | unavailable (e.g., when the CSES survey was administered in a | midterm election). For polities rated as mixed systems, CSES | has tended to classify the main election as elections to the | lower house. However, it sometimes deviates depending on data | availability. Users are advised to consult the table listed in | VARIABLE NOTES for IMD3002_OUTGOV specifying the main election | for each study in CSES for specific details. | | In this variable, the original L-R classifications assigned by | CSES Collaborators (available in IMD3100_LR_CSES and IMD5012) are | transformed into a three-category variable. Meanwhile, the L-R | classifications assigned by MARPOR/CMP in IMD3002_LR_MARPOR (and | originally available in IMD3100_MARPOR) are transformed into a | dichotomous variable. Consequently, users are advised that this | results in some parties/coalitions falling into different | categorizations on IMD3002_LR_CSES and IMD3002_LR_MARPOR. | | CSES and MARPOR/CMP have different scopes of parties/coalitions | in elections and thus corresponding values assigned to | parties/coalitions by CSES collaborators may be unavailable in | MARPOR/CMP and vice versa. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E3002_LR_CSES | | Data are unavailable primarily because collaborator expert | judgments of parties were not provided for certain election | studies. Missing data for BELARUS (2001, 2008) and RUSSIA | (2000, 2004) is due to most respondents reporting voting for | independent candidates in the said elections, for which no | expert judgments are available. | | Data are unavailable for BELGIUM-WALONIA (1999), BELARUS | (2001, 2008), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), LITHUANIA (1997), NORWAY | (1997), PERU (2001), PHILIPPINES (2004), RUSSIA (2000, 2004), | SPAIN (2000), TAIWAN (2012), and THAILAND (2001). | POLITY NOTES - BELARUS: IMD3002_LR_CSES | | Presidential candidates in Belarus 2001 and 2008 elections | competed under the independent banner. Thus, no straight | connections can be made between parties and Presidential | candidates. Since collaborators provided left-right scores for | parties, but Presidential elections are the main election, the | two Belarus studies (2001 and 2008) have been set to missing. | POLITY NOTES - RUSSIA: IMD3002_LR_CSES | | Presidential candidates in the Russian 2001 and 2004 elections | competed under the independent banner. Thus, no straight | connections can be made between parties and Presidential | candidates. Since collaborators provided left-right scores for | parties, but Presidential elections are the main election, the | two Russian studies (2000 and 2004) have been set to missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): IMD3002_LR_CSES | | Expert data on left-right is available for only four parties. | Two of these four are classified as left (Labor and Greens) and | the remaining two are classified as right (Liberal Party and | National Party). Thus, no middle category (center) appears in | the Australia (2007) study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): IMD3002_LR_CSES | | Most of the A-I parties have been scored by German collaborators | from "4" to "6" on the left-right scale. This leads to a somewhat | different distribution for IMD3002_LR_CSES for Germany (2009) | compared to other German studies in the CSES IMD. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KYRGYZSTAN (2005): IMD3002_LR_CSES | | Presidential candidates in Kyrgyzstan are competing under the | independent banner. Thus, no straight connections can be made | between parties and Presidential candidates. Since collaborators | provided left-right scores for parties, but Presidential | elections are the main election, the Kyrgyzstan (2005) study has | been set to missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): IMD3002_LR_CSES | | Most of the A-I parties have been scored by New Zealand | collaborators from "4" to "6" on the left-right scale. This leads | to a somewhat different distribution for IMD3002_LR_CSES for New | Zealand (2008) compared to other New Zealand studies in the CSES | IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3002_LR_MARPOR >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE FOR LEFTIST/RIGHTIST (RILE) - MARPOR/CMP --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not the respondent reports voting for a leftist or rightist party or candidate of the party, based on MARPOR's "RILE" index value. .................................................................. 0. VOTED FOR LEFTIST PARTY/CANDIDATE 1. VOTED FOR RIGHTIST PARTY/CANDIDATE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3002_LR_MARPOR | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | IMD3002_LR_MARPOR details whether or not the respondent reports | voting for a leftist or rightist party or candidate of the party. | The classification is based on MARPOR's "RILE" index value | assigned to the party based on the manifesto the party contested | the election on and the respondents' reported vote choice. | | IMD3002_LR_MARPOR is available for voters who reported voting for | a party receiving an alphabetical classification by CSES, and for | which MARPOR "rile" index data is available. For more | details on which parties/coalitions receive alphabetical | classification see "CSES IMD ALPHABETICAL PARTY/COALITION | CODING - RELATIONAL DATA" in CSES IMD Codebook Part 2. | | IMD3002_LR_MARPOR differentiates voters who voted for a leftist/ | rightist party/candidate of a party, based on the Manifesto | Research on Political Representation (MARPOR/CMP) data. | The variable is based on the "RILE" index. The index was | developed by Laver and Budge (1992). It takes 24 categories (12 | are defined as right-wing and 12 as left-wing) and subtracts the | sum of all right-wing items from the sum of all left-wing items. | The RILE index ranges from -100 (if a party only mentions left- | wing issues in its program) and +100 (if a party only mentions | right-wing issues in its program). However, these are the | theoretical maximum and minimum values, which are empirically | rare. | | More information about MARPOR/CMP data and the RILE index can | be found at https://manifestoproject.wzb.eu/ | (Date accessed: October 09, 2020). | | The coding of IMD3002_LR_MARPOR is based on IMD3100_LR_MARPOR. | For IMD3100_LR_MARPOR, CSES linked the MARPOR/CMP data with the | reported vote choice of the respondent in the main election. | A respondent who reports voting for a party/candidate of PARTY A | is assigned the value the MARPOR/CMP RILE index gives to PARTY A | in the said election (and so on for PARTY B, PARTY C etc...). | CSES reports these values in variable IMD3100_LR_MARPOR. | | These scores provided in IMD3100_LR_MARPOR have then been | re-classified for IMD3002_LR_MARPOR to establish whether a | respondent voted for a leftist/rightist party/candidate. Scores | assigned by collaborators are recoded into a dichotomy as | follows: | | IMD3002_LR_MARPOR MARPOR RILE index |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. -100 - -0.01 | 01. 0.01 - 100.0 | | When a party scores 0.00 on the RILE index, that usually means | that there is not enough data on the dimensions available to | construct a reliable RILE estimate. These cases have been set to | "9. MISSING". | | In polities where multiple elections took place simultaneously, | IMD3002_LR_MARPOR reports the vote choice in the main election. | | CSES classifies the main election based on the regime | (executive) type and the election in which the CSES survey has | been administered. For polities rated as parliamentary systems, | CSES classifies the main election as elections to the lower house | for most studies. It deviates for a few cases when elections to | the upper house constitutes the main election, usually due to the | respective CSES study focusing on the upper house contest. | For polities rated as Presidential systems, CSES conventionally | classifies the main election as the Presidential election. It | sometimes deviates when data for the Presidential election is | unavailable (e.g., when the CSES survey was administered in a | midterm election). For polities rated as mixed systems, CSES | has tended to classify the main election as elections to the | lower house. However, it sometimes deviates depending on data | availability. Users are advised to consult the table listed in | VARIABLE NOTES for IMD3002_OUTGOV specifying the main election | for each study in CSES for specific details. | | CSES and MARPOR/CMP have different scopes of parties/coalitions | in elections and thus corresponding values assigned to | parties/coalitions by CSES collaborators may be unavailable in | MARPOR/CMP and vice versa. | In this variable, the L-R classifications assigned by MARPOR/CMP | (originally available in IMD3100_MARPOR) are transformed into a | dichotomous variable. | Meanwhile, the L-R classifications assigned by CSES Collaborators | (available in IMD3002_LR_CSES and originally in IMD3100_LR_CSES | and IMD5012, respectively) are transformed into a three-category | variable. Consequently, users are advised that this results in | some parties/coalitions falling into different categorizations | on IMD3002_LR_CSES and IMD3002_LR_MARPOR. | | Users are advised that CSES and MARPOR/CMP sometimes classify | coalitions differently in elections and across polities. For | example, CSES sometimes has data solely on coalitions and not | the parties comprising the alliance, while MARPOR/CMP may have | data concerning the individual parties in the coalition, or | vice versa. Consequently, some parties may have multiple | identifiers within the MARPOR/CMP dataset across time. A non | comprehensive list of these deviations is noted in Part 5 of the | CSES IMD Codebook in POLITY NOTES. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E3002_LR_MARPOR | | Data are unavailable primarily because some polities, which are | in the CSES, are not represented in the MARPOR/CMP dataset. | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2019), | BRAZIL (2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018), CANADA (2019), CHILE | (1999, 2005, 2009, 2017), COSTA RICA (2018), FRANCE (2017), | HONG KONG (1998, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016), ISRAEL (2020), | KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), PERU (2000, 2001, 2006, 2011, | 2016), PHILIPPINES (2004, 2010, 2016), SLOVAKIA (2020), TAIWAN | (1996, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020), THAILAND (2001, 2007, | 2011, 2019), TUNISIA (2019) and URUGUAY (2009, 2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3002_IF_CSES >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE BY IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY CLASSIFICATION - CSES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondents' reported vote choice by the ideological family of the party/candidate of the party, based on CSES Collaborators experts' classifications. .................................................................. 01. VOTED FOR A SOCIALIST PARTY 02. VOTED FOR AN ECOLOGY PARTY 03. VOTED FOR A SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY 04. VOTED FOR A LIBERAL PARTY 05. VOTED FOR A CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT PARTY 06. VOTED FOR A CONSERVATIVE PARTY 07. VOTED FOR A NATIONAL PARTY 10. VOTED FOR A PARTY OF OTHER CLASSIFICATION 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. NO IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY MENTIONED 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3002_IF_CSES | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | IMD3002_IF_CSES details respondents' reported vote choice by the | ideological family of the party/candidate of the party. | The classification is based on CSES Collaborators experts' | judgments of the party's ideological family and the respondents' | reported vote choice. | | IMD3002_IF_CSES is available for voters who reported voting for | a party where expert judgments are available (i.e., for parties | receiving an alphabetical classification by CSES). For more | details on which parties/coalitions receive alphabetical | classification see "CSES IMD ALPHABETICAL PARTY/COALITION | CODING - RELATIONAL DATA" in CSES IMD Codebook Part 2. | | IMD3002_IF_CSES differentiates voters based on the expert | judgment of the CSES Collaborators on the ideological family | classification. The expert judgment data by party is available | in variable IMD5011_. | | The coding of IMD3002_IF_CSES is based on IMD3100_IF_CSES. | For IMD3100_IF_CSES, CSES linked the CSES Collaborator expert | judgment with the reported vote choice of the respondent in the | main election. A respondent who reports voting for a party/ | candidate of PARTY A is assigned the value the CSES Collaborator | gave to PARTY A in the said election on the ideological family | classification (and so on for PARTY B, PARTY C etc...). | CSES reports these values in variable IMD3100_IF_CSES. | | These classifications provided in IMD3100_IF_CSES have then been | re-classified for IMD3002_IF_CSES to establish an ideological | family a respondent voted for. Scores assigned by collaborators | are recoded as follows: | | IMD3002_IF_CSES CSES Collaborators score |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Socialist parties | 02. Ecology parties | 03. Social Democratic parties | 04. Left Liberal parties | Liberal parties | Right Liberal parties | 05. Christian Democratic parties | 06. Conservative parties | 07. National parties | 10. Communist parties | Agrarian parties | Ethnic parties | Regional parties | Independent parties | Religious parties | Single-Issue parties | Social-Liberal parties | Extreme Left parties | Monarchist parties | Extreme Nationalist parties | Nationalist Left parties | Extreme Right parties | Centrist parties | Communist-Green parties | Orthodox-Calvinist parties | Other | | In polities where multiple elections took place simultaneously, | this variable reports the vote choice in the main election. | | CSES classifies the main election based on the regime | (executive) type and the election in which the CSES survey has | been administered. For polities rated as parliamentary systems, | CSES classifies the main election as elections to the lower house | for most studies. It deviates for a few cases when elections to | the upper house constitutes the main election, usually due to the | respective CSES study focusing on the upper house contest. | For polities rated as Presidential systems, CSES conventionally | classifies the main election as the Presidential election. It | sometimes deviates when data for the Presidential election is | unavailable (e.g., when the CSES survey was administered in a | midterm election). For polities rated as mixed systems, CSES | has tended to classify the main election as elections to the | lower house. However, it sometimes deviates depending on data | availability. Users are advised to consult the table listed in | VARIABLE NOTES for IMD3002_OUTGOV specifying the main election | for each study in CSES for specific details. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E3002_IF_CSES | | Data are unavailable primarily because collaborator expert | judgments of parties were not provided for certain election | studies. | | Data are unavailable for KYRGYZSTAN (2005), TAIWAN (2012), and | THAILAND (2001, 2007). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3003_PR_1 >>> TURNOUT: PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 1 IMD3003_PR_2 >>> TURNOUT: PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the first/second round of the PREVIOUS Presidential elections. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 9999993. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS [IF APPLICABLE] 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS/ NO SECOND ROUND 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3003_PR_ | | E3014_PR_ ascertain whether or not the respondent cast a ballot | in the first/second round of the PREVIOUS Presidential elections, | regardless of whether or not it was valid. | | +++ TABLE: SUMMARY OF TYPE OF PREVIOUS ELECTION | AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD | | Presidential | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election | ----------------------------------------------------------- | ARGENTINA (2015) 2011 | BELARUS (2008) 2006 | BRAZIL (2002) 1998 | BRAZIL (2006) 2002 | BRAZIL (2010) 2006 | BRAZIL (2014) 2010 | BRAZIL (2018) 2014 | CHILE (2005) 1999 | CHILE (2009) 2006 | CHILE (2017) 2013 | COSTA RICA (2018) 2014 | CROATIA (2007) 2005 | EL SALVADOR (2019) 2014 | FRANCE (2002) 1995 | FRANCE (2007) 2007* | FRANCE (2012) 2007 | FRANCE (2017) 2012 | ISRAEL (2003) 2001* | KENYA (2013) 2007 | KYRGYZSTAN (2005) 2000 | MEXICO (2009) 2006 | MEXICO (2015) 2012 | MEXICO (2018) 2012 | PERU (2006) 2001 | PERU (2011) 2006 | PERU (2016) 2011 | PERU (2021) 2016 | PHILIPPINES (2004) 1998 | PHILIPPINES (2010) 2004 | POLAND (2007) 2005 | ROMANIA (2004) 2000 | ROMANIA (2014) 2009 | RUSSIA (2004) 2000 | SOUTH KOREA (2008) 2007 | SOUTH KOREA (2016) 2012 | TAIWAN (2004) 2000 | TAIWAN (2020) 2016 | TURKEY (2018) 2014 | UNITED STATES (2004) 2000 | UNITED STATES (2008) 2004 | UNITED STATES (2016) 2012 | UNITED STATES (2020) 2016 | URUGUAY (2009) 2004 | URUGUAY (2019) 2014 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: * = See election study notes below | | Inconsistency response category from CSES MODULE 2 coded as | "4. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported not casting a ballot but | reported a vote choice" was coded as "0. RESPONDENT DID NOT | CAST A BALLOT" in IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B3016 | MODULE 3: C3031 | MODULE 4: D3007_PR_1 (IMD3003_PR_1) & D3007_PR_2 (IMD3003_PR_2) | MODULE 5: E3014_PR_1 (IMD3003_PR_1) & E3014_PR_2 (IMD3003_PR_2) | | Data are unavailable for MODULE 1. | | For IMD3003_PR_1, data is also unavailable for MEXICO (2012), | PHILIPPINES (2016), RUSSIA (2004), SERBIA (2012), TAIWAN | (2008, 2012, 2016) and TUNISIA (2019). | | For IMD3003_PR_2, data is unavailable for BRAZIL (2006, 2010), | CHILE (2005), COSTA RICA (2018), CROATIA (2007), EL SALVADOR | (2019), FRANCE (2007), MEXICO (2018), PERU (2006, 2011, 2021), | POLAND (2007), ROMANIA (2004), SERBIA (2012), TAIWAN (2008) and | TUNISIA (2019). | [POLITY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND: IMD3003_PR_ | | There is a role in Switzerland known as President of the Federal | Council, with the title assigned to one of the seven members | of the Federal Council of Switzerland, which is elected by the | Federal Assembly (composed of the Council of States and National | Council) for a four-year term. Conventionally, the role of | President of the Council rotates among members, depending on | members' seniority. The President of the Federal Council has no | power above the other six members of the Council, and the role is | largely ceremonial. The President of the Federal Council is | not considered the Head of State - instead, the Federal Council | is classified as not only the Head of State but also the Head | of Government. Consequently, this variable is coded | "9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): IMD3003_PR_1 | | This variable refers to the 2007 French Presidential Elections | which took place on April 22 (First round) and May 6 (Second | round) 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2003): IMD3003_PR_1 | | This variable refers to the 2001 Israeli Prime Minister | election. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - TAIWAN (2004): IMD3003_PR_1 | | Two categories in previous vote choice variable for Taiwan | (2004) study did not match the IMD categories and was re-coded | for IMD in the following way: | | CSES IMD code CSES MODULE 2 code |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 9999993. 06. Disqualified at that time | 9999998. 08. Can't remember --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3003_LH >>> TURNOUT: PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the PREVIOUS lower house elections. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 9999993. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS [IF APPLICABLE] 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3003_LH | | IMD3003_LH ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot | in the PREVIOUS lower house elections, regardless of whether or | not it was valid. | | +++ TABLE: SUMMARY OF TYPE OF PREVIOUS ELECTION | AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD | | Lower House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election | ----------------------------------------------------------- | ALBANIA (2005) 2001 | ALBANIA (2017) 2013 | AUSTRALIA (2004) 2001 | AUSTRALIA (2013) 2010 | AUSTRALIA (2019) 2016 | AUSTRIA (2013) 2008 | AUSTRIA (2017) 2013 | BELARUS (2008) 2004 | BELGIUM (2003) 1999 | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) 2014 | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) 2014 | BRAZIL (2006) 2002 | BRAZIL (2010) 2006 | BRAZIL (2014) 2010 | BRAZIL (2018) 2014 | BULGARIA (2001) 1997 | BULGARIA (2014) 2013 | CANADA (2004) 2000 | CANADA (2008) 2006 | CANADA (2011) 2008 | CANADA (2015) 2011 | CANADA (2019) 2015 | CROATIA (2007) 2003 | CZECH R./CZECHIA (2002) 1998 | CZECH R./CZECHIA (2006) 2002 | CZECH R./CZECHIA (2010) 2006 | CZECH R./CZECHIA (2013) 2010 | CZECH R./CZECHIA (2017) 2013 | CZECH R./CZECHIA (2021) 2017 | DENMARK (2007) 2005 | DENMARK (2019) 2015 | EL SALVADOR (2019) 2018 | ESTONIA (2011) 2007 | FINLAND (2003) 1999 | FINLAND (2007) 2003 | FINLAND (2011) 2007 | FINLAND (2015) 2011 | FINLAND (2019) 2015 | GERMANY (2002 Telephone) 1998 | GERMANY (2002 Mail-Back) 1998 | GERMANY (2005) 2002 | GERMANY (2009) 2005 | GERMANY (2013) 2009 | GERMANY (2017) 2013 | GERMANY (2021) 2017 | GREAT BRITAIN (2005) 2001 | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) 2010 | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) 2015 | GREAT BRITAIN (2019) 2017 | GREECE (2009) 2007 | GREECE (2012) 2012 | GREECE (2015 Jan) 2012 | GREECE (2015 Sep) 2015 Jan | GREECE (2019) 2015 Sep | HONG KONG (2004) 2000 | HONG KONG (2008) 2004 | HONG KONG (2012) 2008 | HONG KONG (2016) 2012 | HUNGARY (2002) 1998 | HUNGARY (2018) 2014 | ICELAND (2003) 1999 | ICELAND (2007) 2003 | ICELAND (2009) 2007 | ICELAND (2013) 2009 | ICELAND (2016) 2013 | ICELAND (2017) 2016 | INDIA (2019) 2014 | IRELAND (2002) 1997 | IRELAND (2007) 2002 | IRELAND (2011) 2007 | IRELAND (2016) 2011 | ISRAEL (2003) 1999 | ISRAEL (2006) 2003 | ISRAEL (2013) 2013 | ISRAEL (2020) 2019 | ITALY (2018) 2013 | JAPAN (2004) 2003 | JAPAN (2007) 2005 | JAPAN (2013) 2012 | JAPAN (2017) 2014 | LATVIA (2010) 2006 | LATVIA (2011) 2010 | LATVIA (2014) 2011 | LATVIA (2018) 2014 | LITHUANIA (2016) 2012 | LITHUANIA (2020) 2016 | MEXICO (2003) 2000 | MEXICO (2012) 2009 | MEXICO (2015) 2012 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 2009 | MONTENEGRO (2016) 2012 | NETHERLANDS (2002) 1998 | NETHERLANDS (2006) 2003 | NETHERLANDS (2010) 2006 | NETHERLANDS (2017) 2012 | NETHERLANDS (2021) 2017 | NEW ZEALAND (2002) 1999 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 2005 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 2008 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 2011 | NEW ZEALAND (2017) 2014 | NEW ZEALAND (2020) 2017 | NORWAY (2001) 1997 | NORWAY (2005) 2001 | NORWAY (2009) 2005 | NORWAY (2013) 2009 | NORWAY (2017) 2013 | PHILIPPINES (2004) 1998 | PHILIPPINES (2016) 2013 | PERU (2021) 2016 | POLAND (2001) 1997 | POLAND (2005) 2001 | POLAND (2007) 2005 | POLAND (2011) 2007 | POLAND (2019) 2015 | PORTUGAL (2002) 1999 | PORTUGAL (2005) 2002 | PORTUGAL (2015) 2011 | PORTUGAL (2019) 2015 | ROMANIA (2004) 2000 | ROMANIA (2009) 2008 | ROMANIA (2012) 2008 | ROMANIA (2016) 2012 | SERBIA (2012) 2008 | SLOVAKIA (2010) 2006 | SLOVAKIA (2016) 2012 | SLOVAKIA (2020) 2016 | SLOVENIA (2004) 2000 | SLOVENIA (2008) 2004 | SLOVENIA (2011) 2008 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 2009 | SOUTH KOREA (2004) 2000 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 2008 | SOUTH KOREA (2016) 2012 | SPAIN (2004) 2000 | SWEDEN (2002) 1998 | SWEDEN (2006) 2002 | SWEDEN (2014) 2010 | SWEDEN (2018) 2014 | SWITZERLAND (2003) 1999 | SWITZERLAND (2007) 2003 | SWITZERLAND (2011) 2007 | SWITZERLAND (2019) 2015 | TAIWAN (2001) 1998 | TAIWAN (2012) 2008 | TAIWAN (2016) 2012 | TAIWAN (2020) 2016 | THAILAND (2007) 2005 | THAILAND (2011) 2007 | THAILAND (2019) 2011 | TUNISIA (2019) 2014 | TURKEY (2011) 2007 | TURKEY (2015) 2011 | TURKEY (2018) 2015 Nov | UNITED STATES (2004) 2000 | URUGUAY (2009) 2004 | URUGUAY (2019) 2014 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | | Inconsistency response category from CSES MODULE 2 coded as | "4. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported not casting a ballot but | reported a vote choice" was coded as "0. RESPONDENT DID NOT | CAST A BALLOT" in IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B3016 | MODULE 3: C3031 | MODULE 4: D3007_LH | MODULE 5: E3014_LH | | Data are unavailable for MODULE 1 and for ARGENTINA (2015), | AUSTRIA (2008), CHILE (2017), COSTA RICA (2018), ITALY (2006), | KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), MEXICO (2015, 2018), PERU | (2016), PORTUGAL (2009), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SPAIN (2008), and | UNITED STATES (2008, 2012, 2016, 2020). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - CSES MODULE 2: IMD3003_LH | | In five studies from CSES MODULE 2 (Belgium 2003; Hong Kong 2004 | Poland 2001; Portugal 2002 and 2005) the code "6" referred to | "Not registered on Electoral lists" was re-coded into "9999993. | RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON THE ELECTORAL LISTS" in the IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3003_UH >>> TURNOUT: PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the PREVIOUS upper house elections. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 9999993. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS [IF APPLICABLE] 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3003_UH | | IMD3003_UH ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot | in the PREVIOUS upper house elections, regardless of whether or | not it was valid. | | +++ TABLE: SUMMARY OF TYPE OF PREVIOUS ELECTION | AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD | | Upper House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election | ------------------------------------------------------------- | BRAZIL (2002) 1998 | BRAZIL (2010) 2006 | BRAZIL (2014) 2010 | BRAZIL (2018) 2014 | JAPAN (2007) 2005 | MEXICO (2009) 2006 | POLAND (2001) 1997 | POLAND (2019) 2015 | ROMANIA (2004) 2000 | ROMANIA (2012) 2008 | URUGUAY (2009) 2004 | URUGUAY (2019) 2014 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: * = See election study notes below | | Inconsistency response category from CSES MODULE 2 coded as | "4. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported not casting a ballot but | reported a vote choice" was coded as "0. RESPONDENT DID NOT | CAST A BALLOT" in IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B3016 | MODULE 3: C3031 | MODULE 4: D3007_UH | MODULE 5: E3014_UH | | Data for IMD3003_UH are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1 and for | ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2013, 2019), CHILE (2017), ITALY | (2018), JAPAN (2013), KENYA (2013), MEXICO (2006, 2012, 2018), | POLAND (2011, 2019), SWITZERLAND (2019) and UNITED STATES (2004, | 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - POLAND (2001): IMD3003_UH | | Code 6, which referred to "Not registered on Electoral lists" | in CSES MODULE 2, was re-coded into "9999993. RESPONDENT NOT | REGISTERED ON THE ELECTORAL LISTS" in the IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3004_PR_1 >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 1 IMD3004_PR_2 >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - ROUND 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent's vote choice in the first/second round of the PREVIOUS Presidential election. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION/ NO SECOND ROUND 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3004_PR_ | | IMD3004_PR_ detail the respondent's vote choice for President | in the first/second round of the PREVIOUS election, if applicable | and the respondent cast a ballot in the Presidential election. | | Numerical party/alliance codes are listed in Part 3 of the CSES | Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the previous | Presidential election (IMD3003_PR) but report a vote choice are | included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Such deviations are reported in the | Standalone CSES Module ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "94. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported | casting a ballot, but T did not vote." has been coded into | "9999999. MISSING" for the IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B3017 | MODULE 3: C3032_PR_1 (IMD3003_PR_1) & C3032_PR_2 (IMD3003_PR_2) | MODULE 4: D3008_PR_1 (IMD3003_PR_1) & D3008_PR_2 (IMD3003_PR_2) | MODULE 5: E3015_PR_1 (IMD3003_PR_1) & E3015_PR_2 (IMD3003_PR_2) | | Data for IMD3004_PR_1 are unavailable for MODULE 1 and for | CHILE (2009), MEXICO (2012), PHILIPPINES (2016), SERBIA (2012), | TAIWAN (2012) and TUNISIA (2019). | | Data for IMD3004_PR_2 are unavailable for MODULE 1 and for | CHILE (2005), COSTA RICA (2018), EL SALVADOR (2019), CROATIA | (2007), FRANCE (2002), MEXICO (2018), PERU (2016, 2021), | ROMANIA (2004), SERBIA (2012) and TUNISIA (2019). | [POLITY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND: IMD3004_PR_ | | There is a role in Switzerland known as President of the Federal | Council, with the title assigned to one of the seven members | of the Federal Council of Switzerland, which is elected by the | Federal Assembly (composed of the Council of States and National | Council) for a four-year term. Conventionally, the role of | President of the Council rotates among members, depending on | members' seniority. The President of the Federal Council has no | power above the other six members of the Council, and the role is | largely ceremonial. The President of the Federal Council is | not considered the Head of State - instead, the Federal Council | is classified as not only the Head of State but also the Head | of Government. Consequently, this variable is coded | "9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KYRGYZSTAN (2005): IMD3004_PR_1 | | Kyrgyz Presidential elections are technically not party-based, | i.e., there is no straightforward connection between the | Presidential candidates and political parties. Hence, they are | labeled as independent candidates in CSES IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3004_LH_PL >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION - PARTY LIST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent's vote choice for party list in the PREVIOUS lower house election. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NOT A LIST SYSTEM 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3004_LH_PL | | IMD3004_LH_PL details the respondent's vote choice for party list | in the PREVIOUS Lower House legislative election, if applicable | and the respondent cast a ballot. | | Numerical party/alliance codes are listed in Part 3 of the CSES | Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the previous | lower house election (IMD3003_LH) but report a vote choice | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Such deviations are reported in the | Standalone CSES Module ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "94. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported | casting a ballot, but T did not vote." has been coded into | "9999999. MISSING" for the IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B3018_1 | MODULE 3: C3032_LH_PL | MODULE 4: D3008_LH_PL | MODULE 5: E3015_LH_PL | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1 and for ARGENTINA (2015), | AUSTRIA (2008), BRAZIL (2002, 2006, 2010), COSTA RICA (2018), | MEXICO (2018), PERU (2016, 2021), PORTUGAL (2009), SOUTH AFRICA | (2009) and SPAIN (2008). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): IMD3004_LH_PL | | Portugal 2002 appeared in CSES MODULE 1 and 2. The data | for this variable was taken from the CSES MODULE 2 version of | the Portuguese dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD3004_LH_PL | | The previous vote choice variables for the lower house | refers to the 2008 legislative elections which took place | place in January, three months before the Presidential election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3004_LH_DC >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent's vote choice for district candidate in the PREVIOUS lower house election. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO DISTRICT CANDIDATE VOTE 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3004_LH_DC | | IMD3004_LH_DC details the respondent's vote choice for district | candidate in the PREVIOUS Lower House legislative election, if | applicable and the respondent cast a ballot. | | Numerical party/alliance codes are listed in Part 3 of the CSES | Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the previous | lower house election (IMD3003_LH) but report a vote choice | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Such deviations are reported in the | Standalone CSES Module ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "94. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported | casting a ballot, but T did not vote." has been coded into | "9999999. MISSING" for the IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B3018_1 & B3018_2 | MODULE 3: C3032_LH_DC | MODULE 4: D3008_LH_DC | MODULE 5: E3015_LH_DC | | Data are unavailable for MODULE 1 and for MEXICO (2015, 2018), | SWITZERLAND (2011), UNITED STATES (2004, 2012, 2016, 2020) and | URUGUAY (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2020): IMD3004_LH_DC | | Data refer to the first round of the previous lower house | elections, held on October 9, 2016. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD3004_LH_DC | | The previous vote choice variables for the lower house | refers to the 2008 legislative elections which took place | place in January, three months before the Presidential election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3004_UH_PL >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - PARTY LIST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent's vote choice for party list in the PREVIOUS upper house election. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION OR LIST VOTE 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3004_UH_PL | | IMD3004_UH_PL details the respondent's vote choice for party list | in the PREVIOUS Upper House legislative election, if applicable | and the respondent cast a ballot. | | Numerical party/alliance codes are listed in Part 3 of the CSES | IMD Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the previous | upper house election (IMD3003_UH) but report a vote choice | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Such deviations are reported in the | Standalone CSES Module ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "94. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported | casting a ballot, but T did not vote." has been coded into | "9999999. MISSING" for the IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B3019_1 | MODULE 3: C3032_UH_PL | MODULE 4: D3008_UH_PL | MODULE 5: E3015_UH_PL | | Data are unavailable for MODULE 1 and for ARGENTINA (2015), | JAPAN (2013), MEXICO (2012, 2018) and POLAND (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3004_UH_DC_1 >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 1 IMD3004_UH_DC_2 >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 2 IMD3004_UH_DC_3 >>> VOTE CHOICE: PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent's vote choice for district candidate/s in the PREVIOUS upper house election. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION OR CANDIDATE VOTE 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3004_UH_DC_ | | IMD3004_UH_DC_ detail the respondent's vote choice for district | candidate/s in the PREVIOUS Upper House legislative election, | if applicable and the respondent cast a ballot. | | Numerical party/alliance codes are listed in Part 3 of the CSES | IMD Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the previous | upper house election (IMD3003_UH) but report a vote choice | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Such deviations are reported in the | Standalone CSES Module ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "94. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R reported | casting a ballot, but T did not vote." has been coded into | "9999999. MISSING" for the IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B3019_1, B3019_2, & B3019_3 | MODULE 3: C3032_UH_DC | MODULE 4: D3008_UH_DC_1 & D3008_UH_DC_2 | MODULE 5: E3015_UH_DC_1 & E3015_UH_DC_2 | | Data are not available for MODULE 1 and for AUSTRALIA (2013), | JAPAN (2013), KENYA (2013), MEXICO (2018), POLAND (2011), | UNITED STATES (2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020) and URUGUAY (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3005_1 >>> PARTY IDENTIFICATION: ARE YOU CLOSE TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you usually think of yourself as close to any particular party? .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3005_1 | | IMD3005_1 asks respondents if they identify with one particular | party, in the vein of the premise that respondents can form | particular affiliations with one party/bloc. | | For MODULES 1 and 2, the question wording for IMD3005_1 slightly | deviated from the recent version applied for the CSES IMD. | Specifically, MODULES 1 and 2 questionnaires asked respondents | whether they were close to "any particular political party". | | IMD3005_1 was intended as a filter question for IMD3005_2. | Only respondents who answered "YES" at IMD3005_1 should continue | with IMD3005_3 (PARTY IDENTIFICATION: WHO). All other respondents | should continue with D3005_2 (PARTY IDENTIFICATION: DO YOU FEEL | CLOSER TO ONE PARTY). | | In MODULE 1 and MODULE 2, a long and a short version of the | party identification questions (Q3, Q18) were administered, | depending on whether party blocks (or electoral alliances) | formed for the respective election or not. | The LONG version of Q3/Q18 was used for respondents in systems | where AT LEAST ONE party block (or electoral alliance) was | formed. This version of the party identification question | prompts respondents who identify with a party block, to specify | which affiliated party they identify with most. | The SHORT version of Q3/Q18 was to be used in polities where NO | party blocks (or election alliances) formed. | IMD3005_1 (A3004, B3028) was administered for both versions of | Q3/Q18. | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF CLOSE TO PARTY CODES IN CSES MODULE 1 | TO CLOSE TO PARTY CODES IN CSES IMD | | IMD CODE CSES MODULE 1 CLASSIFICATION (CSES MODULE 1 CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Yes; Inconsistent response: Yes, no party identified | (1/6) | 0. No; Inconsistent response: No, party identified (5/7) | 8. Don't know (8) | 9. Missing; Not Applicable - Item not asked (9/0) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3004 | MODULE 2: B3028 | MODULE 3: C3020_1 | MODULE 4: D3018_1 | MODULE 5: E3024_1 | | Data are unavailable for BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), LATVIA (2018) | and TUNISIA (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3005_2 >>> PARTY IDENTIFICATION: DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ONE PARTY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you feel yourself a little closer to one of the political parties than the others? .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3005_2 | | IMD3005_2 asks respondents if they identify with one particular | party more than another, in the vein of the premise that | respondents can form particular affiliations with one party/bloc. | | IMD3005_1 and IMD3005_2 were intended as a filter questions | for IMD3005_3. | Only respondents who answered "YES" at IMD3005_1 or IMD3005_2 | should continue with IMD3005_3 (PARTY IDENTIFICATION: WHO). | | In MODULE 1 and MODULE 2, a long and a short version of the | party identification questions (Q3, Q18) were administered, | depending on whether party blocks (or electoral alliances) | formed for the respective election or not. | The LONG version of Q3/Q18 was used for respondents in systems | where AT LEAST ONE party block (or electoral alliance) was | formed. This version of the party identification question | prompts respondents who identify with a party block, to specify | which affiliated party they identify with most. | The SHORT version of Q3/Q18 was to be used in polities where NO | party blocks (or election alliances) formed. | IMD3005_2 (A3010, B3034) was administered for both versions of | Q3/Q18. | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF CLOSER TO PARTY CODES IN CSES MODULE 1 | TO CLOSER TO PARTY CODES IN CSES IMD | | IMD CODE CSES MODULE 1 CLASSIFICATION (CSES MODULE 1 CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Yes; Inconsistent response: Yes, no party identified | (1/6) | 0. No; Inconsistent response: No, party identified (5/7) | 8. Don't know (8) | 9. Missing; Not Applicable - Item not asked (9/0) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3010 | MODULE 2: B3034 | MODULE 3: C3020_2 | MODULE 4: D3018_2 | MODULE 5: E3024_2 | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (1996, 2004, 2013), BELGIUM- | FLANDERS (1999), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), BELGIUM (2003), | CANADA (1997), INDIA (2019), LATVIA (2010, 2011, 2014), NORWAY | (2001, 2005, 2009, 2013, 2017), NEW ZEALAND (1996), PERU (2016), | SLOVENIA (1996, 2008, 2011), SWITZERLAND (2007), TUNISIA (2019) | and URUGUAY (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3005_3 >>> PARTY IDENTIFICATION: WHO --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which party do you feel closest to? .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER NUMERIC CODES] 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3005_3 | | Numerical party/alliance codes are listed in Part 3 of the CSES | IMD Codebook. | | Respondents' party mentions in IMD3005_3 depend on the two | former questions (IMD3005_1 and IMD3005_2). The party mention in | IMD3005_3 should have only been asked for those respondents that | reported to be close (IMD3005_1) or at least closer (IMD3005_2) | to a party. | However, there are several respondents that mentioned a party | (IMD3005_3), without feeling close (IMD3005_1) or closer | (IMD3005_2) to a party. These data remain unchanged. For further | details on these inconsistencies, see Standalone CSES Module | Codebooks. | | In MODULES 1 and 2, respondents were asked "Which party is that?" | For respondents who named more than one party that they identify | with in MODULE 1 or MODULE 2 (SQ3a, Q18A), there was | a follow-up question, asking respondents to specify a single | party they felt closest to (SQ3b, Q18B). | Furthermore, MODULES 1 and 2 differentiated between respondents | from settings where party blocs (or electoral alliances) formed | for the respective election and settings in which this was not | the case. Respondents initially indicating they identify with a | party bloc or an electoral alliance (SQ3a, Q18A) received a | follow-up question, prompting respondents to specify | which affiliated party they identify with most (LQ3a(1), Q18A1). | For the CSES IMD, in case a respondent provided only one answer | to A3005_/B3029_, this answer was adopted for IMD3005_3, | irrespective of whether respondents named a single party or an | electoral alliance. In cases respondents initially provided | multiple parties that they feel close to, as indicated by | A3006/B3030, Q3b/Q18B was used for IMD3005_3. | Finally, Q13d/Q18D was used if respondents replied NO to | IMD3005_1 (Are you close to any political party) but replied | YES to IMD3005_2 (Do you feel closer to one party). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3005_1, A3009, & A3011 | MODULE 2: B3029_1, B3033, & B3035 | MODULE 3: C3020_3 | MODULE 4: D3018_3 | MODULE 5: E3024_3 | | Data are unavailable for BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), IRELAND | (2007) and TUNISIA (2019). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): IMD3005_3 | | In MODULE 1, 50 respondents are coded as "50" in the variable | indicating their first mention of the parties they are closest | to (A3005_1). No further information about the meaning of the | code is provided. Hence, these respondents were coded to | "9999999. MISSING" for IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - CHILE (1999): IMD3005_3 | | In MODULE 1, one respondent is coded as "93" in the variable | indicating their first mention of the parties they are closest | to (A3005_1). No further information about the meaning of the | code is provided. Hence, this respondent was coded to | "9999999. MISSING" for IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - MODULE 1: IMD3005_3 | | A3011 (Which party do you feel closer to) was a follow-up | variable to A3010 (Do you feel closer to one party) according to | the CSES questionnaire skip pattern and should have only been | answered of respondents if they reported to feel closer to one | party than the others in A3010 ("1. YES"). However, in multiple | election studies, respondents who are coded as "9. MISSING" for | variable A3010 are also coded as "9" for variable A3010, | indicating a valid party code. These respondents should have | been coded as "99. MISSING" for A3011. This applies to 6,511 | respondents from the following election studies: AUSTRALIA 1996 | (N=346), BELGIUM-FLANDERS 1999 (N=320), CANADA 1997 (N=892), | CHILE 1999 (N=10), CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA 1996 (N=17), GERMANY | 1998 (N=9), GREAT BRITAIN 1997 (N=55), HONG KONG 1998/2000 | (N=11/116), HUNGARY 1998 (N=19), ICELAND 1999 (N=1), ISRAEL | 1999 (N=400), LITHUANIA 1997 (1), MEXICO 1997/2000 (N=52/39), | NORWAY 1997 (1), NEW ZEALAND 1996 (N=1,812), POLAND 1997 (N=2), | ROMANIA 1996 (N=108), RUSSIA 1999/2000 (N=20/16), SLOVENIA 1996 | (N=1,623), SWEDEN 1998 (N=124), THAILAND 2001 (N=504), | SWITZERLAND 1999 (N=4), and the UNITED STATES 1996 (N=9). | This has been corrected in CSES IMD, and respondents were coded | accordingly. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - POLAND (2001): IMD3005_3 | | The original Party identification variable from CSES MODULE 2 | for Poland (2001) study had codes 12 and 18. No party in Parties | and Leaders table, nor in the original questionnaire match these | codes, so they have been re-coded into 9999999. MISSING for IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - RUSSIA (1999): IMD3005_3 | | In MODULE 1, there are multiple irregular codes in the variables | indicating respondents' 1st (codes 50, 69, and 96; N=5), 2nd | (code 96; N=2), and 3rd (code 96; N=1) mention to the question | about the party they feel closest to. Furthermore, there are | three irregular codes for the variable indicating the party | respondents feel closest to (A3009). These are 72 (N=1), 83 | (N=1), and 96 (N1). Finally, there is an irregular code in the | variable indicating which party respondents feel closer to | (A3011), namely 68 (N=1). These were all coded to "9999999. | MISSING" for IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - RUSSIA (2000): IMD3005_3 | | In MODULE 1, there are multiple irregular codes in the variables | indicating respondents' 1st (code 96; N=4) and 2nd (code 96; | N=1) mention to the question about the party they feel closest | to. Furthermore, there is one irregular code for the variable | indicating the party respondents feel closest to (A3009), namely | 96 (N=2). Finally, there is an irregular code in the variable | indicating which party respondents feel closer to (A3011), | namely 96 (N=1). These were all coded to "9999999. MISSING" for | IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND (1999): IMD3005_3 | | In MODULE 1, one respondent is coded as "42" in the variable | indicating the party they feel closest to (A3009). No further | information about the meaning of the code is provided. Hence, | this respondent was coded to "9999999. MISSING" for IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3005_4 >>> PARTY IDENTIFICATION: HOW CLOSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you feel very close to this party, somewhat close, or not very close? .................................................................. 1. VERY CLOSE 2. SOMEWHAT CLOSE 3. NOT VERY CLOSE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3005_4 | | IMD3005_4 details the degree of closeness to the party and | should have only been asked for those respondents that mentioned | a party in IMD3005_3. However, there are several respondents that | reported the degree of closeness (IMD3005_4), without mentioning | a party (IMD3005_3). These data remain unchanged (Also see | VARIABLE NOTES on IMD3005_3). For further details on these | inconsistencies, see Standalone CSES Module Codebooks. | | In MODULES 1 and 2, a long and a short version of the | party identification questions (Q3, Q18) were administered, | depending on whether party blocks (or electoral alliances) | formed for the respective election or not. | The LONG version of Q3/Q18 was used for respondents in systems | where AT LEAST ONE party block (or electoral alliance) was | formed. This version of the party identification question | prompts respondents who identify with a party block, to specify | which affiliated party they identify with most. | The SHORT version of Q3/Q18 was to be used in polities where NO | party blocks (or election alliances) formed. | IMD3005_4 (A3012, B3036) was administered for both | versions of Q3/Q18. | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF CLOSENESS TO PARTY CODES IN CSES MODULE 1 | TO CLOSENESS TO PARTY CODES IN CSES IMD | | IMD CODE CSES MODULE 1 CLASSIFICATION (CSES MODULE 1 CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Very close (1) | 2. Somewhat close (2) | 3. Not very close (3) | 8. Don't know (8) | 9. Missing; Not Applicable (9/0) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3012 | MODULE 2: B3036 | MODULE 3: C3020_4 | MODULE 4: D3018_4 | MODULE 5: E3024_4 | | Data are unavailable for BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999), BELGIUM- | WALLONIA (1999), CHILE (1999), INDIA (2019), KENYA (2013), | NEW ZEALAND (1996), SLOVENIA (1996) and TUNISIA (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3006 >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - SELF --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondents' self-placement on a 0-10 left-right scale. .................................................................. 00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF LEFT-RIGHT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3006 | | IMD3006 asked respondents to place themselves on a 0-10 | left-right ideological scale. | | Placement of this question in successive Standalone CSES Module | questionnaires varies and thus might have resulted in a small | deviation in the introduction to the question - please consult | the Standalone CSES Module Codebooks for more information. | | In the following, question wordings for each Module are listed. | | MODULES 1 and 2: | "In politics people sometimes talk of left and right. | Where would you place yourself on a scale from 0 to 10 | where 0 means the left and 10 means the right?" | | MODULES 3, 4 and 5: | "Where would you place yourself on this scale?" | | In MODULE 1, respondents were first asked to place themselves | on the left-right scale before placing parties on the same scale. | That question order was reversed for MODULES 2 to 5. | | The CSES asks collaborators to ask the left-right | scale questions even if left-right is not considered to be | meaningful/important/widely understood in the area being | studied. However, it was possible to add an optional | alternative scale question on which respondents were asked to | place parties A - I and themselves. These alternative scale | questions were not harmonized for the IMD, but are available | in the separate MODULES 1 to 5. | | Several respondents mentioned not to know the left-right scale | in one of the appropriate variables on IMD3006 or IMD3007_, but | evaluated the other parties on even that scale. These data | remain unchanged. For further details on these inconsistencies, | see the VARIABLE and ELECTION STUDY NOTES in the Standalone | CSES Module Codebooks. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3031 | MODULE 2: B3045 | MODULE 3: C3013 | MODULE 4: D3014 | MODULE 5: E3020 | | Data are unavailable for JAPAN (1996, 2004), TAIWAN (2012, 2016, | 2020) and THAILAND (2001, 2011). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - LITHUANIA (1997): IMD3006 | | Six respondents were coded as "96 [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES]" | in MODULE 1. Because no further information about the meaning of | the code was available, these respondents were re-coded to "99. | MISSING" here. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - PERU (2001): IMD3006 | | Seven respondents were coded as "96 [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES]" | in MODULE 1. Because no further information about the meaning of | the code was available, these respondents were re-coded to "99. | MISSING" here. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3007_A >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A IMD3007_B >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B IMD3007_C >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C IMD3007_D >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D IMD3007_E >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E IMD3007_F >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F IMD3007_G >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY G (OPTIONAL) IMD3007_H >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY H (OPTIONAL) IMD3007_I >>> IDEOLOGY: LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY I (OPTIONAL) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Placement of Parties A-I on a 0-10 left-right scale. .................................................................. 00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF LEFT-RIGHT 96. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF PARTY 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3007_ | | IMD3007_ asked respondents to place Parties A-I on a 0-10 | left-right scale. | | Placement of this question in successive Standalone CSES Module | questionnaire varies and thus might have resulted in a small | deviation in the introduction to the question - please consult | the Standalone CSES Module Codebooks for more information. | In the following, question wordings for each Module are listed. | | MODULE 1: | "Now, using the same scale, where would you place [Party A-F]?" | | MODULES 2 and 4: | "In politics people sometimes talk of left and right. | Where would you place [PARTY A] on a scale from 0 to 10 | where 0 means the left and 10 means the right? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY B]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY C]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY D]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY E]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY F]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY G]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY H]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY I]?" | | MODULES 3 and 5: | "In politics people sometimes talk of left and right. Where | would you place [PARTY A] on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means | the left and 10 means the right? | Using the same scale, where would you place [PARTY B]? | Where would you place [PARTY C]? | Where would you place [PARTY D]? | Where would you place [PARTY E]? | Where would you place [PARTY F]?" | | Parties numerical classifications are detailed in Part 3 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. Alphabetical party and leader codes are | identified in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | For linking alphabetical to numerical party codes, please see | VARIABLE NOTES on IMD5000_. | For more detailed information on how CSES IMD codes parties/ | coalitions and leaders, please see Part 3 of the CSES IMD | Codebook. | | The CSES asks collaborators to ask the left-right scale | questions even if left-right is not considered to be | meaningful/important/widely understood in the area being | studied. However, it was possible to add an optional | alternative scale question on which respondents were asked to | place parties A - I and themselves. These alternative scale | questions were not harmonized for the IMD, but are available | in the separate MODULES 1 to 5. | | Users should note that IMD3007_ includes several observations in | which all parties are scored equally by respondents. Also, there | may be instances in which respondents provide the same answer to | all items, e.g. "don't know". Furthermore, several respondents | mentioned not to know the left-right scale in one of the | appropriate variables on IMD3006 or IMD3007_, but evaluated the | other parties on even that scale. These data remain unchanged. | For further details on these inconsistencies, see the VARIABLE | and ELECTION STUDY NOTES in the Standalone CSES Module | Codebooks. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3032_A-A3032_I | MODULE 2: B3038_A-B3038_I | MODULE 3: C3011_A-C3011_I | MODULE 4: D3013_A-D3013_I | MODULE 5: E3019_A-E3019_I | | Data are unavailable for BELGIUM (2003), CHILE (1999), JAPAN | (1996, 2004), RUSSIA (2000), TAIWAN (2012, 2016, 2020), | THAILAND (2001) and UNITED STATES (1996). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): IMD3007_ | | Left-Right party placements for the 2017 French election study | are available for PARTY C (The Republicans) and PARTY E | (Socialist Party). | For PARTY A (The Republic Onwards), PARTY B (National Front) and | PARTY D (Indomitable France) respondents were asked to place | Presidential candidates, not parties, on the left-right scale. | These placements of Presidential candidates are available in | CSES MODULE 5 variable E3021_ (Optional Alternative Scale) but | are not included in CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): IMD3007_D & | IMD3007_E | | Respondents outside of a region where a party contested the | election were not asked to evaluate it. These respondents are | coded as 97 in CSES MODULE 1 but were re-coded to "99. MISSING" | for IMD. This applies to the Scottish National Party, SNP | (PARTY D) and Plaid Cymru, PC (PARTY E). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): IMD3007_A & IMD3007_C | | IMD3007_A refers to the National Action Party (PAN), which was | part of the Alliance for Change (PARTY A in Mexico 2000). | IMD3007_C refers to the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) | which was part of the Alliance for Mexico (PARTY C in | Mexico 2000). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): IMD3007_A & IMD3007_C | | IMD3007_A refers to the National Peasant and Christian | Democratic Party (PNT-CD), which was part of the electoral | alliance Romanian Democratic Convention, CDR (PARTY A in Romania | 1996). IMD3007_C refers to the Democratic Party (PD), which was | part of the electoral alliance Social Democratic Union (PARTY C | in Romania 1996). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3008_A >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY A IMD3008_B >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY B IMD3008_C >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY C IMD3008_D >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY D IMD3008_E >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY E IMD3008_F >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY F IMD3008_G >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY G (OPTIONAL) IMD3008_H >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY H (OPTIONAL) IMD3008_I >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY I (OPTIONAL) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Likeability rating of Parties A-I on a 0-10 scale. .................................................................. 00. STRONGLY DISLIKE 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. STRONGLY LIKE 96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF PARTY 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT/DON'T KNOW WHERE TO RATE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3008_ | | IMD3008_ asked respondents to place Parties A-I on a 0-10 | likeability scale. | | Placement of this question in successive Standalone CSES Module | questionnaire varies and thus might have resulted in a small | deviation in the introduction to the question - please consult | the Standalone CSES Module Codebooks for more information. | | For IMD3008_, the question wording was: | "I'd like to know what you think about each of our | political parties. After I read the name of a political | party, please rate it on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 | means you strongly dislike that party and 10 means that | you strongly like that party. If I come to a party you | haven't heard of or you feel you do not know enough | about, just say so. | The first party is [PARTY A]." | | Additionally, the Standalone Module Questionnaires for CSES | MODULES 3 to 5 also specified the wordings for the rating of | parties B to F, with CSES MODULES 3 and 4 also providing | question wordings for parties G to I: | "Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY B]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY C]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY D]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY E]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY F]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY G]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY H]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY I]?" | | CSES MODULES 1 and 2 Questionnaires did not include such a | specification. | | Parties numerical classifications are detailed in Part 3 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. Alphabetical party and leader codes are | identified in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | For linking alphabetical to numerical party codes, please see | VARIABLE NOTES on IMD5000_. | For more detailed information on how CSES codes parties/ | coalitions and leaders, please see Part 3 of the CSES IMD | Codebook. | | Users should note that IMD3008_ includes several observations in | which all parties are scored equally by respondents. Also, there | may be instances in which respondents provide the same answer to | all items, e.g. "don't know". Furthermore, several respondents | mentioned not to know a certain party in one of the appropriate | variables on IMD3007_ or IMD3008_ but evaluated even this party | on any other scale. These data remain unchanged. | For further details on these inconsistencies, see variable and | election study notes in the Standalone CSES Module Codebooks. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3020_A-A3020_I | MODULE 2: B3037_A-B3037_I | MODULE 3: C3009_A-C3009_I | MODULE 4: D3011_A-D3011_I | MODULE 5: E3017_A-E3017_I | | Data are unavailable for SWITZERLAND (2019). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): IMD3008_D & | IMD3008_E | | Respondents outside of a region where a party contested the | election were not asked to evaluate it. These respondents are | coded as 97 in CSES MODULE 1 but were recoded to "99. MISSING" | for IMD. This applies to the Scottish National Party, SNP | (PARTY D) and Plaid Cymru, PC (PARTY E). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): IMD3008_A & IMD3008_C | | IMD3008_A refers to the National Action Party (PAN), which was | party of the Alliance for Change (PARTY A in Mexico 2000). | IMD3008_C refers to the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) | which was part of the Alliance for Mexico (PARTY C in | Mexico 2000). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): IMD3008_A & IMD3008_C | | IMD3008_A refers to the National Peasant and Christian | Democratic Party (PNT-CD), which was part of the electoral | alliance Romanian Democratic Convention, CDR (PARTY A in Romania | 1996). IMD3008_C refers to the Democratic Party (PD), which was | part of the electoral alliance Social Democratic Union (PARTY C | in Romania 1996). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3009_A >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER A IMD3009_B >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER B IMD3009_C >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER C IMD3009_D >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER D IMD3009_E >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER E IMD3009_F >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER F IMD3009_G >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER G (OPTIONAL) IMD3009_H >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER H (OPTIONAL) IMD3009_I >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER I (OPTIONAL) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Likeability rating of Leaders A-I on a 0-10 scale. .................................................................. 00. STRONGLY DISLIKE 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. STRONGLY LIKE 96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF LEADER 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT/DON'T KNOW WHERE TO RATE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3009_ | | IMD3009_ asked respondents to place the Leaders of Parties A-I | on a 0-10 likeability scale. | | Placement of this question in successive Standalone CSES Module | questionnaire varies and thus might have resulted in a small | deviation in the introduction to the question - please consult | the Standalone CSES Module Codebooks for more information. | In the following, question wordings for each Module are listed. | | MODULE 1: | "And now, using the same scale, I'd like to | ask you how much you like or dislike some political leaders. | Again, if I come to a leader you haven't heard of or you do not | know enough about them, just say so. The first political leader | is LEADER A." | | MODULES 3 and 4: | "And what do you think of the Presidential candidates/ | party leaders? After I read the name of a Presidential | candidate/party leader, please rate them on a scale from | 0 to 10, where 0 means you strongly dislike that | candidate and 10 means that you strongly like that | candidate. If I come to a Presidential candidate/party | leader you haven't heard of or you feel you do not know | enough about, just say so. | The first is [LEADER A]. | Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER B]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER C]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER D]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER E]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER F]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER G]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER H]? | Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER I]?" | | MODULE 5: | Question wording for CSES MODULE 5 resembles wording employed for | MODULES 3 and 4 for leaders A to F. However, unlike MODULES 3 and | 4, MODULE 5 does not include a specification for leaders G-I. | | Leaders and their alphabetical classifications for each country | are detailed in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook. For linking | alphabetical to numerical party codes, please see VARIABLE NOTES | on IMD5000_. | For more detailed information on how CSES codes parties/ | coalitions and leaders, please see Part 3 of the CSES IMD | Codebook. | | Users should note that IMD3009_ includes several observations in | which all leaders are scored equally by respondents. Also, there | may be instances in which respondents provide the same answer to | all items, e.g. "don't know". These data remain unchanged. | For further details on these inconsistencies, see VARIABLE and | ELECTION STUDY NOTES in the Standalone CSES Module Codebooks. | | IMD3009_ was not included as a regular question in the MODULE 2 | questionnaire. Therefore, data on IMD3009_ is not available for | most of the studies from MODULE 2. Two exemptions are AUSTRALIA | (2004) and BRAZIL (2002). These countries included IMD3009_ as | an optional scale question (see B3041_, Codebook Part 2 of | MODULE 2). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3021_A-A3021_I | MODULE 2: B3041_A-B3041_I (See above) | MODULE 3: C3010_A-C3010_I | MODULE 4: D3012_A-D3012_I | MODULE 5: E3018_A-E3018_I | | Data are unavailable for MODULE 2 and for AUSTRIA (2008), | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), CHILE (1999), | and MEXICO (2015). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): IMD3009_D & | IMD3009_E | | Respondents outside of a region where a party contested the | election were not asked to evaluate its leaders. These | respondents are coded as 97 in CSES MODULE 1 but were re-coded | to "99. MISSING" for IMD. This applies to the Scottish National | Party, SNP (PARTY D) and Plaid Cymru, PC (PARTY E). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3010 >>> SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRACY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the whole, are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied with the way democracy works in [COUNTRY]? .................................................................. 1. VERY SATISFIED 2. FAIRLY SATISFIED 4. NOT VERY SATISFIED 5. NOT AT ALL SATISFIED 6. NEITHER SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3010 | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3010 | MODULE 2: B3001 | MODULE 3: C3012 | MODULE 4: D3017 | MODULE 5: E3023 | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), CHILE (1999, 2009), | and PERU (2000). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - HONG KONG (2000): IMD3010 | | 31 respondents were coded as "3 [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]" in CSES | MODULE 1. There were, however, no details about what exactly | this code refers to. Hence, these respondents were coded as | "9. MISSING" for CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - JAPAN (2004): IMD3010 | | In CSES MODULE 2 for Satisfaction with democracy variable, | Japan (2004) study had code "6. Can't decide." This is | recoded into "8. Don't know", for CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): IMD3010 | | In CSES MODULE 3, 12 respondents were coded as "07. South Africa | is not a democracy (volunteered)." These respondents were | recoded to missing. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): IMD3010 | | In CSES MODULE 4, 14 respondents were coded as "06. South Africa | is not a democracy (volunteered)." These respondents were | recoded to missing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3011 >>> EFFICACY: WHO IS IN POWER CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some people say that it doesn't make any difference who is in power. Others say that it makes a big difference who is in power. Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that it doesn't make any difference who is in power and FIVE means that it makes a big difference who is in power), where would you place yourself? .................................................................. 1. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER 2. 3. 4. 5. IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3011 | | IMD3011 examines respondents external political efficacy by | asking whether respondents consider who is in power makes a | difference or not. | | For MODULES 1 and 2, IMD3011 had an inversed scale running from | "1. IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER" to "5. IT DOESN'T | MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER". These scales were re-coded | to fit the coding of IMD3011 as outlined above. | For MODULES 1 and 2, therefore, question-wording reflects the | inversed scale and deviated slightly from the recent version | applied for the CSES IMD. | | In MODULE 2, some election studies used an earlier version of | the CSES questionnaire which included the words "BIG" and "ANY" | in the question text and response options. | | For example: | "1. It makes a BIG difference who is in power" | "5. It doesn't make ANY difference who is in power" | | As a result, there has been variation in question-wording and | response options for IMD3011 in MODULE 2. A table documenting | how election studies asked these items is available in CSES | MODULE 2 Codebook (Part 2 below variable B3013). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3028 | MODULE 2: B3013 | MODULE 3: C3004 | MODULE 4: D3009 | MODULE 5: E3016_1 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | IMD3011 was not part of the CSES MODULE 5 pilot questionnaire and | is hence unavailable for the following studies fielding the | MODULE 5 pilot questionnaire version: | GREECE (2015 Sep), HONG KONG (2016), IRELAND (2016), SWEDEN | (2018) and TAIWAN (2016). | | Data are also unavailable for EL SALVADOR (2019), IRELAND (2007, | 2011), RUSSIA (2000), SWITZERLAND (2007) and TAIWAN (2020). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3012 >>> EFFICACY: WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR MAKES A DIFFERENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some people say that no matter who people vote for, it won't make any difference to what happens. Others say that who people vote for can make a big difference to what happens. Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that voting won't make any difference to what happens and FIVE means that voting can make a big difference), where would you place yourself? .................................................................. 1. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE 2. 3. 4. 5. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3012 | | IMD3012 examines respondents external political efficacy by | asking whether respondents consider who people vote for makes a | difference or not. | | For MODULES 1 and 2, the question wording and labeling of scales | for IMD3012 slightly deviated from the recent version applied for | the CSES IMD. Specifically, scales were labeled with | "1. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE" to "5. WHO | PEOPLE VOTE FOR CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE". | | In MODULE 2, some election studies used an earlier version of | the CSES questionnaire which included the words "BIG" and "ANY" | in the question text and response options (see VARIABLE NOTES on | IMD3011). | | As a result, there has been variation in question-wording and | response options for IMD3012 in MODULE 2. A table documenting | how election studies asked these items is available in CSES | MODULE 2 Codebook (Part 2 below variable B3014). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3029 | MODULE 2: B3014 | MODULE 3: C3005 | MODULE 4: D3010 | MODULE 5: E3016_2 | | Data are unavailable for GERMANY (2005), NETHERLANDS (2002), | POLAND (2005), and RUSSIA (2000). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3013_1 >>> STATE OF ECONOMY (OVER PAST 12 MONTHS) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you say that over the past twelve months, the state of the economy in [COUNTRY] has gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse? .................................................................. 1. GOTTEN BETTER 3. STAYED THE SAME 5. GOTTEN WORSE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3013_1 | | IMD3013 examines valence retrospective sociotropic economic | voting by asking respondents about their assessment of the | state of the national economy in the preceding twelve months. | | For CSES MODULES 1 to 4, IMD3013_1 was intended as a filter | question for IMD3013_2 and IMD3013_3. For further information on | this, see variable notes for IMD3013_2 and IMD 3013_3. | | For CSES MODULES 5, the question wording for IMD3013_ was | updated, deviating from the one outlined above. | Specifically, the MODULE 5 questionnaire asked respondents to | rate the state of the economy on a single five-point scale, | thus dropping the filter and any potential follow-up questions. | The table below outlines how categories from MODULE 5 were | mapped to IMD3013_1: | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF ECONOMY VALENCE SCALE IN CSES MODULE 5 | TO IMD3013_1 IN CSES IMD | | IMD CODE CSES MODULE 5 CLASSIFICATION (CSES MODULE 5 CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Gotten much better (1) | Gotten somewhat better (2) | 3. Stayed about the same (3) | 5. Gotten somewhat worse (4) | Gotten much worse (5) | 7. Volunteered: Refused (7) | 8. Volunteered: Don't know (8) | 9. Missing (9) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3023 | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: D3003_1 | MODULE 5: E3011 (see VARIABLE NOTES above) | | Data are unavailable for MODULES 2 and 3 and for CHILE (1999). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3013_2 >>> STATE OF ECONOMY - BETTER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you say much better or somewhat better? .................................................................. 1. MUCH BETTER 2. SOMEWHAT BETTER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3013_2 | | IMD3013 examines valence retrospective sociotropic economic | voting by asking respondents about their assessment of the | state of the national economy in the preceding twelve months. | | For CSES MODULES 1 to 4, IMD3013_1 was intended as a filter | question for IMD3013_2 and IMD3013_3. Only respondents who | answered "GOTTEN BETTER" at IMD3013_1 should receive this | question. However, there is variation in the ways in which the | questions about respondent's perception of the state of economy | (IMD3013_1) were administered in different election studies. | In some cases, the follow-up question on a better state of | economy (IMD3013_2) was asked irrespectively of a respondent's | answer on IMD3013_1. Consequently, IMD3013_2 sometimes includes | information on respondents that did not mention a better state | of economy (code 1) in IMD3013_1. These data remained unchanged | in CSES IMD. | | For CSES MODULES 5, the question wording for IMD3013_ was | updated, deviating from the one outlined above. | Specifically, the MODULE 5 questionnaire asked respondents to | rate the state of the economy on a single five-point scale, | thus dropping the filter and any potential follow-up questions. | The table below outlines how categories from MODULE 5 were | mapped to IMD3013_2: | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF ECONOMY VALENCE SCALE IN CSES MODULE 5 | TO IMD3013_2 IN CSES IMD | | IMD CODE CSES MODULE 5 CLASSIFICATION (CSES MODULE 5 CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Gotten much better (1) | 2. Gotten somewhat better (2) | 9. Stayed about the same (3) | Gotten somewhat worse (4) | Gotten much worse (5) | Volunteered: Refused (7) | Volunteered: Don't know (8) | Missing (9) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3024 | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: D3003_2 | MODULE 5: E3011 (see VARIABLE NOTES above) | | Data are unavailable for MODULES 2 and 3 and for CANADA (2011, | 2015), CHILE (1999) and TAIWAN (2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3013_3 >>> STATE OF ECONOMY - WORSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you say much worse or somewhat worse? .................................................................. 4. SOMEWHAT WORSE 5. MUCH WORSE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3013_3 | | IMD3013 examines valence retrospective sociotropic economic | voting by asking respondents about their assessment of the | state of the national economy in the preceding twelve months. | | For CSES MODULES 1 to 4, IMD3013_1 was intended as a filter | question for IMD3013_2 and IMD3013_3. Only respondents who | answered "GOTTEN WORSE" at IMD3013_1 should receive this | question. However, there is variation in the ways in which the | questions about respondent's perception of the state of economy | (IMD3013_1) were administered in different election studies. | In some cases, the follow-up question on a worse state of economy | (IMD3013_3) was asked irrespectively of a respondent's answer on | IMD3013_1. Consequently, IMD3013_3 sometimes includes information | on respondents that did not mention a worse state of economy | (code 5) in IMD3013_1. These data remained unchanged. | | For CSES MODULES 5, the question wording for IMD3013_ was | updated, deviating from the one outlined above. | Specifically, the MODULE 5 questionnaire asked respondents to | rate the state of the economy on a single five-point scale, | thus dropping the filter and any potential follow-up questions. | The table below outlines how categories from MODULE 5 were | mapped to IMD3013_3: | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF ECONOMY VALENCE SCALE IN CSES MODULE 5 | TO IMD3013_3 IN CSES IMD | | IMD CODE CSES MODULE 3 CLASSIFICATION (CSES MODULE 5 CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 4. Gotten somewhat worse (4) | 5. Gotten much worse (5) | 9. Gotten much better (1) | Gotten somewhat better (2) | Stayed about the same (3) | Volunteered: Refused (7) | Volunteered: Don't know (8) | Missing (9) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A3025 | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: D3003_3 | MODULE 5: E3011 (see VARIABLE NOTES above) | | Data are unavailable for MODULES 2 and 3 and for CANADA (2011, | 2015), CHILE (1999), and TAIWAN (2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3014 >>> GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE: GENERAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now thinking about the performance of the [government in [CAPITAL]/President] in general, how good or bad a job do you think the [government/President in [CAPITAL]] has done over the past [NUMBER OF YEARS SINCE LAST GOVERNMENT TOOK OFFICE, BEFORE THE CURRENT ELECTION] years? Has [it/he/she] done a very good job? A good job? A bad job? A very bad job? .................................................................. 1. VERY GOOD JOB 2. GOOD JOB 3. BAD JOB 4. VERY BAD JOB 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3014 | | IMD3014 examines valence retrospective performance assessments | by asking respondents about their assessment of the governments' | general performance during the time in office. | | For more details on the meaning of "6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY | NOTES]" codes, see Standalone CSES Modules. | | Category "5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES]" from CSES MODULE 2 | (B3011) has been recoded to "6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES]" in | CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B3011 | MODULE 3: C3006 | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E3009 | | Data are unavailable for MODULES 1 and 4, CHILE (2009) and | PERU (2006). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3015_1 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: DICHOTOMIZED ITEM - 1ST IMD3015_2 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: DICHOTOMIZED ITEM - 2ND IMD3015_3 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: DICHOTOMIZED ITEM - 3RD IMD3015_4 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: DICHOTOMIZED ITEM - 4TH --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Political information items. .................................................................. 0. INCORRECT 1. CORRECT 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3015_ | | Items in IMD3015_ were designed to assess a respondent's level | of political information. Answers to IMD3015_ are dichotomized | and only include respondents who explicitly answered correctly or | incorrectly to the respective information question. Respondents | who answered don't know or who refused to give an answer are | not included in the incorrect answer category, unless specified | otherwise. | | The following election studies do not include a "DON'T KNOW" | category: | AUSTRALIA (1996), BELGIUM FLANDERS (1999), CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA | (1996), GERMANY (2005), GREECE (2015), HUNGARY (2002), IRELAND | (2011), ISRAEL (1996), ITALY (2006), JAPAN (2004), MEXICO (1997), | MEXICO (2000), NORWAY (1997), ROMANIA (1996), PHILIPPINES (2004), | PHILIPPINES (2010), POLAND (1997), POLAND (2005), SWEDEN (2002), | SPAIN (1996), SPAIN (2008), TAIWAN (1996), UKRAINE (1998), and | UNITED STATES (2008). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A2023, A2024, & A2025 | MODULE 2: B3047_1 - B3047_3 | MODULE 3: C3036_1 - C3036_3 | MODULE 4: D3025_1_A - D3025_4_A | MODULE 5: Not included | | In CSES MODULES 1-3, most studies included up to three political | information items, designed to test respondents' general | knowledge. These items were designed by CSES collaborators and | therefore vary across studies both in content and in difficulty. | | For CSES MODULES 2 and 3, the CSES questionnaire provided advice | to collaborators on how to assess political information, namely: | "These items are designed to indicate the respondents' general | political knowledge. They should be coded as shown below. The | set of questions should include one that is easy (i.e. 2/3 will | answer correctly), one that is slightly more difficult (i.e. 1/2 | will answer correctly), and one that is difficult (i.e. 1/3 | will answer correctly)." | | The question wordings of the items used in CSES MODULES 1-3, and | their correct answers, are reported in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES | below. | | In CSES MODULE 4, political knowledge was assessed uniformly | across polities, by the following four items: | | IMD3015_1: | Which of these persons was the Finance Minister before the | recent election - [CABINET MINISTER NAME - FIRST CHOICE], | [CABINET MINISTER NAME - SECOND CHOICE], [CABINET MINISTER | NAME - THIRD CHOICE], or [CABINET MINISTER NAME - FOURTH | CHOICE]? | | IMD3015_2 (FINALIZED QUESTIONNAIRE): | What was the current unemployment rate in [COUNTRY] as of | [DATE] - [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - FIRST CHOICE], [UNEMPLOYMENT | RATE - SECOND CHOICE], [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - THIRD CHOICE], | or [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - FOURTH CHOICE]? | | IMD3015_2 (PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE): | What is the longest time permitted between one [UNIT OF | GOVERNMENT] election and the next - [NUMBER OF YEARS - | FIRST CHOICE], [NUMBER OF YEARS - SECOND CHOICE], | [NUMBER OF YEARS - THIRD CHOICE], or [NUMBER OF YEARS | - FOURTH CHOICE]? | | IMD3015_3: | Which [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION] came in second in | seats in the [NAME OF THE LOWER HOUSE IN BICAMERAL SYSTEMS; | OR ASSEMBLY, PARLIAMENT, OR CONGRESS IN UNICAMERAL SYSTEMS] | - [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - FIRST CHOICE], [PARTY, | ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - SECOND CHOICE], [PARTY, ALLIANCE, | OR COALITION - THIRD CHOICE], or [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR | COALITION - FOURTH CHOICE]? | | IMD3015_4 (FINALIZED QUESTIONNAIRE): | Who is the current Secretary-General of the United Nations | - Kofi Annan, Kurt Waldheim, Ban Ki-moon, or Boutros | Boutros-Ghali? | | IMD3015_4 (PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE): | Who was the first President of South Africa after | apartheid ended? Desmond Tutu, Robert Mugabe, Nelson | Mandela, or Rupiah Banda? | | CANADA (2011) and IRELAND (2011) fielded the CSES MODULE 4 pilot | questionnaire. In the pilot version, items for IMD3015_2 and | IMD3015_4 differed from the final questionnaire as indicated | above. | | As question wordings did not differ between election studies in | CSES MODULE 4, ELECTION STUDY NOTES only list a short description | of the item, together with the respective answer categories for | IMD3015_1 - IMD3015_3. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, BELARUS (2001, 2008), | BULGARIA (2001), CHILE (1999), DENMARK (1998, 2001), GERMANY | (2002 Mail-Back), ICELAND (1999, 2003), LATVIA (2014), LITHUANIA | (1997), PERU (2000, 2001, 2016), RUSSIA (1999, 2000), SLOVENIA | (1996, 2008), SOUTH KOREA (2000), THAILAND (2001), TURKEY (2011) | and URUGUAY (2009). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ALBANIA (2005): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Do you know who was the speaker of the | last Albanian parliament? | Correct answer: Servet Pellumbi | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Can the President of the republic be elected by | a simple majority of the parliament, a 3/5 | majority or unanimity? | Correct answer: 3/5 majority | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Do you know the percentage of the votes a party | must get in order to enter the parliament? | Correct answer: 2.5 percent | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Jorge Capitanich | 2. Axel Kicillof | 3. Hector Timerman | 4. Florencio Randazzo | Correct answer: 2. Axel Kicillof | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): IMD3015_ | | These variables were derived from G12P3, G12P9, and G12P6, | respectively (User's Guide, pp.86-88). | | Question text: And finally, a quick quiz on Australian | government. For each of the following statements, | please say whether it is true or false. | If you don't know the answer, just circle '3' | ["Don't know"] and try the next one. | | IMD3015_1: Australia became a federation in 1901. | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_2: The Senate election is based on proportional | representation. | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_3: No-one may stand for Federal parliament unless | they pay a deposit. | Correct answer: True | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2004): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: G.26. Prior to the 2004 Federal election, who was | the most recent Australian Labor Party Prime | Minister? | Correct answer: Paul Keating | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: G.19. Can you say which political party has the | second largest number of seats in the House of | Representatives, following the 2004 Federal | election? | Correct answer: The Labor Party | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: G.20. Obviously, a person on a low income will | pay less total money in income tax than someone | on a high income. But do you think that a person | on a low income pays ... | Answer options: 1. A bigger proportion of their earnings in | income tax than someone on a high income; | 2. The same proportion; | 3. Or a smaller proportion of their earnings in | income tax? | Correct answer: 3. A smaller proportion | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): IMD3015_ | | Australia asked six questions about political knowledge, out of | which three were selected. To do so, the one with the highest | as well as the one with the lowest number of correct answers | were chosen. The third question was selected by calculating the | minimal gap between the mean of all correctly given answers and | the current frequencies of the correct answer for the remaining | four questions. | | Question text: For each of the following statements, please say | whether it is true or false. | | IMD3015_1: Australia became a federation in 1901. | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_2: The longest time allowed between Federal | elections for the House of Representatives is | four years. | Correct answer: False | | IMD3015_3: No-one may stand for Federal parliament unless | they pay a deposit. | Correct answer: True | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Bob Carr | 2. Bill Shorten | 3. Chris Bowen | 4. Tony Burke | Correct answer: 3. Chris Bowen | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 3.7% | 2. 5.7% | 3. 7.7% | 4. 9.7% | Correct answer: 2. 5.7% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Greens | 2. Katter's Australian Party | 3. Labor Party (ALP) | 4. Liberal-National Coalition | Correct answer: 3. Labor Party (ALP) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): IMD3015_ | | Respondents were asked for party positions on the policy area | of the opening of the Austrian job market to the new EU member | states. The variables' order was rearranged according to the | percentage of correct answers. | | Question text: What do these parties think concerning the | opening of the Austrian job market to the New | Member States of the EU? Please tell me if you | do not know the position. | | IMD3015_1: The FPO | Correct answer: is against | | IMD3015_2: The OVP | Correct answer: is in favor | | IMD3015_3: The SPO | Correct answer: is in favor | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Josef Proell | 2. Johanna Mikl-Leitner | 3. Maria Fekter | 4. Rudolf Hundstorfer | Correct answer: 3. Maria Fekter | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 2.9% | 2. 6.9% | 3. 8.9% | 4. 9.9% | Correct answer: 2. 6.9% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. FPO | 2. Greens | 3. OVP | 4. SPO | Correct answer: 3. OVP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who was the chairman of the Dutroux Fact-Finding | Committee? | Correct answer: Marc Verwilghen | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Comparing the SP and the CVP, which party is the | greatest supporter of governmental regulation of | the economy? | Correct answer: SP | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Which of the two political parties in the USA | is considered to be the most economically | conservative? | Correct answer: Republicans | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999): IMD3015_ | | The Belgium Wallonia study (1999) fielded eight items assessing | a respondent's level of political knowledge, which are available | in the original French questionnaire on the CSES Homepage | (question 74, page 30). The CSES MODULE 1 Codebook does not | include any information on which three out of those eight items | were selected for inclusion into CSES MODULE 1. The best guess of | the CSES Secretariat is that those three knowledge items were | selected for CSES MODULE 1 that resemble the questions from the | Belgium Flanders (1999) study, namely: | Question 74.1 (resembling IMD3015_1 for Belgium Flanders 1999) | Question 74.3 (resembling IMD3015_3 for Belgium Flanders 1999) | Question 74.8 (resembling IMD3015_2 for Belgium Flanders 1999). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM (2003): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Green is the color of the Agalev/ECOLO; Orange | the color for the CD&V/CDH; What color for the | VLD/MR? | Correct answer: Blue | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: How many years do city counsel members serve in | a term: four, five or six years? | Correct answer: Six years | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: How many representatives are there in the Chamber | of Representatives 150, 175, or 212? | Correct answer: 150 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2002): IMD3015_ | | Exact question wording unavailable. | | IMD3015_1: The name of the state governor. | | IMD3015_2: The name of the mayor ['prefeito'] of the capital of | the state. | | IMD3015_3: The state deputy (congressperson) who received more | votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006 & 2010): IMD3015_ | | In Brazil, respondents had to answer a set of four multiple | choice questions of which for CSES three were chosen according | to their prospected difficulty (correct and false proportion | of answers). | Statements to be answered were as follows: | | IMD3015_1: The President has a four-year mandate. | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_2: Geraldo Alckmin belongs to the PTB. | Correct answer: False | | IMD3015_3: The deputies of the House of Representatives are | elected by majoritarian vote. | Correct answer: False | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Gilberto Carvalho | 2. Aloisio Mercadante | 3. Guido Mantega | 4. Jose Eduardo Cardozo | Correct answer: 3. Guido Mantega | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 7.0% | 2. 11.0% | 3. 5.0% | 4. 9.0% | Correct answer: 3. 5.0% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. PMDB | 2. PT | 3. PSDB | 4. PSB | Correct answer: 1. PMDB | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Yordan Bakalov | 2. Rumen Porozhanov | 3. Velizar Shalamanov | 4. Evgenia Radanova | Correct answer: 2. Rumen Porozhanov | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 6.8% | 2. 8.8% | 3. 10.8% | 4. 12.8% | Correct answer: 3. 10.8% | | The Bulgarian Study asked for the unemployment rate as of | September 2014, and hence four months before the survey was | administered. | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. BSP Left Bulgaria | 2. CEDB | 3. Patriotic Front - National front for the | salvation of Bulgaria | 4. Reformist block | Correct answer: 1. BSP Left Bulgaria | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who is the premier of your province? | Correct answer: The correct answer to IMD3015_1 depends on the | province the respondent was living in. | Respondents' provinces are available in | variable A2019 of CSES MODULE 1. The following | table lists all provinces and their Premiers: | | Province Premier | -------------------------------------------- | Newfoundland Brian Tobin | Prince Edward Island Pat Binns | Nova Scotia John Savage* / | Russell MacLellan* | New Brunswick Francis Joseph | McKenna | Quebec Lucien Bouchard | Ontario Mike Harris | Manitoba Gary Filmon | Saskatchewan Roy Romanow | Alberta Ralph Klein | British Columbia Glen Clark | * John Savage resigned on July 18, 1997. | Russell MacLellan was designated as his | successor. | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Who was Canada's first female Prime Minister? | Correct answer: Kim Campbell | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Who is the Federal Minister of Finance? | Correct answer: Paul Martin | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2004): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: (e2) Do you happen to recall the name of the | leader of the Federal Conservative Party? | Correct answer: Stephen Harper | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: (n6) Do you happen to recall which party promised | to spend four billion dollars to reduce waiting | times for surgeries? | Correct answer: Liberals/Paul Martin | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: (n7) Which party promised an inheritance tax on | estates over one million dollars? | Correct answer: NDP/Jack Layton | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Do you happen to recall the name of the | Premier of your Province? | Correct answer: The correct answer to IMD3015_1 depends on the | province the respondent was living in. | Respondents' provinces are available in | variable C2027 of CSES MODULE 3. The following | table lists all provinces and their Premiers: | | Province Premier | -------------------------------------------- | Newfoundland Danny Williams | Prince Edward Island Robert Ghiz | Nova Scotia Rodney MacDonald | New Brunswick Shawn Graham | Quebec Jean Charest | Ontario Dalton McGuinty | Manitoba Gary Doer | Saskatchewan Brad Wall | Alberta Ed Stelmach | British Columbia Gordon Campbell | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Can you recall the name of the Republican | running for President of the United States? | Correct answer: John McCain | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Do you happen to recall the name of a current | cabinet Minister in the federal government? | Correct Answers: Ambrose Rona, Baird John, Blackburn Jean-Pierre, | Cannon Lawrence, Clement Tony, Day Stockwell, | Emerson David, Finley Diane, Flaherty Jim, | Fortier Michael | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): IMD3015_ | | The variables are from the post-election mail-back survey. | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. John Baird | 2. Laurence Cannon | 3. Jim Flaherty | 4. Peter MacKay | Correct answer: 3. Jim Flaherty | | IMD3015_2: longest time permitted between two elections | Answer options: 1. Three years | 2. Four years | 3. Five years | 4. Six years | Correct answer: 2. Four years | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Bloc Quebecois | 2. Conservative Party | 3. Liberal Party | 4. New Democratic Party | Correct answer: 4. New Democratic Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): IMD3015_ | | The variables are from the post-election mail-back survey. | The option "Not sure" in the election study questionnaire | was recoded to "8. Don't know." | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. John Baird | 2. Jim Flaherty | 3. Peter MacKay | 4. Joe Oliver | Correct answer: 4. Joe Oliver | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 5.1% | 2. 7.1% | 3. 9.1% | 4. 11.1% | Correct answer: 2. 7.1% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Conservative Party | 2. Liberal Party | 3. New Democratic Party | 4. Bloc Quebecois | 5. Green Party | Correct answer: 1. Conservative Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2005): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Q25. Do you know the name of the President of | the Republic in office before President Ricardo | Lagos? | Correct answer: Eduardo Frei | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Q26. Do you know the name of the first President | of the Republic after the return to democracy | in 1990? | Correct answer: Patricio Aylwin | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Q27. In which year was the Chilean constitution | approved? | Correct answer: 1980 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): IMD3015 | | Respondents were only asked two knowledge questions. | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Name the chambers of the Congress. | Correct answer: Camara dos Deputados, Senado | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: For how long does a deputy in general stay | in office? | Correct answer: For four years | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who was the Croatian Prime Minister before | Ivo Sanader, from 2000 to 2003? | Correct answer: Ivica Racan | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: For how many years is the Croatian President | elected? | Correct answer: For five years | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: What is the legal electoral threshold in Croatia, | i.e. how many percentage a party must get in the | constituency in order to be counted for | distribution of seats? | Correct answer: Five percent | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (1996): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Can you tell me how many percent of votes has to | gain a political party in our country in the | elections in order to get into the Parliament? | Correct answer: Five Percent | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Who was the last minister of transportation | before the elections? | Correct answer: Vladimir Budinsky | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: How many members has our Parliament? | Correct answer: 200 (Lower House), 81 (Upper House) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006): IMD3015_ | | There are relatively high proportions of respondents who answer | "Don't know". This may be due to the Czech question text | explicitly not insisting on an answer if the respondents | were unsure. | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Was current President Vaclav Klaus elected based | on the vote of the Chamber of Deputies and the | Senate? | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Does the EU have 25 member states? | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Is the Chamber of Deputies elected based on | proportional representation or the majoritarian | system? | Correct answer: Proportional Representation | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2010): IMD3015_ | | Respondents were asked that if they don't know the answer they | should not guess, but answer don't know. | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Was current President Vaclav Klaus elected based | on the vote of the Chamber of Deputies and the | Senate? | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Is the Chamber of Deputies elected based on | proportional representation or majoritarian | system? | Correct answer: Proportional Representation | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Does the EU have 25 member states? | Correct answer: False | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Rusnok | 2. Martin Pecina | 3. Jan Fischer | 4. Jan Kohout | Correct answer: 3. Jan Fischer | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 5.6% | 2. 7.6% | 3. 9.6% | 4. 11.6% | Correct answer: 2. 7.6% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. CSSD | 2. KSCM | 3. ANO 2011 | 4. TOP 09 | Correct answer: 3. ANO 2011 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Which parties does the current government | consist of? | Correct answer: Konservative Folkeparti and Venstre | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: How many members are there in parliament, when | you don't count the four members from Greenland | and Faroe Islands? | Correct answer: 175 | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Which of the following public expenses do you | think is biggest: Expenses to primary schools, | expenses to old age pension, or to the defense? | Correct answer: Expenses to old age pension | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1_ | Question text: According to your knowledge, how many members are | in the Estonian parliament? | Correct answer: 101 | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: According to your knowledge, who is the President | of the Bank of Estonia? | Correct answer: Andres Lipstok | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: According to your knowledge, in which year did | Estonia join the European Union? | Correct answer: 2004 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2003): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Which political party does Paavo Lipponen | represent? | Correct answer: Social Democratic Party of Finland (SDP). Paavo | Lipponen was Prime Minister when data were | collected. | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Wages earned by employees are taxable income in | Finland. We would like to ask you about state | taxation. Let us presume that Virtanen earns | 2,000 euros a month and Herranen 5,000 euros. | In your view, which one of the following | statements is closest to the truth? | Answer options: 1. Virtanen's and Herranen's tax rates are equal. | 2. Income tax rate is higher for Virtanen than | for Herranen. | 3. Income tax rate is higher for Herranen than | for Virtanen. | 4. Virtanen does not pay any taxes on income, | only Herranen is taxed. | Correct answer: 3. Income tax rate is higher for Herranen than | for Virtanen. | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Which of the following countries is a permanent | member in the United Nation (UN) Security | Council? | Correct answer: Russia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who is eligible to vote in Finnish parliamentary | elections? | Correct answer: All adult citizens of Finland | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Which of the following parties has the second | largest number of seats in the newly elected | Parliament? | Correct answer: National Coalition Party (KOK) | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: What in your opinion does a parliamentary system | of government mean? | Correct answer: That the government is dependent on the | confidence of the parliament | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011) IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who of the following was the Finnish Foreign | Minister in 2010? | Answer options: Erkki Tuomioja | Astrid Thors | Olli Rehn | Alexander Stubb? | Correct answer: Alexander Stubb | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Who is entitled to vote in Finnish parliamentary | elections? | Answer options: - Over 18 year old Finnish citizens living in | Finland | - Over 18 year old Finnish citizens regardless of | country of residence | - Besides Finns, over 18 year old EU citizens | living in Finland | - Over 18 Finnish citizens who haven't lost the | right due to crime? | Correct answer: Over 18 year old Finnish citizens regardless of | country of residence | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: What is the European Union (EU) treaty that came | into force at the end of the year 2009 called? | Answer options: Geneva Convention | Schengen Agreement | Lisbon Treaty | Maastricht Treaty | Correct answer: Lisbon Treaty | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Krista Kiuru | 2. Jan Vapaavuori | 3. Paula Risikko | 4. Antti Rinne | Correct answer: 4. Antti Rinne | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 8.1% | 2. 10.1% | 3. 12.1% | 4. 14.1% | Correct answer: 2. 10.1% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Social Democratic Party of Finland (SDP) | 2. True Finns (PS) | 3. Centre Party of Finland (KESK) | 4. National Coalition Party (KOK) | Correct answer: 2. True Finns (PS) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2002): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Laurent Fabius is a member of the Socialist | Party. | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: The deputies are elected by proportional | representation. | Correct answer: False | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Michelle Alliot Marie is the President of RPR. | Correct answer: True | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007) IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: President has the right to dissolve national | assembly. | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: The deputies are elected by proportional | representation. | Correct answer: False | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Michelle Alliot Marie is the President of RPR. | Correct answer: True | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Francois Baroin | 2. Xavier Bertrand | 3. Luc Chatel | 4. Alain Juppe | Correct answer: 1. Francois Baroin | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 8% | 2. 10% | 3. 12% | 4. 14% | Correct answer: 2. 10% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Le Parti communiste | 2. Le Parti socialiste | 3. Le MoDem | 4. L'UMP | Correct answer: 2. Le Parti socialiste | | This question refers to the last election of the National | Assembly in 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: And now three (quiz) questions about politics. | What is the name of the current Minister for | Foreign Affairs? ["Easy"] | Correct answer: Klaus Kinkel | | IMD3015_2: How many states are there in the Federal Republic | of Germany since the reunification? ["Moderate"] | Correct answer: 16 States | | IMD3015_3: And how many countries are currently member of | the European Union? ["Difficult"] | Correct answer: 15 Countries | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2002 Telephone): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: We would now like to ask you three quiz | questions. What's the name of the current | Federal Minister of the Interior? | Correct answer: Otto Schily | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: How many states are there in the Federal Republic | of Germany since the reunification? | Correct answer: 16 States | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: And how many countries are currently member of | the European Union? | Correct answer: 15 Countries | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1 | Question text: The election campaign, among other things, | proposed to introduce a new citizens' insurance | scheme for the health insurance, in which all | citizens, including self-employed and civil | servants pay for it. Can you tell me which party | made this proposal? | Correct answer: SPD | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: It was also suggested that the labor market | reforms - the so-called Hartz IV Reformen - | should be canceled. Can you tell me which party | made this proposal? | Correct answer: Left.PDS | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Furthermore, it was suggested to cancel the | escape of nuclear power. Can you tell me which | party made this proposal? | Correct answer: CDU/CSU | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: We would like to know the actual threshold a | party has to reach to achieve seats in the | national parliament. | Correct answer: Five percent | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: For the parliament election of Germany, each | voter has two votes. Could you please tell us, | which of these two votes is crucial for the | distribution of seats within the parliament? | Correct answer: Second vote | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: In which election are European citizens that do | not have the German citizenship allowed to vote? | Correct answer: Communal election | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Rainer Bruederle | 2. Thomas De Maiziere | 3. Wolfgang Schaeuble | 4. Dirk Niebel | Correct answer: 3. Wolfgang Schaeuble | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 4.8% | 2. 6.8% | 3. 8.8% | 4. 10.8% | Correct answer: 2. 6.8% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. FDP | 2. Greens | 3. SPD | 4. CDU | Correct answer: 3. SPD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: MPs from different parties are on parliamentary | committees. | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: The longest time allowed between general | elections is four years. | Correct answer: False | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Britain's electoral system is based on | proportional representation. | Correct answer: False | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2005): IMD3015_ | | Question text: For each of these statements, please tick | whether you think it is true or false. If you | don't know, just choose the box on the right. | [Box on the right labeled as "Don't Know"] | | IMD3015_1: The longest time allowed between general | elections is four years | Correct answer: False | | IMD3015_2: Britain's electoral system is based on | proportional representation | Correct answer: False | | IMD3015_3: MPs from different parties are on parliamentary | committees. | Correct answer: True | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. George Osborne | 2. Vince Cable | 3. Theresa May | 4. Philip Hammond | Correct answer: 1. George Osborne | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 4% | 2. 6% | 3. 8% | 4. 10% | Correct answer: 2. 6% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Conservatives | 2. Labor | 3. Liberal Democrats | 4. UKIP | Correct answer: 2. Labor | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Could you tell me how many parties are | represented in parliament today? | Correct answer: Five parties | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: How many years does one term of the President of | the Republic last? | Correct answer: Five years | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Based on the current electoral law, what | percentage of votes constitutes the threshold for | entry of a political party into parliament? | Correct answer: Three percent | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Anna Diamantopoulou | 2. Antreas Loverdos | 3. Michalis Chrisochoidis | 4. Filippos Sachinidis | Correct answer: 4. Filippos Sachinidis | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 23% | 2. 25% | 3. 27% | 4. 29% | Correct answer: 2. 25% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Anel | 2. DIMAR | 3. PASOK | 4. Syriza | Correct answer: 4. SYRIZA | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Gikas Hardouvelis | 2. Andreas Loverdos | 3. Michalis Chrysochoidis | 4. Kiriakos Mitsotakis | Correct answer: 1. Gikas Hardouvelis | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. ANEL | 2. ND | 3. PASOK | 4. POTAMI | Correct answer: 2. ND | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998 & 2000): IMD3015_ | | Question text: Are the three statements below correct or | incorrect? | | IMD3015_1: Ms Anson Chan is the Chief Secretary of HKSAR | Correct answer: Correct | | IMD3015_2: There are five geographical constituencies in | the [1998/2000] Legislative Council Election of | HKSAR | Correct answer: Correct | | IMD3015_3: Members of Executive Council of HKSAR are | directly elected by the public | Correct answer: Incorrect | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2004): IMD3015_ | | Question text: Are the following three statements correct or | incorrect? | | IMD3015_1: The Chief Executive of the HKSAR is not allowed | to have any party affiliation. | Correct answer: Yes | | IMD3015_2: Senior secretaries and bureau secretaries | (Principal Officials) of HKSAR are appointed by | the Chief Executive and their appointments do not | require approvals from the Central People's | Government. | Correct answer: No | | IMD3015_3: 30 seats were returned by geographical | constituencies in the 2004 LegCo Election. | Correct answer: Yes | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Correct or incorrect: Currently, the Chief | Executive of the Hong Kong SAR is elected by a | 800-member Election Committee. | Correct answer: The statement is correct. | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Correct or incorrect: Currently, the geographical | constituency elections of LegCo Elections adopt | the proportional representation system. | Correct answer: The statement is correct. | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Correct or incorrect: The terms of office of the | Chief Executive and Legislative Council members | in Hong Kong SAR both last for four years. | Correct answer: The statement is not correct. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Tsang Chun-wah, John | 2. Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, Carrie | 3. Chan Ka-keung, Ceajer | 4. Yuen Kwok-keung, Rimsky | Correct answer: 1. Tsang Chun-wah, John | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 1.2% | 2. 3.2% | 3. 5.2% | 4. 7.2% | Correct answer: 2. 3.2% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | According to the sum of votes to the three tiers Geographical | Constituency (GC), District Council (Second) Functional | Constituency (FC) and traditional FC lead to three parties | coming in second. They all gained six seats. The question was | hence changed into "Which party did not come in second | (...). | | Answer options: 1. Democratic Party | 2. Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions [FTU] | 3. Civic Party | 4. Labor Party | Correct answer: 4. Labor Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | The following question asked the interviewers to rate the | respondents right after the post-election interview: | | Question text: Irrespective of how interested the respondent | was in politics, how well-informed, in your | opinion, she/he is about political matters: | Answer options: 5. Substantially better informed than the | average, | 4. Somewhat better informed than the average, | 3. About average, | 2. Somewhat less informed than the average, or | 1. Substantially less informed than the average. | | Correct answer: The original codes 1 and 2 (below average) were | recoded as "incorrect" and codes 3, 4 and 5 | (at least average political information level) | as "correct" responses. | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: What percentage of the list votes does a party | have to get nationwide in order to see at least | some of its candidates surely elected to the new | parliament? | Correct answer: Five percent | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: The respondents were asked to name the chairman | of the Constitutional Court. | Correct answer: Laszlo Solyom | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2002): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Please select the ones you are familiar with and | tell me which of these would you like to see | playing an important part in politics in the | next years? | Correct answer: Respondents were presented with a list of | prominent politicians. This item was coded as | correct if the respondent rated - positively or | negatively - at least 27 out of the 41 | politicians listed on the cards. | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Do you know what percentage of the list votes a | party must get in order to be sure have some of | its candidates sent to the new Parliament? | Correct answer: Five percent | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Do you know who is the presiding judge of the | Constitutional Court? | Correct answer: Janos Nemeth | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Do you know in what party Jonina Bjartmarz is? | Correct answer: Progressive Party | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Can you tell me who is the vice-chairman of the | Independence Party? | Correct answer: Thorgerdur Katrin Gunnarsdottir | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: And can you tell me how many electoral districts | are in Iceland? | Correct answer: Six | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Do you know in what party Kolbrun | Halldorsdottir is? | Correct answer: Left-Green Movement | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Can you tell me who is the vice-chairman of the | Independence Party? | Correct answer: Thorgerdur Katrin Gunnarsdottir | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: And can you tell me how many electoral districts | are in Iceland? | Correct answer: Six | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Katrin Juliusdottir | 2. Svandis Svavarsdottir | 3. Ogmundur Jonasson | 4. Ossur Skarpheoinsson | Correct answer: 1. Katrin Juliusdottir | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 4.8% | 2. 6.8% | 3. 7.8% | 4. 10.8% | Correct answer: 2. 6.8% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | ICENES asked "Which party came in second in votes in the | election to Althingi...". That is instead of asking who came in | second in seats, respondents were asked about who came in second | in votes. The reason is that there was a tie in the seats of | the top two parties (19 seats each). | | Answer options: 1. Social Democratic Alliance | 2. Progressive Party | 3. Independence Party | 4. Left Green Movement | Correct answer: 2. Progressive Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2002): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Can you tell me who was the leader of the Fianna | Fail during the recent general election campaign? | Answer options: 1. Charlie McCreevy | 2. Brian Cowen | 3. Charles Haughey | 4. Bertie Ahern | Correct answer: 4. Bertie Ahern | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: The Green party recently elected a leader for | the first time. Could you tell me who it is? | Answer options: 1. Patricia McKenna | 2. John Gormley | 3. Trevor Sargent | 4. Roger Garland | Correct answer: 3. Trevor Sargent | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Who is Ireland's European Commissioner? | Answer options: 1. David Byrne | 2. Maire Geoghegan Quinn | 3. Barry Desmond | 4. Padraig Flynn | Correct answer: 1. David Byrne | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who was the Minister for Finance at the time when | the last Dail was dissolved? | Correct answer: Brian Cowen | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Which Government Department received the most | money in last year's budget? | Correct answer: Social Welfare | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Which was the first party to announce that it | would cut the standard rate of tax in the 2007 | campaign? | Correct answer: Labor | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Which, if any, of these persons was Finance | Minster before the recent election? | Answer options: 1. Brian Lenihan | 2. Brian Cowen | 3. Micheal Martin | 4. Michael Noonan | Correct answer: 1. Brian Lenihan | | IMD3015_2: | As the pretest question implemented by Ireland (2011) differs | substantially from the one fielded in the final MODULE 4 | questionnaire, it is not included in this variable. The data | might be included in a subsequent release. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: To the best of your knowledge, according to the | new law, is there a limit on the number of terms | the Prime Minister can serve? | Correct answer: Yes, two terms | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: To the best of your knowledge, who is the new | chairman of Knesset? | Correct answer: Dan Tichon | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: To the best of your knowledge, what part of the | government budget does the defense budget take? | Correct answer: 10 to 40 percent | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2003): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: To the best of your knowledge, which party has | been strengthened in the last election? | Correct answer: Likud and/or Shinui | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: To the best of your knowledge, who is the | chairman of the Knesset? | Correct answer: Avraham Burg | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: To the best of your knowledge, what part of the | government budget is for defense? | Correct answer: Between 10 to 40 percent | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: To the best of your knowledge, which party got | weaker in the 2006 elections? | Correct answer: Likud | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: To the best of your knowledge, who is the | Knesset's chairman? | Correct answer: Dalia Itzik | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: To the best of your knowledge, what percentage of | the government's budget is allotted to security? | Correct answer: Between 10 and 40 percent | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Uzi Landau | 2. Gideon Sa'ar | 3. Yuval Steinitz | 4. Eli Yishai | Correct answer: 3. Yuval Steinitz | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 4.7% | 2. 6.7% | 3. 8.7% | 4. 10.7% | Correct answer: 2. 6.7% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Shas | 2. Habayit Hayehudi | 3. Ha'avoda | 4. Yesh Atid headed by Yair Lapid | Correct answer: 4. Yesh Atid | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2006): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Q25. Do you know approximately how many deputies | are in the Chamber of Deputies? | Correct answer: 630 | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Q26. Do you know who was the President of the | Chamber at the time of the elections? | Correct answer: Pier Ferdinando Casini | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Q27. Do you know who was foreign minister at the | time of the elections? | Correct answer: Gianfranco Fini | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): IMD3015_ | | There are only two political information variables available in | the Japanese survey. Both items are constructed from Q17. | Respondents who could name Okinawa prefecture are given | 1. correct for the 2ND ITEM, and Rs who could name Niigata | prefecture (or Maki town) are given 1. correct for the 2ND ITEM. | At the time of the election, these were the only two referendums | held in Japan. The Okinawa referendum was known by more people | than the Niigata referendum. | | Question wordings are: | | 1ST ITEM: | Q17 By the way, do you know that a referendum was held in | Japan recently? | 01. I know (If 1, go to SQ) | 02. I do not know (If 2, go to Q18) | | 2ND ITEM: | SQ Do you know what local government it was? | What about others? (O.A.-M.A.) | Q17a Okinawa 1. mentioned 2. not mentioned | Q17b Niigata 1. mentioned 2. not mentioned | Q17c Makimachi 1. mentioned 2. not mentioned | Q17d Others 1. mentioned 2. not mentioned | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2004): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Which of the following is a requirement to make | an amendment to the constitution? | Answer options: 1. A majority of more than two-thirds of all of | the members in both Houses. | 2. A majority of more than half of all of the | members in both Houses. | 3. A majority of more than two-third of all of | the members present in both Houses. | 4. A majority of more than half of all of the | members present in both Houses. | Correct answer: 1. | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Which of the following is one of the requirements | to become a Prime Minister in Japan? | Answer options: 1. Must be in the House of Councilors | 2. Must be part of Congress | 3. Does not necessarily have to be a part of | Congress. | Correct answer: 2. | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Out of the following, which is the name given for | the election system for the House of Councilors? | Answer options: 1. Multiple seat constituency system. | 2. System of proportional representation as a | major part of the system which is combined | with single-seat constituencies. | 3. System that combines single-seat districts | and proportional-seat representation. | Correct answer: 3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who is eligible for the Japanese Prime Minister? | Answer options: 1. the person who is the member of the lower | house (the House of Representatives) only | 2. the person who is the member of the lower | house (the House of Representatives) or the | upper house (The House of Chancellors) | 3. every voter | Correct answer: Option 2 | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Which is the requirement to have the initiative | for proposing constitutional amendments? | Answer options: 1. more than two-thirds approval of the all | members at the both house | 2. more than majority approval of the all members | at the both house | 3. more than two-thirds approval of the attending | members at both houses | 4. more than majority approval of the attending | members at the both house | Correct answer: Option 1 | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Which is the name of the current electoral system | of the lower house in Japan? | Answer options: 1. "chu-senkyoku-sei" | 2. "shou-senkyoku-hirei-daihyo-heiyou-sei" | 3. "shou-senkyoku-hirei-daihyo-heiritsu-sei" | Correct answer: option 3. Japan has changed the electoral | system in 1994, and the earliest election | under the new system was 1996. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Kaoru Yosano | 2. Jun Azumi | 3. Taro Aso | 4. Sadakazu Tanigaki | Correct answer: 3. Taro Aso | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 2.1% | 2. 4.1% | 3. 6.1% | 4. 8.1% | Correct answer: 2. 4.1% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Japan Restoration Party | 2. Liberal Democratic Party of Japan | 3. New Komeito | 4. Democratic Party of Japan | Correct answer: 4. Democratic Party of Japan | | IMD3015_4: Current UN Secretary-General | The UN secretary-general was mistakenly translated as | chairperson of the UN to the Japanese language. This difference | to the official translation for the UN secretary-general might | have led to difficulties in answering this particular question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Mutula Kilonzo | 2. Njeru Githae | 3. Wycliffe Oparanya | 4. Amos Kimunya | Correct answer: 2. Njeru Githae | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 15% | 2. 25% | 3. 35% | 4. 45% | 5. 55% | Correct answer: 4. 45% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. AMANI | 2. CORD | 3. EAGLE | 4. JUBILEE | 5. PAMBAZUKA | 6. Other | Correct answer: 2. CORD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KYRGYZSTAN (2005): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who is the Ombudsman in Kyrgyzstan? | Correct answer: Bakir uulu Tursunbai | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Who is the head of the Constitutional court? | Correct answer: Cholpon Baekova | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Who is the head of the Central Electoral | Committee? | Correct answer: Tuigunaaly Abdraimov | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who is the current Latvian President? | Correct answer: Valdis Zatlers | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: When was the Latvian Republic established? | Correct answer: 1918 | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: What is the name of the electoral system which is | used in the election of the members of | parliament? | Correct answer: Proportional (electoral) system | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Aigars Stokenbergs | 2. Uldis Augulis | 3. Andris Vilks | 4. Artis Kampars | Correct answer: 3. Andris Vilks | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 9.8% | 2. 11.8% | 3. 13.8% | 4. 15.8% | Correct answer: 4. 15.8% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. National Alliance | 2. Unity | 3. Union of Greens and Farmers | 4. Zatlers' Reform Party | Correct answer: 4. Zatlers' Reform Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997 & 2000): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Duration of the President's term | Correct answer: Six years | | IMD3015_2: Duration of the Deputies' terms | Correct answer: Three years | | IMD3015_3: Number of chambers in Congress | Correct answer: Two chambers | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2003): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Which are the chambers of Mexico's Congress? | Correct answer: Deputies and Senators | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: On the whole, How many years does a Deputy stay | on his charge? | Correct answer: Three years | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Could you tell me the name of the governor of | your state? | Correct answer: The interviewer had a list of state-governors' | names and classified the answer as correct or | incorrect, directly. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Which are the chambers of Mexico's Congress? | Correct answer: Deputies and Senators | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Could you tell me the name of the governor of | your state? | Correct answer: The interviewer had a list of state-governors' | names and classified the answer as correct or | incorrect, directly. | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: On the whole, how many years does a Deputy stay | on his charge? | Correct answer: Three years | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Could you tell me the name of the governor of | your state? | Correct answer: The interviewer had a list of state-governors' | names and classify the answer as correct or | incorrect, directly. | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: On the whole, how many years does a Deputy stay | on his charge? | Correct answer: Three years | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Which are the chambers of Mexico's Congress? | Correct answer: Deputies and Senators | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Jose Antonio Mid | 2. Alejandro Poare | 3. Heriberto Felix Guerra | 4. Genaro Garcia Luna | Correct answer: 1. Jose Antonio Mid | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 2.87% | 2. 4.87% | 3. 6.87% | 4. 8.87% | Correct answer: 2. 4.87% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. PAN | 2. PRD | 3. PRI | 4. PVEM | 5. Other | Correct answer: 1. PAN | | The Mexican Election study contained an additional category | (5. other), which was coded as an incorrect answer. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | This question was formulated slightly differently reading "Who | of the following is the finance minister?". As the Mexican | election study was conducted between 13 and 21 days after the | elections, it is clear that no new cabinet had been formed yet | and that this question, hence, refers to the finance minister | before the elections. | | Answer options: 1. Luis Videgaray | 2. Miguel Angel Osorio Chong | 3. Rosario Robles | 4. Arely Gomez | Correct answer: 1. Luis Videgaray | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 2.87% | 2. 4.32% | 3. 6.87% | 4. 8.87% | Correct answer: 2. 4.32% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. PAN | 2. PRD | 3. PRI | 4. Partido Verde (PVEM) | 5. MORENA | 6. Other | Correct answer: 1. PAN | | The Mexican Election study contained two additional categories | (5. MORENA, 6. Other), which were coded as incorrect answers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Igor Luksic | 2. Miodrag Katnic | 3. Vladimir Kavaric | 4. Dusko Markovic | Correct answer: 2. Miodrag Katnic | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 11.1% | 2. 13.1% | 3. 15.1% | 4. 17.1% | Correct answer: 2. 13.1% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Demokratski front - Miodrag Lekic | 2. Koalicija evropska CG - Milo Dukanovic | 3. Pozitivna Crna Gora | 4. SocijalistiCka narodna partija | Correct answer: 1. Demokratski front - Miodrag Lekic | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: ["Easy"] | Question text: Is CDA a member of present coalition? | Correct answer: No | | IMD3015_1: ["Moderate"] | Question text: Is Norway a member of the European Union? | Correct answer: No | | IMD3015_1: ["Difficult"] | Question text: What is the name of this Politician? | (Photo identification) | Correct answer: De Graaf | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2002): IMD3015_ | | Questions were presented in random order. | | Question text: Here are photographs of a number of politicians. | Could you tell me for each person the name, the | party and the function within the party? | | IMD3015_1: Photo 1 | Correct answer: Tineke Netelenbos, PvdA, Minister of Transport, | Public Works and Water Management | | IMD3015_2: Photo 4 | Correct answer: Jeltje van Nieuwenhoven, PvdA, Chair of Second | Chamber | | IMD3015_3: Photo 2 | Correct answer: Boris Ditrich, D66, Member of Second Chamber | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): IMD3015_ | | The Dutch respondents were shown photographs of politicians | and asked for their name, the party, and the function. In | IMD3015, those respondents who provided correct answers to all | three sub-questions were coded as providing the correct answers. | The political knowledge questions were part of the first wave, | i.e. pre-election, survey. | | Question text: I will now show you photographs of politicians. | Could you tell me for each person the name; | the party; and the function? | | IMD3015_1: Photo 1 | Correct answer: Wouter Bos; PvdA; party leader | | IMD3015_2: Photo 2 | Correct answer: Rita Verdonk; VVD; minister | | IMD3015_3: Photo 3 | Correct answer: Maxime Verhagen; CDA; MP, leader of party group | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): IMD3015_ | | The Dutch respondents were shown photographs of politicians | and asked for their name, the party, and the function. In | IMD3015, those respondents who provided correct answers to all | three sub-questions were coded as providing the correct answers. | Note that the political knowledge questions were part of the | first wave, i.e. pre-election, survey. | | Question text: I will now show you photographs of politicians. | Could you tell me for each person the name; | the party; and the function? | | IMD3015_1: Photo 1 | Correct answer: Alexander Pechtold; D66; party leader | | IMD3015_2: Photo 2 | Correct answer: Camiel Eurlings; CDA; minister | | IMD3015_3: Photo 3 | Correct answer: Gerdi Verbeet; PvdA; MP, Speaker | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): IMD3015_ | | Question text: Now, here is a quiz on New Zealand Government. | For each of the following statements, please say | whether it is true or false. If you don't know | the answer, just circle under "don't know" and | try the next one. | | IMD3015_1: Cabinet Ministers must be MPs | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_2: There are 99 members of Parliament | Correct answer: False | | IMD3015_3: The New Zealand Parliament has never had an | Upper House | Correct answer: False | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2002): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Now, here is a quick quiz on New Zealand | government. For each of the following statements, | please say whether it is true or false. If you | don't know the answer, put a tick under 'don't | know' and try the next. | Enrolling as a voter in New Zealand is | compulsory. | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Here are some other statements about MMP. Do you | think they are true, or false? | The party with the most votes is more likely to | get the most seats under MMP than under first | past the post. | Correct answer: False | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Only some parties in parliament form a | government, made up of a Prime Minister and | Cabinet Ministers. Can you recall which party or | parties formed the government after the 1999 | election? Please tick as many boxes as apply. | Answer options: - No, can't recall | - Yes, Labor | - Yes, National | - Yes, NZ First | - Yes, Green | - Yes, Act | - Yes, Alliance | - Yes, United | Correct answer: Labor and Alliance | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: For the MMP electoral system, party votes are | used to allocate seats in parliament for all | parties that cross the threshold. | Can you recall which of the following a party has | to do in order to cross that threshold? Win 5% | of all party votes OR win at least one | electorate? | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: The term of Parliament is four years. | Correct answer: False | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: It is not necessary to be a New Zealand citizen | to be eligible to vote in New Zealand? | Correct answer: True | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Simon Power | 2. Bill English | 3. Tony Ryall | 4. Nick Smith | Correct answer: 2. Bill English | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 4.6% | 2. 6.6% | 3. 8.6% | 4. 10.6% | Correct answer: 2. 6.6% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Labor Party | 2. National Party | 3. Green Party | 4. New Zealand First | 5. Act | 6. Maori | 7. United Future | 8. Mana Party | Correct answer: 1. Labor Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Judith Collins | 2. Bill English | 3. Tony Ryall | 4. Nick Smith | Correct answer: 2. Bill English | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 3.6% | 2. 5.6% | 3. 7.6% | 4. 9.6% | Correct answer: 2. 5.6% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Labor | 2. National | 3. Green | 4. NZ First | 5. ACT | 6. United Future | 7. Maori Party | 8. Internet-Mana Party | Correct answer: 1. Labor | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (1997): IMD3015_ | | 'Don't know' responses were reported as missing in all three | questions. | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: (Q15D) To which party do the President of the | Storting during the last four years belong? | Correct answer: Labor Party | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: (Q15E) How many representatives are selected at | the Storting? | Correct answer: 165 | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: (Q15B) Do you remember who's been the Minister | of Local Government and Labor the year before | the election? | Correct answer: Kjell Opseth | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2001): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who has been President of the Storting for the | last four years? | Correct answer: Kirsti Kolle Grondahl | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Do you happen to know which parties formed the | Bondevik-Government in the years 1997 to 2000? | Correct answer: Christian Democratic Party (KrF), Center Party | (Sp), and Liberal Party (V) | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Do you recall who was minister for local | Government and regional development the year | before the election? | Correct answer: Sylvia Brustad | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): IMD3015_ | | Question IMD3015_2 is a "double" question. If the respondent is | correct on both, it was registered as a correct answer. If the | respondents answer only one of them correctly, it is registered | as incorrect. The same holds for incorrect answers on both. | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Do you recall who the Minister of Modernization | was the last year before the election?" | Correct answer: Morten A. Meyer | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Six national referendums have been conducted in | Norway. Do you happen to know when the last of | them was, and what it was about? | Correct answer: 1994, EU-referendum | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Do you happen to know how many representatives | there are on the Storting? | Correct answer: 169 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): IMD3015_ | | The correct response on all three Norwegian knowledge items | includes multiple answers. Responses were defined as a correct | answer if all appropriate items were mentioned. | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Do you happen to know which parties have been in | government in the last election period? | Correct answer: Labor Party, Social Left Party and Center Party | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Do you know who was minister of transport in the | last year before the election, and which party | the person in question represent? | Correct answer: Liv Signe Navarsete and Centre Party | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: In recent years there has been disagreement about | the development of new fields of oil and gas | exploration on the Norwegian continental shelf. | Can you say which two areas that have been | particularly controversial? | Correct answer: Lofoten and Vesteraalen | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Grete Faremo | 2. Kristin Halvorsen | 3. Sigbjoern Johnsen | 4. Trond Giske | Correct answer: 3. Sigbjoern Johnsen | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 0-2% | 2. 2-4% | 3. 4-6% | 4. 6-8% | Correct answer: 2. 2-4% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Labor Party | 2. Conservative Party | 3. Progress Party | 4. Socialist Left Party | Correct answer: 2. Conservative Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2006): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who is the President of Bolivia? | Correct answer: Evo Morales | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: In what year was the Political Constitution of | Peru promulgated? | Correct answer: 1993 | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: What was the name of the democratically elected | President following the military dictatorship in | 1980? | Correct answer: Fernando Belaunde Terry | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who is the current President of Ecuador? | Correct answer: Rafael Correa | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: What public position does Magdalena Chu currently | occupy? | Correct answer: Head of the National Office of Electoral | Processes (ONPE) | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: In what year was the current Constitution of Peru | enacted? | Correct answer: 1993 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): IMD3015_ | | As political information questions deviated from CSES MODULE 4 | questions, they were not included in the CSES MODULE 4 dataset | and hence are not available in CSES IMD either. Interested | researchers can refer to the original Peruvian election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2004): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: How many years, in your knowledge, is a | congressman's term of office? | Correct answer: Three years | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Who, based on your knowledge, has the final | responsibility to decide if a law is | constitutional or not? Is it the President, the | Congress, or the Supreme Court? | Correct answer: Supreme Court | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Please tell me, based on your knowledge, the | current position in government of Jose De | Venecia? | Correct answer: Speaker of the House of Representatives | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): IMD3015 | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: What is minimum voting age requirement? | Correct answer: 18 years | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: And how many years, in your knowledge, is a | Senator's term of office? | Correct answer: Six years | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Who, based on your knowledge, has the final | responsibility to decide if a law is | constitutional or not? Is it the President, the | Congress, or the Supreme Court? | Correct answer: The Supreme Court | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Jose Pardo | 2. Gary Teves | 3. Cesar Purisima | 4. Roberto de Ocampo | Correct answer: 3. Cesar Purisima | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 6.6% | 2. 7.8% | 3. 6.1% | 4. 10.8% | Correct answer: 3. 6.1% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Partido Demokratikong Pilipino | - Lakas Ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) | 2. United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) | 3. Liberal Party | 4. Nacionalista Party (NP) | 5. National People's Coalition (NPC) | 6. People's Reform Party (PRP) | Correct answer: 5. National People's Coalition (NPC) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (1997): IMD3015_ | | Question text: Now we would like to ask you a few questions | about Polish political life. Of course, many | people are not interested in politics. Thus, it | is natural that many will decline from answering | these sort of questions. | | IMD3015_1: Please name persons occupying the following | positions: Minister of Foreign Affairs. | Correct answer: Dariusz Rosati | | IMD3015_2: Please name political parties that formed the | governmental coalition in 1993-97 period. | Correct answer: Respondent mentioned Polish People's Party (PSL); | During the 1993-1997 period, the PSL formed | coalitions with what is now the Democratic Left | Alliance (SLD). | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: In July this year Poland was invited to join an | important international organization. What | organization was it? | Correct answer: NATO | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2001): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Could you please name the military alliance of | which Poland is currently a member? | Correct answer: NATO | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Who is the chairman of the SLD? | Correct answer: Leszek Miller | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Who currently is the President of Russia? | Correct answer: Vladimir Putin | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: A proposal about introducing linear tax was | mentioned during the electoral campaign. Which | party proposed such a solution? | Correct answer: PO | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Which party wants to change state regime by | strengthening the position of the President? | Correct answer: PiS, Samoobrona | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Which party wants to transfer the majority of the | foreign exchange reserves to the state budget to | help the economy? | Correct answer: Samoobrona | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: To which military alliance Poland belongs? | Answer options: 1. Warsaw Pact; | 2. ASEAN; | 3. Visegrad Group; | 4. NATO; | 5. Weimar Triangle; | 6. ANZUS; | 7. Hard to say | Correct answer: 4. NATO | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Who is currently the Chancellor of Germany? | Answer options: 1. Helmut Kohl; | 2. Gerhard Schroeder; | 3. Angela Merkel; | 4. Hans Dietrich-Genscher; | 5. Edmund Stoiber; | 6. Konrad Adenauer; | 7. Hard to say | Correct answer: 3. Angela Merkel | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Which institutional body is established in Poland | to resolve disputes on the constitutionality of | the acts of Parliament? | Answer options: 1. the High Court; | 2. the State Tribunal; | 3. the Supreme Administrative Court; | 4. the General Prosecutor's Office; | 5. The Constitutional Tribunal; | 6. Minister of Justice; | 7. hard to say | Correct answer: 5. The Constitutional Tribunal | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Leszek Balcerowicz | 2. Marek Belka | 3. Jacek Rostowski | 4. Zyta Gilowska | Correct answer: 3. Jacek Rostowski | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 5.0% | 2. 8.0% | 3. 11.6% | 4. 16.4% | Correct answer: 3. 11.6% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. PiS | 2. PO | 3. PSL | 4. Ruch Palikota | Correct answer: 1. PiS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Do you happen to remember the name of the | Portuguese Prime Minister before Antonio | Guterres? | Correct answer: Cavaco Silva | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: And do you happen to remember the Number of EU | member-states? | Correct answer: 15 | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Do you happen to remember the name of any | candidates who ran in your electoral district in | the last parliamentary/legislative election? | Correct answer: For the answer to be considered correct, the | respondent needed to mention only one candidate | correctly. | | The item in IMD3015_3 was a standard item in the CSES MODULE 1 | questionnaire and coded based on A3019 (NUMBER OF CANDIDATES | CORRECTLY NAMED). See Codebook Part 2 of CSES MODULE 1 for more | information. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2005): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: And do you remember who was the prime-minister | before Durao Barroso? | Correct answer: Antonio Guterres | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Do you remember what party received the biggest | share of the votes in the 2002 legislative | elections? | Correct answer: PPD-PSD | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: And do you remember how many countries entered | the European Union in the last enlargement? | Correct answer: Ten countries | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Do you remember, which was the most voted party | of the 2005 legislative election? | Correct answer: Partido Socialista (PS) | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: How many countries are parts of the European | Union? | Correct answer: 27 | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Do you remember who the Prime Minister before | Jose Socrates was? | Correct answer: Pedro Santana Lopes | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Vieira da Silva | 2. Vitor Gaspar | 3. Augusto Santos Silva | 4. Maria Luis Albuquerque | Correct answer: 4. Maria Luis Albuquerque | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 13.9% | 2. 11.9% | 3. 15.9% | 4. 17.9% | Correct answer: 1. 13.9% | | Respondents were asked the unemployment rate in 2014. | By the time the survey was implemented, it hence referred to a | point in time that was between 10 and 12 months ago. | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. CDU | 2. PaF (PPD-PSD/CDS-PP) | 3. PS | 4. BE | Correct answer: 3. PS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): IMD3015_ | | The political information items concern a treaty between Romania | and Hungary, and the positions different parties took. The first | question concerned whether or not the treaty was ratified (exact | wording is unavailable). IMD3015_1 and IMD3015_2 were constructed | from the following two items: | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Last year, Romania and Hungary conducted | negotiations concerning a treaty between the two. | Referring only to the political party that you | mentioned before that you prefer, do you remember | their position concerning the Romanian-Hungarian | treaty? Please tell me their position on a scale | of 1 to 5, where 1 means that they were strongly | in favor of the treaty, and 5 means they were | strongly opposed. | | For this item, there is a considerable amount of missing data | because of the limited distribution of party identification. | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Please tell me the name of a party, different | from the one above, which opposed the signing of | such a treaty. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2004): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: What is the closing time of election polls in | Romania? | Correct answer: 9 P.M. | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Do you happen to remember who is the governor of | the Romanian National Bank? | Correct answer: Mugur Isarescu | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: What is the minimal age for a citizen of Romania | in order to be allowed to become a candidate in | the Presidential elections? | Correct answer: 35 years | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: In Romania, polling stations close at 9 PM. | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: According to the Romanian legislation, electoral | campaigns start 30 days before the election day. | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: EU countries have an equal number of members in | the European Parliament. | Correct answer: False | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Titus Corlatean | 2. Florin Georgescu | 3. Mircea Dusa | 4. Daniel Constantin | Correct answer: 2. Florin Georgescu | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 3.1% | 2. 5.1% | 3. 7.1% | 4. 9.1% | Correct answer: 3. 7.1% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. The Alliance for a Just Romania (ARD) | 2. People's Party - Dan Diaconescu (PP-DD) | 3. Hungarian Democratic Union of Romania | (UDMR) | 4. Social Liberal Union (USL) | Correct answer: 1. The Alliance for a Just Romania (ARD) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Titus Corlatean | 2. Ioana-Maria Petrescu | 3. Rovana Plumb | 4. Daniel Constantin | Correct answer: 2. Ioana-Maria Petrescu | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 2.9% | 2. 4.9% | 3. 6.9% | 4. 8.9% | Correct answer: 3. 6.9% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | As the data was collected on the 2014 Romanian Presidential | Election, the question read "Which candidate came in second in | votes in the 1st round of the Presidential elections of November | 2, 2014?" | | Answer options: 1. Victor Ponta | 2. Klaus Iohannis | 3. Elena Udrea | 4. Calin Popescu-Tariceanu | Correct answer: 2. Klaus Iohannis | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2004): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: w35x. Which party or bloc received a majority in | the State Duma as a result of the election that | took place in December of last year? | Correct answer: United Russia | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: w37x. Who is the chairman of the Central | Electoral Commission? | Correct answer: Veshnyakov | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: w36x. Who is the chairman of the Constitutional | Court? | Correct answer: Zorkin | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): IMD3015_ | | The Serbian Election study contained an additional | category (5. none), which is treated as an incorrect answer. | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Oliver Dulic | 2. Mirko Cvetkovic | 3. Ivica Daeic | 4. Snezana Malovic | 5. None | Correct answer: 2. Mirko Cvetkovic | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 21.5% | 2. 23.5% | 3. 25.5% | 4. 27.5% | 5. None | Correct answer: 3. 25.5% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Choice for a Better Life - Boris Tadic | 2. Ivica Daeic - Socialist Party of Serbia - | PUPS-JS" (SPS) | 3. Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) - Vojislav | Kostunica | 4. Let's Get Serbia Moving - Tomislav Nikolic | 5. None | Correct answer: 1. Choice for a Better Life - Boris Tadic | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: In your opinion, is the number of MPs in the | National Parliament 200? (Only one response) | Correct answer: No (150 members) | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Who was the speaker of the National Parliament | until this June election? | Correct answer: Pavol Paska | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: The European Union currently consists of 25 | member states? | Correct answer: No (27 member states) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Robert Kalinak | 2. Peter Kazimir | 3. Jan Pociatek | 4. Lubomir Vazny | Correct answer: 2. Peter Kazimir | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 10.6% | 2. 12.8% | 3. 8.2% | 4. 15.6% | Correct answer: 1. 10.6% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Slovak National Party (SNS) | 2. Ordinary people - Independent | personalities (OLaNO) | 3. Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) | 4. Sme Rodina - Boris Kollar (SR) | Correct answer: 3. Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2004): IMD3015_ | | Exact question wording unavailable. | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: 6.38) Do you know, who is present minister for | finances? | Correct answer: Andrej Bajuk | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: 6.39) How many states are now members of the | European Union? | Correct answer: 25 | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: 6.40) How many deputies does the National | Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia have? | Correct answer: 90 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Mitja Gaspari | 2. Ales Zalar | 3. Franci Krizanic | 4. Ivan Svetlik | Correct answer: 3. Franci Krizanic | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 5.1% | 2. 8.2% | 3. 10.4% | 4. 15.3% | Correct answer: 3. 10.4% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. SD | 2. PS | 3. SDS | 4. DLGV | Correct answer: 1. SDS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): IMD3015_ | | Question text: We would now like to know to what degree South | Africans are familiar with certain public figures. | For example, do you remember the name of the ... | | IMD3015_1: Deputy President? | Correct answer: Kgalema Motlanthe | | IMD3015_2: Leader of COSATU? | Correct answer: Zwelinzima Vai | | IMD3015_3: Speaker of Parliament? | Correct answer: Pravin Gordhan | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 5 % | 2. 15 % | 3. 25 % | 4. 50 % | 5. 75 % | Correct answer: 3. 25 % | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Congress of the People (COPE) | 2. Democratic Alliance (DA) | 3. Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) | 4. Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) | Correct answer: 2. Democratic Alliance (DA) | | IMD3015_4: Current UN Secretary-General | Respondents could specify another person, who was not mentioned | in the question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2004): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: What do you think how many years the Presidential | term of office is? | Correct answer: Five years | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: What do you think how many years the legislator's | term of office is? | Correct answer: Four years | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Do you know the name of the Prime Minister? | Correct answer: Goh Kun | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Which party is the governing party currently? | Correct answer: Grand National Party | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: How long does the President stay in office once | elected? | Correct answer: Five years | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: What is the name of the current Prime Minister? | Correct answer: Seung-Su | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Han Seung-soo | 2. Lee Heon-jae | 3. Kwon O-kyu | 4. Park Jae-wan | Correct answer: 4. Park Jae-wan | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 2.2% | 2. 4.2% | 3. 6.2% | 4. 8.2% | Correct answer: 2. 4.2% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. New Frontier Party | 2. Democratic United Party | 3. Liberty Forward Party | 4. Unified Progressive Party | Correct answer: 2. Democratic United Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (1996 & 2000): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: How many countries does the European Union have? | Correct answer: 15 | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: How many regions does our country have? | Correct answer: 17 | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Can you tell me who was the former President of | Government before Felipe Gonzalez? | Correct answer: Leopoldo Calvo Sotelo | | For SPAIN (2000), IMD3015_3 asked respondents to identify the | President of the Government before Jose M. Azar. The correct | response was Felipe Gonzales. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2004): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: First President of Government in our democracy? | Correct answer: Adolfo Suarez | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: In what year the Spanish Constitution was | approved? | Correct answer: 1978 | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Do you know how many countries comprise the | European Union at the present time, before the | new members enter in May? | Correct answer: 15 countries | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: In this list of persons I will read out now, | could you tell me for each of them if you know | of her/him or not? | Correct answer: NOT APPLICABLE | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Do you remember what PP voted in each of the two | votes regarding the parliamentary election of | Rodriguez Zapatero as President of the Government | of Spain? | Correct answer: Against | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Do you know what is the interest rate that you | are paying to your financial institution for | postponing payments with your credit card? | Correct answer: Not available | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (1998): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: On this card there are a number of statements. | Could you say whether each of them is true or | false. If you are uncertain of the answer, you | can answer that you do not know whether the | statement is true or false. | 'The Swedish Riksdag has 349 members' | Correct answer: True | | Question text: Here is a list with names of different persons. | Could you say to which party each of them | belongs? | | IMD3015_2: Lars Tobisson? | Correct answer: Moderate Party | | IMD3015_3: Marianne Samuelsson? | Correct answer: Green Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2002): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: One Euro is today valued to more than 10 Swedish | kronor. | Correct answer: False | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: The open unemployment in Sweden is less than | five percent. | Correct answer: False | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Swedish aid to the developing countries is today | one percent of the gross national income. | Correct answer: False | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: On this card there are a number of statements. | Could you say whether each of them is true or | false. If you are not certain of the answer, you | may say that you do not know whether the | statement is true or false. | The Swedish parliament has 349 members. | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: On this card there are a number of statements. | Could you say whether each of them is true or | false. If you are not certain of the answer, you | may say that you do not know whether the | statement is true or false. | During the 2002 - 2006 election period, Sweden | had a single party Social Democratic government. | Correct answer: True | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Here is a list with names of different persons. | Could you tell me which party each of them | belongs to? | Correct answer: NOT APPLICABLE | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Carl Bildt | 2. Anders Borg | 3. Annie Loof | 4. Beatrice Ask | Correct answer: 2. Anders Borg | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 6.0% | 2. 8.0% | 3. 10.0% | 4. 12.0% | Correct answer: 2. 8.0% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Liberals | 2. Green Party | 3. Conservatives | 4. Social Democrats | Correct answer: 3. Conservatives | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Do you know the name of this years President of | the federal council? | Correct answer: Ruth Dreifuss | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Can you tell me how many political parties are | represented in the federal council? | Correct answer: Four | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: How many signatures have to be collected for a | popular initiative? | Correct answer: 100,000 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2003): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: What is the name of this year's federal | President? (Head of the state in the year 2003) | Correct answer: Pascal Couchepin | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: How many signatures do you need for a people's | initiative at the federal level? | Correct answer: 100,000 | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: How many seats does your canton have in the | national council? (the lower house) | Correct answer: The following table lists all cantons and | the number of seats awarded to them in the | 2003 election: | | Canton N Seats | -------------------------------------------- | Zurich 34 | Bern 26 | Luzern 10 | Uri 1 | Schwyz 4 | Obwalden 1 | Nidwalden 1 | Glarus 1 | Zug 3 | Fribourg 7 | Solothurn 7 | Basel-Stadt 5 | Basel-Landschaft 7 | Schaffhausen 2 | Appenzell Ausserrhoden 1 | Appenzell Innerrhoden 1 | St. Gallen 12 | Graubunden / Grisons 5 | Aargau 15 | Thurgau 6 | Ticino 8 | Vaud 18 | Valais 7 | Neuchatel 5 | Geneva 11 | Jura 2 | | Source of data: Official election results of the Swiss 2003 | elections available at: | https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/nrw/nrw03/list/kt_index.html | (Date accessed: August 20, 2019) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: What's the name of the current President of the | Federal Council? | Correct answer: Micheline Calmy-Rey | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: How many parties are in the Federal Council? | Correct answer: 4 | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: How many signatures do you need for a people's | initiative at the federal level? | Correct answer: 100,000 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Micheline Calmy-Rey | 2. Johann Schneider-Amman | 3. Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf | 4. Doris Leuthard | Correct answer: 3. Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 2.8% | 2. 4.8% | 3. 6.8% | 4. 8.8% | Correct answer: 1. 2.8% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. SVP | 2. CVP | 3. FDP | 4. SP | Correct answer: 4. SP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (1996): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who is the Premier? | Correct answer: Lien Chan | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Who is the Chairman of the DPP? | Correct answer: Chang Chun-hung (until July 18, 1996) | Hsu Hsin-liang (starting July 18, 1996) | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Who is the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan? | Correct answer: Liu Sung-pan | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2001): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who is the current Vice President? | Correct answer: Annette Lu Hsiu-lien | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Who is the President of the PRC? | Correct answer: Jiang Zemin | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: How many years is a legislators' term? | Correct answer: Three years | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2004): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: G02. Who is the current President of the United | States? | Correct answer: George Bush | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: G04. Which body has the power to interpret the | Constitution? | Correct answer: The Council of Grand Justices | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: G03. How many years is a legislator's term? | Correct answer: Three years | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Who is the current President of the United | States? | Correct answer: George W. Bush | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Who is the current premier of our country? | Correct answer: Chao-Shiuan Liu | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: What institution has the power to interpret the | constitution? | Correct answer: Grand Justices Council | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Jiang Yi-huah | 2. Chen Chun (Sean Chen) | 3. Mao Chi-kuo | 4. Lee Sush-der | Correct answer: 4. Lee Sush-der | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 2.3% | 2. 4.3% | 3. 6.3% | 4. 8.3% | Correct answer: 2. 4.3% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Kuomintang Recommendation | 2. Democratic Progressive Party | 3. People First Party | 4. Non-Partisan Solidarity Union | Correct answer: 2. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: How many MPs are required under the New | Constitution? | Correct answer: 480 MPs | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: How many cluster (districts) are there under the | proportional election system? | Correct answer: 8 | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: Which cluster (district) number are you in | (in MPs election)? | Correct answer: Depends on the respondent's place of residence, | e.g. for a respondent in Tak province, the answer | "1" is correct. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Chinnaworn Boonyukida | 2. Korn Chatikavanij | 3. Chaovarat Chanweerakul | 4. Jurin Laksanawisit | Correct answer: 2. Korn Chatikavanij | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 0.8% | 2. 1.8% | 3. 2.8% | 4. 3.8% | Correct answer: 1. 0.8% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Bhumjaithai Party | 2. Thais United National Development Party | 3. Social Action Party | 4. Chartthaipattana Party | Correct answer: 4. Chartthaipattana Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Bulent Arinc | 2. Taner Yildiz | 3. Mehmet Simsek | 4. Mevlut Cavusoglu | Correct answer: 3. Mehmet Simsek | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 8.6% | 2. 10.6% | 3. 12.6% | 4. 14.6% | Correct answer: 2. 10.6% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Justice and Development Party (AKP) | 2. Republican People's Party (CHP) | 3. Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) | 4. Nationalist Action Party (MHP) | Correct answer: 2. Republican People's Party (CHP) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UKRAINE (1998): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: | Question text: Date of Election to the Verkhovna Rada of | Ukraine? | Correct answer: 29 March 1998 | | IMD3015_2: | Question text: Is Ukraine a NATO member? | Correct answer: No | | IMD3015_3: | Question text: What is the name of the Minister of Foreign | Affairs of Ukraine? | Correct answer: Genady Udovenko | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): IMD3015_ | | In the U.S. study, respondents were asked to identify the office | held by persons whose names were read. These names were: | | IMD3015_1: Al Gore | Correct answer: Vice President | | IMD3015_2: Newt Gingrich | Correct answer: Speaker of the House of Representatives | | IMD3015_3: William Rehnquist | Correct answer: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court | | Incorrect or incomplete responses were considered 'incorrect'; | if R made no attempt to guess, 'Don't Know' was coded. These | items are not in order of difficulty. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2004): IMD3015_ | | Code 8 In the US survey means: "R makes no attempt to guess". | | Question text: Now we have a set of questions concerning various | public figures. We want to see how much | information about them gets out to the public | from television, newspapers and the like. | | IMD3015_1: Dick Cheney. What job or political office does | he NOW hold? | Correct answer: Vice-President of the U.S. | | IMD3015_2: Tony Blair. What job or political office does | he NOW hold? | Correct answer: Prime Minister of England/Great Britain | | IMD3015_3: William Rehnquist. What job or political office | does he NOW hold? | Correct answer: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): IMD3015_ | | The US questionnaire asked respondents about the current | political position of different persons. | | Question text: What job or political office does [...] now hold? | | IMD3015_1: Dick Cheney | Correct answer: Vice President of the United States | | IMD3015_2: Nancy Pelosi | Correct answer: Speaker of the House of Representatives | | IMD3015_3: John Roberts | Correct answer: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): IMD3015_ | | IMD3015_1: Finance Minister before the recent election | Answer options: 1. Hillary Clinton | 2. Eric Holder | 3. Leon Panetta | 4. Timothy Geithner | Correct answer: 4. Timothy Geithner | | IMD3015_2: Current unemployment rate | Answer options: 1. 5.9% | 2. 7.9% | 3. 9.9% | 4. 11.9% | Correct answer: 2. 7.9% | | IMD3015_3: Party that came in second | Answer options: 1. Democratic Party | 2. Republican Party | 3. Green Party | 4. Libertarian Party | Correct answer: 1. Democratic Party --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3015_A >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: SCALE - CSES MODULE 1 (0-3 SCALE) IMD3015_B >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: SCALE - CSES MODULE 2 (0-3 SCALE) IMD3015_C >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: SCALE - CSES MODULE 3 (0-3 SCALE) IMD3015_D >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION: SCALE - CSES MODULE 4 (0-4 SCALE) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of correct answers respondents provided to all political information items included in the Standalone CSES Modules. .................................................................. 0-3 SCALE (CSES MODULES 1, 2, 3) 0-3. NUMBER OF CORRECT ANSWERS 9. MISSING 0-4 SCALE (CSES MODULE 4) 0-4. NUMBER OF CORRECT ANSWERS 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3015_ | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | Scales in IMD3015_A - IMD3015_D indicate the number of correct | answers each respondent provided to the political information | items included in the Standalone CSES Modules. As political | information items differed both between polities and election | studies from the same polities, one separate variable for each | CSES Module was created. | | As the number of political information items respondents were | exposed to differs between Standalone CSES Modules, two separate | scales were created: | | CSES MODULES 1, 2, and 3 featured three political information | items, such that the number of correct answers per respondent | ranges between 0 and 3. Scores on the 0-3 scale are provided | in IMD3015_A (MODULE 1), IMD3015_B (MODULE 2), and IMD3015_C | (MODULE 3). | | CSES MODULE 4 featured four political information items, such | that the number of correct answers per respondent ranges between | 0 and 4. Scores on the 0-4 scale are provided in IMD3015_D. | | Some studies included fewer political information items than | envisaged by the Standalone CSES Module questionnaire. IMD3015_A- | IMD3015_D were not calculated for respondents from these studies. | | As CSES MODULE 5 did not feature any political information item, | IMD3015_ was not calculated for CSES MODULE 5. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, ARGENTINA (2015), | CHILE (2009), HUNGARY (1998), JAPAN (1996), ROMANIA (1996) and | SOUTH AFRICA (2014). | | This variable is original to CSES IMD, and therefore there are | no corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3016_1 >>> IS THERE A PARTY THAT REPRESENTS RESPONDENT'S VIEWS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you say that any of the parties in [COUNTRY] represents your views reasonably well? .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3016_1 | | IMD3016_1 examines whether respondents classify any party as | representing their perspective. | | IMD3016_1 was intended as a filter question for IMD3016_2. | For further information on this, see variable notes for | IMD3016_2. | | Inconsistency response category from CSES MODULE 2 coded as | "4. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: R responded "no" to this item, | (B3023), but chose a party in B3024" was coded as "0. NO" in IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B3023 | MODULE 3: C3007_1 | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E3010_1 | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1, CSES MODULE 4, | BELGIUM (2003), HUNGARY (2018), NETHERLANDS (2006, 2010) and | SWITZERLAND (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3016_2 >>> PARTY THAT REPRESENTS RESPONDENT'S VIEWS BEST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which party represents your views best? .................................................................. 000001-9999987. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3016_2 | | Parties/coalitions and their numerical classifications for each | election study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | IMD3016_1 was intended as a filter question for IMD3016_2. Only | respondents who answered "YES" at IMD3016_1 should receive this | question. However, there is variation in the ways in which the | questions about respondent's perception of a party representing | their views best (IMD3016_1) were administered in different | election studies. In some cases, the follow-up question on the | specific party mention (IMD3016_2) was asked irrespectively of a | respondent's answer on IMD3016_1. Consequently, IMD3016_2 | sometimes includes information on respondents who did not | mention having a party representing their views best (code 1) in | IMD3016_1. These data remain unchanged in CSES IMD. | | Inconsistency response category from CSES MODULE 2 coded as | "94. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: YES To B3023 But No Party Selected" | was coded as "9999999. MISSING" in IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B3024 | MODULE 3: C3007_2 | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E3010_2 | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1, CSES MODULE 4, | AUSTRALIA (2007), HUNGARY (2018), NETHERLANDS (2006, 2010) and | SWITZERLAND (2019). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GERMANY (2009): IMD3016_2 | | The German 2009 study in CSES MODULE 3 includes a code "88. All | The Same" assigned to five respondents. This code has been | recoded to "9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER | SPECIFIED)" in CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - HONG KONG (2008): IMD3016_2 | | The Hong Kong 2008 study in CSES MODULE 3 includes a code "88. | Individuals" assigned to one respondent. This code was recoded | to "9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED)" in | CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND (2003): IMD3016_2 | | The Swiss 2003 in CSES MODULE 2 includes a code "40. Several | parties". This code has been recoded to "9999992. OTHER | CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED)" in CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND (2007): IMD3016_2 | | Researchers are advised that the question wording for IMD3016_2 | deviates from the CSES standards. Instead of asking for a party | that represents the respondent's views best, the Swiss | questionnaire evaluated each party separately. | As a consequence, the CSES MODULE 3 original variable C3007_2 | included 164 respondents assigned numerical code 88, who | mentioned more than one party representing their views best. | These respondents were recoded to "9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY | (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED)" in CSES IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3100_LR_CSES >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE LINKED WITH CSES COLLABORATOR EXPERT JUDGMENT L-R --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondents' reported party choice in the main election linked with the CSES Collaborators experts' judgment of the party on the left-right scale (0-10). .................................................................. 00. VOTED FOR PARTY SCORED 0 L-R SCALE 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. VOTED FOR PARTY SCORED 10 L-R SCALE 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3100_LR_CSES | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | IMD3100_LR_CSES links the respondents' reported vote choice in | the main election with the CSES Collaborators experts' judgment | of the party the respondent reported voting for on the | ideological left-right scale (0-10). | | IMD3100_LR_CSES is available for voters who reported voting for a | party where expert judgments are available (i.e., for parties | receiving an alphabetical classification by CSES). For more | details on which parties/coalitions receive alphabetical | classification see "CSES IMD ALPHABETICAL PARTY/COALITION | CODING - RELATIONAL DATA" in CSES IMD Codebook Part 2. | | IMD3100_LR_CSES assigns respondents a score based on respondent | reported vote choice and the corresponding expert judgment | of the CSES Collaborators on the left-right ideology scale for | the party the respondent reports voting for. | Collaborators assign parties scores on an 11-point scale ranging | from "0. LEFT" to "10. RIGHT" for all parties assigned an | alphabetical code by CSES. The expert judgment data by party | is available in variable IMD5012_. | | Some parties/coalitions have scores that are not round numbers, | e.g., 1.5 or 3.5. These scores can reflect collaborator | judgments or reflect the classification of a coalition. | Sometimes respondents report voting for a coalition, but | collaborators score parties that comprise this coalition | separately on the L-R scale. The score used for IMD3100_LR_CSES | is the mean of L-R scores of parties that comprise the given | coalition. | All of these instances are detailed in ELECTION STUDY NOTES | below. | | IMD3100_LR_CSES links the CSES Collaborator expert judgment with | the reported vote of the respondent in the main election. Here, | a respondent who reports voting for a party/candidate of PARTY A | is assigned the value the CSES Collaborator gave to PARTY A in | the said election on the left-right scale (and so on for PARTY B, | PARTY C, etc...). | | CSES classifies the main election based on the regime | (executive) type and the election in which the CSES survey has | been administered. For polities rated as parliamentary systems, | CSES classifies the main election as elections to the lower house | for most studies. It deviates for a few cases when elections to | the upper house constitutes the main election, usually due to the | respective CSES study focusing on the upper house contest. | For polities rated as Presidential systems, CSES conventionally | classifies the main election as the Presidential election. It | sometimes deviates when data for the Presidential election is | unavailable (e.g., when the CSES survey was administered in a | midterm election). For polities rated as mixed systems, CSES | has tended to classify the main election as elections to the | lower house. However, it sometimes deviates depending on data | availability. Users are advised to consult the table listed in | VARIABLE NOTES for IMD3002_OUTGOV specifying the main election | for each study in CSES for specific details. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E3100_LR_CSES | | Data are unavailable for BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), KYRGYZSTAN | (2005), LITHUANIA (1997), NORWAY (1997), PERU (2001), PHILIPPINES | (2004), SPAIN (2000), TAIWAN (2012) and THAILAND (2001). | POLITY NOTES - GERMANY: IMD3100_LR_CSES | | Party/coalition, numerically coded "2760001. Christian Democratic | Union / Christian Social Union (Union)" is a long-standing | alliance of the: | - 2760002. Christian Democratic Party (CDU) | - 2760003. Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU) | | In all German studies in CSES IMD, these parties received | separate alphabetical classifications, and collaborators scored | each party separately on the L-R scale. | | In 1998, German collaborators assigned the following L-R scores | - Christian Democratic Party (L-R score = 6) | - Christian Social Union in Bavaria (L-R score = 7) | Thus, the score for the Union in 1998 for IMD3100_LR_CSES is | 6.5. | | In 2002, German collaborators assigned the following L-R scores | - Christian Democratic Party (L-R score = 7) | - Christian Social Union in Bavaria (L-R score = 8) | Thus, the score for the Union in 1998 for IMD3100_LR_CSES is | 7.5. These scores are assigned to these parties in both German | 2002 studies, telephone and mail-back. | | In 2005, German collaborators assigned the following L-R scores | - Christian Democratic Party (L-R score = 7) | - Christian Social Union in Bavaria (L-R score = 8) | Thus, the score for the Union in 1998 for IMD3100_LR_CSES is | 7.5. | | In 2009, German collaborators assigned the following L-R scores | - Christian Democratic Party (L-R score = 5) | - Christian Social Union in Bavaria (L-R score = 5) | Thus, the score for the Union in 1998 for IMD3100_LR_CSES is | 5. | | In 2013, German collaborators assigned the following L-R scores | - Christian Democratic Party (L-R score = 6) | - Christian Social Union in Bavaria (L-R score = 7) | Thus, the score for the Union in 1998 for IMD3100_LR_CSES is | 6.5. | | In 2017, German collaborators assigned the following L-R scores | - Christian Democratic Party (L-R score = 6) | - Christian Social Union in Bavaria (L-R score = 7) | Thus, the score for the Union in 2017 for IMD3100_LR_CSES is | 6.5. | | In 2021, German collaborators assigned the following L-R scores | - Christian Democratic Party (L-R score = 6) | - Christian Social Union in Bavaria (L-R score = 7) | Thus, the score for the Union in 2017 for IMD3100_LR_CSES is | 6.5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): IMD3100_LR_CSES | | Australian collaborators in 1996 assigned non-round numbers for | several parties on the L-R scale. These parties are: | - 0360001. Liberal Party (L-R score = 5.5), | - 0036003. National Party of Australia (L-R score = 6.5), | - 0360003. Australian Labor Party (L-R score = 4.5), | - 0360005. Australian Greens (L-R score = 3.5). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): IMD3100_LR_CSES | | Chilean collaborators in 1999 assigned a non-round number on the | L-R scale to the following party: | - 1520005. Party of Democracy (L-R score = 4.5). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2002): | IMD3100_LR_CSES | | Party/coalition, numerically coded "2030087. Coalition KDU-CSL | and US-DEU" was an alliance for the 2002 Czech elections. Its | members were: | - 2030003. Christian Democratic Union - Czech People's Party | (L-R score = 5) | - 2030080. Freedom Union - Democratic Union (L-R score = 8). | | Thus, the score for Coalition KDU-CSL and US-DEU for the | IMD3100_LR_CSES is 6.5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2021): | IMD3100_LR_CSES | | Numerical code 2030200: Together (SPOLU) was an electoral | coalition for the 2021 election between the following parties: | - numerical code 2030002: Civic Democratic Party (ODS) | (L-R score = 9) | - numerical code 2030010: TOP 09 (L-R score = 9) | - numerical code 2030003: Christian and Democratic Union - | Czechoslovak People's Party (KDU-CSL) | (L-R score = 6) | | Thus, the score for SPOLU in 2021 for IMD3100_LR_CSES is 8. | | Numerical code 2030201: Pirates and Mayors (PirStan) was an | electoral coalition for the 2021 election between the following | parties: | - numerical code 2030012: Czech Pirate Party (Pi) (L-R score = 5) | - numerical code 2030015: Mayors and Independents (STAN) | (L-R score = 8) | | Thus, the score for the coalition in 2021 for IMD3100_LR_CSES is | 6.5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2002): IMD3100_LR_CSES | | Party/coalition, numerically coded "3480012. MDF - FIDESZ - MPP | Joint Candidate" was an alliance for the 2002 Hungarian | elections. Its members were: | - 3480002. Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Party Alliance Party | (L-R score = 7) | - 3480007. Hungarian Democratic Democratic Forum (L-R score = 6) | | Thus, the score for MDF - FIDESZ - MPP Joint Candidate list for | the IMD3100_LR_CSES is 6.5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2006): IMD3100_LR_CSES | | Party/coalition, numerically coded "3800038. The Olive (Ulivo)" | was an alliance for the 2006 Italian elections. Its members | were: | - 3800011. Democrats of the Left (L-R score = 2) | - 3800021. Daisy - Democracy is Freedom (L-R score = 3) | | Thus, the score for The Olive for the IMD3100_LR_CSES is 2.5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): IMD3100_LR_CSES | | In the 2018 lower house elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For those respondents reporting to have cast a | list vote and those who reported voting for both a party list | and a district candidate, IMD3100_LR_CSES was coded based on | IMD3002_LH_PL. For respondents who reported voting for a district | candidate only, IMD3100_LR_CSES was coded based on IMD3002_LH_DC. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): IMD3100_LR_CSES | | Party/coalition, numerically coded "4840028. Coalition for the | Good of All" was an alliance for the 2006 Mexican general | election. Its members were: | - 4840003. Democratic Revolution Party (L-R score = 2) | - 4840004. Labor Party (L-R score = 1) | Thus, the score for Coalition for the Good of All for the | IMD3100_LR_CSES is 1.5. | | Party/coalition, numerically coded "4840029. Institutional | Revolutionary Party - Ecological Green Party of Mexico | (PRI-PVEM)" was an alliance for the 2006 Mexican general | election. Its members were: | - 4840001. Institutional Revolutionary Party (L-R score = 5) | - 4840005. Ecological Green Party of Mexico (L-R score = 6) | Thus, the score for the alliance for the IMD3100_LR_CSES is 5.5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): IMD3100_LR_CSES | | Numerical code 4990100: Key Coalition was an alliance formed for | the 2016 Montenegrin lower house election. Its members were: | - numerical code 4990015: Democratic Alliance (DEMOS) | (L-R score = 5) | - numerical code 4990003: Socialist Peoples Party of Montenegro | (SNP) (L-R score = 4) | - numerical code 4990026: Civic Movement - United Reform Action | (URA) (L-R score = 4) | | Thus, the score for the Key Coalition for IMD3100_LR_CSES is 4.3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2019): IMD3100_LR_CSES | | Numerical code 6160124: Civic Coalition (KO) was an electoral | coalition between the following parties: | - numerical code 6160001: Civic Platform (PO) (L-R score = 6) | - numerical code 6160022: Modern (Nowo) (L-R score = 9) | - and other smaller parties for the 2019 election. | | Thus, the score for the coalition in 2019 for IMD3100_LR_CSES is | 7.5. | | Numerical code 6160125: Polish Coalition (KP) was an electoral | coalition between the following parties: | - numerical code 6160003: Polish People's Party (PSL) | (L-R score = 6) | - numerical code 6160025: Kukiz'15 (K'15) (L-R score = 8) | - and other smaller parties for the 2019 election. | | Thus, the score for the coalition in 2019 for IMD3100_LR_CSES is | 7. | | Numerical code 6160126: The Left was an alliance for the 2019 | election between several smaller parties and the following | members: | - numerical code 6160009: Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) | (L-R score = 3) | - numerical code 6160021: Left Together (Razem) (L-R score = 2) | - numerical code 6160033: Spring (Wiosna) (L-R score = 3) | | Thus, the score for The Left for IMD3100_LR_CSES is 2.67. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2004): IMD3100_LR_CSES | | Party/coalition, numerically coded "6420041. National Alliance | PSD+PUR (PSD - PUR)" was an alliance for the 2004 Romanian | elections. Its members were: | - 6420001. Romanian Party of Social Democracy (L-R score = 5) | - 6420024. Romanian Humanist Party (L-R score = 4) | | Thus, the score for National Alliance PSD+PUR for the | IMD3100_LR_CSES is 4.5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3100_LR_MARPOR >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE LINKED WITH MARPOR/CMP RILE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondents' reported party choice in the main election linked with the MARPOR/CMP "RILE" index assigned to the party. .................................................................. -100 - +100. RILE INDEX SCORES 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3100_LR_MARPOR | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | IMD3100_LR_MARPOR links the respondents' reported vote choice in | the main election with the MARPOR/CMP "RILE" index assigned to | the party the respondent reported voting for based on the | manifesto the party contested the election on. | | IMD3100_LR_MARPOR is available for voters who reported voting for | a party receiving an alphabetical classification by CSES. For | more details on which parties/coalitions receive alphabetical | classification see "CSES IMD ALPHABETICAL PARTY/COALITION | CODING - RELATIONAL DATA" in CSES IMD Codebook Part 2. | | IMD3100_LR_MARPOR assigns respondents a score based on respondent | reported vote choice and the corresponding value of that party | on the MARPOR "rile" index. This index was developed by Laver | and Budge (1992). It takes 24 categories (12 are defined as | right-wing and 12 as left-wing) and subtracts the sum of all | right-wing items from the sum of all left-wing items. | The rile index ranges from -100 (if a party only mentions left | wing issues in its program) and +100 (if a party only talks | about right-wing issues). However, these are only theoretical | maximum and minimum, which are empirically very rare, | as most parties talk about both - left and right issues. | | IMD3100_LR_MARPOR links the MARPOR "rile" index value with the | reported vote of the respondent in the main election. Here, a | respondent who reports voting for a party/candidate of PARTY A | is assigned the value MARPOR "rile" index gave to PARTY A in | the said election (and so on for PARTY B, PARTY C etc...). | | CSES classifies the main election based on the regime | (executive) type and the election in which the CSES survey has | been administered. For polities rated as parliamentary systems, | CSES classifies the main election as elections to the lower house | for most studies. It deviates for a few cases when elections to | the upper house constitutes the main election, usually due to the | respective CSES study focusing on the upper house contest. | For polities rated as Presidential systems, CSES conventionally | classifies the main election as the Presidential election. It | sometimes deviates when data for the Presidential election is | unavailable (e.g., when the CSES survey was administered in a | midterm election). For polities rated as mixed systems, CSES | has tended to classify the main election as elections to the | lower house. However, it sometimes deviates depending on data | availability. Users are advised to consult the table listed in | VARIABLE NOTES for IMD3002_OUTGOV specifying the main election | for each study in CSES for specific details. | | More information about MARPOR/CMP data and the RILE index can be | found at https://manifestoproject.wzb.eu/ | (Date accessed: October 09, 2020). | | Users are advised that CSES and MARPOR/CMP sometimes classify | coalitions differently in elections and across polities. For | example, CSES sometimes has data solely on coalitions and not | the parties comprising the alliance, while MARPOR/CMP may have | data concerning the individual parties in the coalition, or | vice versa. Consequently, some parties may have multiple | identifiers within the MARPOR/CMP dataset across time. A non | comprehensive list of these deviations is noted in Part 5 | of the CSES IMD Codebook in POLITY NOTES. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E3100_LR_MARPOR | | Data are unavailable primarily because some polities, which are | in the CSES, are not represented in the MARPOR/CMP dataset. | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2019), | BRAZIL (2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018), CANADA (2019), CHILE | (1999, 2005, 2009, 2017), COSTA RICA (2018), FRANCE (2017), | HONG KONG (1998, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016), ISRAEL (2020), | KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), PERU (2000, 2001, 2006, 2011, | 2016), PHILIPPINES (2004, 2010, 2016), SLOVAKIA (2020), TAIWAN | (1996, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020), THAILAND (2001, 2007, | 2011, 2019), TUNISIA (2019) and URUGUAY (2009, 2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD3100_IF_CSES >>> VOTE CHOICE: CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE LINKED WITH CSES COLLABORATOR EXPERT JUDGMENT IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondents' reported party choice in the main election linked with the CSES Collaborators experts' judgment of the party's ideological family. .................................................................. IDEOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATIONS AVAILABLE IN ALL STANDALONE CSES MODULES 01. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS ECOLOGY 02. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS COMMUNIST 03. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS SOCIALIST 04. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS SOCIAL DEM 05. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS LEFT LIBERAL 06. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS LIBERAL 07. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS RIGHT LIBERAL 08. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS CHRISTIAN DEM 09. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS CONSERVATIVE 10. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS NATIONAL 11. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS AGRARIAN 12. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS ETHNIC 13. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS REGIONAL 14. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS INDEPENDENT IDEOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATIONS AVAILABLE IN SOME STANDALONE CSES MODULES (See Variable Notes for more) 16. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS RELIGIOUS 17. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS SINGLE ISSUE 18. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS SOCIAL-LIBERAL 19. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS EXTREME LEFT 20. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS MONARCHIST 21. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS EXTREME NATIONALIST 22. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS NATIONALIST LEFT 23. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS EXTREME RIGHT 24. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS CENTRIST 25. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS COMMUNIST-GREEN 26. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS ORTHODOX-CALVINIST 90. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS OTHER 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. NO IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY MENTIONED 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD3100_IF_CSES | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | IMD3100_IF_CSES links the respondents' reported vote choice in | the main election with the CSES Collaborators experts' judgment | of the ideological family of the party the respondent reported | voting for. | | IMD3100_IF_CSES is available for voters who reported voting for | a party where expert judgments are available (i.e., for parties | receiving an alphabetical classification by CSES). For more | details on which parties/coalitions receive alphabetical | classification see "CSES IMD ALPHABETICAL PARTY/COALITION | CODING - RELATIONAL DATA" in CSES IMD Codebook Part 2. | | IMD3100_IF_CSES assigns respondents a score based on respondent | reported vote choice and the corresponding CSES Collaborators | expert judgments of the party's ideological family. | This variable links the CSES Collaborator expert judgment with | the reported vote of the respondent in the main election. Here, | a respondent who reports voting for a party/candidate of PARTY A | is assigned the value the CSES Collaborator gave to PARTY A in | the said election on the left-right scale (and so on for PARTY B, | PARTY C, etc...). | | CSES classifies the main election based on the regime | (executive) type and the election in which the CSES survey has | been administered. For polities rated as parliamentary systems, | CSES classifies the main election as elections to the lower house | for most studies. It deviates for a few cases when elections to | the upper house constitutes the main election, usually due to the | respective CSES study focusing on the upper house contest. | For polities rated as Presidential systems, CSES conventionally | classifies the main election as the Presidential election. It | sometimes deviates when data for the Presidential election is | unavailable (e.g., when the CSES survey was administered in a | midterm election). For polities rated as mixed systems, CSES | has tended to classify the main election as elections to the | lower house. However, it sometimes deviates depending on data | availability. Users are advised to consult the table listed in | VARIABLE NOTES for IMD3002_OUTGOV specifying the main election | for each study in CSES for specific details. | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | The expert judgment data by party is available in IMD5011_. | | Category "16. RELIGIOUS PARTIES" is only available for CSES | MODULE 1. Categories 17-26 are only available for CSES MODULE 2. | | In some instances, CSES Collaborators provide additional | information to the characterization, and when applicable, these | are detailed in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in Codebook | Parts 2 of Standalone CSES Modules. | | Users are advised that the same party might have been coded as | belonging to different party families across different | elections. These differences may reflect actual changes in | parties' ideological positions across time. | Alternatively, they might reflect disagreement on different | experts on which ideological family the respective party | belongs to, whenever national collaborators changed between | election studies. The list of all parties whose assigned | ideological families differ across election studies is detailed | in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES for variable IMD5011_. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E3100_IF_CSES | | Data are unavailable primarily because collaborator expert | judgments of parties were not provided for certain election | studies. | | Data are unavailable for KYRGYZSTAN (2005), TAIWAN (2012), and | THAILAND (2001, 2007). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): IMD3100_IF_CSES | | In the 2018 lower house elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For those respondents reporting to have cast a | list vote and those who reported voting for both a party list | and a district candidate, IMD3100_IF_CSES was coded based on | IMD3002_LH_PL. For respondents who reported voting for a district | candidate only, IMD3100_IF_CSES was coded based on IMD3002_LH_DC. =========================================================================== ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: MACRO-LEVEL DATA =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5000_A >>> PARTY A IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_B >>> PARTY B IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_C >>> PARTY C IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_D >>> PARTY D IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_E >>> PARTY E IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_F >>> PARTY F IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_G >>> PARTY G IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_H >>> PARTY H IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL IMD5000_I >>> PARTY I IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Numeric Party Code Identifier for Parties A-I (see Variable Notes). .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5000_ | | In the Standalone CSES Modules, parties A through F are the six | most popular parties/coalitions, ordered in descending order of | their share of the popular vote in the parliamentary election | (unless otherwise stated). Parties G, H, and I are supplemental | parties. They may, but do not have to, accord with how parties | A-F are ordered and often reflect important or notable parties | within a country or members of party coalitions. | For the CSES IMD, this alphabetical structure was maintained, | meaning that alphabetical codes assigned to parties/coalitions | and leaders in Standalone CSES Modules were not changed. Rather, | IMD5000_ serves as an identifier in the dataset, providing | the unique and unambiguous numerical party codes listed in | Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. As codes in IMD5000_ are | labeled with the corresponding party names, they allow | easy identification of the relational data within the dataset. | | For the CSES IMD dataset, alphabetical codes are used to | identify the following: | - Respondent's likability of the party/coalition | (variable IMD3008_). | - Respondent's left-right placement of the party/coalition | (variable IMD3007_). | - Election Results: percentage of vote for each party/coalition | in lower house (variable IMD5001_) | - Election Results: percentage of seats for each party/coalition | in lower house (variable IMD5002_) | - Election Results: percentage of vote for each party/coalition | in upper house (variable IMD5003_) | - Election Results: percentage of seats for each party/coalition | in upper house (variable IMD5004_) | - Election Results: percentage of vote for each party/coalition | in Presidential election (variable IMD5005_) | - Expert judgments by the national collaborators of the said | party/coalition's ideological family placement | (variable IMD5011_). | - Expert judgments by the national collaborators of the | said party/coalition's left-right placement (variable | IMD5012). | - Number of cabinet portfolios held by each party/coalition | before the election (variable IMD5029_). | - Number of cabinet portfolios held by each party/coalition after | the election (variable IMD5031_). | - Manifesto research on political representation identifier | for each party/coalition (variable IMD5100_). | - Parliaments and Governments (ParlGov) identifier for each | party/coalition (variable IMD5101_). | - The said party/coalition's Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) | Identifier (variable IMD5102_). | - The said party/coalition's Party Facts Identifier | (variable IMD5103_). | | In most cases, the alphabetical party codes correspond to the | alphabetical code for the leader of that same party (e.g., | LEADER A is the leader of PARTY A). However, there are | exceptions, such as in instances in which data is available for | two leaders of the same party (e.g., Ireland 2011 in CSES MODULE | 4). For more detailed information on how CSES codes parties/ | coalitions and leaders, please see Parts 3 and 4 of the CSES IMD | Codebook. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: not included | MODULE 2: not included | MODULE 3: not included | MODULE 4: not included | MODULE 5: E5000_A-E5000_I | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2021) - IMD5000_ | | For the Czech Republic/Czechia (2021), CSES MODULE 5 assigns a | joint numeric party code 203101 for the Civic Democratic Party | (ODS, PARTY A) and the Together alliance. For CSES IMD, IMD5000_A | has been assigned numerical code "2030002. Civic Democratic Party | (ODS)". | | For the same contest, CSES MODULE 5 assigns a joint numeric party | code 203103 for the Czech Pirate Party (Pirati, PARTY C) and | the Pirates and Mayors alliance. For CSES IMD, IMD5000_C has | been assigned numerical code "2030012. Czech Pirate Party | (Pirati)" for Czech Republic/Czechia (2021). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018) - IMD5000_C | | For Hungary 2018, CSES MODULE 5 assigns a joint numeric party | code 348003 for the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP, PARTY C) | and the alliance Hungarian Socialist Party - Dialogue for | Hungary. For CSES IMD, IMD5000_A has been assigned numerical code | "3480001. Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP)". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017) - IMD5000_A | | For Germany 2017, CSES MODULE 5 assigns a joint numeric party | code 276001 for the Christian Democratic Union (CDU, PARTY A) | and the alliance Unionsparteien (CDU/CSU). | For CSES IMD, IMD5000_A has been assigned numerical code | "2760002. Christian Democratic Party (CDU)". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2021) - IMD5000_B | | For Germany 2021, CSES MODULE 5 assigns a joint numeric party | code 276102 for the Christian Democratic Union (CDU, PARTY B) | and the alliance Unionsparteien (CDU/CSU). | For CSES IMD, IMD5000_B has been assigned numerical code | "2760002. Christian Democratic Party (CDU)". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2019) - IMD5000_ | | For Poland (2019), CSES MODULE 5 assigns a joint numeric party | code 616001 for Law and Justice (PiS, PARTY A), and the United | Right alliance. For CSES IMD, IMD5000_A has been assigned | numerical code "6160002. Law and Justice (PiS)". | | For the same contest, CSES MODULE 5 assigns a joint numeric party | code 616002 for Civic Platform (PO, PARTY B) and the Civic | Coalition. For CSES IMD, IMD5000_B has been assigned numerical | code "6160001. Civic Platform (PO)" for Poland (2009). | | For the same contest, CSES MODULE 5 assigns a joint numeric party | code 616003 for the Polish People's Party (PSL, PARTY C) and | the Polish Coalition. For CSES IMD, IMD5000_C has been assigned | numerical code "6160003. Polish Peasants' (or People's) Party | (PSL)" for Poland (2009). | | For the same contest, CSES MODULE 5 assigns a joint numeric party | code 616004 for the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD, PARTY D) and | the Left. For CSES IMD, IMD5000_D has been assigned numerical | code "6160009. Democratic Left Alliance (SLD)" for Poland (2009). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5001_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A IMD5001_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B IMD5001_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C IMD5001_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D IMD5001_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E IMD5001_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F IMD5001_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G IMD5001_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H IMD5001_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of popular vote received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] in current (lower house) legislative election. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE POPULAR VOTE THAT PARTY/COALITION [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED IN LOWER HOUSE 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5001_ | | Parties numerical classifications are detailed in Part 3 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. Alphabetical party and leader codes are | identified in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | For linking alphabetical to numerical party codes, please see | VARIABLE NOTES on IMD5000_. | For more detailed information on how CSES IMD codes parties/ | coalitions and leaders, please see Parts 3 and 4 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Reports | - Other publicly available data | | Since CSES MODULE 4, the CSES Secretariat always verifies the | election results provided by the collaborators. | | For more detailed information concerning individual election | studies, please consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in the | Part 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5005_A-A5005_I | MODULE 2: B5001_A-B5001_I | MODULE 3: C5001_A-C5001_I | MODULE 4: D5001_A-D5001_I | MODULE 5: E5001_A-E5001_I | | CSES MODULE 1 category "997.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL | TALLY)" was coded as "999.00. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "996.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL | TALLY)" was coded as "999.00. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | In CSES MODULE 2 and 3, returns of electoral alliances/ | coalitions were entered for all its members. ELECTION STUDY | NOTES, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES | MODULES 2 and 3, provide detailed information on these instances. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5002_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A IMD5002_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B IMD5002_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C IMD5002_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D IMD5002_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E IMD5002_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F IMD5002_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G IMD5002_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H IMD5002_I >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of seats in lower house received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] in current (lower house) election. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE SEATS THAT PARTY/COALITION [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED IN LOWER HOUSE 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5002_ | | Parties numerical classifications are detailed in Part 3 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. Alphabetical party and leader codes are | identified in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | For linking alphabetical to numerical party codes, please see | VARIABLE NOTES on IMD5000_. | For more detailed information on how CSES IMD codes parties/ | coalitions and leaders, please see Parts 3 and 4 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Reports | - Other publicly available data | | Since CSES MODULE 4, the CSES Secretariat always verifies the | election results provided by the collaborators. | | For more detailed information concerning individual election | studies, please consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in the | Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5006_A-A5006_I | MODULE 2: B5002_A-B5002_I | MODULE 3: C5002_A-C5002_I | MODULE 4: D5002_A-D5002_I | MODULE 5: E5002_A-E5002_I | | CSES MODULE 1 category "997.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL | TALLY)" was coded as "999.00. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "996.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL | TALLY)" was coded as "999.00. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | In CSES MODULES 2 and 3, returns of electoral alliances/ | coalitions were entered for all its members. ELECTION STUDY | NOTES, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES | Modules 2 and 3, provide detailed information on these | instances. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5003_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A IMD5003_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B IMD5003_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C IMD5003_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D IMD5003_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E IMD5003_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F IMD5003_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G IMD5003_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H IMD5003_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of popular vote received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] in current (upper house) legislative election. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE POPULAR VOTE THAT PARTY/COALITION [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED IN UPPER HOUSE 996.00. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5003_ | | Parties numerical classifications are detailed in Part 3 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. Alphabetical party and leader codes are | identified in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | For linking alphabetical to numerical party codes, please see | VARIABLE NOTES on IMD5000_. | For more detailed information on how CSES IMD codes parties/ | coalitions and leaders, please see Parts 3 and 4 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Reports | - Other publicly available data | | Since CSES MODULE 4, the Secretariat always verifies the | election results provided by the collaborators. | | For more detailed information concerning individual election | studies, please consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in the | Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5007_A-A5007_I | MODULE 2: B5003_A-B5003_I | MODULE 3: C5003_A-C5003_I | MODULE 4: D5003_A-D5003_I | MODULE 5: E5003_A-E5003_I | | CSES MODULE 1 category "997.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL | TALLY)" was coded as "999.00. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "996.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL | TALLY)" was coded as "999.00. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | In CSES MODULE 2 and 3, returns of electoral alliances/ | coalitions were entered for all its members. ELECTION STUDY | NOTES, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES | MODULES 2 and 3, provide detailed information on these | instances. | POLITY NOTES - TAIWAN: IMD5003_ | | Next to the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan's lower house, Taiwan also | had a directly elected National Assembly, which was formally | abolished only in 2005 (See POLITY NOTES for IMD5026_1 for | further details). | Consequently, the Taiwanese 1996, 2001, and 2004 studies are | coded "997. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION" in IMD5003_, | more recent Taiwanese studies are coded "996. NOT APPLICABLE: | UNICAMERAL SYSTEM". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5004_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A IMD5004_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B IMD5004_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C IMD5004_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D IMD5004_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E IMD5004_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F IMD5004_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G IMD5004_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H IMD5004_I >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of seats in upper house received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] in current (upper house) election. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE SEATS THAT PARTY/COALITION [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED IN UPPER HOUSE 996.00. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5004_ | | Parties numerical classifications are detailed in Part 3 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. Alphabetical party and leader codes are | identified in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | For linking alphabetical to numerical party codes, please see | VARIABLE NOTES on IMD5000_. | For more detailed information on how CSES IMD codes parties/ | coalitions and leaders, please see Parts 3 and 4 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Reports | - Other publicly available data | | Since CSES MODULE 4, the CSES Secretariat always verifies the | election results provided by the collaborators. | | For more detailed information concerning individual election | studies, please consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in the | Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5008_A-A5008_I | MODULE 2: B5004_A-B5004_I | MODULE 3: C5004_A-C5004_I | MODULE 4: D5004_A-D5004_I | MODULE 5: E5004_A-E5004_I | | CSES MODULE 1 category "997.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL | TALLY)" was coded as "999.00. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "996.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL | TALLY)" was coded as "999.00. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | In CSES MODULES 2 and 3, returns of electoral alliances/ | coalitions were entered for all its members. ELECTION STUDY | NOTES, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES | MODULES 2 and 3, provide detailed information on these | instances. | POLITY NOTES - TAIWAN: IMD5004_ | | Next to the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan's lower house, Taiwan also | had a directly elected National Assembly, which was formally | abolished only in 2005 (See POLITY NOTES for IMD5026_1 for | further details). | Consequently, the Taiwanese 1996, 2001, and 2004 studies are | coded "997. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION" in IMD5004_, | more recent Taiwanese studies are coded "996. NOT APPLICABLE: | UNICAMERAL SYSTEM". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5005_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY A IMD5005_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY B IMD5005_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY C IMD5005_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY D IMD5005_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY E IMD5005_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY F IMD5005_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY G IMD5005_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY H IMD5005_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of popular vote received by candidate of PARTY/COALITION [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] in current Presidential election. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE POPULAR VOTE THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED 996.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5005_ | | In elections with two rounds, IMD5005_ refer to the results | received by each candidate in Round 1 unless otherwise specified | in ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the | Standalone CSES Modules. | | Parties numerical classifications are detailed in Part 3 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. Alphabetical party and leader codes are | identified in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | For linking alphabetical to numerical party codes, please see | VARIABLE NOTES on IMD5000_. | For more detailed information on how CSES IMD codes parties/ | coalitions and leaders, please see Parts 3 and 4 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Reports | - Other publicly available data | | Since CSES MODULE 4, the CSES Secretariat always verifies the | election results provided by the collaborators. | | For more detailed information concerning individual election | studies, please consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in the | Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5009_A-A5009_I | MODULE 2: B5005_A-B5005_I | MODULE 3: C5005_A-C5005_I | MODULE 4: D5005_A-D5005_I | MODULE 5: E5005_A-E5005_I | | CSES MODULE 1 category "997.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL | TALLY)" was coded as "999.00. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | CSES MODULE 2 category "996.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL | TALLY)" was coded as "999.00. MISSING" in CSES IMD. | | In CSES MODULES 2 and 3, returns of electoral alliances/ | coalitions were entered for all its members. ELECTION STUDY | NOTES, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES | Modules 2 and 3, provide detailed information on these | instances. | [POLITY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND: IMD5005_PR_ | | There is a role in Switzerland known as President of the Federal | Council, with the title assigned to one of the seven members | of the Federal Council of Switzerland, which is elected by the | Federal Assembly (composed of the Council of States and National | Council) for a four-year term. Conventionally, the role of | President of the Council rotates among members, depending on | members' seniority. The President of the Federal Council has no | power above the other six members of the Council, and the role is | largely ceremonial. The President of the Federal Council is | not considered the Head of State - instead, the Federal Council | is classified as not only the Head of State but also the Head | of Government. Consequently, these variables are coded | "996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KYRGYZSTAN (2005): IMD5005_ | | IMD5005_ variables list election results of the candidates that | participated in the 2005 Presidential election. Candidates and | parties listed in IMD5005_A to IMD5005_F do not correspond to | parties in the other items that code parties from A to F (or I). | Candidates competing in the early Presidential election of | July 10, 2005, did not represent parties that respondents were | asked about in survey items. | | Candidate Party | --------------------------- ----------------------------- | PARTY A Kurmanbek Bakiev Tandem/People's Movement of | Kyrgyzstan | PARTY B Bakir uulu Tursunbai Independent candidate | PARTY C Akbarali Aitikeev Party of "Defence" | PARTY D Zhipar Zheksheev Democratic Movement of | Kyrgyzstan | PARTY E Toktaiim Umetalieva Independent candidate | PARTY F Keneshbek Dushebaev Justice - "Akyitkat" | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - UNITED STATES (2012): IMD5005_C - | IMD5005_E | | Data for Parties G (Libertarian Party, LP), H (Green Party, | GPUS) and I (Constitution Party, Con) are listed in slots C | (Libertarian Party, LP), D (Green Party, GPUS) and E | (Constitution Party, Con). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5006_1 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - TURNOUT AS A PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS (ER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Official voter turnout - Percentage of the registered voters (ER). .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF REGISTERED VOTERS (ER) WHO VOTED 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5006_1 | | IMD5006_1 details The Electoral Register (ER) turnout, which is | the total number of votes cast (valid and invalid) divided by the | number of names on the voters' register, expressed as a | percentage. | | Turnout data refers to lower house elections unless otherwise | specified. Please refer to ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in | Part 2 of the Codebooks for the respective Standalone | CSES Modules. | | In Presidential elections with two rounds of voting, turnout | data refers to the first round of elections. | | Turnout data primarily comes from the International Institute | for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Voter Turnout | Database. During the fielding of MODULE 4, the IDEA website | from where the data was sourced changed. The most up-to-date | website is: http://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout | (Date accessed: November 26, 2023). Previously, data was also | obtained from the old IDEA website, previously available at: | http://www.oldsite.idea.int/vt/index.cfm. This URL is no longer | active at the time of publication. | | If the source deviates from the above, it is detailed in the | ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in Part 2 of the Codebooks for | the respective Standalone CSES Modules. | | Data on IMD5006_1 were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5006_1 | MODULE 4: D5006_1 | MODULE 5: E5006_1 | | Data are unavailable for HONG KONG (2004), ISRAEL (2006) and | JAPAN (2004). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5006_2 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - TURNOUT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE VOTING AGE POPULATION (VAP) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Official voter turnout - Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP). .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF VOTING AGE POPULATION (VAP) WHO VOTED 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5006_2 | | IMD5006_2 details the Voting Age Population (VAP) turnout, which | includes all citizens above the legal voting age in a country. | It is not intended to be a precise measure of the number of | citizens entitled to vote as it does not take into account legal | or systematic impediments such as resident non-citizens. Rather, | its intent is to provide an estimate of turnout besides estimates | based solely on an electoral register. Voter registers are often | outdated or inaccurate or in some circumstances are not used for | elections (e.g., 1994 South African elections). | | In some polities, voters are registered automatically and hence | it might be expected that the electoral register measure and the | voting age population would be identical. This is not always the | case for the reasons set out above. However, and unless we can | verify accuracy, CSES reports the voting age population as | listed by the IDEA. However, ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in | Part 2 of the Codebooks for the respective Standalone CSES | Modules, do alert users to instances where voter registration | is automatic and thus to cases for which in theory the ER | and VAP estimates could be identical. | | Turnout data refers to lower house elections unless otherwise | specified. Please refer to ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in | Part 2 of the Codebooks for the respective Standalone | CSES Modules. | | In Presidential elections with two rounds of voting, turnout | data refers to the first round of elections. | | Turnout data primarily comes from the International Institute | for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Voter Turnout | Database. During the fielding of MODULE 4, the IDEA website | from where the data was sourced changed. The most up-to-date | website is: http://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout | (Date accessed: November 26, 2023). Previously, data was also | obtained from the old IDEA website, previously available at: | http://www.oldsite.idea.int/vt/index.cfm. This URL is no longer | active at the time of publication. | | If the source deviates from the above, it is detailed in the | ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in Part 2 of the Codebooks for | the respective Standalone CSES Modules. | | Data on IMD5006_2 were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5006_2 | MODULE 4: D5006_2 | MODULE 5: E5006_2 | | Data are unavailable for CHILE (1999), HONG KONG (1998, 2000, | 2004), JAPAN (2004, 2017), LITHUANIA (1997), and SLOVAKIA | (2010). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5007 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is voting compulsory? .................................................................. 1. YES; STRICTLY ENFORCED SANCTIONS 2. YES; WEAKLY ENFORCED SANCTIONS 3. YES; WITHOUT SANCTION FOR VIOLATION 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5007 | | Definition: Voting is compulsory if the law states that all those | who have the right to vote are obliged to exercise that right. | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5031 | MODULE 2: B5037 | MODULE 3: C5044_1 | MODULE 4: D5044_1 | MODULE 5: E5046_1 | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] MODULE 2 - IMD5007 | | The original variable in CSES MODULE 2 that referred to | compulsory voting (B5037) contained category "3. YES; LIMITED | ENFORCEMENT" but no study was coded into this category in the | CSES Module 2. This category is not used in IMD, so CSES | MODULE 2 category "4. YES; WITHOUT SANCTION FOR VIOLATION" was | coded as "3. YES; WITHOUT SANCTION FOR VIOLATION" in IMD. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): IMD5007 | | Contrary to CHILE 1999 and CHILE 2005, respondents were coded | as "3. YES; WITHOUT SANCTION FOR VIOLATION" instead of "2. YES; | WEAKLY ENFORCED SANCTIONS." The reasons were changes which | included a switch from a system of voluntary registration and | mandatory voting to automated registration and voluntary voting. | For more information, see: | Toro, Sergio. Y. & Luna, J. P. (2011):. The Chilean elections | of December 2009 and January 2010. Electoral Studies 31(1), | 226-230. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2010.08.005 | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NETHERLANDS (1998): IMD5007 | | In MODULE 1, the Netherlands were coded as "YES; LIMITED | ENFORCEMENT." However, the Netherlands did not have compulsory | voting. Hence, respondents were coded as "5. NO" for IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5008_1 >>> PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER BEFORE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Party of the Prime Minister before the election. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY /COALITION HARMONIZED NUMERICAL CODES] 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999997. NOT APPLICABLE 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5008_1 | | IMD5008_1 details the party holding the role of Prime Minister | before the election, regardless of whether there was a | parliamentary election or not. | | Parties/coalitions numerical classifications are detailed in | Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Reports | - Other publicly available data | | Data on IMD5008_1 were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables for IMD5024_ in the Standalone CSES | Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5008 | MODULE 4: D5008 | MODULE 5: E5010 | | For more detailed information concerning individual election | studies, please consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in the | Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | POLITY NOTES - HONG KONG: IMD5008_1 | | There is no post of Prime Minister in Hong Kong. | POLITY NOTES - RUSSIA: IMD5008_1 | | Vladimir Putin was Russia's Prime Minister (formally: "Chairman | of the Government of the Russian Federation"), before the Russian | 1999 parliamentary election and the 2000 Presidential election. | Although Putin was formally independent, he supported Unity | (IMD numeric party code 6430051) at the 1999 election and was | backed by Unity after that election. | Therefore, in his role as Prime Minister, Putin is coded as | being affiliated with Unity. | However, additionally to his role as incumbent Prime Minister, | Putin became acting President of Russia, after Boris Yeltsin's | resignation on December 31, 1999 - resulting in early | Presidential elections on March 26, 2000 (see POLITY NOTES on | IMD5009_ for more information). | After Putin was confirmed as President, Mikhail Kasyanov became | Prime Minister, who was independent at that time. | [POLITY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND: IMD5008_1 | | There is no formal Prime Minister in Switzerland. Instead, | executive power is exercised by a collective organism called the | Federal Council of Switzerland. This organism has seven members | and is elected by the Federal Assembly (which is composed of two | organs, the Council of States and National Council) for a | four-year term. Since 1959, the Federal Council has been composed | of a coalition of all major parties (SVP/UDC, SP/PS, FDP/PRD, | and CVP/PDC), an arrangement called the "magic formula". The | Council elects each year among its members a President, but this | position is presumably largely ceremonial. Consequently, this | variable is coded with 9999997 "Not applicable". | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - FRANCE 2002: IMD5008_1 | | The French 2002 election study refers to the Presidential | elections, held on April 21 (first round) and May 5, 2002 (second | round). Incumbent Prime Minister Lionel Jospin contested as | Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party (PS). After Jospin | missed the second round, he resigned from politics. | Jean-Pierre Raffarin became Prime Minister after the 2002 | Presidential election. By that time, Raffarin was still a member | of Liberal Democracy, a party that officially merged into the | Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) in November 2002. Therefore, | Raffarin is coded as belonging to the UMP for IMD5008_2. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - FRANCE 2007: IMD5008_1 | | In CSES MODULE 3, the Prime Minister before and after the | French 2007 legislative election is coded as being a member of | the Greens (V). | However, both Dominique de Villepin, who resigned as Prime | Minister on May 15, 2007, and Francois Fillon, his successor, | were members of the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP). Hence, | both IMD5008_ variables have been recoded to "2500001. Union for | a Popular Movement (UMP)" for France 2007. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - POLAND 2007: IMD5008_1 | | In CSES MODULE 3, the Prime Minister before the 2007 Polish | parliamentary election is coded as being a member of Civic | Platform (PO). | However, the outgoing Prime Minister was Jaroslaw Kaczynski, | a member of Law and Justice (PiS). Hence, IMD5008_1 was recoded | to "6160002. Law and Justice (PiS)" for Poland 2007. | Donald Tusk, who became Prime Minister after the 2007 election, | was a member of Civic Plattform (PO). Hence, IMD5008_2 was | recoded to "6160001. Civic Platform (PO)" for Poland 2007, as | the coding of IMD5008_2 in MODULE 3 refers to the Polish | Peasant Party. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SLOVENIA 2008: IMD5008_1 | | In CSES MODULE 3, the Prime Minister before the 2008 Slovenian | parliamentary election is coded as being a member of Liberal | Democracy of Slovenia (LDS). | However, the outgoing Prime Minister was Janez Jansa, a member of | Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS). Hence, IMD5008_1 was recoded | to "7050001. Social Democratic Party (SDS)" for Slovenia 2008. | Borut Pahor, who became Prime Minister after the 2008 election, | was a member of the Social Democrats (SD). Hence, IMD5008_2 was | recoded to "7050002. Social Democrats (SD)", as the coding of | IMD5008_2 in MODULE 3 also refers to the LDS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5008_2 >>> PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER AFTER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Party of the Prime Minister AFTER the election. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY /COALITION HARMONIZED NUMERICAL CODES] 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999997. NOT APPLICABLE 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5008_2 | | IMD5008_2 details the party holding the role of Prime Minister | after the election, regardless of whether there was a | parliamentary election or not. | | Parties/coalitions numerical classifications are detailed in | Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Reports | - Other publicly available data | | Data on IMD5008_2 were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables for IMD5008_2 in the Standalone | CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5012 | MODULE 4: D5012 | MODULE 5: E5014 | | For more detailed information concerning individual election | studies, please consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in the | Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | POLITY NOTES - HONG KONG: IMD5008_2 | | There is no post of Prime Minister in Hong Kong. | POLITY NOTES - RUSSIA: IMD5008_2 | | Vladimir Putin was Russia's Prime Minister (formally: "Chairman | of the Government of the Russian Federation"), after the Russian | 1999 parliamentary election. | Although Putin was formally independent, he supported Unity | (IMD numeric party code 6430051) at the 1999 election and was | backed by Unity after that election. | Therefore, in his role as Prime Minister, Putin is coded as | being affiliated with Unity. | However, additionally to his role as incumbent Prime Minister, | Putin became acting President of Russia, after Boris Yeltsin's | resignation on December 31, 1999 - resulting in early | Presidential elections on March 26, 2000 (see POLITY NOTES on | IMD5009_ for more information). | After Putin was confirmed as President, Mikhail Kasyanov became | Prime Minister, who was independent at that time. | [POLITY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND: IMD5008_2 | | There is no formal Prime Minister in Switzerland. Instead, | executive power is exercised by a collective organism called the | Federal Council of Switzerland. This organism has seven members | and is elected by the Federal Assembly (which is composed of two | organs, the Council of States and National Council) for a | four-year term. Since 1959, the Federal Council has been composed | of a coalition of all major parties (SVP/UDC, SP/PS, FDP/PRD, | and CVP/PDC), an arrangement called the "magic formula". The | Council elects each year among its members a President, but this | position is presumably largely ceremonial. Consequently, this | variable is coded with 9999997 "Not applicable". | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - FRANCE 2002: IMD5008_2 | | The French 2002 election study refers to the Presidential | elections, held on April 21 (first round) and May 5, 2002 (second | round). Incumbent Prime Minister Lionel Jospin contested as | Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party (PS). After Jospin | missed the second round, he resigned from politics. | Jean-Pierre Raffarin became Prime Minister after the 2002 | Presidential election. By that time, Raffarin was still a member | of Liberal Democracy, a party that officially merged into the | Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) in November 2002. Therefore, | Raffarin is coded as belonging to the UMP for IMD5008_2. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - FRANCE 2007: IMD5008_2 | | In CSES MODULE 3, the Prime Minister before and after the | French 2007 legislative election is coded as being a member of | the Greens (V). | However, both Dominique de Villepin, who resigned as Prime | Minister on May 15, 2007, and Francois Fillon, his successor, | were members of the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP). Hence, | both IMD5008_ variables have been recoded to "2500001. Union for | a Popular Movement (UMP)" for France 2007. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - POLAND 2007: IMD5008_2 | | In CSES MODULE 3, the Prime Minister before the 2007 Polish | parliamentary election is coded as being a member of Civic | Plattform (PO). | However, the outgoing Prime Minister was Jaroslaw Kaczynski, | a member of Law and Justice (PiS). Hence, IMD5008_1 was recoded | to "6160002. Law and Justice (PiS)" for Poland 2007. | Donald Tusk, who became Prime Minister after the 2007 election, | was a member of Civic Plattform (PO). Hence, IMD5008_2 was | recoded to "6160001. Civic Platform (PO)" for Poland 2007, as | the coding of IMD5008_2 in MODULE 3 refers to the Polish | Peasant Party. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SLOVENIA 2008: IMD5008_2 | | In CSES MODULE 3, the Prime Minister before the 2008 Slovenian | parliamentary election is coded as being a member of Liberal | Democracy of Slovenia (LDS). | However, the outgoing Prime Minister was Janez Jansa, a member | of Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS). Hence, IMD5008_1 was recoded | to "7050001. Social Democratic Party (SDS)" for Slovenia 2008. | Borut Pahor, who became Prime Minister after the 2008 election, | was a member of the Social Democrats (SD). Hence, IMD5008_2 was | recoded to "7050002. Social Democrats (SD)", as the coding of | IMD5008_2 in MODULE 3 also refers to the LDS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5008_C >>> DID PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER CHANGE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether the party of the Prime Minister changed after the election. .................................................................. 0. PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER DID NOT CHANGE AFTER ELECTION 1. PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER CHANGED AFTER ELECTION 6. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 7. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRIME MINISTER 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5008_C | | IMD5008_C details whether the party of the Prime Minister changed | throughout the course of the election for studies covering a | lower house election. | | IMD5008_C is constructed based on the party of the Prime Minister | before and after the election, as coded in variables IMD5008_1 | and IMD5008_2, respectively. Hence, researchers are advised that | IMD5008_C disregards changes or continuities in personalities, | focusing on the party brand instead. | | Studies are classified as "0. PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER | DID NOT CHANGE AFTER ELECTION" if there was a lower house | election, IMD5008_1 and IMD5008_2 detail the same party of the | Prime Minister before and after the election, or Prime Ministers | were both coded as being "9999989. INDEPENDENT" in IMD5008_1 and | IMD5008_2. | | Studies are classified as "1. PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER CHANGED | AFTER ELECTION" if there was a lower house election and IMD5008_1 | and IMD5008_2 detail different party affiliations of the Prime | Minister before and after the election in IMD5008_. | | Although IMD5008_1 and IMD5008_2 detail the party of the Prime | Minister regardless of whether there was a lower house election, | IMD5008_C codes studies in which no lower house election took | place as "6. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION". The | rationale for this coding decision is that most Prime Ministers | in CSES polities are accountable to parliament, meaning that | changes in Prime Ministership are expected to occur primarily | when the composition of parliament changes. | Instances in which the party of the Prime Minister changed | although no lower house election was held are listed in ELECTION | STUDY NOTES below. | | Code "7. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRIME MINISTER" denotes | polities for which the role of the Prime Minister does not exist, | oftentimes because the executive power in government is exercised | by the Presidency or a collective organism (e.g., Switzerland). | | This variable is original to CSES IMD, and therefore there are | no corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules. | POLITY NOTES - FRANCE: IMD5008_C | | Although the French 2002, 2012, and 2017 election studies refer | exclusively to the respective Presidential elections, these | contests also involved a change in the Prime Minister's party | shortly after the elections. | The Prime Minister of France is appointed by the French | President. However, as the Prime Minister is accountable to the | French lower house, the National Assembly, the choice requires a | parliamentary majority in practice. Conventionally, French | legislative elections closely follow the Presidential contests | since 2002 to decrease the chances of a divided government. | | After having lost the Presidential election in 2002 to Jacques | Chirac (Union for a Popular Movement, UMP), incumbent Prime | Minister Lionel Jospin (Socialist Party, PS) retired. He was | succeeded in office by Jean-Pierre Raffarin (UMP), whose party | obtained a parliamentary majority after the June 2002 legislative | election. | | In 2012, incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy (UMP) lost the | election to Francois Hollande (PS). Upon assuming office, | Hollande appointed Jean-Marc Ayrault (PS) as Prime Minister. | Ayrault succeeded Francois Fillon (UMP) in office, who resigned | following UMP's defeat in the Presidential contest. The PS also | became the strongest party after the June 2012 legislative | elections, thereby backing Ayrault in parliament. | | In 2017, incumbent President Francois Hollande (PS) lost the | election to Emmanuel Macron (LaREM). Upon assuming office, Macron | appointed Edouard Philippe as Prime Minister (The Republicans, | LR). Philippe succeeded Bernard Cazeneuve (PS) in office, who | resigned following PS's defeat in the Presidential contest. | LaREM also obtained a parliamentary majority after the June 2017 | legislative elections. Despite being a member of The Republicans, | the UMP successor party, Philippe campaigned for LaREM in the | legislative contest, as Macron's party supported him as Prime | Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): IMD5008_C | | The office of the Prime Minister of Kenya briefly existed from | 1963-1964, but was temporarily re-established in 2008, as part of | a power-sharing agreement between incumbent President Mwai Kibaki | and opposition leader Raila Odinga (Orange Democratic Movement), | with Odinga becoming Prime Minister in 2008. Following the | new Constitution adopted in a 2010 referendum, the post of the | Prime Minister was abolished after the 2013 elections. Hence, | IMD5008_C is coded "9. MISSING" for Kenya 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KYRGYZSTAN (2005): IMD5008_C | | The Kyrgyz 2005 election study focuses on the Presidential | contest, held on July 10, 2005. Presidential elections followed | events earlier that year culminating in the "Tulip Revolution" | that saw incumbent President Askar Akayev flee the country on | March 24, 2005, after widespread public protests. In Akayev's | absence, Kurmanbek Bakiyev (formally an independent) acted as | both Prime Minister and President, being confirmed as President | in the July election. Upon seizing the Presidency, Bakiyev | appointed Felix Kulkov (Ar-Namys) as Prime Minister, who was | confirmed in office by the parliament on September 1, 2005. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): IMD5008_C | | The Russian 2000 election study refers to the Presidential | elections, held on March 26, 2000. At the time, Vladimir Putin | was both incumbent Prime Minister (formally: "Chairman of the | Government of the Russian Federation"), and acting President | following Boris Yeltsin's resignation on December 31, 1999. | Although Putin was formally independent, he supported Unity | at the 1999 legislative election and was backed by Unity | afterward. Therefore, in his role as Prime Minister, Putin is | coded as being affiliated with Unity. After Putin was confirmed | as President in the 2000 contest, Mikhail Kasyanov became Prime | Minister, who was independent at that time. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD5008_C | | Taiwan's head of government, known as the Premier of the Republic | of China or the President of the Executive Yuan, is appointed by | the President without requiring approval of Taiwan's parliament. | In the 2008 Taiwanese Presidential election, incumbent President | Chen Shui-bian (Democratic Progressive Party, DPP) was ineligible | to re-election due to term limits. The DPP's candidate lost the | election to Kuomintang's candidate, Ma Ying-jeou. Upon assuming | Presidency, Ma appointed Liu Chao-shiuan (Kuomintang) as Premier, | who succeeded Chang Chun-hsiung (DPP) in office. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): IMD5008_C | | Constitutional amendments approved in a 2017 referendum turned | the Turkish Presidency into an executive post, effective with the | 2018 general election. Consequentially, the office of the Prime | Minister, held by incumbent Binali Yildirim (AKP), was abolished | after the 2018 electoral contest. Hence, IMD5008_C is coded | "9. MISSING" for Turkey 2018. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5009_1 >>> PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT BEFORE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Party of the President before the election. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY /COALITION HARMONIZED NUMERICAL CODES] 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999997. NOT APPLICABLE 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5009_1 | | IMD5009_1 details the party/coalition holding the role of | President before the election, regardless of whether there was | a Presidential election or not. | | Parties numerical classifications are detailed in Part 3 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Reports | - Other publicly available data | | Data on IMD5009_1 were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables for IMD5009_1 in the Standalone | CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5007 | MODULE 4: D5007 | MODULE 5: E5009 | | For more detailed information concerning individual election | studies, please consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in the | Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | [POLITY NOTES] - RUSSIA: IMD5009_1 | | Before and after the 1999 Russian parliamentary election, Boris | Yeltsin (independent) was the President of Russia. | However, Yeltsin resigned from office on December 31, 1999, | resulting in early Presidential elections on March 26, 2000. | Incumbent Prime Minister Vladimir Putin became acting President | and won the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections as an | independent candidate (IMD Code 6430101). | In his role as Prime Minister, Putin supported and was backed | by Unity, and is therefore coded as being affiliated with Unity | in IMD5008_ (Party of the Prime Minister Before / After). | Also see POLITY NOTES for IMD5008_. | [POLITY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND: IMD5009_1 | | There is a role in Switzerland known as President of the Federal | Council, with the title assigned to one of the seven members | of the Federal Council of Switzerland, which is elected by the | Federal Assembly (composed of the Council of States and National | Council) for a four-year term. Conventionally, the role of | President of the Council rotates among members, depending on | members' seniority. The President of the Federal Council has no | power above the other six members of the Council, and the role is | largely ceremonial. The President of the Federal Council is | not considered the Head of State - instead, the Federal Council | is classified as not only the Head of State but also the Head | of Government. Consequently, this variable is coded | "9999997. NOT APPLICABLE". | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - BULGARIA 2001: IMD5009_1 | | The Bulgarian 2001 election study refers to the parliamentary | elections, held on June 17, 2001. | The Bulgarian President before and after the 2001 parliamentary | election was Petar Stoyanov, a member of the Union of Democratic | Forces (SDS). Therefore, both IMD5009_ variables were coded as | "1000034. Union of Democratic Forces (SDS)". | Bulgarian Presidential elections were held later the same year | in November 2001 and won by Georgi Parvanov, the candidate of | the Bulgarian Socialist Party. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - FRANCE 2002: IMD5009_1 | | The French 2002 election study refers to the Presidential | elections, held on April 21 (first round) and May 5, 2002 (second | round). Incumbent President Jacques Chirac was re-elected as a | member of Rally for the Republic (RPR, IMD numeric party code | 2500008). | However, in preparation for the legislative election, which took | place shortly after on June 9 and 16, 2002, Chirac's supporters | created the "Union for the Presidential Majority", to contest | the legislative election jointly with several other center-right | parties. This alliance formally turned into the Union for a | Popular Movement (UMP) later the same year. Therefore, for | IMD5009_2, Chirac is coded as being a UMP member (IMD numeric | party code 2500001). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - FRANCE 2007: IMD5009_1 | | In CSES Module 3, the President before and after the French 2007 | legislative election is coded as being a member of the | Greens (V). | However, both former President Jacques Chirac and newly elected | President Nicolas Sarkozy were members of the Union for a Popular | Movement (UMP). Hence, both IMD5009_ variables have been recoded | to "2500001. Union for a Popular Movement (UMP)" for France 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU 2000: IMD5009_1 | | For Peru (2000), IMD5009_1 refers to incumbent President Alberto | Fujimori. At that time, Fujimori was a member of the party | 6040028. Let's Go Neighbor (VV) as coded in IMD5009_1. However, | users are advised that he contested for the broader alliance | 6040054. Peru 2000, of which his party was a member. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5009_2 >>> PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT AFTER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Party of the President AFTER the election. .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY /COALITION HARMONIZED NUMERICAL CODES] 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999997. NOT APPLICABLE 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5009_2 | | IMD5009_2 details the party/coalition holding the role of | President after the election, regardless of whether there was a | Presidential election or not. | | Parties numerical classifications are detailed in Part 3 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Reports | - Other publicly available data | | Data on IMD5009_2 were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables for IMD5009_2 in the Standalone | CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5011 | MODULE 4: D5011 | MODULE 5: E5013 | | For more detailed information concerning individual election | studies, please consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in the | Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | [POLITY NOTES] - RUSSIA: IMD5009_2 | | Before and after the 1999 Russian parliamentary election, Boris | Yeltsin (independent) was the President of Russia. | However, Yeltsin resigned from office on December 31, 1999, | resulting in early Presidential elections on March 26, 2000. | Incumbent Prime Minister Vladimir Putin became acting President | and won the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections as an | independent candidate (IMD Code 6430101). | In his role as Prime Minister, Putin supported and was backed | by Unity, and is therefore coded as being affiliated with Unity | in IMD5008_ (Party of the Prime Minister Before / After). | Also see POLITY NOTES for IMD5008_. | [POLITY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND: IMD5009_2 | | There is a role in Switzerland known as President of the Federal | Council, with the title assigned to one of the seven members | of the Federal Council of Switzerland, which is elected by the | Federal Assembly (composed of the Council of States and National | Council) for a four-year term. Conventionally, the role of | President of the Council rotates among members, depending on | members' seniority. The President of the Federal Council has no | power above the other six members of the Council, and the role is | largely ceremonial. The President of the Federal Council is | not considered the Head of State - instead, the Federal Council | is classified as not only the Head of State but also the Head | of Government. Consequently, this variable is coded | "9999997. NOT APPLICABLE". | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - BULGARIA 2001: IMD5009_2 | | The Bulgarian 2001 election study refers to the parliamentary | elections, held on June 17, 2001. | The Bulgarian President before and after the 2001 parliamentary | election was Petar Stoyanov, a member of the Union of Democratic | Forces (SDS). Therefore, both IMD5009_ variables were coded as | "1000034. Union of Democratic Forces (SDS)". | Bulgarian Presidential elections were held later the same year | in November 2001 and won by Georgi Parvanov, the candidate of | the Bulgarian Socialist Party. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - FRANCE 2002: IMD5009_2 | | The French 2002 election study refers to the Presidential | elections, held on April 21 (first round) and May 5, 2002 (second | round). Incumbent President Jacques Chirac was re-elected as a | member of Rally for the Republic (RPR, IMD numeric party code | 2500008). | However, in preparation for the legislative election, which took | place shortly after on June 9 and 16, 2002, Chirac's supporters | created the "Union for the Presidential Majority", to contest | the legislative election jointly with several other center-right | parties. This alliance formally turned into the Union for a | Popular Movement (UMP) later the same year. Therefore, for | IMD5009_2, Chirac is coded as being a UMP member (IMD numeric | party code 2500001). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - FRANCE 2007: IMD5009_2 | | In CSES Module 3, the President before and after the French 2007 | legislative election is coded as being a member of the | Greens (V). | However, both former President Jacques Chirac and newly elected | President Nicolas Sarkozy were members of the Union for a Popular | Movement (UMP). Hence, both IMD5009_ variables have been recoded | to "2500001. Union for a Popular Movement (UMP)" for France 2007. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5009_C >>> DID PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT CHANGE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether the party of the President changed after the election. .................................................................. 0. PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT DID NOT CHANGE AFTER ELECTION 1. PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT CHANGED AFTER ELECTION 6. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 7. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5009_C | | IMD5009_C details whether the party of the President changed | throughout the course of the election for studies covering a | Presidential election. | | IMD5009_C is constructed based on the party of the President | before and after the election, as coded in variables IMD5009_1 | and IMD5009_2, respectively. Hence, researchers are advised that | IMD5009_C disregards changes or continuities in personalities, | focusing on the President's party brand instead. | For example, in the 2006 Mexican general election, the National | Action Party (PAN) managed to retain the Presidency, although the | incumbent changed from Vicente Fox to Felipe Calderon, as | Presidents in Mexico are not eligible to seek re-election. As | IMD5009_C focuses on the party, it is coded "0. PARTY OF THE | PRESIDENT DID NOT CHANGE AFTER ELECTION" for Mexico 2006 and all | similar instances. | | Studies are classified as "0. PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT DIT NOT | CHANGE AFTER ELECTION" if there was a Presidential election, | IMD5009_1 and IMD5009_2 detail the same party of the President | before and after the election, or Presidents were both coded as | being "9999989. INDEPENDENT" in IMD5009_1 and IMD5009_2. | | Studies are classified as "1. PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT CHANGED | AFTER ELECTION" if there was a Presidential election and | IMD5009_1 and IMD5009_2 detail different party affiliations of | the President before and after the election. | | Although IMD5009_1 and IMD5009_2 detail the party of the | President regardless of whether there was a Presidential | election, IMD5009_C codes studies in which no Presidential | election took place as "6. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL | ELECTION". The rationale for this coding decision is that shifts | in the Presidents' party affiliations are expected to coincide | with elections primarily if Presidents are directly elected. | Instances in which the party of the President changed although | no direct Presidential election was held are listed in ELECTION | STUDY NOTES below. | | Code "7. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT" denotes polities | for which the role of the President does not exist, as is the | case e.g. in constitutional monarchies embracing parliamentary | systems. | | This variable is original to CSES IMD, and therefore there are | no corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015 Jan): IMD5009_C | | Conventionally, the President of Greece is elected indirectly by | the country's unicameral legislature. However, if parliament | fails to elect a candidate after three rounds by a supermajority | of either 66 (first two rounds) or 60 percent (third round), the | parliament is to be dissolved within ten days, resulting in snap | elections. | Such an instance occurred at the Greek 2014/2015 Presidential | election, in which the candidate nominated by the government | coalition of New Democracy (ND) and the Panhellenic Socialist | Movement (PASOK), Stavros Dimas, failed to obtain the required | parliamentary majority in the first three rounds scheduled on | December 17, 23, and 29, 2014. Subsequent legislative snap | elections were held on January 25, 2015, resulting in a coalition | between SYRIZA and the Independent Greeks (ANEL) headed by Prime | Minister Alexis Tsipras (SYRIZA). Tsipras nominated Prokopios | Pavlopoulos (ND) for President, who was elected on February 18, | 2015. Pavlopoulos succeeded Karolos Papoulias (PASOK) in office, | who held the Presidency from 2005 to 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5011_A >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY A IMD5011_B >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY B IMD5011_C >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY C IMD5011_D >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY D IMD5011_E >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY E IMD5011_F >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY F IMD5011_G >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY G IMD5011_H >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY H IMD5011_I >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ideological Family Party is Closest to (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator). .................................................................. 01. ECOLOGY PARTIES 02. COMMUNIST PARTIES 03. SOCIALIST PARTIES 04. SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTIES 05. LEFT LIBERAL PARTIES 06. LIBERAL PARTIES 07. RIGHT LIBERAL PARTIES 08. CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTIES 09. CONSERVATIVE PARTIES 10. NATIONAL PARTIES 11. AGRARIAN PARTIES 12. ETHNIC PARTIES 13. REGIONAL PARTIES 14. INDEPENDENT PARTIES 16. RELIGIOUS PARTIES* - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 17. SINGLE ISSUE PARTIES** - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 18. SOCIAL-LIBERAL** - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 19. EXTREME LEFT** - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 20. MONARCHIST** - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 21. EXTREME NATIONALIST** - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 22. NATIONALIST LEFT** - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 23. EXTREME RIGHT** - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 24. CENTRIST** - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 25. COMMUNIST-GREEN** - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 26. ORTHODOX-CALVINIST** - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 90. OTHER 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. NO IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY MENTIONED 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5011_ | | Parties/coalitions numerical classifications are detailed in | Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. Alphabetical party and leader | codes are identified in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | For linking alphabetical to numerical party codes, please see | VARIABLE NOTES on IMD5000_. | For more detailed information on how CSES IMD codes parties/ | coalitions and leaders, please see Parts 3 and 4 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. | | IMD5011_ details the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to which ideological family each party belongs | to. Often, collaborators provide two characterizations for a | party. These multiple characterizations, together with details | of what characterization is coded in the dataset, are detailed | in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in the Codebook Parts 2 | of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | Collaborators at times provide additional information to help | refine the characterization, and when applicable, these are | detailed in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in the Codebook | Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5002_A-A5002_I | MODULE 2: B5012_A-B5012_I | MODULE 3: C5016_A-C5016_I | MODULE 4: D5016_A-D5016_I | MODULE 5: E5017_A-E5017_I | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | * Code "16. RELIGIOUS PARTIES" was only used in CSES Modules 1 | and 2. | | ** Codes "17. SINGLE ISSUE PARTIES" to "26. ORTHODOX-CALVINIST" | were only used in CSES Module 2. | | Users are advised that the same party might have been coded as | belonging to different party families across different elections. | These differences may reflect actual changes in parties' | ideological positions across time. | Alternatively, they might reflect disagreement on different | experts on which ideological family the respective party | belongs to, whenever national collaborators changed between | election studies. | | The following table lists all parties whose assigned ideological | families differ across election studies: | | +++ TABLE: PARTIES FOR WHICH IMD5011_ (IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY CODES) | DIFFER ACROSS ELECTION STUDIES | | CSES IMD NUMERICAL CODE AND IMD5011_ BY CSES MODULE | PARTY/COALITION NAME M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 |----------------------------------------------------------------- | ALBANIA: | 0080002. Democratic Party of | Albania (PD) - 9 - - 7 | 0080003. Socialist Movement | for Integration (LSI) - 3 - - 4 | 0080005. Social Democratic Party | of Albania (PSD) - 4 - - 99 | | AUSTRALIA: | 0360001. Liberal Party (LP) 7 7 9 9 9 | 0360002. National Party of | Australia (NPA) 13 13 11 10 11 | 0360008. One Nation Party (ONP) - 99 - - 9 | | AUSTRIA: | 0400002. Austrian People's | Party (OVP) - - 9 8 8 | | BELGIUM: | 0560001. New Flemish Alliance | (N-VA) - 13 - - 10 | 0560002. Socialist Party | (Francophone) (SP) 4 3 - - 4 | 0560004. Flemish Liberals and | Democrats (VLD) 7 6 - - 7 | 0560005. Socialist Party | Differently (SP.A) 4 3 - - 4 | 0560012. Flemish Block (VB) 13 23 - - 10 | 0560026. Reformist Movement (MR) - 6 - - 7 | | BRAZIL: | 0760001. Workers Party (PT) - 3 3/4 4 4 | 0760003. Party of the Brazilian | Democratic Movement (PMDB) - 9 6/6 6 6 | 0760010. Brazilian Labor Party (PTB) - 24 6/9 - - | 0760011. Labor Democratic Party (PDT) - 3 4/4 - - | | BULGARIA: | 1000003. Movement for Rights and | Freedoms (DPS) - 6 - 12 - | | BELARUS: | 1120004. Agrarian Party 11 - 4 - - | 1120005. United Civil Party 99 - 7 - - | 1120017. Christian Conservative | Party (BPF) 99 - 8 - - | | CANADA: | 1240001. Liberal Party (LIB) 6 6 6 6/6 5 | 1240004. Bloc Quebecois (BQ) 13 10 13 13/13 10 | | CHILE: | 1520003. National Renewal (RN) - 7 7 - 9 | 1520007. Radical Social-Democratic | Party (PRSD) - - 1 - 4 | | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA: | 2030001. Czech Social Democratic | Party (CSSD) 4 4 4/4 3 4/4 | 2030006. Action of Dissatisfied | Citizens (ANO 2011) - - - 6 90/90 | 2030012. Czech Pirate Party | (Pirati) - - - 90 5 | | DENMARK: | 2080005. Unity List - Red-Green | Alliance (EL) - 1 90 - 3 | 2080006. Danish Social Liberal | Party (RV) - 6 5 - 5 | 2080011. Centre Democrats (CD) 5 99 - - - | | FINLAND: | 2460001. Center Party (KESK) - 6 11/11 11 11 | 2460004. True Finns (PS) - - 11/10 10 10 | 2460006. Left Alliance (VAS) - 3 3/3 5 5 | 2460007. Christian Democrats (KD) - 8 8/8 9 8 | | FRANCE: | 2500003. Democratic Movement (MoDem) - 7 8 90 - | 2500005. Europe Ecology - The Greens | (EELV) - 1 1 1 99 | | GERMANY: | 2760006. Free Democratic Party (FDP) 7 6/6 6/6 6 6/6 | 2760009. National Democratic Party | of Germany (NPD) - - 99/10 99 - | 2760025. Free Voters (FW) - - - - 7/6 | | GREAT BRITAIN: | 8260003. Liberal Democrats (LD) 6 5 - 6 6/6 | 8260004. Scottish National Party | (SNP) 13 13 - 10 13/13 | 8260006. Plaid Cymru (PC) 13 13 - 10 13/13 | | GREECE: | 3000001. Pan-Hellenic Socialist | Movement (PASOK) - - 3 4/4 - | 3000003. Coalition of the Radical | Left (SYRIZA) - - 5 2/5 5/5 | 3000007. The Independent Greeks | (ANEL) - - - 9/10 90/- | 3000021. Union of Centrists - - - - 6/90 | | HONG KONG: | 3440001. Dem. Alliance for Betterment | of Hong Kong (DAB) 3/3 3 4 4 4 | 3440005. Hong Kong Federation of | Trade Unions (HKFTU) - 3 4 3 3 | 3440019. Frontier 90/90 - 6 - - | 3440032. Citizen's Party 90/97 - - - - | | HUNGARY: | 3480002. Fidesz-Hungarian Civic | Party (Fidesz - MPP) 8 9 - - - | 3480007. Hungarian Democratic Forum | (MDF) 99 8 - - - | | ICELAND: | 3520005. Left-Green Movement (VG) 1 1 3/3 3 3/3 | | IRELAND: | 3720001. Fianna Fail (FF) - 8 9 9 10 | 3720004. Sinn Fein (SF) - 22 10 10 10 | 3720006. Progressive Democrats (PD) - 7 6 - - | | ISRAEL: | 3760001. Likud - The Consolidation | (L) 10 7 7 - 10 | 3760003. Sfarad's Keepers of the | Torah (Shas) 14 16 90 90 90 | 3760004. Energy (Meretz) 5 3 - 5 - | 3760006. United Torah Judaism (YH) - - - 90 12 | 3760021. Israel is Our Home (YB) - - 10 - 7 | | JAPAN: | 3920003. New Komeito (NK) - 16 90 90 90 | | LATVIA: | 4280001. Harmony Center (SC) - - 4 12/12 4 | 4280003. National Union All for Latvia | For Fatherland and Freedom | (LNNK) - - 10 10/9 9 | 4280005. Union of Greens and Farmers | (ZZS) - - 1 11/11 11 | | MEXICO: | 4840001. Institutional Rev. | Party (PRI) 10/10 4 4/4 4/4 7 | 4840002. Nat. Action Party (PAN) 7/- 7 7/8 8/8 9 | 4840003. Democratic Rev. Party | (PRD) 4 4 4/4 4/4 5 | 4840004. Labor Party (PT) 4/4 4 1/3 4/3 3 | 4840006. New Alliance Party | (PANAL or: PNA) - - 7/7 7/7 90 | 4840010. National Regeneration | Movement (MORENA) - - - -/4 5 | | MONTENEGRO: | 4990007. Croatian Civic Initiative - - - 10 12 | (HGI) | 4990009. Bosniak Party (BS) - - - 10 12 | 4990012. Democratic Front (DF) - - - 90 9 | | NETHERLANDS: | 5280003. People's Party for Freedom | and Democracy (VVD) 6 7 7/7 - 7/7 | 5280004. Democrats 66 (D66) 6 5 5/5 - 6/6 | 5280007. Reformed Political Party | (SGP) - 26 9/90 - - | 5280008. Christian Union (CU) - 26 90/90 - 8/8 | | NEW ZEALAND: | 5540003. New Zealand First (NZF) 10 10 90 90/90 10 | 5540006. United Future New Zealand | (UFNZ) - 8 90 6/6 - | 5540007. Conservative Party (CP)/ | New Conservative (NC) - - - 8/8 9 | 5540009. Alliance (ALL) 4 2 - - - | 5540011. MANA Movement (MANA) - - - 3 12 | 5540012. Jim Anderton's Progressive | Party (PP) - 5 4 - - | 5540040. The Opportunities Party | (TOP) - - - - 6/5 | | NORWAY: | 5780009. Red Party (R) - - 3 3 90 | | PERU: | 6040008. Possible Peru 16/14 - 14 6 - | 6040026. Peruvian Aprista Party | (PAP) 14/4 4 90 - - | 6040052. National Unity (UN) -/99 8 - - - | | PHILIPPINES: | 6080143. Rise Up Philippines (BP) - 10 90 - - | | POLAND: | 6160001. Civic Platform (PO) - 7 6/6 7 - | 6160002. Law and Justice (PiS) - 9 10/10 10 - | | PORTUGAL: | 6200001. Social Democratic Party | (PSD) 6 6 6 - 7 | 6200003. Democratic and Social Centre | - People's Party (CDS-PP) 9 9 9 9 8 | 6200004. Unitarian Democratic | Coalition (CDU) 99 25 90 1 2 | 6200006. Left Block (BE) 99 19 5 5 5 | | ROMANIA: | 6420004. Greater Romania Party | (PRM) 99 22 90 10/90 90 | 6420005. National Liberal Party | (PNL) 99 7 6 6/- 6 | | RUSSIA: | 6430002. Communist Party of the | Russian Federation (KPRF) 2/97 2 - - - | 6430004. Yabloko (RDPY) 6/97 6 - - - | 6430008. Fatherland All Russia | (OBP) 10/97 - - - - | 6430043. Union of Right Forces | (SPS) 7/97 6 - - - | 6430051. Unity Inter-Regional | Movement 90/97 - - - - | | SLOVAKIA: | 7030008. Bridge (MH) - - 12 13 - | 7030009. Ordinary people - Indep. | Personalities (OLaNO) - - - 14 9 | 7030014. We are family (SR) - - - 10 9 | | SLOVENIA: | 7050001. Social Democratic Party | (SDS) 4 9 4 9 - | 7050003. Democratic Party of | Pensioners (DeSUS) 90 17 90 90 - | 7050008. Slovenian National Party | (SNS) 99 10 10 10 - | | SOUTH AFRICA: | 7100002. Democratic Alliance (DA) - - 7 6 - | 7100006. United Democratic Movement | (UDM) - - 12 13 - | 7100008. Congress of the People | (COPE) - - 90 4 - | | SOUTH KOREA: | 4100001. New Frontier Party (NFP) 9 9 9 9 7 | | SPAIN: | 7240008. Galician Nationalist Bloc | (BNG) - 99 13 - - | 7240013. Canary Coalition (CC) 13/- 99 - - - | | SWEDEN: | 7520002. Moderate Party (M) 8 9 9 9 9 | 7520006. Centre Party (C) 11 11 12 11 11 | 7520008. Sweden Democrats (SD) - - 99 10 10 | 7520009. Feminist Party (Fi) - - 99 90 90 | | SWITZERLAND: | 7560001. Swiss People's Party | (SVP/UDC) 7 10 10 10 10 | 7560002. Social Democratic Party | (SP/PS) 4 4 3 4 4 | 7560006. Evangelical People's Party | (EVP/PEP) - - 90 1 - | 7560008. Ticino League (Lega) - - 13 9 13 | 7560014. Liberal Party (LPS/PLS) 7 - 6 - - | | TAIWAN: | 1580001. Democratic Progressive | Party (DPP) 5 5/5 5 99 98/98 | 1580002. Kuomintang of China (KMT) 7 7/7 7 99 98/98 | 1580003. People First Party (PFP) - 7/7 - 99 98/98 | 1580004. New Party (NP) 10 99/98 - - - | 1580006. Taiwan Solidarity Union | (TSU) - 99/5 - - 98 | | THAILAND: | 7640001. For Thais Party (PPT) - - - 98 10 | 7640002. Democrat Party (DP) 90 - 99 98 9 | 7640003. Thai Pride Party (BJT) - - - 98 13 | 7640005. Thai Nation Development | Party (CP) - - - 98 13 | 7640008. Motherland Party | (Phak Matunhum Party) - - 99 98 - | 7640021. Thai Nation Party (CTP) 90 - 99 - - | | TURKEY: | 7920004. Peoples' Democratic Party | (HDP) - - 99 12 - | 7920005. Felicity Party (SP) - - 90 9 9 | | UNITED STATES: | 8400001. Republican Party (GOP) 7 7 7 9 9/9 | 8400002. Democratic Party (DEM) 5 5 5 5 6/6 | 8400004. Reform Party (REF) 14 99 - - - | | URUGUAY: | 8580001. Broad Front (FA) - - 3 - 4 | 8580002. National Party (PN) - - 10 - 7 | 8580003. Colorado Party - - 9 - 6 | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] MODULE 1 - IMD5011_ | | In CSES MODULE 1, several election studies were coded "NOT | APPLICABLE" for those IMD5011_ variables for which no alphabetic | party code was assigned. In CSES IMD, the following variables | were recoded from "NOT APPLICABLE" to "99. MISSING": | IMD5011_D and IMD5011_E were recoded to "99. MISSING" for Taiwan | (1996) and United States (1996). | IMD5011_F was recoded to "99. MISSING" for Australia (1996), | Canada (1997), Great Britain (1997), Iceland (1999), Israel | (1996), Lithuania (1997), Taiwan (1996) and United States (1996). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SPAIN (2000): IMD5011_F | | In CSES MODULE 1, variable A5002_F is assigned code "13. REGIONAL | PARTIES". However, it could not be ascertained what party the | rating refers to, as only parties A-E are specified for Spain | (2000). Consequently, IMD5011_F was recoded to "99. MISSING" | for CSES IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5012_A >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A IMD5012_B >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B IMD5012_C >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C IMD5012_D >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D IMD5012_E >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E IMD5012_F >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F IMD5012_G >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY G IMD5012_H >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY H IMD5012_I >>> EXPERT: IDEOLOGY LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parties' positions on the left-right scale (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator). .................................................................. 00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5012_ | | Parties numerical classifications are detailed in Part 3 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. Alphabetical party and leader codes are | identified in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | For linking alphabetical to numerical party codes, please see | VARIABLE NOTES on IMD5000_. | For more detailed information on how CSES codes parties/ | coalitions and leaders, please see Parts 3 and 4 of the CSES IMD | Codebook. | | IMD5012_ details the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to where parties are located on the left-right | ideological scale. Sometimes, parties' ideological differences in | certain polities on the left-right scale are difficult to | detect, perhaps because party competition is not structured on | the left-right dimension. These instances are detailed in | ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the | respective CSES MODULES. Moreover, Standalone CSES Modules | include variables covering an alternative expert judgment scale | based on national collaborators' ratings of parties on a scale of | their choice, which is related to relevant national political | circumstances. These alternative scale ratings were not | harmonized for the IMD, but are available in the separate | MODULES 2 to 5. | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5004_A-A5004_F | MODULE 2: B5018_A-B5018_I | MODULE 3: C5017_A-C5017_I | MODULE 4: D5017_A-D5017_I | MODULE 5: E5018_A-E5018_I | | Data are unavailable for BELGIUM-WALLONIA (1999), KYRGYZSTAN | (2005), NORWAY (1997), PERU (2001), PHILIPPINES (2004), SPAIN | (2000), TAIWAN (2012, 2016, 2020) and THAILAND (2001). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - MODULE 1: IMD5012_ | | In CSES MODULE 1, several election studies were coded "NOT | APPLICABLE" for those IMD5012_ variables for which no alphabetic | party code was assigned. In CSES IMD, the following variables | were recoded from "NOT APPLICABLE" to "99. MISSING": | IMD5012_D and IMD5012_E were recoded to "99. MISSING" for Taiwan | (1996) and United States (1996). | IMD5012_F was recoded to "99. MISSING" for Canada (1997), | Great Britain (1997), Israel (1996), Lithuania (1997), Taiwan | (1996) and United States (1996). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - UNITED STATES (2012): IMD5012_ | | The alphabetical codes assigned to parties G, H, and I for the | UNITED STATES 2012 do not match the letter in this variable. | Data for PARTY G (Libertarian Party, LP) is coded in IMD5012_C, | data for PARTY H (Green Party, GPUS) is coded in IMD5012_D, and | data for PARTY I (Constitution Party, Con) is coded in | IMD5012_E. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5013 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA IN ALL SEGMENTS: LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether the country uses a majoritarian formula, a proportional formula, or a mixed formula in all of its electoral segments/tiers. .................................................................. 1. MAJORITARIAN 2. PROPORTIONAL 3. MIXED 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5013 | | IMD5013 details whether the country uses (i) a majoritarian | formula in all of its electoral segments (tiers), (ii) a | proportional formula in all of its electoral segments (tiers), | or (iii) a mixed formula. | | The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's | database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, | 1946-2000 (http://mattgolder.com/elections, Date accessed: May | 17, 2018). | | MAJORITARIAN systems require successful candidates to win either | a plurality or majority of the vote. As a result, they are | considered majoritarian. | | PROPORTIONAL systems can be divided into two types: those that | use party lists and those like the single transferable vote that | do not. Those systems employing lists can themselves be divided | into two further categories: quota systems (with allocation of | remainders) and highest average systems. | | MIXED systems use a mixture of majoritarian and proportional | electoral rules. A country can be classified as having a mixed | system whether it uses one or more electoral segments (tiers); in | practice, most mixed systems have more than one segment (tier). | Mixed electoral systems can be divided into those in which the | two electoral formulas are dependent and those in which they are | independent. | | Sources of data: CSES Macro Reports and Publicly Available | Sources. | | For more detailed information concerning individual election | studies, please consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in the | Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | Data on IMD5013 were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5058 | MODULE 4: D5058 | MODULE 5: E5055 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5014 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The electoral formula used to elect the President that is elected by popular vote. .................................................................. 1. PLURALITY 2. ABSOLUTE MAJORITY RULE 3. QUALIFIED MAJORITY RULE 4. ELECTORAL COLLEGE 5. ALTERNATIVE VOTE 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5014 | | IMD5014 details the electoral formula used to elect the President | when the President is elected by popular vote. Presidents | indirectly elected (for example, those elected by Parliament) are | classified as "7. NOT APPLICABLE". | | Source of data: Publicly Available Sources. | | Below, the classifications of each electoral formula are | summarized: | | PLURALITY - the candidate that obtains the most votes wins. | | ABSOLUTE MAJORITY RULE - A candidate must win over 50% of the | vote to win. If no candidate wins this many votes, then there is | a runoff between the top two candidates. | | QUALIFIED MAJORITY RULE - Each qualified majority system | specifies a particular percentage of the vote that a candidate | must win in order to be elected in the first round. If two or | more candidates overcome these thresholds, then the one with the | highest number of votes wins. The qualified majority systems vary | in terms of the electoral procedure that applies when these | thresholds are not met. | | ELECTORAL COLLEGE - The candidate that wins a plurality of the | electoral college votes wins. | | SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE - Requires voters to rank single | candidates in order of the most to least preferred. Votes are | transferred until candidates obtain the Droop quota. The | candidate that obtains this quota first is elected. | | The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's | database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, | 1946-2000 - see: http://mattgolder.com/elections, Date accessed: | May 17, 2018. | | IMD5014 is a system variable, meaning that it is measured at the | polity level. Consequently, the variable is coded for a polity | even though a Presidential election may not have taken place | (e.g., Mexico 2003). | | Data on IMD5014 were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5057 | MODULE 4: D5057 | MODULE 5: E5054 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5016_1 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5016_2 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5016_3 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5016_4 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How many votes do voters cast or can cast? .................................................................. 01-90. NUMBER OF VOTES 91. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5016_ | | In systems where voters rank order the candidates, if there | are ten candidates (for example), the response to this | question should be 10. | | For more details on the meaning of "91. OTHER" codes, see CSES | Standalone Codebooks. | | In instances where the study refers to a Presidential election, | coding of variables IMD5016_1 and IMD5016_2 refers to the | election at stake (Presidential). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5032_1-A5032_4 | MODULE 2: B5038_1-B5038_4 | MODULE 3: C5038_1-C5038_4 | MODULE 4: D5038_1-D5038_4 | MODULE 5: E5040_1-E5040_4 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5016_ are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | POLITY NOTES - AUSTRALIA: IMD5016_ | | For lower house elections, Australia employs the Alternative | Vote system. In this system, voters are required to list their | preferences for as many candidates as there are on the ballot. | Thus, the total number of votes varies across electoral | districts. | | For upper house elections, Australia employs a single- | transferable-vote form of proportional representation. In this | system each voter indicates the order of preference among all | the candidates in competing in her district, or alternatively, | she can indicate support for a party ticket (which determines | the order of preference of candidates within the party). | [POLITY NOTES] - BELGIUM: IMD5016_3 - IMD5016_4 | | Previously, the process of electing Senators in Belgium was a | mixture, some were indirectly elected, and 40 Senators were | directly elected (25 in Flanders, 15 in Wallonia). For these | elections voters used to cast one vote (one-tier system). That | is why all three Belgium studies have been coded "97. Not | applicable" for the variable IMD5016_4 in CSES IMD. | The law changed in 2014, and Senators in Belgium are not directly | elected anymore. | [POLITY NOTES] - BRAZIL: IMD5016_3 | | Members of the Brazilian Senate (Senado Federal) are elected | for an 8-year term. The chamber is composed of 81 members, | with each state in Brazil having three Senators each. | Members are elected in alternative electoral cycles: Two-thirds | of the Senate seats (n=54) are contested in one election cycle | while the remaining one-third are contested in the other. | In 2002 and 2010, two-thirds of the Senate were renewed, giving | voters two votes in these upper house elections. | The 2006 and 2014 elections saw a third of the Senate seats | contested (n=27). Accordingly, voters therefore had one vote in | these elections as only one Senator per State was being | selected. | [POLITY NOTES] - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA: IMD5016_3 | | Czech (1996, 2002) studies have been coded "97. Not applicable" | because these studies do not refer to Upper House elections. | [POLITY NOTES] - DENMARK: IMD5016_1 & IMD5016_2 | | The Danish Folketing has 179 members, 175 of which are elected | in mainland Denmark and the remaining four from the territories | of Greenland and the Faroe Islands. In mainland Denmark, 135 | members are elected from ten multi-member constituencies across | three geographical regions, namely: Copenhagen, Northern Jutland, | and Seeland-Southern Denmark. Additionally, 40 supplementary | seats are distributed across these three geographical regions | in order to achieve full proportionality. While voters do not | cast a ballot directly for this tier, it is widely | acknowledged to constitute a separate tier of the electoral | system. | [POLITY NOTES] - HONG KONG: IMD5016_ | | Hong Kong adopted a constitutional reform package in 2010, which | also affected the election law. Reforms increased the size of | the unicameral Legislative Council of the HKSAR to 70 members. | Half of the legislative council is returned by geographic | constituency (popular) elections; the other half is returned by | functional constituency elections. | Election data on Hong Kong electoral institutions refer to the | geographical constituency elections only. | In the Geographical Constituency (GC) part of the Election, Hong | Kong is divided into five constituencies, and voters elect | candidates by universal suffrage. The number of LegCo seats in | each constituency is decided according to the constituency | population. The voting system adopted is the closed list | proportional representation system. Geographical Constituency is | treated here as the first segment of the LegCo. | There are two parts of the Functional Constituencies (FCs): the | traditional FCs and the District Council (Second) FC. | The traditional FCs return 30 LegCo members. Registration as a | voter in some traditional Fcs requires certain qualifications, | for example, registered medical practitioners or dentists for | the Medical FC. Note that in some FCs, voters are individuals, | while in others, 'voters' are not individuals but companies or | organizations. | The District Council (Second) FC was created in 2012 and is | treated here as the second segment of the LegCo. This segment | returns five LegCo members. In this part of the election, the | whole of Hong Kong has one constituency only, and the voting | system adopted is closed-list proportional representation. | Candidates must be elected District Council members who are | nominated by no less than 15 other elected District Council | members, whereas voters are registered GC electors who are not | registered in other FCs. | [POLITY NOTES] - MEXICO: IMD5016_1 - IMD5016_2 | | Mexican voters cast a single vote in a single-member district | plurality election. However, this also counts for the allocation | of the proportional representation seats disputed in the larger | regional multi-member districts (five circumscriptions). Thus, | voters are not allowed to split their vote, in fact, the same | vote is subject to a double-counting that produces two-seat | relevant vote totals. The first vote total determines who wins | the plurality in the single-member district (300 seats). The | second serves to allocate seats in the multi-member districts | (200 seats). The PR seats are allocated according to the | aggregate distribution of votes of multi-member districts. | For a party to be entitled to have members of proportional | representation in the Lower Chamber, it must attain at | least 2% of the total votes cast for these elections. | | Since voters in Mexico cast a single vote, all Mexican studies | have been coded "97. Not applicable" for variable IMD5016_2. | This is a change in IMD compared with CSES Standalone Modules. | The change applies to the Mexican 1997 and 2000 studies. | [POLITY NOTES] - NETHERLANDS: IMD5016_3 - IMD5016_4 | | Members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament | (the States General) are elected indirectly - by the members | of the twelve Provincial Councils. Thus, coding for the Dutch | 1998 and 2002 studies is set to "97, Not applicable", which is | not the case in the Standalone Modules. | [POLITY NOTES] - NORWAY: IMD5016_ | | The Norwegian Parliament comprises 169 seats in two tiers: | 150 members are elected in 19 multi-member districts using | proportional representation. The remaining 19 seats are | compensatory and are allocated to parties that receive 4%+ of | the national vote. These seats are known as "members at large" | and are seen as a means of evening out discrepancies between | the number of votes received and the number of seats in the | Storting. The distribution is based on a comparison of the | actual distribution of seats with what would have occurred | had the country been treated as one big constituency, thus | allowing a determination to be made as to which parties are | under-represented. These parties are then awarded "seats at | large" in the constituencies where they were closest to winning | an ordinary seat. While voters do not cast a ballot directly for | this tier and the seats are awarded at the national level | (albeit dispersed at the constituency level), it is widely | acknowledged to constitute a separate tier of the electoral | system. | | For more information, see: | https://www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/About-the-Storting/ | Elections/ | (Date accessed: July 22, 2019). | [POLITY NOTES] - PHILIPPINES: IMD5016_3 | | The Philippines Senate (Senado) has 24 members, serving six- | years terms. Concurrently with Presidential elections, half | of the Senate (12 members) is renewed every three years, in a | single nationwide constituency. Senators are elected | according to the simple majority, and each voter can cast | up to 12 votes. Hence, vote percentages and national totals | are not meaningful figures. | [POLITY NOTES] - POLAND: IMD5016_2 | | A constitutional reform in 1997 and the changed divisions of 1999 | required a reform of the electoral system. The system changed | before the 2001 elections, seeing the final liquidation of the | party list system where some MPs were elected based on nationwide | support and some based on the support from local constituencies. | This changed in the above-mentioned reform, and Polish citizens, | in the subsequent Parliamentary elections covered by CSES | (2001-2011), cast a single vote. | [POLITY NOTES] - POLAND: IMD5016_3 | | In Senate elections, voters have as many votes as there are | candidates to be elected in a district (between one and four). | Thus, all Poland studies have been coded "91. OTHER [SEE | ELECTION STUDY NOTES]" for IMD5016_3. Coding has changed for the | following Polish studies: 1997, 2005, 2007, and 2011. | [POLITY NOTES] - SLOVENIA: IMD5016_2 | | Voters in Slovenia cast a single vote in an open list | proportional system, a one-tier system. Since there has not been | a change of rules across elections covered by CSES, the Slovenian | 1996 and 2004 studies are coded "97. Not applicable" for the | CSES IMD. | [POLITY NOTES] - SPAIN: IMD5016_3 | | The Senate consists of 208 directly elected seats and 56 | indirectly elected seats. This section refers to the directly | elected section. There are 52 multi-member constituencies | corresponding to the country's provinces, plus Ceuta and Melilla. | The provinces elect four Senators each. In the case of insular | provinces, major islands elect three Senators each, while small | islands elect one Senator each. The autonomous cities of Ceuta | and Melilla elect two Senators each. | Thus, the Spanish 1996, 2004, and 2004 studies have been recoded | to "3" for IMD5016_3. | [POLITY NOTES] - SWEDEN (2018): IMD5016_1 & IMD5016_2 | | The Swedish Riksdag has 349 members, where 310 members are | elected from 29 multi-member constituencies. Additionally, | 39 supplementary seats are distributed in order to achieve full | proportionality, which are equivalent to a second tier. While | voters do not cast a ballot directly for this tier, it is widely | acknowledged to constitute a separate tier of the electoral | system. | [POLITY NOTES] - THAILAND: IMD5016_ | | Under the 2007 Constitution, a new electoral system was adopted, | reintroducing a modified version of a previous form of electoral | system (the one preceding the 1997 constitution). There are 400 | single-seat districts were combined into larger districts: | four single-seat, 63 with two seats, and 90 with three seats. | These constituencies use the Block Vote (BV) system, which allows | voters to cast as many ballots as there are seats in a district. | Voters are not permitted to cast all their votes for a single | candidate but can split their votes between candidates nominated | by different parties, for a total of 400 seats. Parallel to this | tier, 80 seats are distributed according to PR list, in eight | regional constituencies of roughly equivalent proportions, | without a threshold. Each party submits a list with ten | candidates who are listed once, and who can also contest | constituency seats. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - FRANCE (2002): IMD5016_3 | | France (2002) has been coded "97. NOT APPLICABLE" for variable | IMD5016_3 because members of the Senate (French Upper House) are | indirectly elected. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GERMANY (1998): IMD5016_3 | | GERMANY (1998) has been coded "97. NOT APPLICABLE" for variable | IMD5016_3 because members of the Bundesrat (German Upper House) | are indirectly elected. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - TAIWAN (1996): IMD5016_ | | In 1996, Taiwan held Presidential elections. Coding for variables | IMD5016_2 - IMD5016_4 for the Taiwanese 1996 study in MODULE 1 | refers to the system, and not the election in question. For the | IMD, these codes have been changed into "97. Not applicable". | | After 2004, Taiwan underwent an electoral reform, and the 2008 | elections were the first in Taiwan held under a mixed-member | system based on a two-ballot design incorporating single-member | districts and party-list seats. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5017_1 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5017_2 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5017_3 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5017_4 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do they vote for candidates (not party lists) or party lists? .................................................................. 1. CANDIDATES 2. PARTY LISTS 3. PARTY BLOC VOTING 4. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5017_ | | Definition: Party bloc voting is used in multi-member | districts where voters cast a single party-centered vote for | their party of choice; the party with the most votes wins | all of the district seats. | | The coding classification differs for MODULES 1 and 2, compared | to MODULES 3 and 4. Data for the variable IMD5017_ was | harmonized, utilizing the codes from CSES MODULES 3 and 4. | In what follows, we list how the original categories employed in | the Standalone CSES MODULES were coded in CSES IMD. | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF VOTING PROCEDURE CODES IN CSES | MODULES 1 AND 2 TO VOTING PROCEDURE CODES IN | CSES IMD | | IMD CODE CSES MODULES 1-2 CLASSIFICATION (CSES MODULE 1-2 CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Single candidate | Single candidate, with alternatives | 2. Closed party list | Preferential or Open party list | 5. Other | 7. Not applicable | 9. Missing |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | For more details on the meaning of "4. OTHER" codes, see CSES | Standalone codebooks. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5033_1-A5033_4 | MODULE 2: B5039_1-B5039_4 | MODULE 3: C5039_1-C5039_4 | MODULE 4: D5039_1-D5039_4 | MODULE 5: E5041_1-E5041_4 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5017_ are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | [POLITY NOTES] - BELGIUM: IMD5017_4 | | Senators from the second segment are indirectly elected, by two | electoral colleges (French and Dutch). Thus, all Belgium studies | have been coded "7. Not applicable" for the variable IMD5017_4. | [POLITY NOTES] - BRAZIL: IMD5017_1 | | Each political party presents a list of candidates. Voters can | vote for a candidate, or they can vote for a party. Thus, all | studies have been recoded to "4. Other" for the variable | IMD5017_1. | [POLITY NOTES] - CHILE: IMD5017_ | | Each political coalition presents a list of a maximum of two | candidates per electoral district, normally each from a | different party of the coalition. Voters vote for one candidate | of one of the lists. However, parties present lists, and thus | all Chile studies have been coded "2. Party lists" for the | variables IMD5017_1 and IMD5017_3. | [POLITY NOTES] - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA: IMD5017_3 | | None of the Czech studies in CSES Standalone modules does deal | with the upper house election in the country. Thus, all Czech | studies have been recoded to "7. Not applicable" for the variable | IMD5017_3. | [POLITY NOTES] - DENMARK: IMD5017_1 | | Voters can choose to endorse a party, a candidate on a party | list, or an independent candidate. Parties can choose to have | either an open or a party-ranked list of candidates. If the | list is open votes that are cast on the party (the voter has | not given a personal vote) are distributed between the | candidates based on the number of personal votes. If the list | is party ranked a vote cast on the party will be given to the | candidate listed first on the list until he or she has | received enough votes to be elected, and so on. Thus, all studies | for Denmark have been recoded to "4. Other" for variable | IMD5017_1. | [POLITY NOTES] - FRANCE: IMD5017_3 | | The Upper House (Senate) of the French Parliament consists of | 348 members who are indirectly elected by elected officials. | Thus, all French studies have been coded "7. Not applicable" for | IMD5017_3. | [POLITY NOTES] - GERMANY: IMD5017_3 | | The Upper House (Bundesrat) of the German Parliament consists of | 69 members who are indirectly elected. Thus, all German studies | have been coded "7. Not applicable" for the variable IMD5017_3. | POLITY NOTES - HONG KONG: IMD5017_ | | Hong Kong adopted a constitutional reform package in 2010, which | also affected the election law. Geographical Constituency (GC) | and Functional constituency (FG) constitute two segments, tiers. | In both tiers, voters cast a vote for candidates. | Please consult the POLITY NOTE for IMD5016_. | | Prior to the 2010 reform, in geographical constituency elections, | each voter could cast one vote for a list that includes the names | of one or more candidates (up to the maximum number of Legco | members returned by that geographical constituency). The same | political party (group) may put up more than one list in a | constituency, and candidates on a list may belong to different | political party (group). | | Due to the above-mentioned change, coding for Hong Kong (2012) | study differs from the earlier Hong Kong studies, for the | variables IMD5017_. | [POLITY NOTES] - MEXICO: IMD5017_2 | | In Mexico, each voter's vote is counted twice: Once for the | single-member district contest, and a second time for the | regional PR contest. Accordingly, the voting procedure is coded | as voting for candidates and for a party list for each | respective contest. For that reason, Mexico (2003) has been | recoded to "2" for the variable IMD5017_2. | [POLITY NOTES] - MEXICO: IMD5017_3 and IMD5017_4 | | In Mexico, each voter's vote for choosing senators is counted | twice: Once for the 3-seat multi-member districts contest, and a | second time for the national PR contest (see Election Study note | for D5038_3-4 for details). Accordingly, the voting procedure is | coded as voting for candidates and for a party list for each | respective contest. | [POLITY NOTES] - NETHERLANDS: IMD5017_1 | | A vote is always one for a list and for a candidate at the | same time (matrix). A majority of voters cast their vote on | the first candidate on the list. However, not all voters do | that. Thus, all Netherlands studies have been recoded to | "4. Other" for the variable IMD5017_1. | [POLITY NOTES] - NETHERLANDS: IMD5017_3 | | Members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament | (the States General) are elected indirectly - by the members | of the twelve Provincial Councils. Thus, all Dutch studies have | been coded "7. Not applicable" for the variable IMD5017_3. | [POLITY NOTES] - NORWAY: IMD5017_2 | | Voters in Norway cast only one single ballot in the election on | the basis of party lists. This vote directly impacts the | selection of the 150 members elected in the 19 multi-member | districts using proportional representation. However, the ballot | also influences the dispersion of the 19 "member at large seats". | As such, when voters are casting their ballot for party lists, | they are also casting a ballot, albeit indirectly for the | allocation of the "member at large seats". Accordingly, we code | this as "2. PARTY LISTS" for all Norwegian studies. | [POLITY NOTES] - PERU: IMD5017_1 | | In Peru, voters cast one vote for a party list, but they can | also express optionally a preferential vote for some specific | candidate. They can signal up to two preferred candidates from | the list he has chosen. The preferential votes are taken into | account only to decide the order in which candidates | from a list will fill the seats the party has won in the | election. Thus, the Peruvian 2011 study has been recoded to "2" | for IMD5017_1. | [POLITY NOTES] - POLAND: IMD5017_ | | For the 1997 election, 460 members of the Polish Parliament | (Sejm) were elected in a two-tier system: 391 members from | party lists who passed a threshold of 5% of the total vote | (8% for registered coalitions). The remaining 69 seats were | reserved for parties/coalitions which (a) registered their lists | in at least half of the districts by collecting 3,000 valid | signatures in each, (b) submitted a national list of candidates, | and (c) gained at least 7% of the total vote. This constituted a | second tier. | | The new Constitution from 1997, and a change of administrative | divisions adopted in 1999, required a change of the electoral | system. New rules were implemented for the 2001 elections. | One of the most important changes included the final liquidation | of party list vote, and the liquidation of the second tier. | [POLITY NOTES] - ROMANIA: IMD5017_1 and IMD5017_3 | | Romania (2009 and 2014) studies are about Presidential | elections. Thus, these two studies have been coded "7. Not | applicable" for the variable IMD5017_3. | | The remaining three Romanian studies are concerned with the | Parliamentary election. The Romanian 1996 and 2004 studies are | coded "2. Party lists" because from 1992 to 2008, Romania used | proportional systems, closed lists, for the Upper house | elections. The Romanian 2012 study is coded "4. Other" because | from 2008 to 2016, Romania used a mixed-member proportional | system - voters had two votes, one for a party, and the other for | candidates. | In 2016 the law changed again, and Romania is now back to using | a proportional system with closed lists. | [POLITY NOTES] - SLOVENIA: IMD5017_2 | | In Slovenia, members of Italian and Hungarian indigenous ethnic | communities, under the Constitution, are entitled to two deputy | seats, one seat for each community. | For Slovenian (1996 and 2004) studies, this was treated as second | segment (tier). However, members of the Italian and Hungarian | community, as other voters in Slovenia, cast one vote, and even | though they are calculated separately, they do not constitute a | separate tier. Thus, all Slovenia studies are recoded to "7. Not | applicable" in CSES IMD for IMD5017_2. | [POLITY NOTES] - SPAIN: IMD5017_3 | | The Upper House (Senate) of Spain Parliament (Cortes Generales), | constitutes of 266 members. Regional legislatures designate | their representatives for the Senate (58 members). The remaining | 208 senators are directly elected. | | For the Upper House election, Spain uses single non-transferable | vote (limited voting), where voters have fewer votes than there | are positions available. Parties present a list of three names, | but voters cast votes for candidates. Each voter may mark up to | three candidates' names, from any party. Even though they are | allowed to give their votes to candidates from different party | lists (panachage), this happens rarely, and the four Senators are | usually the three candidates from the most popular party and the | first placed candidate from the next most popular. | | Thus, all Spain studies have been coded "4. Other" for the | variable IMD5017_3. | [POLITY NOTES] - SWITZERLAND: IMD5017_1 | | Swiss voters can cast their vote in many different ways. Among | others they can a) simply vote for a party list, b) endorse | specific candidates from the party list, c) add candidates from | other parties instead of a candidate of the list (panachage), | d) delete candidates or vote twice for the same candidate | (cumulation). Due to these varieties in options for voters, all | Swiss studies have been coded "4. Other" for the variable | IMD5017_1. | POLITY NOTES - TAIWAN: IMD5017_2 | | The electoral law in 2008 changed the rules for legislative | elections to a mixed-member majoritarian (MMM) system, and the | total number of seats has been reduced to 113. Among them, | 73 seats are elected based on the single-member districts (SMD), | 34 seats based on the proportional representation (PR) in a | nationwide district, and six seats for the aboriginals. | | Previously, the Legislative Yuan had 225 seats; 168 legislators | from the special municipalities, counties, and cities (29 such | primary districts); four seats for members of plains Aborigine | tribes and four for members of mountain Aborigine tribes, eight | seats representing the overseas Taiwanese community, and 41 | 'at-large' legislators. In case of overseas and 'at large' seats, | political parties are given those seats to fill, based on their | percentage (national) of the vote. Since Taiwanese voters cast | only single nontransferable votes (SNTV), the country is coded as | having one segment, but primary and secondary districts. | | Thus, there is a difference in coding for Taiwanese studies | before and after the 2008 change of law. Additionally, the | Taiwanese 1996 study, for the same reason, has been recoded to | "7. Not applicable" for IMD5017_2. | POLITY NOTES - TAIWAN: IMD5017_3-IMD5017_4 | | Constitutional amendments promulgated on April 25, 2000, | established a unicameral legislative system in Taiwan. Thus, | coding for Taiwan (1996) study from MODULE 1 differs from all | following Taiwan studies. For all the following studies, | starting from 2001 study, variables IMD5017_3 and IMD5017_4 are | coded "7. Not applicable." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5018_1 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5018_2 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5018_3 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5018_4 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How many rounds of voting are there? .................................................................. 01-90. NUMBER OF ROUNDS 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5018_ | | Data for MODULES 1 and 2 have been additionally collected by | CSES Secretariat relying on macro experts and additional sources | such as Parline, Notes on recent elections published in Electoral | Studies and other journal articles. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5040_1-C5040_4 | MODULE 4: D5040_1-D5040_4 | MODULE 5: E5042_1-E5042_4 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5018_ are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | [POLITY NOTES] - CHILE: IMD5018_3 | | In 2005, a constitutional reform in Chile eliminated all the | appointed seats in the Senate, as well as those held by previous | Presidents. Later reforms in 2017 made the Chilean Senate a | 50-member body, with senators elected for an eight-year term. | Senate elections are held every four years for approximately | half the seats. All the voting for Senators happens in one round. | Thus, all Chilean studies have been coded "1" for IMD5018_3. | [POLITY NOTES] - HONG KONG: IMD5018_ | | In geographical constituency elections, there is only one round | of voting. Thus, all Hong Kong studies in CSES IMD have been | recoded to 1. | [POLITY NOTES] - NORWAY: IMD5018_ | | Voters in Norway cast only one single ballot in the election on | the basis of party lists. This vote directly impacts the | selection of the 150 members elected in the 19 multi-member | districts using proportional representation. However, the ballot | also influences the dispersion of the 19 "member at large seats" | As such, when voters are casting their ballot for party lists | they are also casting a ballot, albeit indirectly, for the | allocation of the "member at large seats". However, since this | is a single ballot (single vote) in the same round, all Norwegian | studies have been coded "1" for IMD5018_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): IMD5018_1 | | The electoral law of the March 15, 1994 Constitution (Art. 64-72) | stipulates that Belarus has a majority/plurality electoral | system composed of two rounds. | Parline describes that "In the first round, voting is | considered valid if over 50 percent of eligible voters take | part in the polls. Candidates who receive over 50 percent of | votes are declared elected. If none of the candidates obtains 50 | percent of votes, a runoff election between the two leading | candidates is held within two weeks. Runoff elections are | considered valid if more than 25 percent of eligible voters | take part. The candidate securing a simple majority of votes | wins the seat. If the second round of voting is held for only | one candidate, the candidate needs to obtain the support of over | half of the voters taking part in the election.)" | Source: http://www.ipu.org/parline/reports/2027_B.htm | Date accessed: August 5, 2019. | | However, in the course of the 2008 election, all 110 deputies | were elected in the first round of voting (more than 50 % | of voters took part, and each of the 110 elected candidates | received more than 50 % of votes). Thus, the second round was | not necessary in any electoral district, such that the variable | IMD5018_1 is coded "1." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): IMD5018_ | | The Romanian (1996) study concerns the Parliamentary election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5021_1 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5021_2 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5021_3 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5021_4 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are there legally mandated thresholds that a party must exceed before it is eligible to receive seats? .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5021_ | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5045_1-C5045_4 | MODULE 4: D5045_1-D5045_4 | MODULE 5: E5047_1-E5047_4 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5021_ are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | [POLITY NOTES] - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA: IMD5021_3 | | None of the Czech studies in CSES Standalone modules does deal | with the upper house election in the country. | Thus, all Czech studies have been recoded to "7. Not applicable" | for the variable IMD5021_3. | POLITY NOTES - HONG KONG: IMD5021_ | | Hong Kong underwent a change in electoral rules in 2010, and | these changes were applied in the 2012 elections. One of the | novelties of the system is introducing five new members elected | from Functional constituencies (FC), which are special interest | groups involved in the elections. These additions have been | treated as a second segment (tier) in the CSES schema. As a | consequence of this change, coding of IMD5021_ variables | differ in some instances, among studies before and after the | 2010 reforms. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - ROMANIA (2009): IMD5021_2 & IMD5021_4 | | The data for the Romanian (2009) study in CSES MODULE 3 for the | variable "Is there party threshold" (C5045_) refers to the 2008 | Parliamentary elections in Romania. Since the 2009 study refers | to Presidential elections, this variable was recoded to "7. Not | applicable" for the CSES IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5022_1 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5022_2 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5022_3 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5022_4 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If YES in Question IMD5021, what is the threshold? .................................................................. 00.00. THERE IS NO THRESHOLD 00.10-95.00. A PARTY MUST RECEIVE THIS PERCENT (0.1% TO 95%) OF THE POPULAR VOTE IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR SEATS 96.00. OTHER THRESHOLD [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97.00. NOT APPLICABLE 99.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5022_ | | For more details on the meaning of "96. OTHER THRESHOLD [SEE | ELECTION STUDY NOTES]" codes, see CSES Standalone codebooks. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5046_1-C5046_4 | MODULE 4: D5046_1-D5046_4 | MODULE 5: E5048_1-E5048_4 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5022_ are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | [POLITY NOTES] - CANADA: IMD5022_3 & IMD5022_4 | | Canada's Senate (Upper house) comprises of 105 individuals, | appointed by the Governor-General, on the advice of Prime | Minister. Since Senators are indirectly elected, all Canadian | studies have been coded "97. Not applicable" for the variables | IMD5022_3 and IMD5022_4. | [POLITY NOTES] - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA: IMD5022_3 | | None of the Czech studies in CSES Standalone modules does deal | with the upper house election in the country. | Thus, all Czech studies have been recoded to "97. Not | applicable" for the variable IMD5022_3. | POLITY NOTES - HONG KONG: IMD5022_ | | Hong Kong underwent a change in electoral rules in 2010, and | these changes were applied in the 2012 elections. One of the | novelties of the system is introducing five new members elected | from Functional constituencies (FC), which are special interest | groups involved in the elections. These additions have been | treated as a second segment (tier) in the CSES schema. As a | consequence of this change, coding of IMD5022_ variables | differ in some instances, among studies before and after the | 2010 reforms. | POLITY NOTES - JAPAN: IMD5022_1 | | In the single-member districts of the Lower House contest, as | well as for the prefecture-level districts of the Upper House, | a candidate needs to obtain votes at least equal to one-sixth | of the quotient obtained by dividing the total of valid ballots | cast by the number of seats to be filled from the constituency | concerned. For all single-member districts of the lower house | contest this equals obtaining at least 1/6 (16.7%) of | the total valid votes. Instead, the multi-member prefecture | -level districts of the Upper House contest have variable | district magnitudes with a minimum of one and a maximum of five. | In this case, this quotient varies from 16.6% to 3.33% of the | valid votes. | This rule has been in force for all of the elections covered by | studies included in CSES. However, some minor differences may | occur due to rounding issues of statistical software packages. | [POLITY NOTES] - NEW ZEALAND: IMD5022_2 | | New Zealand has an alternative threshold: Parties with more than | 5% of the total votes nationally on the basis of the party list | votes ('party vote', tier 2) or those who have won one of the 70 | constituency seats (tier 1) are entitled to sit in parliament | and may be eligible to receive a proportional share of the 50 | list seats on the basis of their national vote share. | Thus, New Zealand (2008) coded in Standalone MODULE 3 dataset "5" | has been recoded to 96, like the other New Zealand studies in | CSES. | [POLITY NOTES] - SOUTH AFRICA: IMD5022_1 | | South Africa is one national district with a magnitude of four | hundred. There is no legal threshold for gaining representation. | Thus, all South Africa studies have been recoded to 0 for | variable IMD5022_1 | [POLITY NOTES] - SOUTH AFRICA: IMD5022_3 & IMD5022_4 | | South Africa's National Council of Provinces (Upper house) | comprises 90 provincial delegates, who are indirectly | elected. Thus, all South African studies have been coded | "97. Not applicable" for the variables IMD5022_3 and IMD5022_4. | [POLITY NOTES] - SOUTH KOREA: IMD5022_2 | | The threshold applies to the nationwide proportional district: | 3% of the total valid votes for party lists, or at least five | primary district seats. | Thus, South Korea (2008) has been recoded to "96. OTHER | THRESHOLD [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES]." | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - CANADA (2008): IMD5022_2 | | Canada uses plurality voting, i.e., a "first-past-the-post" | system, with single-member electoral divisions. Thus, it is a | single-tier system, and the Canadian 2008 study has been recoded | to "97. Not applicable" for variable IMD5022_2. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - IRELAND (2007): IMD5022_3 | | The upper house of the Irish Parliament (Oireachtas) consists of | members which are not directly elected. Thus, the Irish 2007 | study has been recoded to "97. Not applicable" for IMD5022_3. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - LATVIA (2010): IMD5022_3 & IMD5022_4 | | Latvia's Parliament (Saeima) is a unicameral body. Thus, the | Latvian 2010 study has been recoded to "97. Not applicable" for | variables IMD5022_3 and IMD5022_4. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NEW ZEALAND (2014): IMD5022_3 | | New Zealand's Parliament is a unicameral body. Thus, New Zealand | (2014) study has been recoded to "97. Not applicable" for | variable IMD5022_3. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - PERU (2011): IMD5022_3 & IMD5022_4 | | Peru's Parliament (Congress of the Republic of Peru) is a | unicameral body. Thus, the Peruvian 2011 study has been recoded | to "97. Not applicable" for variables IMD5022_3 and IMD5022_4. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - ROMANIA (2009): IMD5022_2 & IMD5022_4 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential | Election in Romania. Thus, the study has been recoded to | "97. Not applicable" for variables IMD5022_2 and IMD5022_4. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - ROMANIA (2012): IMD5022_1 & IMD5022_3 | | The threshold for political parties to obtain seats is 5% of the | valid votes. However, it is higher for electoral alliances | comprising of more parties: | - A threshold of 8% of valid votes for coalitions | of two parties. | - A threshold of 9% of valid votes for coalitions | of three parties. | - A threshold of 10% of valid votes for coalitions | of four parties or more. | Alternatively, a party that wins six district seats in the | Chamber of Deputies or three district seats in the Senate | may also receive seats. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): IMD5022_2 | | South Africa is a one-tier (segment) system. Thus, South Africa | (2009) study has been coded "97. Not applicable" for the | variable IMD5022_2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5024_1 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - MONTH IMD5024_2 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - DAY IMD5024_3 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - YEAR IMD5025_1 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - MONTH IMD5025_2 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - DAY IMD5025_3 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - YEAR IMD5025_W >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - TIMING IMD5025_S >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - SEASON --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On what date was the election originally scheduled to be held? On what date was the election actually held? .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 96. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING DAY 01-31. DAY OF MONTH 96. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING YEAR 1996-2022. YEAR 9999. MISSING TIMING 0. ELECTION HELD ON WEEKEND 1. ELECTION HELD ON WEEKDAY 2. ELECTION HELD ON WEEKEND & WEEKDAY 96. NOT ASCERTAINABLE 99. MISSING SEASON 0. ELECTION HELD IN SPRING 1. ELECTION HELD IN SUMMER 2. ELECTION HELD IN FALL 3. ELECTION HELD IN WINTER 96. NOT ASCERTAINABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5024_ & IMD5025_ | | Sources of data: CSES Macro Reports and other publicly available | sources (see below). | | If the election involved multiple rounds, dates reported in | IMD5024_ and IMD5025_ refer to the first round, unless stated | otherwise in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES below. | | Data on IMD5024_ were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, and are not available for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables for IMD5024_ in the Standalone CSES | Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5023_1-3 | MODULE 4: D5023_1-3 | MODULE 5: E5025_1-3 | | Data on IMD5025_1-3 were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD, based on the CSES Macro- and Design Reports. | In cases where election dates were not provided, IMD5025_ was | coded based on what follows: | | Sources of data: | International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) Election | Guide. Available at: http://www.electionguide.org/countries/ | (Date accessed: August 16, 2019). | | Nohlen, D. & Stoever, P. (Eds.). (2010). Elections in | Europe. A Data Handbook. Baden-Baden: Nomos. | | The corresponding variables for IMD5025_1-3 in the Standalone | CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5024_1-3 | MODULE 4: D5024_1-3 | MODULE 5: E5026_1-3 | | Data on IMD5025_W and IMD5025_S were originally not included | in MODULES 1 to 4, but were now derived for these election | studies for the CSES IMD, based on IMD5025_1-3. | | The corresponding variables for IMD5025_W and IMD5025_S in | the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 4: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 5: E5026_W; E5026_S | | In IMD5025_W, elections held Monday-Friday inclusive are | classified as weekday elections. Elections held Saturday-Sunday | are classified as weekend elections. However, researchers are | advised that while this conceptualization of workweek and | weekend applies to most of the world, there are some notable | exceptions with Sunday-Thursday workweeks (e.g., Israel due to | the Shabbat and some Muslim-majority countries due to Friday | prayers). | | IMD5025_S classifies seasonal designations for elections in | the Northern Hemisphere as follows: | - Spring: March, April, May | - Summer: June, July, August | - Fall: September, October, November | - Winter: December, January, February | | IMD5025_S classifies Seasonal designations for elections in | the Southern Hemisphere as follows: | - Fall: March, April, May | - Winter: June, July, August | - Spring: September, October, November | - Summer: December, January, February | POLITY NOTES - BRAZIL: IMD5025_S | | As the majority of the country is located in the Southern | Hemisphere, Brazil is classified as such for the seasonal | calculation. | POLITY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA: IMD5025_ | | Lower House elections are conventionally held across two days in | the Czech Republic/Czechia. The following table lists all dates | for Czech Lower House elections included in the CSES: | | Dates of Lower House Election | ----------------------------------------------------------- | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (1996) May 31 - June 01, 1996 | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2002) June 14 - June 15, 2002 | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2006) June 02 - June 03, 2006 | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2010) May 28 - May 29, 2010 | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2013) Oct. 25 - Oct. 26, 2013 | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2017) Oct. 20 - Oct. 21, 2017 | CZECH REP./CZECHIA (2021) Oct. 08 - Oct. 09, 2021 | | As the Czech 1996 election was held in May and June, IMD5025_S is | classified as "96. NOT ASCERTAINABLE" for Czech Republic/Czechia | 1996. | POLITY NOTES - KENYA: IMD5025_S | | As the majority of the country is located in the Northern | Hemisphere, Kenya is classified as such for the seasonal | calculation. | [POLITY NOTES] - NORWAY: IMD5025_ | | Conventionally, elections in Norway are held on Mondays. | However, in some instances, municipalities were allowed to | open polling stations on the Sunday preceding election | day. In case of such an early voting, it usually occurs in | some, but not all areas of the country. For IMD5025_, the | following Mondays are specified as election dates: | | Study (Year) Date of Election in IMD5025_1-3 | ----------------------------------------------------------- | NORWAY (1997) Monday, Sep. 15, 1997 | NORWAY (2001) Monday, Sep. 10, 2001 | NORWAY (2005) Monday, Sep. 12, 2005 | NORWAY (2009) Monday, Sep. 14, 2009 | NORWAY (2013) Monday, Sep. 09, 2013 | NORWAY (2017) Monday, Sep. 11, 2017 | | In CSES MODULE 3, the election day was classified as Sunday, | September 13, 2009, for the Norwegian 2009 study. To harmonize | IMD5025_ throughout all Norwegian election studies, IMD5025_2 | has been recoded from "13" to "14" in CSES IMD. | | In accordance with the coding standard above, IMD5025_W is | coded "1. ELECTION HELD ON WEEKDAY" for all Norwegian studies | included in IMD. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - INDIA (2019): IMD5024_ & IMD5025_ | | The elections were scheduled and held on multiple dates and were | conducted between April 11, 2019, and May 19, 2019, in seven | phases. Only the first date (April 11) is characterized in the | dataset as the date scheduled. For the timing variable, India is | classified as "96. NOT ASCERTAINABLE". | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - ITALY (2006): IMD5025_2 & IMD5025_W | | In CSES MODULE 3, the Election Day is coded as Monday, April 10, | 2006. The election, however, took place on two consecutive days, | starting one day earlier on Sunday, April 9, 2006. | Hence, IMD5025_2 was recoded from "10" to "9" in CSES IMD. | Further, IMD5025_W is classified as "2. ELECTION HELD ON WEEKEND | & WEEKDAY" for Italy (2006), as elections lasted from Sunday, | April 9, to Monday, April 10, 2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2021): IMD5025_2 | | Elections were held across three days, March 15-17, 2021, to | facilitate early voting and prevent crowding at polling stations | due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The election was originally | scheduled for March 17, 2021. The dataset characterizes this date | as the date the election was initially intended to occur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5026_1 >>> NUMBER OF LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of legislative chambers. .................................................................. 1. UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE (ONE LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER) 2. BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE (TWO LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS) 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5026_1 | | Sources of data: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available | Sources. | | IMD5026_1 distinguishes unicameral from bicameral systems, | irrespective of the principal mode of designation of members of | the upper houses. | | For more detailed information concerning the composition of first | and second chambers, please consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES, | available in the Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | All five CSES Standalone Module datasets included in the CSES | IMD provide variables on the number of legislative chambers. | However, concepts of the respective variables differ between CSES | Standalone Modules: CSES MODULES 1 and 2 capture the number of | elected legislative chambers. | CSES MODULE 3 employed a hybrid approach, not clearly | distinguishing between uni- and bicameral systems. | CSES MODULES 4 and 5 capture the number of legislative chambers, | without distinguishing whether they are directly or indirectly | elected. | | CSES IMD includes two variables on the number of legislative | chambers, which build on the coding in the Standalone CSES | Modules. | IMD5026_1 measures whether a polity has one or two legislative | Chambers, no matter whether it is elected or not. | IMD5026_2 distinguishes between whether the bicameral legislature | is directly elected by voters or partially elected by voters or | indirectly elected. | | The corresponding variables for IMD5026_ in the Standalone CSES | Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5024 (Number of elected legislative chambers) | MODULE 2: B5030 (Number of elected legislative chambers) | MODULE 3: C5091 (Number of legislative chambers) | MODULE 4: D5100 (Number of legislative chambers) | MODULE 5: E5074 (Number of legislative chambers) | POLITY NOTES - TAIWAN: IMD5026_1 | | Next to the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan's lower house, Taiwan also | had a directly elected National Assembly, which was formally | abolished only in 2005. | The National Assembly originally had two main powers: Electing | the President and Vice President, and amending the constitution. | Since 1996, the President and Vice President have been elected | directly. | As of 2000, the National Assembly was only to be elected ad hoc | whenever constitutional amendments were proposed by the | Legislative Yuan. Since then, the National Assembly has gathered | only once after its direct elections in 2005, to vote on the | constitutional amendment to suspend itself until a reunification | with Mainland China. | However, since direct elections to the National Assembly last | took place in 2005, Taiwan is coded as a bicameral system for | the Taiwanese election studies in 1996, 2001 and 2004 and as | a unicameral system thereafter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5026_2 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTED LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Means of election of legislative chambers. .................................................................. 0. UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE 1. BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE: INDIRECTLY ELECTED OR APPOINTED 2. BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE: FULLY DIRECTLY ELECTED 6. BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE: PARTIALLY DIRECTLY ELECTED [SEE POLITY NOTES] 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5026_2 | | Sources of data: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available | Sources. | | CSES IMD includes two variables on the number of legislative | chambers, which build on the coding in the Standalone CSES | Modules. | IMD5026_1 measures whether a polity has one or two legislative | Chambers, no matter whether it is elected or not. | IMD5026_2 distinguishes between whether the bicameral legislature | is directly elected by voters or partially elected by voters or | indirectly elected. | | IMD5026_2 classifies the means of election of each chamber. Most | unicameral systems are directly elected by citizens (although | there are some exceptions to this, but CSES does not classify | partially elected unicameral systems). For bicameral systems, | CSES classifies whether the chamber is fully directly elected by | voters, partially elected, or indirectly elected. | | Bicameral legislatures are classified as having fully directed | elected chambers only if all members of the second chamber are | elected by the people, based on universal suffrage. | | For more detailed information concerning the composition of first | and second chambers, please consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES, | available in the Codebook Parts 2 of the Standalone CSES Modules. | | All five CSES Standalone Module datasets included in the CSES | IMD provide variables on the number of legislative chambers. | However, concepts of the respective variables differ between CSES | Standalone Modules: CSES MODULES 1 and 2 capture the number of | elected legislative chambers. CSES MODULE 3 employed a hybrid | approach, not clearly distinguishing between uni- and bicameral | systems. CSES MODULES 4 and 5 capture the number of legislative | chambers, without distinguishing whether they are directly or | indirectly elected. | | The corresponding variables for IMD5026_ in the Standalone CSES | Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5024 (Number of elected legislative chambers) | MODULE 2: B5030 (Number of elected legislative chambers) | MODULE 3: C5091 (Number of legislative chambers) | MODULE 4: D5100 (Number of legislative chambers) | MODULE 5: E5074 (Number of legislative chambers) | POLITY NOTES - BELGIUM: IMD5026_2 | | Before 2014, there were three segments in Upper House elections. | Of the then 71 members of the upper house, 40 were directly | elected, 21 were appointed by regional assemblies of the three | communities (Flemish, French, German), and ten were appointed by | elected senators. The 40 members were directly elected in three | multi-member districts (Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels). | Since 2014, the Belgian Senate consists of 60 members, out of | which ten are appointed by fellow Senators, and 50 are appointed | by the community and regional parliaments. | POLITY NOTES - CHILE: IMD5026_2 | | Until 2006, and applicable to the Chilean 1999 and 2005 | studies in the CSES IMD, Chile's upper house - the Senate - | included 38 directly elected members and nine members who were | appointed (four by the military, three by the Supreme Court, and | another two by the President). Additionally, former Presidents | Augusto Pinochet and Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle held seats in the | Senate (appointed for a lifetime). | As of 2006, all appointed seats were abolished, and since then, | the whole Senate is directly elected. | POLITY NOTES - ITALY: IMD5026_2 | | In Italy, 315 Senators are directly elected. However, the | President has the right to appoint up to five (additional) | outstanding citizens as Senate members for a lifetime. Further, | former Italian Presidents hold a seat in the Senate ex-officio. | POLITY NOTES - KENYA: IMD5026_2 | | The Parliament of Kenya consists of two directly elected houses: | The National Assembly (lower house) and The Senate (upper | house). | The National Assembly consists of 350 representatives: 290 | members are elected in single-member constituencies, and 47 seats | are awarded to women in a separate election in 47 counties, where | each county constitutes a single-member constituency. Further, 12 | representatives are appointed, which makes a total number of 349 | representatives. In addition, the Speaker of the Assembly holds | a seat who is an ex officio member. | The Senate has 68 seats, of which 47 are elected from single- | member constituencies based on the counties using first-past- | the-post, and the remaining 21 are appointed; 16 women based on | party's seat numbers, two representing disabled groups and two | representing youth (both of which must consist of a male and | female nominee) and one elected Speaker, who is an ex officio | member. | POLITY NOTES - SPAIN: IMD5026_2 | | The Spanish Upper House, the Senate, consists of 208 Senators | who are directly elected, and a second group of 58 Senators who | is indirectly elected by regional parliaments (one fixed senator | per region, plus another for each one million inhabitants). | POLITY NOTES - TAIWAN: IMD5026_2 | | Next to the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan's lower house, Taiwan also | had a directly elected National Assembly, which was formally | abolished only in 2005. | The National Assembly originally had two main powers: Electing | the President and Vice President, and amending the constitution. | Since 1996, the President and Vice President have been elected | directly. | As of 2000, the National Assembly was only to be elected ad hoc | whenever constitutional amendments were proposed by the | Legislative Yuan. Since then, the National Assembly has gathered | only once after its direct elections in 2005, to vote on the | constitutional amendment to suspend itself until a reunification | with Mainland China. | However, since direct elections to the National Assembly last | took place in 2005, Taiwan is coded as having two fully directly | elected legislative chambers for the Taiwanese election studies | in 1996, 2001 and 2004 and as a unicameral system thereafter. | POLITY NOTES - THAILAND: IMD5026_2 | | From 1997 to 2006, and applicable to the Thai 2001 election study | in the CSES IMD, all members of Thailand's upper house, the | Senate, were directly elected. Under the 2007 Constitution, and | applicable to the Thai 2007 and 2011 studies in the CSES IMD, | half of Thailand's Senate was directly elected, while the other | half was appointed. | The current 2017 constitution specifies that all 250 Senate | members are appointed, mainly by the National Council for Peace | and Order, the NCPO). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5027 >>> SIZE OF THE LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total number of seats in the lower house of the legislature during the election year. .................................................................. 001-900. SEATS IN THE LOWER HOUSE 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5027 | | IMD5027 refers to the total number of seats available in the | lower house of the legislature, not to the number of seats | that were actually taken by legislators. Further, counts for | the total number of seats in the lower house include the | seat held by the Speaker. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Reports | - Other publicly available sources | | Data on IMD5027 were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but are now collected for these election studies | for the CSES IMD. | | Data newly collected for the CSES IMD heavily rely on | Nils-Christian Bormann's and Matt Golder's database about | Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2011 | (http://mattgolder.com/elections, Date accessed: May 17, | 2018). | | Additionally, data were cross-checked against the following | sources: | International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) Election | Guide. Available at: http://www.electionguide.org/countries/ | (Date accessed: August 16, 2019). | | Gallagher, Michael, 2017. "Election indices dataset" - see: | http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher | /ElSystems/index.php, | (Date accessed: April 9, 2019). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5075 | MODULE 4: D5075 | MODULE 5: E5072 | POLITY NOTES - GERMANY: IMD5027 | | Constitutionally, the Bundestag consists of 598 seats. Half | of the members (299) are elected in single-member districts | using the first past the post electoral system (the "first | vote") The remaining 299 seats are filled by proportional | representation using the party list (the "second vote"). | | Until the Bundestag elections in 2009, so-called overhang | mandates (i.e., additional seats) were allocated to parties | winning more seats in single-member districts than they were | entitled to according to their vote share obtained by | proportional representation. Thus, overhang mandates | potentially changed the proportional composition of | parliament to the benefit of larger parties. | | Since 2013, compensatory seats are allocated to all | parties not benefiting from overhang mandates. | | The following table lists the number of overhang mandates | (until 2009) plus compensatory seats (since 2013) and the | resulting size of the Bundestag after each German election | covered in the IMD: | | Regular Additional | Seats Seats IMD5027 | ----------------------------------------------------------- | GERMANY (1998) 656* 13 669 | GERMANY (2002) 598 5 603 | GERMANY (2005) 598 16 614 | GERMANY (2009) 598 24 622 | GERMANY (2013) 598 33 631 | GERMANY (2017) 598 111 709 | GERMANY (2021) 598 138 736 | | * from the 1990 to the 2002 elections, the Bundestag had | 656 regular members. | | Source of data: The Federal Returning Officer | https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/service/glossar/u/ | ueberhangmandate.html | (Date accessed: August 21, 2019) | POLITY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND: IMD5027 | | Conventionally, the New Zealand Parliament has 120 members. | However, this can sometimes increase due to 'overhang' seats, | which arise when a party gains more constituency seats (tier 1) | than its party list vote (tier 2) would entitle it to on a | proportional basis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5028 >>> SIZE OF THE CABINET BEFORE ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The size of the cabinet before the election. .................................................................. 00-99. SIZE OF THE CABINET BEFORE THE ELECTION 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5028 | | IMD5028 details the total cabinet size before the election, based | on the following definition adopted by CSES: | a) Parliamentary and Semi-Presidential Regimes: | Cabinet size is defined by the total number of ministers | (persons, not posts) in a defined government. Ministers are | considered members of a cabinet when they exercise voting | rights. This number includes both ministers with and without | portfolio, but excludes deputy ministers, undersecretaries, | parliamentary secretaries, ministerial alternates, given that | in the majority of cases, they do not exercise full voting | rights. | b) Presidential Regimes: | Cabinet size is defined by the total number of ministers or | secretaries who head a ministry. | | Sources of data: CSES Macro Report. | | Module 2 code "997. Not applicable" (B5008) has been recoded to | "999. Missing" in the IMD. This change affects the following | studies: FRANCE (2002), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), and RUSSIA (2004). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B5008 | MODULE 3: C5010 | MODULE 4: D5010 | MODULE 5: E5012 | | Data are unavailable for IMD5028 for MODULE 1 and CHILE (2009), | DENMARK (2001), EL SALVADOR (2019) and UNITED STATES (2004, | 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ALBANIA (2005): IMD5028 | | One unaccounted portfolio was held by the Human Rights Union | Party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): IMD5028 | | 17 ministerial posts plus the Prime Minister for a total of 18. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): IMD5028 | | In addition to seven cabinet members from the Social Democratic | Party (SPO; Party A) and six from the Austrian People's Party | (OVP; Party B), there was one Independent member (nominated | by the Austrian People's Party (OVP). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): IMD5028 | | Two additional posts were held by independents, although they | were nominated by the OVP (PARTY A), bringing the total | number to 14. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): IMD5028 | | 38 individuals, including the Prime Minister. | The number specified here represents the total number | of ministerial positions in a Presidential cabinet. None of | the cabinet members were from a formal political party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM (2003): IMD5028 | | The remaining two cabinet posts belong to 0560018. Live | Differently - Flemish-speaking Ecologists (AGALEV). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): IMD5028 | | The Reformist Movement (MR), that only contests elections in | Wallonia (PARTY B, Belgium-Wallonia), occupied the remaining | seven cabinet positions, including the Prime Minister, bringing | the total number to 13. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): IMD5028 | | The remaining cabinet ministries were occupied by the | Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams (CD&V, five) and Open Vlaamse | Liberalen den Democratsen (Open-VLD, three), both of whom | primarily contest elections in Flanders only (CD&V, PARTY C; | Open-VLD, PARTY D), bringing the total number to 13. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2002): IMD5028 | | Ten portfolios were held by members of political parties | and three were held by non-members of one political party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): IMD5028 | | The size of the cabinet is 39 seats in total, with thirteen | cabinet positions occupied by Independents and a further two | occupied by the PCdoB and the PDT parties, respectively. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): IMD5028 | | Independents occupied 16 cabinet positions, with one cabinet | position each for the Partido Verde (PV) and Podemos (PODE), | bringing the total number to 29. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): IMD5028 | | The data refer to the Oresharski Government, formed on May 29, | 2013, and dissolved on August 6, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): IMD5028 | | Six additional posts were held by five independents, and one | by the Citizens Left (Izquierda Ciudadana), bringing the total | number to 23. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): IMD5028 | | Independents occupied the remaining four cabinet positions, | bringing the total to 22. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): IMD5028 | | 18 ministers, including the Prime Minister. The number specified | here represents the total number of ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006): IMD5028 | | Three unaccounted portfolios were held by the Union of | Freedom-Democratic Union (Unie svobody-Demokraticka unie; | US-DEU). US-DEU received 0.3% of the vote in the 2006 elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2010): IMD5028 | | There were three cabinets between April 2006 and 2010. | The figures reported in these variables are about the | caretaker government established after Topolanek and his | government lost a confidence vote, and was established in | May 2009. These figures represent the number of portfolios | nominated to non-partisans by each party in the caretaker | government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013): IMD5028 | | The caretaker government of Jiri Rusnok consisted of 15 | ministers, 14 of whom were independent, i.e., had no formal | party membership. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): IMD5028 | | The remaining six cabinet posts were held by the Liberal | Alliance, bringing the total to 22. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): IMD5028 | | The cabinet prior to the parliamentary election of 2011 was | composed of 13 persons in total: 12 cabinet ministers and | one Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): IMD5028 | | 32 ministers, including the Prime Minister. | The number specified here represents the total number of | ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): IMD5028 | | Two additional posts were held by Parti Radical de Gauche | (Radical left), and one by Parti Ecologiste (Ecologists), | bringing the total to 18. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2002): IMD5028 | | Fourteen ministerial posts, plus the Chancellor (from SPD - | PARTY A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): IMD5028 | | 13 ministerial posts, plus the Chancellor (from SPD) for | a total of 14. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): IMD5028 | | 15 ministerial posts, plus the Chancellor (from CDU) for | a total of 16. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): IMD5028 | | The cabinet prior to the parliamentary election of the | 4th October 2009 was composed of 17 cabinet ministers in total: | the Prime Minister (Kostas Karamanlis) and 16 ministers. | Not counted are one alternate minister and 26 deputy ministers. | This cabinet composition is based on the latest reshuffling of | that government (as of 8/29 January 2009). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2019): IMD5028 | | One additional post was held by DIMAR (Democratic Left), | bringing the total to 23. From 2019, DIMAR was affiliated with | SYRIZA. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2004 & 2008): IMD5028 | | See election study note for IMD5029. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): IMD5028 | | The Executive Council (ExCo) has 30 members (including the CE, | 15 official members and 14 non-official members). However, both | the official and non-official members do not have voting rights | in the ExCo (see Election study note for IMD5029). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): IMD5028 | | The Executive Council (ExCo) had 30 members (16 official members | and 14 non-official members). However, both the official and | non-official members do not have voting rights in the ExCo (SEE | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): IMD5028. | In addition to the four ExCo members with party affiliations, | listed in IMD5028, one additional member was affiliated with | BPA Business and Professionals Alliance for HK. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2002): IMD5028 | | This variable reports the cabinet size without the post of the | Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - INDIA (2019): IMD5028 | | Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP, PARTY A) held 37 out of 39 posts. | Two additional posts were held by Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) | party and The Lok Janshakti Party (LJP). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): IMD5028 | | In addition to the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left-Green | Movement members, there were also two non-party affiliated | cabinet members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2003): IMD5028 | | Four unaccounted portfolios were held by Israel Baaliya (two | posts) and Mafdal (two posts). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): IMD5028 | | 12 ministers, including the Prime Minister. The number specified | here represents the total number of ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): IMD5028 | | Additional posts were held by the New Center Right (two posts), | and the Christian Democratic Union (one post), bringing the total | number to 19. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2004): IMD5028 | | Two unaccounted portfolios were held by independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): IMD5028 | | One unaccounted portfolio was held by an independent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): IMD5028 | | The data refers to the cabinet formed on December 26, 2012. | Since the current elections refer to the Upper House elections, | the data about the Cabinet prior to the election (variables | D5008, D5009_ and IMD5028 are the same as those for the period | after the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): IMD5028 | | In addition to the listed portfolios, there was one independent | cabinet member, but according to the collaborator, affiliated | with party Unity (PARTY B). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2003): IMD5028 | | Mexico has a Presidential System in which the portfolios are | designated directly by the President and for the case of General | Attorney with the approval of the Senate. The elections held in | July 2003 were for federal deputies. The executive power was not | modified. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006 & 2009): IMD5028 | | Note that Mexico has a Presidential system. The cabinet is made | up of eighteen portfolios held by state secretaries directly | appointed by the President, and the Attorney-General (19 in | total). Only the Secretary of Foreign Relations and the General | Attorney need approval from the Senate. There is no voting in | the cabinet, and the positions are not necessarily political. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2018): IMD5028 | | The cabinet of the Federal Government is made up of 18 | Secretaries of State plus the Legal Adviser to the Federal | Executive, the Attorney General and the Head of the Office | of the President. | In total it is 21 members, including the members of the | expanded cabinet, that is, it includes the heads of fundamental | institutions for the Mexican State who are also appointed by | the President of the Republic. These are the Mexican Institute | of Social Security (IMSS), the Institute of Security and | Social Services for State Workers (ISSSTE), Petroleos Mexicanos | (PEMEX), the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) and the | National Water Commission (CONAGUA). One additional cabinet post | was held by an independent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): IMD5028 | | Independents held four additional posts, bringing the total to | 21. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): IMD5028 | | The caretaker government had 17 ministers. See note for IMD5029. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2021): IMD5028 | | Independents occupied the remaining cabinet positions, bringing | the total to 19. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2019): IMD5028 | | Party A (Law and Justice, Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) held 15 | out of 22 posts. The remaining seven posts were held by PiS' | coalition partners (Agreement/Porozumienie and United | Poland/Solidarna Polska held two positions each), or Independent | (but close to PiS) members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): IMD5028 | | Seventeen ministerial positions, plus the Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): IMD5028 | | Including the Prime Minister, the size of the Cabinet | prior to the election was 16. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): IMD5028 | | The size of the cabinet is 15 seats in total, with three cabinet | positions occupied by Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): IMD5028 | | Independents held four additional posts, bringing the total to | 18. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD5028 | | The size of the cabinet is 21 seats in total, with five cabinet | positions occupied by Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2016): IMD5028 | | 21 posts were held by independents, bringing the total to 22. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2004): IMD5028 | | See election study note for IMD5029. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): IMD5028 | | The cabinet prior to the parliamentary election of 2010 | was composed of 15 members, including the Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): IMD5028 | | The remaining cabinet ministries were occupied by the Slovak | National Party (SNS, one position), Bridge (Most-Hid, three | positions), and two Independents (albeit one nominated by | Direction - Slovak Social Democracy (Smer-SD); and the other by | the SNS), but who were not members of the respective parties, | bringing the total number to 15. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2004): IMD5028 | | Sixteen ministerial posts (two without portfolios), plus the | Prime Minister (from SDS - PARTY B). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): IMD5028 | | The cabinet prior to the parliamentary election of 2008 was | composed of 18 persons in total; 15 cabinet ministers, two | ministers without portfolio, and one Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): IMD5028 | | See election study note for IMD5029. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2004): IMD5028 | | Of the 15 ministers in the cabinet, two were Vice-Presidents of | government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): IMD5028 | | The cabinet prior to the parliamentary election of 2008 was | composed of 16 persons in total, including two Vice-Presidents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD5028 | | Total of 45 ministers, including Premier and Vice Premier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): IMD5028 | | These figures contain 26 ministers plus the Prime Minister for a | total of 27. | These have no party entries because the Council for National | Security, a military junta, had overthrown Thailand's elected | government and abrogated the constitution on September 19, 2006 | and the ministers were appointed by the perpetrators of the | coup. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): IMD5028 | | Additional portfolios were held by the Phalang Chon Party (one | post) and Chart Pattana Party (one post), bringing the total to | 36. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): IMD5028 | | The remaining 24 posts were held by independents (nine | positions), and members of various other parties and | organizations that do not have an alphabetic code in the CSES | categorization. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5029_A >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY A IMD5029_B >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY B IMD5029_C >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY C IMD5029_D >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY D IMD5029_E >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY E IMD5029_F >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY F IMD5029_G >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY G IMD5029_H >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY H IMD5029_I >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of cabinet posts (portfolios) held by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] before the election. .................................................................. 00-99. NUMBER OF CABINET POSTS BEFORE ELECTION HELD BY PARTY/COALITION X 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5029_ | | Parties numerical classifications are detailed in Part 3 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. Alphabetical party and leader codes are | identified in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | Source of data: CSES Macro Report. | | Ministers are considered those members of government who are | members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. | | MODULE 2 code "997. Not applicable" (B5007) has been recoded to | "999. Missing" in the IMD. This change affects the following | studies: FRANCE (2002) and KYRGYZSTAN (2005). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B5007_A-I (Number of Portfolios Before) | MODULE 3: C5009_A-I (Government Composition Before Election) | MODULE 4: D5009_A-I (Government Composition Before Election) | MODULE 5: E5011_A-I (Number of Portfolios Before Election) | | Data are unavailable for IMD5029_A-I for MODULE 1 and CHILE | (2009), EL SALVADOR (2019), DENMARK (2001), RUSSIA (2004), | THAILAND (2007) and UNITED STATES (2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, | 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): IMD5029 | | This variable shows the composition of the Cabinet on October | 29, 2010. | In addition to the portfolios coded in the entries, there | was one post held by PCdoB, one post held by PV, and ten | additional independent cabinet members. Note that Brazil has a | Presidential system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): IMD5029 | | The data refers to the Oresharski Government, formed on May 29, | 2013 and dissolved on August 6, 2014. In addition to the listed | cabinet members, there was one independent minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2005): IMD5029 | | One additional portfolio was held by 1520007. Radical | Social-Democratic Party (PRSD), and three more were held by | independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2010): IMD5029 | | The were three cabinets between April 2006 and 2010. | The figure reported in these variables are about the | caretaker government established after Topolanek and his | government lost a confidence vote, and was established in | May 2009. These figures represent the number of portfolios | nominated to non-partisans by each party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2013): IMD5029 | | The caretaker government of Jiri Rusnok consisted of 15 | ministers, 14 of whom were independent, i.e. had no formal | party membership. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): IMD5029 | | In addition to 21 full cabinet ministers from Party B (UMP), | there were two full cabinet ministers from 2500020. New Center | (NC) and two independent cabinet ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2002): IMD5029 | | One cabinet post belonged to a non-affiliated member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): IMD5029 | | The data (all independent members) refers to the caretaker | government between the elections of May 6, 2012, and current | elections of June 17, 2012. | Before the May 6 election, the government was composed of 11 | members from Panellinio Sosialistiko Kinima (PA.SO.K.; Party C), | two members from Nea Dimokratia (Party A), one member from Laikos | Orthodoxos Synagermos (Party E), and four independent members | (17 in total). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): IMD5029 | | One additional post was held by an independent cabinet member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2004): IMD5029 | | In the context of Hong Kong, the Executive Council (ExCo) can be | regarded as the cabinet. The ExCo comprises the Official Members | (all the Principal Officials in the government secretariat have | been appointed concurrently the Official Members of the ExCo | since July 2002) and the Non-official Members. The members of | the ExCo are appointed by the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong | Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), while the Principal | Officials are nominated by the Chief Executive and are appointed | by the Central People's Government of China. Figures reported in | IMD5029 refer to non-official members (without portfolios) of | the Executive Council. Official members do not have a party | affiliation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): IMD5029 | | In Hong Kong, the Executive Council (equivalent to the | cabinet elsewhere) consists of the CE (one), official members (15 | principal government officials known as "secretaries", who | are CS, Financial Secretary, Secretary for Justice and 12 bureau | secretaries) and unofficial members (15 before the 2008 | Election). Altogether, the Executive Council had 31 members | before the 2008 LegCo Elections. | Before the Election, the CE and the official members were not | members of any political parties; four of the 15 unofficial | members were members of political parties (groups). (From the | Macro Report.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): IMD5029 | | In Hong Kong, the Executive Council (ExCo), which is established | to assist the Chief Executive (CE; equivalent of Prime Minister, | or President) in policymaking, is some equivalent of the cabinet | elsewhere. However, the majority views of the ExCo, if any, are | not binding, and it is up to the CE to decide whether to accept | them or not. In this sense, the ExCo members do not have voting | rights. The ExCo had 30 members (including the CE, 15 official | members and 14 non-official members). Only three of the ExCo | members have party affiliation, reported in this variable. One | of the three members belongs to the party Rural Council. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): IMD5029 | | In Hong Kong, the Executive Council (ExCo), which is established | to assist the Chief Executive (CE; equivalent to Prime Minister | or President) in policy-making, is equivalent to the cabinet | elsewhere. However, the majority views of the ExCo, if any, are | not binding, and it remains the CE's prerogative to accept | recommendations or not. Thus, it can be argued the ExCo members | do not have voting rights per se. | ExCo consisted of the CE and 30 members (16 official members and | 14 non-official members) prior to the 2016 LegCo Election (as of | December 31, 2015). Only five of the ExCo members have a party | affiliation, reported in this variable. | Source of data: Compiled from Hong Kong Year Book 2015, | Appendix 1. | https://www.yearbook.gov.hk/2015/en/pdf/Appendices.pdf | (Date accessed: August 21, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2002): IMD5029 | | Party B (Fidesz-MPP) had 12 cabinet members plus the Prime | Minister. Four additional cabinet posts were held by | 3480013. Independent Small Holders Party (FKgP). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): IMD5029 | | Immediately before the 2009 election, the government was in the | hands of a coalition between the Social Democratic Alliance and | the Left-Green Movement (in addition to two non-partisan cabinet | members). However, this was a caretaker government that took | office in February 2009 after the breakdown of the previous | government (a coalition between the Independence Party and the | Social Democratic with six seats each). The previous government | led by Mr. Haarde, had taken office in May 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): IMD5029 | | One additional post was held by the Progressive Democrats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2003): IMD5029_A | | Likud - 13 (nine ministers with portfolios, three ministers | without portfolios and P.M. Sharon with four portfolios). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): IMD5029_A to IMD5029_G | | Some ministers were in charge of two ministries, hence the higher | count of portfolios than ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): IMD5029_A | | Likud had 13 cabinet ministers, while Yisrael Beiteinu had three. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): IMD5029_H | | The cabinet positions occupied by Habavit Hayehudi (The Jewish | Home) and the New Right are included in the Yamina total as | these parties contested the 2020 elections in the Yamina | (PARTY H) alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2006): IMD5029 | | The specified values refer to the number of cabinet posts and | not portfolios (cabinet posts have no autonomous budgeting). The | distribution of portfolios is: Forward Italy (five), National | Alliance (four), Northern League (two), Union of Christian and | Centre Democrats (one), Independents (one), plus one ad interim | position held by Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): IMD5029 | | The data refers to the Abe cabinet, formed on Dec. 26, 2012. | Since the current elections refer to the Upper House elections, | the data about the Cabinet prior to the election are the same as | those for the period after the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): IMD5029_A | | Before the 2013 elections, the Cabinet had 40 members. In | addition to the 25 cabinet members reported in this variable, | 13 ministers came from the Party of National Unity, while two | ministers were independent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): IMD5029_B | | The data for PARTY B (Unity) includes three portfolios held by | The Reform Party, which took part in the 2014 elections in a | coalition with Unity. In 2015, the Reform Party was absorbed | by Unity. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): IMD5029_A-IMD5029_H | | In addition to the portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in the | entries, there were four additional independent ministers and | two with unknown affiliation. | | Note that Mexico has a Presidential system. The cabinet is made | up of eighteen portfolios held by state secretaries directly | appointed by the President, and the Attorney-General (19 in | total). Only the Secretary of Foreign Relations and the General | Attorney need approval from the Senate. There is no voting in | the cabinet, and the positions are not necessarily political. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): IMD5029 | | In addition to the 12 portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in | the entries, there were seven additional independent cabinet | members. Note that Mexico has a Presidential system. The cabinet | is made up of eighteen portfolios held by state secretaries | directly appointed by the President, and the Attorney-General | (19 in total). Only the Secretary of Foreign Relations and the | General Attorney need approval from the Senate. There is no | voting in the cabinet, and the positions are not necessarily | political. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): IMD5029 | | In addition to the portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in the | data, there were ten additional independent ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): IMD5029 | | Mexico has a Presidential system. The cabinet is made up by | eighteen portfolios held by state secretaries directly appointed | by the President, and the General Attorney (19 in total). Only | the Secretary of Foreign Relations and the General Attorney need | approval from the Senate. There is no voting in the cabinet, and | the positions are not necessarily political. | In addition to the portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in the | data, there were four additional independent ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2018): IMD5029 | | These data include the members of the expanded cabinet, that | is, it includes the heads of fundamental institutions for the | Mexican State who are also appointed by the President of the | Republic. These are the Mexican Institute of Social Security | (IMSS), the Institute of Security and Social Services for State | Workers (ISSSTE), Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), the Federal | Electricity Commission (CFE) and the National Water Commission | (CONAGUA). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): IMD5029 | | One additional post was held by the Democratic Union of | Albanians DUA (Demokratska unija Albanaca). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): IMD5029_A | | Party A represents the coalition of the Democratic Party of | Socialists (DPS; dominant member) and the Socialdemocratic party | (SDP). The former obtained 13 cabinet posts, and the latter | three cabinet posts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): IMD5029_C | | These data refer to DEMOS (Democratic Alliance; Demokratski | Savez), the leading party in the coalition Kljuc (Key | Coalition). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): IMD5029 | | After the resignation of the cabinet (Balkeneende-2) on 30 | June 2006, a caretaker government (Balkenende-3) was formed | of nine CDA (Party A)-and eight VVD (Party D) ministers, which | was installed on July 7, 2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2006): IMD5029 | | Possible Peru (the party of former President Alejandro Toledo) | held four out of 16 portfolios (15 cabinets plus one for the | President of Council of Ministers) before the 2006 Presidential | elections took place. All the rest of the Cabinet members were | independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2006): IMD5029 | | The Aprista party (the party of current President Alan Garcia) | held six out of 16 portfolios (15 cabinets plus one for the | President of Council of Ministers) after the 2006 Presidential | elections took place. All the rest of the Cabinet members were | independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): IMD5029 | | Prior to the 2016 elections, all cabinet posts were held by | members of Partido Nacionalista Peruano (the party does not | have an alphabetical CSES code, because it did not participate | in the 2016 election). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2004): IMD5029 | | These data report just two cabinet members from Lakas-NUCD-UMDP | (Party A). One more post was held by a member of PDSP. The | remaining cabinet members were not affiliated with parties. They | are basically from the academe, private sector or career | government officers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): IMD5029_D | | This entry refers to the Lakas-Kampi coalition. Lakas had six | cabinet posts, while KAMPI had two cabinet posts. One additional | seat belonged to PDSP (Philippine Social Democratic Party). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): IMD5029 | | To additional cabinet posts have been held by Akbayan | (Citizens' Action Party). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): IMD5029 | | There were 24 cabinet members before the election. However, | most were independent, while some were members of parties | participating in the party list (proportional) electoral | segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2001): IMD5029_G | | Before the election, 19 portfolios were held by | 6160004. Solidarity Electoral Action (AWSP), and the | remaining two by independents nominated by AWSP. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): IMD5029 | | This variable shows party affiliations of six Cabinet Ministers. | Out of the remaining 11 Ministers, one is a member of Unia | Lewicy, and ten are Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): IMD5029 | | This variable shows party affiliations of 12 Cabinet Ministers. | Out of the remaining 11 Ministers, one was a member of | Stronnictwo Konserwatywno-Liberalne (SKL), and ten are | Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): IMD5029 | | Six additional posts were held by independent ministers, but, | according to the Macro Report, close to or affiliated with | the Platforma Obywatelska (Party A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): IMD5029_B | | The Socialist Party (PS) held 12 out of 17 portfolios. One of the | 12 was held by an independent candidate who ran on PS' electoral | list. The remaining five portfolios were held by independent | candidates. The Prime Minister was also from the Socialist Party | (Antonio Guterres). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - PORTUGAL (2015): IMD5029_A | | Social Democratic Party (PPD-PSD - Party A) held eight cabinet | posts while the People's Party (CDS-PP - Party H) held four. | The data in MODULE 4 mistakenly assigns four portfolios to Party | for People, Animals and Nature (party E). This party held no | cabinet post, and thus is coded "0" for the variable IMD5029_E. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): IMD5029 | | The figures represent the interim cabinet that was formed after | the 2008 legislative elections fell. ten ministers from the | Democrat-Liberal Party held 19 portfolios, and two independents | held the remaining two portfolios. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD5029_G | | PARTY G (Social Democratic Party, PSD) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). The individual share of | cabinet seats for constituent parts of the alliance are also | available and are detailed here. Data for the share of | cabinet seats for the entire alliance that this party belong to | is detailed in IMD5029_A. The complete distribution of cabinet | portfolios for Romania is obtained by taking into account | the number of portfolios for parties A-E inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD5029_H | | PARTY H (National Liberal Union, NLP) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). The individual share of | cabinet seats for constituent parts of the alliance are also | available and are detailed here. Data for the share of | cabinet seats for the entire alliance that this party belongs to | is detailed in IMD5029_A. The complete distribution of cabinet | portfolios for Romania is obtained by taking into account | the number of portfolios for parties A-E inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD5029_I | | PARTY I (Liberal Democratic Party, PDL) is part of the alliance | Alliance for a Just Romania (coded PARTY B). The individual | share of cabinet seats for constituent parts of the alliance | are also available and are detailed here. Data for the share of | cabinet seats for the entire alliance that this party belongs to | is detailed in IMD5029_B. The complete distribution of cabinet | portfolios for Romania is obtained by taking into account | the number of portfolios for parties A-E inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): IMD5029_A | | This data refers to the number of posts held by the members of | the coalition under Party A label here. The dominant member | (Social-Democrat Party, PSD) had 15 members, including the PM. | UNPR had two members, while PC had one cabinet member. In | addition, there we six independent members of the cabinet. | The overall number includes the eight so-called delegate | ministers who, according to Romanian law, are Cabinet members | and have voting right if they received parliamentary approval. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2004): IMD5029 | | Not applicable. Cabinet posts in Russia are not allocated by | party affiliation or membership. Systematic data on party | affiliations of cabinet ministers, if any, are not available. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): IMD5029 | | The Serbian government has one Prime Minister, one or more vice- | ministers and ministers - they together constitute the cabinet | and they all have voting rights. The former Prime Minister was at | the same time also the Finance Minister (one among the 19 | cabinet members). There were three Deputy Prime Ministers. | Immediately after the 2008 election, the cabinet had 27 members. | Cabinet members not accounted for in IMD5029 come from Serbian | Renewal Movement (SPO), Social Democratic Party of Serbia (SDPS) | (Socijaldemokratska partija Srbije), Party of United Pensioners | of Serbia (PUPS), Independent (G17+ endorsed), and Party of | Democratic Action of Sandzak (SDAS), each having one cabinet | member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): IMD5029_F | | Party F, United Regions of Serbia (URS) changed its name in | 2010. Its former name was G17 Plus. This data shows the number | of cabinet members from G17 plus. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2004): IMD5029_B | | Liberal Democracy of Slovenia (LDS) held nine portfolios until | six months before the election, when SLS was excluded from the | governmental coalition. Its three portfolios were reassigned to | LDS, leaving this party with twelve portfolios. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): IMD5029 | | This data shows the distribution of portfolios just before the | December 2011 elections. During 2011, previous coalition partners | left the government, while the seats they formerly occupied were | distributed among the SD (Party C) and LDS. The overall number | of cabinet posts remained the same, but a number of remaining | ministers took more than a single ministry. Thus, Party C (SD) | held 15 posts (including the PM), LDS held two posts, and one | post was held by an independent minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): IMD5029_A | | Note from the Collaborator: "Most of the Ministers are not | affiliated to political parties, but they can be considered as | the members of the Frontier Party because they were chosen by | the President belonging to the Frontier party, which means the | Ministers probably have the same political view with the | President." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): IMD5029_A | | Collaborator advises most of the Ministers are not affiliated to | political parties, but they can be considered as the members of | the Saenuri Party (SP, PARTY A) as they were chosen by the | President, a member of this party, implying ministers likely | have similar views to the President. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD5029 | | Four Ministers were from the KMT, 21 from the DDP, and 20 were | independents, for a total of 45 ministers, including the Premier | and Vice Premier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): IMD5029_A to IMD5029_G | | These have no party entries because the Council for National | Security, a military junta, had overthrown Thailand's elected | government and abrogated the constitution on September 19, 2006 | and the ministers were appointed by the perpetrators of the | coup. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): IMD5029_A | | There were 14 cabinet members (13 ministers plus the President | of the Republic, who is simultaneously the President of the | Council of Ministers and a member of it, with an equal vote to | each minister. The entire cabinet came from Party A (Broad | Front/Frente Amplio). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5030 >>> SIZE OF THE CABINET AFTER ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The size of the cabinet after the election. .................................................................. 00-99. SIZE OF THE CABINET AFTER THE ELECTION 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5030 | | IMD5030 details the total cabinet size after the election. For a | definition of total cabinet size as adopted by CSES, see | VARIABLE NOTES for IMD5028. | | Source of data: CSES Macro Report. | | MODULE 2 code "997. Not applicable" (B5010) has been recoded to | "999. Missing" in the IMD. This change affects the following | studies: FRANCE (2002), KYRGYZSTAN (2005) and RUSSIA (2004). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B5010 | MODULE 3: C5014 | MODULE 4: D5014 | MODULE 5: E5016 | | Data are unavailable for IMD5030 for MODULE 1 and CHILE (2009), | EL SALVADOR (2019), FRANCE (2002), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), NEW | ZEALAND (2017), RUSSIA (2004) and UNITED STATES (2004, 2008, | 2012, 2016, 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ALBANIA (2005): IMD5030 | | One unaccounted portfolio was held by the Human Rights Union | Party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): IMD5030 | | The size of the cabinet is 21 seats in total, with six cabinet | positions occupied by Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): IMD5030 | | 20 ministerial posts plus the Prime Minister for a total of 21. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): IMD5030 | | In addition to seven cabinet members from the Social Democratic | Party (SPO, PARTY A) and five from the Austrian People's Party | (OVP, PARTY B), there were two Independent members (nominated | by the Austrian People's Party (OVP)). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): IMD5030 | | Three additional posts were held by independents: two nominated | by the OVP (PARTY A), and one nominated by the FPO (PARTY C). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): IMD5030 | | 38 individuals, including the Prime Minister. | The number specified here represents the total number | of ministerial positions in a Presidential cabinet. None of | the cabinet members were from a political party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM (2003): IMD5030 | | Of the remaining two cabinet posts, one belongs to SPIRIT, a | coalition partner of SP.A (PARTY B), and another one to FDF. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): IMD5030 | | The Reformist Movement (MR), that only contests elections in | Wallonia (PARTY B, Belgium-Wallonia) occupied the remaining five | cabinet positions, including the Prime Minister, bringing the | total number to 13. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): IMD5030 | | The remaining cabinet ministries were occupied by the | Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams (CD&V, three) and Open Vlaamse | Liberalen den Democratsen (Open-VLD, three), both of whom | primarily contest elections in Flanders only (CD&V, PARTY C; | Open-VLD, PARTY D), bringing the total number to 13. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2002): IMD5030 | | There were 21 portfolios. Fifteen were held by members of | political parties and six were held by independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): IMD5030 | | The size of the cabinet is 39 seats in total, with thirteen | cabinet positions occupied by Independents and a further two | occupied by the PCdoB and the PDT parties, respectively. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): IMD5030 | | The remaining cabinet ministries were occupied by Democratas | (DEM, three posts), Partido Novo (NOVO, one post), eight held by | Independents and six by members of the military, for a total of | 19. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2001): IMD5030 | | Initially 20 posts, but one member of the Coalition for Bulgaria | resigned. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): IMD5030 | | These data refer to the so-called Second Borisov Cabinet, | formed on November 7, 2014, after the parliamentary elections | which were held on October 5, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): IMD5030 | | Ten additional posts were held by independents, bringing the | total number to 23. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): IMD5030 | | Two additional posts were held by independent cabinet members, | and one post was held by a member of a regionalist party, Partido | Curridabat Siglo XXI (21st Century Curridabat), bringing the | total number to 24. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006): IMD5030 | | Six unaccounted portfolios were held by non-partisans nominated | by the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) (Party A). That was the so | called Topolanek I cabinet (September 4, 2006 - January 1, 2007). | In the Topolanek II cabinet, the following shows the distribution | of portfolios: | | Party A Civic Democratic Party (ODS) 9 | Party D Christian-Democratic Union-Czechoslovak | People's Party (KDU-CSL) 4 | Party E Green Party (SZ) 3 | Non-partisans nominated by KDU-CSL 1 | Non-partisans nominated by SZ 1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): IMD5030 | | The cabinet formed after the parliamentary election of 2011 was | composed of 13 persons in total; 12 cabinet ministers and one | Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): IMD5030 | | 16 ministers, including the Prime Minister. | The number specified here represents the total number of | ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): IMD5030 | | The cabinet comprised 19 members, with several other parties | holding cabinet positions. They are as follows: | - Independents: four posts | - Democratic Movement (MoDem): three posts. | - Parti Radical de Gauche: two posts. | - Diverse left: two posts. | - Diverse right: one post. | - Ecologistes!: one post. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2002): IMD5030 | | Fourteen ministerial posts, plus the Chancellor (from SPD - | Party A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): IMD5030 | | 15 ministerial positions, plus one minister without portfolio, | but with voting rights in cabinet meetings (Federal Minister for | Special Affairs Thomas de Maiziere (CDU). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): IMD5030 | | 15 ministerial posts, plus the Chancellor (from CDU) for | a total of 16. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): IMD5030 | | The cabinet, which was formed after the parliamentary election | of October 4, 2011, was composed of 16 persons. The Prime | Minister (George Papandreou), the Vice-President of the | government (Theodoros Pagalos), 15 ministers (including | Papandreou as minister of foreign affairs). Not counted are two | alternate ministers and 19 deputy ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): IMD5030 | | Four additional cabinet positions were held by independents, | bringing the total number to 34. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2019): IMD5030 | | Two additional cabinet positions were held by independents, | bringing the total number to 22. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2004 & 2008): IMD5030 | | See election study note for IMD5029. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): IMD5030 | | The Executive Council (ExCo) has 32 members (including the CE, | 15 official members and 16 non-official members). However, both | the official and non-official members do not have voting rights | in the ExCo. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): IMD5030 | | The Executive Council (ExCo) had 31 members (16 official members | and 15 non-official members). However, both the official and | non-official members do not have voting rights in the ExCo (SEE | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): IMD5030). | In addition to the three ExCo members with party affiliations | listed in IMD5029, two additional members were affiliated with | political parties. One with BPA - Business and Professionals | Alliance for HK, and another one with the Liberal Party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2002): IMD5030 | | This variable reports the cabinet size without the post of the | Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): IMD5030 | | In addition to the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left-Green | Movement members, there were two non-party affiliated cabinet | members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - INDIA (2019): IMD5030 | | One additional post was occupied by Rashtriya Lok Janshakti | Party (RLJP). This party was formed in October 2021 as a | splinter from the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): IMD5030 | | Independents occupied the remaining three cabinet positions, | bringing the total to 15. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2003): IMD5030 | | Two unaccounted portfolios held by Mafdal. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): IMD5030 | | 25 ministers plus the Prime Minister. In addition to the parties | mentioned in IMD5031, two remaining cabinet posts were held | by members of the Pensioners Party (Gil). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): IMD5030 | | One post was occupied by the Derekh Eretz (The Way of the Land) | party, bringing the total to 34. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): IMD5030 | | Six additional posts were held by independents, bringing to the | the total to 19. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2004): IMD5030 | | One unaccounted portfolio was held by an independent candidate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): IMD5030 | | Two unaccounted portfolios were held by independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): IMD5030 | | The data refers to the Abe cabinet which was formed on December | 26, 2012, since the 2013 elections refer to the Upper House | elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2003): 5010 | | "Mexico has a Presidential System in which the portfolios are | designated directly by the President and for the case of general | attorney with the approval of the Senate. The elections held in | July were for federal deputies. The executive power was not | modified." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006 & 2009): IMD5030 | | Mexico has a Presidential System in which portfolios (State | Secretaries) are designated directly by the President. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): IMD5030 | | Since December 1, 2013, the cabinet in Mexico consists of | twenty secretariats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2018): IMD5030 | | The cabinet of the Federal Government is made up of 18 | Secretaries of State plus the Legal Adviser to the Federal | Executive, the Attorney General and the Head of the Office | of the President. | In total, it is 20 members, including the members of the | expanded cabinet, that is, it includes the heads of fundamental | institutions for the Mexican State who are also appointed by | the President of the Republic. These are the Mexican Institute | of Social Security (IMSS), the Institute of Security and | Social Services for State Workers (ISSSTE), Petroleos Mexicanos | (PEMEX), the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) and the | National Water Commission (CONAGUA). | Eight additional cabinet posts were held by independent members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): IMD5030 | | Seven additional posts were held by independents, and one by | Democratic Union of Albanians (DUA), bringing the total to 21. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2021): IMD5030 | | The other members of the cabinet came from the Broad Front | (Frente Amplio, three ministers), and the National United | Renaissance (Renacimiento Unido Nacional (RUNA, one minister). | Independents occupied the remaining cabinet positions, bringing | the total number to 19. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2019): IMD5030 | | Additional posts were occupied by the PiS (PARTY A) coalition | partners (two posts each for Agreement/Porozumienie & United | Poland/Solidarna Polska). Six posts were held by independents, | bringing the total to 24. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): IMD5030 | | Seventeen ministerial positions, plus the Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): IMD5030 | | Including the Prime Minister, the size of the cabinet is 17. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): IMD5030 | | The size of the cabinet is 18 seats in total, with eight cabinet | positions occupied by Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): IMD5030 | | Five additional posts were held by independents, bringing the | total to 16. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): IMD5030 | | The cabinet changes are not due to the Presidential election | but are the results of a motion of no confidence voted in | October 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD5030 | | The size of the cabinet is 28 seats in total, with one cabinet | position occupied by an Independent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2016): IMD5030 | | One additional post was held by an Independent, bringing the | total to 27. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2004): B5007-IMD5030 | | See election study note for B5007, available in Codebook Part 2 | of CSES MODULE 2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): IMD5030 | | The cabinet following the parliamentary election of 2010 | was composed of 15 cabinet ministers, one Prime Minister | and once Vice-Prime Minister for a total of 15 members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): IMD5030 | | The remaining cabinet ministries were occupied by two | Independents, bringing the total to 16. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2004): IMD5030 | | Sixteen ministerial posts (one without portfolio), plus the Prime | Minister (from SDS - PARTY A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): IMD5030 | | The cabinet following the parliamentary election of 2008 was | composed of 19 persons in total, including the Prime Minister, | and one minister without a portfolio. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): IMD5030 | | This number includes 12 ministerial posts (one of them | without portfolio), plus the Prime Minister and a Deputy | Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2004): IMD5030 | | Out of 16 ministers in the cabinet, two were Vice Presidents of | Government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): IMD5030 | | The cabinet prior to the parliamentary election of 2008 was | composed of 18 persons in total, including two Vice-Presidents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): IMD5030 | | These figures contain 35 ministers plus the Prime Minister for a | total of 36. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): IMD5030 | | This data contains 35 ministers plus the Prime Minister for a | total of 36. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): IMD5030 | | Additional portfolios were held by Action Coalition for | Thailand Party (one cabinet post) and Chart Pattana Party | (one cabinet post). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): IMD5030 | | All the appointed cabinet members were Independents, except for | the Prime Minister Elyes Fhakfakh of the Ettakatol Party | (Democratic Forum for Labor and Liberties, NUMERICAL CODE | 7880024). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5031_A >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY A IMD5031_B >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY B IMD5031_C >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY C IMD5031_D >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY D IMD5031_E >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY E IMD5031_F >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY F IMD5031_G >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY G IMD5031_H >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY H IMD5031_I >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of cabinet posts (portfolios) held by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] after the election. .................................................................. 00-99. NUMBER OF CABINET POSTS AFTER ELECTION HELD BY PARTY/COALITION X 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5031_ | | Parties numerical classifications are detailed in Part 3 of the | CSES IMD Codebook. Alphabetical party and leader codes are | identified in Part 4 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | Ministers are considered those members of government who are | members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. | | MODULE 2 code "997. Not applicable" (B5009) has been recoded to | "999. Missing" in the IMD. This change affects the following | studies: FRANCE (2002) and KYRGYZSTAN (2005). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B5009_A-I (Number of Portfolios After) | MODULE 3: C5013_A-I (Government Composition After Election) | MODULE 4: D5013_A-I (Government Composition After Election) | MODULE 5: E5015_A-I (Number of Portfolios After Election) | | Data are unavailable for IMD5031_A-I for MODULE 1 and CHILE | (2009), EL SALVADOR (2019), FRANCE (2002), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), | RUSSIA (2004) and UNITED STATES (2004, 2008, 2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): IMD5031_G/H | | PARTY G (Republican Proposal, PRO) and PARTY H (Radical Civic | Union, UCR) is part of the alliance Let's Change Cambiemos | (PARTY B). The individual share of cabinet seats for | constituent parts of the alliance are also available and are | detailed here. Data for the share of cabinet seats for the | entire alliance that these parties belong to is detailed in | IMD5031_B. The complete distribution of cabinet portfolios for | Argentina is obtained by taking into account the number of | portfolios for parties A-F inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): IMD5031_B | | One of the seven posts that belong to Party B (Austrian People's | Party) is represented by one non-partisan minister, nominated by | ÖVP (Austrian People's Party) and filling an ÖVP slot. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2001): IMD5031_C | | Coalition for Bulgaria (KzB headed by the Bulgarian Socialist | Party) initially had two posts in the cabinet. One minister | resigned soon after. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): IMD5031 | | The data refers to the so-called Second Borisov Cabinet, | formed on November 7, 2014, after the parliamentary elections | which were held on October 5, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2005): IMD5031 | | One additional portfolio was held by a Social Democrat Radical | Party member, and three more were held by independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2006): IMD5031 | | From 04/09/2006- to 09/01/2007 there were nine cabinet | ministers from the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) and six | non-partisans nominated by ODS. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2021): IMD5031_A, | IMD5031_G, IMD5031_H | | The Together (SPOLU) alliance comprises three parties: | - PARTY A - Civic Democratic Party (Obcanska Demokraticka | Strana, ODS). | - PARTY G - Tradition, Responsibility, Prosperity | (Tradice Odpovednost Prosperita, TOP09). | - PARTY H - Christian and Democratic Union/People's Party | (Krestanska a Demokraticka Unie - Strana lidova, | KDU-CSL). | | The number of cabinet seats for this alliance is provided | separately for each party in the alliance. The complete | distribution of cabinet portfolios for the Together (SPOLU) | alliance is obtained by summing IMD5031_A, IMD5031_G, and | IMD5031_H for Czech Republic/Czechia (2021). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2021): IMD5031_C | & IMD5031_I | | The Pirati - Czech Pirate Party (PARTY A) and STAN - Mayors and | Independents (PARTY I) competed as an alliance. | The number of cabinet seats for this alliance is provided | separately for each party. The complete distribution of cabinet | portfolios for the alliance is obtained by summing E5015_C and | E5015_I for Czech Republic/Czechia (2021). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): IMD5031_A | | In addition to 30 full cabinet ministers from Party A (PS), | there are two full cabinet ministers from Party F (Europe | Ecologie Les Verts; EELV), two from Party 16 (Parti radical | de gauche; PRG) and one independent cabinet minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): IMD5031 | | The data refers to the government formed after the elections | of June 17, 2012. In addition to the listed members, there was | one independent cabinet member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2004): IMD5031 | | See election study note for IMD5029. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2004): IMD5031 | | The Alliance (formed after the 2004 LegCo Election by | reorganizing the Breakfast Group) had one non-official member of | the Executive Council (the Cabinet). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): IMD5031 | | After the Election, the CE and the 15 official members were not | members of any political parties; two of the 14 unofficial | members were members of political parties (groups). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): IMD5031 | | In Hong Kong, the Executive Council (ExCo), which is established | to assist the Chief Executive (CE; equivalent of Prime Minister, | or President) in policymaking, is some equivalent of the cabinet | elsewhere. However, the majority views of the ExCo, if any, are | not binding, and it is up to the CE to decide whether to accept | them or not. In this sense, the ExCo members do not have voting | rights. | After the 2012 elections, the ExCo had 32 members (including the | CE, 15 official members and 16 non-official members). Five of | the non-official ExCo members have party affiliation, reported | in this variable. One of the five members belongs to party Rural | Council, and another one to Business and Professional Alliance | for Hong Kong. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): IMD5031 | | In Hong Kong, the Executive Council (ExCo), which is established | to assist the Chief Executive (CE; equivalent to a Prime Minister | or President) in policy-making, is some equivalent to the | cabinet elsewhere. However, the majority views of the ExCo, if | any, are not binding, and it is up to the CE to decide whether to | accept them or not. In this sense, the ExCo members do not have | voting rights. | The ExCo consisted of the CE and 31 members (16 official members | and 15 non-official members) after the 2016 LegCo Election (as | of 31 December 2016). Only five of the ExCo members had a party | affiliation, which are reported here. | Source of data: Compiled from Hong Kong Year Book 2016, | Appendix 1. | Available at: https://www.yearbook.gov.hk/2016/en/pdf/ | Appendices.pdf (Date accessed: August 21, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2002): IMD5031_A | | Party A (MSZP) had 11 cabinet members plus the Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2003): IMD5031_A | | Likud - 14 (11 ministers with portfolios and P.M. Sharon | with three portfolios). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): IMD5031_A | | Likud has 12 cabinet ministers, while Yisrael Beiteinu has four. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2006): IMD5031 | | The specified values refer to the number of cabinet posts and | not portfolios (cabinet posts have no autonomous budgeting). The | distribution of portfolios is: Democrats of the Left (five), | Daisy-Democracy is Freedom (four), Rose in the Fist (one), | Popular-UDEUR (one), Italy of Values (one), Federation of the | Greens (one), Communist Refoundation Party (one) and Independents | (four). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): IMD5031 | | The data refers to the Abe cabinet, which was formed on Dec. 26, | 2012. Since the current elections refer to the Upper House | elections, the data about the Cabinet prior to the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): IMD5031 | | All members of the Cabinet after the election, including the | President and Vice President, were members or affiliated with | the Jubilee Coalition, of which principal members were parties | TNA (Party A) and URP (Party C). This alliance supported the | winning Presidential candidate coming from TNA (Party A). | In addition to the 11 members of the Cabinet recorded in this | variable, there were seven nominally independent members, one | from New Ford Kenya party, one from the Republican Congress | Party, and two former members of the ODM (opposition Party B). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): IMD5031 | | In addition to the listed portfolio, there were two independent | cabinet member, but according to the collaborator, they were | affiliated with party Unity (PARTY C). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2003): IMD5031 | | In the Mexican Presidential system, party affiliations of | cabinet members are not explicit. This variable reports | party affiliation in those cases when a Secretary is a | participating member of the party, either as a former or | expected candidate to some post, if he/she has held a post | in the directive organization of the party, or if he/she has | made his/her affiliation explicit. Six cabinet members are | Independent. Party affiliation of two cabinet members | (Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy) are unknown. | However, these secretaries traditionally do not have any | political affiliation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): IMD5031 | | In addition to the portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in the | entries, there were four additional independent ministers and | two with unknown affiliation. | | Note that Mexico has a Presidential system. The cabinet is made | up by 18 portfolios held by state secretaries directly | appointed by the President, and the Attorney-General (19 in | total). Only the Secretary of Foreign Relations and the General | Attorney need approval from the Senate. There is no voting in | the cabinet, and the positions are not necessarily political. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): IMD5031 | | In addition to the 12 portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in | the entries, there were seven additional independent ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): IMD5031 | | In addition to the portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in the | data, there were five additional independent ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): IMD5031 | | Mexico has a Presidential system. After the 2015 election | there were 18 cabinet posts, including the General Attorney | who is appointed by the President but has to be approved by | the Senate as the Foreign Affairs Secretary. There is no | voting in the cabinet, and positions are not necessarily | political. In addition to the portfolios (State Secretaries) | coded in IMD5031, the remaining posts were held by independent | candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): IMD5031_A | | Party A represents a coalition of the Democratic Party of | Socialists (DPS; dominant member) and the Social Democratic Party | (SDP). The former obtained 14 cabinet posts, and the latter three | cabinet posts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2004): IMD5031 | | These data report five cabinet members, from Lakas-NUCD-UMDP | (three members), LP (one), and NPC (one). One additional post was | held by a member of PDSP. The remaining cabinet members were not | affiliated with parties. They are basically from the academe, | private sector or career government officers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): IMD5031 | | There were 23 cabinet members after the election. However, | most are independent, while some are members of parties | participating in the party list (proportional) electoral | segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2001): IMD5031 | | Additional four portfolios held by independent candidates | nominated either by SLD or PSL. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2001): IMD5031_A | | This entry refers to portfolios obtained by SLD alone. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2001): IMD5031_I | | This entry refers to portfolios obtained by UP alone. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): IMD5031 | | This variable shows party affiliations of 11 Cabinet Ministers. | Out of the remaining seven Ministers, one is a member of Partia | Centrum (party that received 0.19% of votes), while six are | Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): IMD5031 | | This variable shows party affiliations of 13 Cabinet Ministers. | The remaining seven Ministers were Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): IMD5031 | | Six additional posts were held by independent ministers, but, | according to the Macro Report, close to or affiliated with | the Platforma Obywatelska (Party A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): IMD5031 | | Four remaining cabinet posts were held by independent | candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): IMD5031 | | The cabinet changes are not due to the Presidential election | but are the results of a motion of no confidence voted in | October 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD5031_G | | PARTY G (Social Democratic Party, PSD) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). The individual share of | cabinet seats for constituent parts of the alliance are also | available and are detailed here. Data for the share of | cabinet seats for the entire alliance that this party belongs to | is detailed in IMD5031_A. The complete distribution of cabinet | portfolios for Romania is obtained by taking into account | the number of portfolios for parties A-E inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD5031_H | | PARTY H (National Liberal Union, NLP) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). The individual share of | cabinet seats for constituent parts of the alliance are also | available and are detailed here. Data for the share of | cabinet seats for the entire alliance that this party belongs to | is detailed in IMD5031_A. The complete distribution of cabinet | portfolios for Romania is obtained by taking into account | the number of portfolios for parties A-E inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD5031_I | | PARTY I (Liberal Democratic Party, PDL) is part of the alliance | Alliance for a Just Romania (coded PARTY B). The individual | share of cabinet seats for constituent parts of the alliance | are also available and are detailed here. Data for the share of | cabinet seats for the entire alliance that this party belongs to | is detailed in IMD5031_B. The complete distribution of cabinet | portfolios for Romania is obtained by taking into account | the number of portfolios for parties A-E inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): IMD5031 | | This Cabinet (so-called Ponta 3 Cabinet) was in the office until | December 13, 2014. Following the Presidential elections, the | UDMR decided to leave the governing coalition because of the | anti-PSD vote of the Hungarian voters. Because this involved a | political change in the Cabinet parliamentary approval was | sought and received on December 17, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2004): IMD5031 | | See election study note for IMD5029. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): IMD5031 | | The Serbian government has one Prime Minister, one or more | vice-ministers and ministers - they together constitute the | cabinet and they all have voting right. After the 2012 | elections, the Serbian government had 19 members with voting | rights: one Prime Minister, four Deputy Prime Ministers, and 14 | ministers. In the new government, the Prime Minister is also | Minister of Internal Affairs. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): IMD5031_A | | Party A (SNS) had six cabinet members, plus two independents by | nominated by the SNS. Hence, SNS was coded as having eight | cabinet members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): IMD5031_C | | Party C, SPS, participated in the election as a senior member in | coalition with PUPS. SPS ended up with four cabinet members and | URS with one. Given the dominant position of SPS over URS, the | data includes cabinet members of both parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): IMD5031_G IMD5031_H | | Siet (PARTY H) split on August 31, 2016, with several members | quitting the party, including party leader Radoslava Prochazka, | and the party losing its status as an official party | in the Slovak parliament. Siet lost its sole cabinet position | in this split. The Most-Hid (Bridge Party - PARTY G) was | allocated a third position in the cabinet on August 31, 2016, as | a result of the Siet split. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): IMD5031_A | | The collaborator lists nine individuals (Excluding the Prime | Minister), two of which are without a portfolio. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): IMD5031_D | | The collaborator lists three persons, one of which is without a | portfolio. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): IMD5031_A | | Collaborator advises most of the Ministers are not affiliated to | political parties, but they can be considered as the members of | the Saenuri Party (SP, PARTY A) as they were chosen by the | President, a member of this party, implying ministers likely | have similar views to the President. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD5031 | | After the elections, 24 Ministers were from the KMT, one from the | DDP, and 20 were independents for a total of 45 ministers, | including premier and vice-premier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): IMD5031 | | All cabinet Ministers were from the KMT. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): IMD5031_A | | There are 14 cabinet members - 13 ministers plus the President | of the Republic, who is simultaneously the President of the | Council of Ministers and a member of it, with an equal vote to | each minister. The entire cabinet came from Party A (Broad | Front/Frente Amplio). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5032_1 >>> ELECTION VIOLENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To what extent was there violence and voter or candidate intimidation during the election campaign and the election day? .................................................................. 1. NO VIOLENCE AT ALL 2. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 3. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 4. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON ALL SIDES 5. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 6. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 7. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE OF ALL SIDES 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5032_1 | | Source of data: CSES Macro Report. | | Details on the occurrences of election violence are provided in | ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the | respective Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5026 | MODULE 4: D5026 | MODULE 5: E5028 | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1 and CSES MODULE 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5032_2 >>> GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF VIOLENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was violence, was it geographically concentrated or national? .................................................................. 1. NO ELECTION VIOLENCE 2. GEOGRAPHICALLY CONCENTRATED 3. NATIONAL 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5032_2 | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | Details on the geographic concentration of election violence, if | applicable, are provided in ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in | Codebook Parts 2 of the respective Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5027 | MODULE 4: D5027 | MODULE 5: E5029 | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1 and CSES MODULE 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5032_3 >>> POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To what extent was there violence following the election? .................................................................. 1. NO VIOLENCE AT ALL 2. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 3. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 4. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON ALL SIDES 5. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 6. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 7. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE OF ALL SIDES 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5032_3 | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | Details on the occurrences of post-election violence are | provided in ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in Codebook Parts 2 | of the respective Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5028 | MODULE 4: D5028 | MODULE 5: E5030 | MODULE 5: E5030 | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1 and CSES MODULE 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5032_4 >>> POST-ELECTION PROTEST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To what extent was there protest following the election? .................................................................. 1. NO PROTEST AT ALL 2. SPORADIC PROTEST 3. SIGNIFICANT PROTEST 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5032_4 | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | Details on the occurrences of post-election protest are | provided in ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in Codebook Parts 2 | of the respective Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5029 | MODULE 4: D5029 | MODULE 5: E5031 | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1 and CSES MODULE 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5033 >>> FAIRNESS OF THE ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How impartial was the body that administered the election law? .................................................................. 1. VERY IMPARTIAL 2. MOSTLY IMPARTIAL 3. NOT VERY IMPARTIAL 4. NOT IMPARTIAL AT ALL 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5033 | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5020 | MODULE 4: D5020 | MODULE 5: E5022 | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1 and CSES MODULE 2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): IMD5033 | | As before, the body administering the election law in Hong Kong | (the Electoral Affairs Commission) largely considered the 2016 | LegCo Election as impartial. However, in this election, | there was one incident that led to queries over the body's | impartiality: Returning officers under the Electoral Affairs | Commission decided that six persons were not qualified for | running for LegCo on the ground that judging from their past | remarks and social media posts, the disqualified persons | advocated Hong Kong independence, so could not genuinely support | the Basic Law (according to which Hong Kong is an inalienable | part of China). Since in previous elections, returning officers | had never made these kinds of political judgments, some perceived | their decisions as political censorship over who could run for | LegCo Election and rejection of the candidacy of some persons on | political grounds. (From the Macro Report.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5034_1 >>> FORMAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST NATIONAL LEVEL RESULTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Was there a formal complaint against the national level results? .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 6. OTHER - SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5034_1 | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | Details on the nature of formal complaints against national | level election results, if applicable, are provided in | ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in Codebook Parts 2 of the | respective Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5021 | MODULE 4: D5021 | MODULE 5: E5023 | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1 and CSES MODULE 2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): IMD5034_1 | | While there was no formal complaint against the national-level | results per se, there were many challenges by Republican Party | officials and President Trump's supporters at the state level. | Sixty-three lawsuits were filed, including in states like | Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, all | states won by Democratic challenger Joe Biden (PARTY A), | challenging the election. Most legal challenges, some of which | the US Supreme Court considered, were dismissed or dropped due | to lack of evidence. | | Sources of data: | | Bloomberg Law: "Trump's election lawsuits: Where the Fights are | Playing Out" | https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trumps-election- | lawsuits-where-the-fights-are-playing-out | (Date accessed: February 03, 2022). | | New York Times: "Supreme Court Rejects Republican Challenge to | Pennsylvania Vote" | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/us/supreme-court-republican- | challenge-pennsylvania-vote.html | (Date accessed: February 03, 2022). | | New York Times: "Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to | Subvert Election" | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/us/politics/supreme-court- | election-texas.html | (Date accessed: February 03, 2022). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5034_2 >>> ELECTION IRREGULARITIES REPORTED --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Were there irregularities reported by international election observers? .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 6. NO INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVERS 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5034_2 | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | Details on irregularities reported by election observers, if | applicable, are provided in ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in | Codebook Parts 2 of the respective Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5022 | MODULE 4: D5022 | MODULE 5: E5024 | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1 and CSES MODULE 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5034_3 >>> ELECTION DATE IRREGULARITIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the election was held on a different date than scheduled, please explain why? .................................................................. 0. ELECTION WAS HELD ON THE SAME DAY AS SCHEDULED 1. ELECTION WAS NOT HELD ON THE SAME DAY AS SCHEDULED [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5034_3 | | IMD5034_3 details whether or not the election was held on a | different date than scheduled, i.e., whether any election date | irregularities occurred. | | Details on the reasons for election date irregularities, if | occurring, are provided in ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in | Codebook Parts 2 of the respective Standalone CSES Modules. | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5025 | MODULE 4: D5025 | MODULE 5: E5027 | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1 and CSES MODULE 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5035 >>> NUMBER OF PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How many political parties received votes in the election? .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF PARTIES 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5035 | | IMD5035 details the number of participating political parties, | not merely alliances or coalitions of political parties about | which official information was available. | Independent candidates are not counted. Where coalitions are | present member parties are counted separately. | | Sources of data: CSES Macro Reports and publicly available | sources such as National Election Commissions. | | IMD5035 reports the number of parties participating in the | main election. | | CSES classifies the main election based on the regime | (executive) type and the election in which the CSES survey has | been administered. For polities rated as parliamentary systems, | CSES classifies the main election as elections to the lower house | for most studies. It deviates for a few cases when elections to | the upper house constitutes the main election, usually due to the | respective CSES study focusing on the upper house contest. | For polities rated as Presidential systems, CSES conventionally | classifies the main election as the Presidential election. It | sometimes deviates when data for the Presidential election is | unavailable (e.g., when the CSES survey was administered in a | midterm election). For polities rated as mixed systems, CSES | has tended to classify the main election as elections to the | lower house. However, it sometimes deviates depending on data | availability. Users are advised to consult the table listed in | VARIABLE NOTES for IMD3002_OUTGOV specifying the main election | for each study in CSES for specific details. | | Some inconsistencies across time may occur, depending on how the | number of parties is counted. | | Details on the numbers of parties participating in elections, | are provided in ELECTION STUDY NOTES, available in Codebook | Parts 2 of the respective Standalone CSES Modules. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5015 | MODULE 4: D5015 | MODULE 5: E5077 | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1, CSES MODULE 2, and | BELARUS (2008). | POLITY NOTES - FRANCE: IMD5035 | | IMD5035 counts the number of parties participating in the main | election. That is the reason for the difference in values on | this variable across two French studies, 2007 and 2012. | For the French 2007 study, the main elections were Lower house | (number of parties participating - 70). For France 2012, the main | elections were Presidential (number of parties participating - | 10). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5036_1 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES PERMITTED IN AN ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not electoral alliances/coalitions are legally allowable. .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 8. NOT ASCERTAINABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5036_1 | | IMD5036_1 details whether or not electoral alliances/coalitions | (involving joint lists/candidates where parties compete as a unit | during the election) are legally allowable. | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5011 | MODULE 2: B5024 | MODULE 3: C5030 | MODULE 4: D5030 | MODULE 5: E5032 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5036_1 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Election studies of countries for which we found inconsistencies | over time and for which we did not have enough information to | code them consistently were recoded as "8. Not ascertainable". We | suspect the slight differences in question-wording of the macro | reports in MODULES 1 and 2, and MODULES 3 and 4 to be the cause | of those inconsistencies. Germany (1998, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2013) | and South Korea (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012) are thus set to "8. Not | ascertainable". | [POLITY NOTES] - GERMANY: IMD5036_1 | | The 1998 and 2002 German election studies were originally | coded as "1. Yes", whereas the 2005, 2009 and 2013 election | studies were coded as "5. No". All studies were recoded into | "8. Not ascertainable" in CSES IMD because not enough | information was available to code them consistently. | [POLITY NOTES] - SOUTH KOREA: IMD5036_1 | | The 2000 and 2004 South Korean election studies were originally | coded as "1. Yes", whereas the 2008 and 2012 election studies | were coded as "5. No". All studies were recoded into | "8. Not ascertainable" in CSES IMD because not enough | information was available to code them consistently. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - AUSTRALIA (1996 AND 2004): IMD5036_1 | | The 1996 and 2004 Australian election studies were originally | coded as "1. Yes" in the Standalone CSES MODULES 1 and 2. They | were recoded into "0. No" in CSES IMD to code all Australian | studies consistently. According to the Australian collaborator, | inconsistencies might have likely occurred because electoral | alliances are not allowed technically but in practice, it is | slightly ambiguous because of the permanent Liberal-National | Coalition. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - CANADA (2008, 2011, 2015): IMD5036_1 | | The 2008, 2011 and 2015 Canadian election studies were | originally coded as "5. No" in the Standalone CSES MODULE 3 | and 4. They were recoded into "1. Yes" in CSES IMD to code all | Canadian studies consistently. According to the Canadian | collaborator, electoral alliances were allowed in Canada but | they just did not exist. The collaborator suspects that this | might be the source of the different responses. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - JAPAN (2004): IMD5036_1 | | The 2004 Japanese election study is coded as "1. Yes" and | thus, deviates from the coding of the other Japanese election | studies. It is coded as "Yes" because in theory electoral | alliances can be formed legally. However, in practice the | question is vague. There was some informal agreement which | enables the parties concerned to cooperate in the Election | in question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): IMD5036_1 | | According to the 1996 macro report, electoral alliances were | not permitted during the election campaign and have not formed | in 1996. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SWEDEN (2006 AND 2014): IMD5036_1 | | The 2006 and 2014 Swedish election studies were originally | coded as "1. Yes" in the Standalone CSES MODULES 3 and 4. They | were recoded into "0. No" in CSES IMD to correct the error as | electoral alliances were not and are not permitted in Sweden. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5036_2 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES IN PRACTICE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is this type of electoral coalition [mentioned in IMD5036_1] used in practice, even if not legally allowable? .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5036_2 | | This question elicited different responses from collaborators | across time in certain polities with some collaborators offering | assessments of the circumstance in the particular election | while others offered assessments of the circumstance in the | polity more generally up to that point. Consequently, there are | inconsistencies in the responses offered across time in the | following polities: AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA, | GERMANY, HONG KONG, IRELAND, MEXICO, and POLAND. In line with | CSES IMD policy, deviations between IMD and CSES Standalone | Modules only occur when there is information suggesting a coding | error. | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5031 | MODULE 4: D5031 | MODULE 5: E5033 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5036_2 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULES 1, 2, and 5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5036_3 >>> DID ANY ELECTORAL ALLIANCE FORM? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (If yes to IMD5036_1 or IMD5036_2) Did any electoral alliances form? .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 7. NOT APPLICABLE [NO ALLIANCES PERMITTED] 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5036_3 | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | Details on the number of alliances and the party in each | alliance by country in English can be found in the Codebooks | of the respective Standalone Modules. | | During the harmonization, we found a couple of inconsistencies | over time. Those inconsistencies were caused by the fact | that for MODULE 1, category "7. Not applicable" did not exist | and election studies which should have been coded as "7" were | coded as "5. No". To make them consistent over time, those | election studies were recoded from "5. No" to "7. Not | applicable". This is the case for Denmark (1998), Sweden | (1998), Japan (1996), Taiwan (1996), Thailand (2001) and the | United States (1996). | | Since the variable reports alliances at the election under study, | it is natural that values vary for the same polity across time. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5012 | MODULE 2: B5025 | MODULE 3: C5032 | MODULE 4: D5032 | MODULE 5: E5034 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5036_3 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - DENMARK (1998): IMD5036_3 | | The 1998 Danish election study was originally coded as "5. No" | in the Standalone CSES MODULE 1 because category "7. Not | applicable" did not exist in MODULE 1. In the CSES IMD, it | was recoded into "7. Not applicable" to code all Danish studies | consistently. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GERMANY (2005): IMD5036_3 | | The 2005 German election study is coded as "1. Yes" and thus, | deviates from the coding of the other German election studies. | The Electoral Law does not allow political parties competing | against each other to present a joint list of candidates. In | the 2005 elections, the Left-PDS circumvented this restriction | by adding WAGS candidates on both their list and constituency | seats; the WASG was not participating as a party as such. The PDS | named itself during the election Linkspartei.PDS or just | Linkspartei. | | Alliance 1: Die Linke: PDS/WASG | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - JAPAN (1996): IMD5036_3 | | The 1996 Japanese election study was originally coded as "5. No" | in the Standalone CSES MODULE 1 because category "7. Not | applicable" did not exist in MODULE 1. In the CSES IMD, it | was recoded into "7. Not applicable" to code all Japanese | studies consistently. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - JAPAN (2004): IMD5036_3 | | The 2004 Japanese election study is coded as "1. Yes" and thus, | deviates from the coding of the other Japanese election studies. | "In the formal sense, LDP and Komeito did not form an alliance | but as a form of agreement they did. In running the cabinet, | this alliance is important and substantial, and in the 2004 | election, the alliance was also partially effective in terms of | strategic allocation of candidates and votes; LDP and Komeito | coordinate when they decide where to place their candidates, | although they do compete each other in some of the districts." | | Alliance 1: LDP+NK (CGP) | Liberal Democratic Party* and Komeito. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SWEDEN (1998): IMD5036_3 | | The 1998 Swedish election study was originally coded as "5. No" | in the Standalone CSES MODULE 1 because category "7. Not | applicable" did not exist in MODULE 1. In the CSES IMD, it | was recoded into "7. Not applicable" to code the Swedish | studies consistently. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - TAIWAN (1996): IMD5036_3 | | The 1996 Taiwanese election study was originally coded as | "5. No" in the Standalone CSES MODULE 1 because category | "7. Not applicable" did not exist in MODULE 1. In the CSES IMD, | it was recoded into "7. Not applicable" to code all Taiwanese | studies consistently. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - THAILAND (2001): IMD5036_3 | | The 2001 Thai election study was originally coded as "5. No" | in the Standalone CSES MODULE 1 because category "7. Not | applicable" did not exist in MODULE 1. In the CSES IMD, it | was recoded into "7. Not applicable" to code all Thai studies | consistently. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - UNITED STATES (1996): IMD5036_3 | | The 1996 American election study was originally coded as "5. No" | in the Standalone CSES MODULE 1 because category "7. Not | applicable" did not exist in MODULE 1. In the CSES IMD, it | was recoded into "7. Not applicable" to code all American | studies consistently. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5038 >>> REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT PARTY LISTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not joint lists are subject to different regulations than single-party lists. .................................................................. 1. YES, JOINT PARTY LISTS MUST SATISFY HIGHER THRESHOLDS 2. YES, JOINT PARTY LISTS MAY PRESENT DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF CANDIDATES 3. YES, JOINT PARTY LISTS ARE SUBJECT TO OTHER REGULATIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING INDEPENDENT PARTIES 5. NO, JOINT PARTIES ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULES AS OTHER PARTIES 7. NOT APPLICABLE; NO JOINT PARTY LISTS ARE ALLOWED 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5038 | | IMD5038 details whether joint lists - if permissible - are | subject to different regulations than single-party lists (e.g. | in terms of higher thresholds, different numbers of candidates | that may appear on the list, etc.). | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | The CSES Secretariat has made every effort to harmonize this | measure consistently over time. However, in some instances, | this was not possible. In these circumstances, the issue is noted | in POLITY and/or ELECTION STUDY NOTES below. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5037 | MODULE 2: B5049 | MODULE 3: C5033 | MODULE 4: D5033 | MODULE 5: E5035 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5038 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5 and CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA | (1996). | POLITY NOTES - CHILE: IMD5038 | | The 1999 and 2005 Chilean studies are classified as "5. NO, | JOINT PARTIES ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULES AS OTHER PARTIES" | while the 2009 Chilean study is coded as "1. YES JOINT PARTY | LISTS MUST SATISFY HIGHER THRESHOLDS." We have insufficient | information to explain this deviation between elections and | the data remains unchanged in CSES IMD and the respective | Standalone CSES Modules. | POLITY NOTES - GREECE: IMD5038 | | The 2012 and 2015 Greek studies are classified as "3. YES, | JOINT PARTY LISTS ARE SUBJECT TO OTHER REGULATIONS THAT ARE | DIFFERENT FROM THE INDEPENDENT PARTIES" while the 2009 Greek | studies is coded as "5. NO, JOINT PARTIES ARE GOVERNED BY THE | SAME RULES AS OTHER PARTIES". This deviation is a consequence | of an update to the Greek electoral law in 2008 (Law 3636/2008) | introduced in 2008 but only to apply to the next election after | the 2009 elections. | POLITY NOTES - HUNGARY: IMD5038 | | The 1998 Hungarian study is classified as "5. NO, JOINT PARTIES | ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULES AS OTHER PARTIES" while the | 2002 Hungarian study is coded as "1. YES JOINT PARTY LISTS MUST | SATISFY HIGHER THRESHOLDS." We have insufficient information to | explain this deviation between elections and the data remains | unchanged in CSES IMD and the respective Standalone CSES Modules. | POLITY NOTES - NETHERLANDS: IMD5038 | | The 1998 and 2002 Dutch studies are classified as "5. NO, | JOINT PARTIES ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULES AS OTHER PARTIES" | while the 2006 and 2010 Dutch studies are coded as "1. YES | JOINT PARTY LISTS MUST SATISFY HIGHER THRESHOLDS." We have | insufficient information to explain this deviation between | elections and the data remain unchanged in CSES IMD and the | respective Standalone CSES Modules. | POLITY NOTES - ROMANIA: IMD5038 | | The Romanian election studies show several inconsistencies | over time, namely: | 2004/2012/2014: Classified as "1. YES JOINT PARTY LISTS MUST | SATISFY HIGHER THRESHOLDS" | 1996: Classified as "3. YES, JOINT PARTY LISTS ARE SUBJECT | TO OTHER REGULATIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE | INDEPENDENT PARTIES" | 2009: Classified as "5. NO, JOINT PARTIES ARE GOVERNED BY THE | SAME RULES AS OTHER PARTIES" | These deviations are principally explained by changes in the | electoral law across time. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): IMD5038 | | The 2007 French election study is classified as "5. NO, JOINT | PARTIES ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULES AS OTHER PARTIES" | deviating from other classifications of French elections across | time. In the French electoral system, there are no electoral | lists, so this question refers to multiple parties endorsing | 'joint' candidates. In practice, candidates may declare to voters | as many endorsements as they wish. Yet, for party funding (which | is almost the only regulation on parties in France), candidates | can declare only one endorsement even if they receive money from | more than one party. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): IMD5038 | | The 2015 British study was originally coded as "5. NO, | JOINT PARTIES ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULES AS OTHER PARTIES" | in the Standalone CSES MODULE 4. It was recoded to "7. NOT | APPLICABLE" in CSES IMD because no joint party lists are allowed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMDD5040_1 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can candidates run with the endorsement of more than one party? .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5040_1 | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | In case of inconsistencies between studies of the same polity, | data on IMD5040_ were harmonized whenever possible. | However, users are advised that inconsistencies remained when | no information was available to facilitate harmonization. | Further, in the rare instances of missing data from the Macro | Reports, data remain missing in CSES IMD, unless codings could | be verified by additional sources. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5040 | MODULE 2: B5047 | MODULE 3: C5036 | MODULE 4: D5036 | MODULE 5: E5038 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5040_1 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, BELARUS (2008) and | and CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (1996). | [POLITY NOTES] - ICELAND: IMD5040_1 | | In the Standalone CSES Modules, multi-party endorsements were | coded as being permissible for all Icelandic studies. However, | collaborators confirmed that since 1999, candidates are not | allowed, according to law, to run with the endorsement of more | than one party. Hence, IMD5040_1 has been recoded to "0. NO" for | all Icelandic studies included in IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - BRAZIL (2002): IMD5040_1 | | In contrast with other Brazilian studies included in CSES, | the 2002 Brazilian election study specified that | multi-party endorsements were not permissible (code 0 in | IMD5040_1). However, collaborators confirmed that | for all Brazilian studies included in IMD, parties not | nominating a Presidential candidate might have endorsed | other candidates in electoral coalitions. Likewise, | candidates might have made explicit endorsements across | parties within their coalitions. Therefore, IMD5040_1 has | been recoded to "1. YES" for Brazil 2002. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - JAPAN (2007 & 2013): IMD5040_1 | | In the Standalone CSES Modules, IMD5040_1 has been coded | inconsistently for Japan. Specifically, IMD5040_1 specified that | multi-party endorsements were permissible for the 2004 House of | Councilors election, but not permissible for the 2007 and 2013 | House of Councilors elections. According to collaborators, | the coalition between the Liberal Democratic Party and Komei | Party endorses a joint candidate in single-member districts. | Additionally, opposition parties occasionally endorse a joint | candidate as well. Therefore, IMD5040_1 has been recoded to | "1. YES" for Japan 2007 and 2013. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5040_2 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If candidates can run with the endorsement of more than one party, is this reflected on the ballot? .................................................................. 1. NO 2. NO PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ARE INDICATED ON THE BALLOT PAPER 3. YES, CANDIDATE'S NAME APPEARS ONCE, TOGETHER WITH THE NAMES OF ALL SUPPORTING PARTIES 4. YES, CANDIDATE'S NAME APPEARS AS MANY TIMES AS THERE ARE DIFFERENT PARTIES ENDORSING HIM/HER, EACH TIME WITH THE NAME OF THE ENDORSING PARTY 5. YES, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5040_2 | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | | In case of inconsistencies between studies of the same polity, | data on IMD5040_ were harmonized whenever possible. | However, users are advised that inconsistencies remained when | no information was available to facilitate harmonization. | Further, in the rare instances of missing data from the Macro | Reports, data remain missing in CSES IMD, unless codings could | be verified by additional sources. | | The coding scheme for multi-party endorsements applied in IMD | follows the classification used in CSES MODULES 2-4. | However, the coding classification IMD5040_2 in CSES MODULE 1 | diverges significantly from later modules. | In what follows, we list how the original categories employed in | the Standalone CSES MODULE 1 were translated into CSES IMD: | | +++ TABLE: MAPPING OF MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENT CODES IN CSES | MODULE 1 TO CODES IN CSES IMD | | IMD CODE CSES MODULE 1 CLASSIFICATION (CSES MODULE 1 CODE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 2. No party affiliations listed on ballot (5) | 3. Yes, with one appearance of candidate name for | multiple parties (1) | 4. Yes, with name of candidate appearing for every party | endorsing (2) | 5. Yes, Other (3) | 7. Not applicable (0) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5041 | MODULE 2: B5051 | MODULE 3: C5037 | MODULE 4: D5037 | MODULE 5: E5039 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5040_2 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULE 5, BELARUS (2008) and | CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (1996). | [POLITY NOTES] - ICELAND: IMD5040_2 | | In the Standalone CSES Modules, IMD5040_2 has been coded | inconsistently for Iceland. However, collaborators confirmed | that since 1999, candidates are not allowed, according to law, | to run with the endorsement of more than one party. Hence, | IMD5040_2 has been recoded to "7. NOT APPLICABLE" for all | Icelandic studies included in IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - BRAZIL (2002): IMD5040_2 | | In contrast with other Brazilian studies included in CSES, | the 2002 Brazilian election study specified that | multi-party endorsements were not permissible. Therefore, | IMD5040_2 was originally coded as "7. NOT APPLICABLE" in CSES | MODULE 2. However, collaborators confirmed that | for all Brazilian studies included in IMD, multi-party | endorsements have been permissible, but were not shown on the | ballot. Therefore, IMD5040_2 has been recoded to "2. NO PARTY | ENDORSEMENTS ARE INDICATED ON THE BALLOT PAPER" for Brazil 2002. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - FRANCE (2002): IMD5040_2 | | For the French 2002 election study, IMD5040_2 was originally | coded as 3, suggesting that in case of multi-party endorsements, | the candidate's name appears once on the ballot, together with | the names of all supporting parties. However, the French 2002 | study focuses on Presidential elections. In case of Presidential | elections, ballots contain the candidate's name only, without | any party endorsement. Therefore, IMD5040_2 has been recoded to | "2. NO PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ARE INDICATED ON THE BALLOT PAPER" for | France 2002. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - GREAT BRITAIN (1997 & 2005): IMD5040_2 | | For the British 1997 and 2005 election studies, IMD5040_2 was | coded "5. YES, OTHER" in the Standalone CSES MODULES 1 and 2. | However, in Britain, candidates were permitted to put up a short | description of themselves on the ballot paper, which in theory | might have included the label of their supporting parties. | Therefore, IMD5040_2 has been recoded to "3. YES, CANDIDATE'S | NAME APPEARS ONCE, TOGETHER WITH THE NAMES OF ALL SUPPORTING | PARTIES" for Great Britain 1997 and 2005, following the British | 2015 study. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - IRELAND (2002): IMD5040_2 | | For the Irish 2002 election study, IMD5040_2 was originally coded | as "1", suggesting that multi-party endorsements are not | reflected on the ballot paper when they occur. However, in case | of multi-party endorsements, the candidate's name appears once on | the ballot, together with the names of all supporting parties. | Hence, IMD5040_2 has been recoded to "3" for Ireland 2002, in | line with later Irish studies included in IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - JAPAN (2007 & 2013): IMD5040_2 | | In the Standalone CSES Modules, IMD5040_2 has been coded | inconsistently for Japan. Specifically, IMD5040_1 suggested that | multi-party endorsements were permissible for the 2004 House of | Councilors election, but not permissible for the 2007 and 2013 | House of Councilors elections. Consequentially, IMD5040_2 was | originally coded as "7. NOT APPLICABLE" for the Japanese 2007 and | 2013 elections. According to collaborators, multi-party | endorsements were permissible in all three elections, even if | they were not reflected on the ballot. While some candidates | endorsed by multiple parties name their party affiliation on the | ballot others run as independents. Therefore, IMD5040_2 has been | recoded to "1. NO" for Japan 2007 and Japan 2013. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NEW ZEALAND (1996): IMD5040_2 | | For the New Zealand 1996 election study, IMD5040_2 was originally | coded as 3, suggesting that in case of multi-party endorsements, | the candidate's name appears once on the ballot, together with | the names of all supporting parties. However, while a candidate | standing in tier 1 ('electorate vote') may have an endorsement | from another party, it is usually tacit rather than direct and | usually the main party of the candidate is the one that appears | on the ballot paper. Therefore, IMD5040_2 has been recoded to | "1. NO" for New Zealand 2002, following later New Zealand studies | included in IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - PORTUGAL (2002): IMD5040_2 | | For the Portuguese 2002 election study, IMD5040_2 was originally | coded as "5. OTHER". However, multi-party endorsements are not | permissible in Portugal. Parties might run on a joint list with | a shared label, but have to register as a pre-electoral coalition | if they wish to do so. That joint list then shows candidates | from the corresponding political parties that integrate the | coalition. Therefore, IMD5040_2 has been recoded to | "7. NOT APPLICABLE" for Portugal 2002, following later Portuguese | studies included in IMD. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - UNITED STATES (1996 & 2004): IMD5040_2 | | For the U.S. 1996 and 2004 election studies, IMD5040_2 was | originally coded as "3" in the Standalone CSES MODULES 1 and 2, | suggesting that in case of multi-party endorsements, the | candidate's name appeared once on the ballot, together with | the names of all supporting parties. However, nearly all of the | options listed in IMD5040_2 are possible in the United States, | with the rules varying by state. Hence, IMD5040_2 has been | recoded to "5. OTHER" for United States 1996 and 2004, in line | with the U.S. 2008 and 2012 studies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5041_1 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of electoral segments (tiers) in each country. .................................................................. 1-3. NUMBER OF ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5041_1 | | IMD5041_1 primarily concerns the Lower House election unless | otherwise stated in a Polity or Election Study Note below. | | Sources of data: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available | Sources. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5025_1* | MODULE 2: B5031_1* | MODULE 3: C5059 | MODULE 4: D5059 | MODULE 5: E5056 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | ------------------------------------------------------------- | * = For MODULES 1 and 2, values were provided for lower house | (A5025_1; B5031_1) and upper house (A5025_2; B5031_2). In IMD, | this variable is harmonized based on lower house unless otherwise | stated in POLITY or ELECTION STUDY NOTES below. | | Data for IMD5041_1 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | [POLITY NOTES] - GREECE: IMD5041_1 | | The 2009 Greek election study was originally coded as having | two tiers in CSES MODULE 3. However, other studies (2012/2015) | classified three tiers, namely: | Tier 1: Members elected to parliament in 56 districts | comprised of 48 multi-seat districts and 8-single | member districts. | Tier 2: Nationwide party list. | Tier 3: A compensatory 50 seats (40 seats in 2009) awarded to | the party receiving the largest share of the popular vote | nationally - known as an electoral premium. | POLITY NOTES - HONG KONG: IMD5041_1 | | The number of electoral tiers increased from one to two | tiers for the 2012 elections following a new electoral reform | law introduced in 2010. | POLITY NOTES - ROMANIA: IMD5041_1 | | The number of electoral segments increased from one to two | tiers after the 2004 election based on new electoral | legislation (Law no. 35/2008). | [POLITY NOTES] - TAIWAN: IMD5041_1 | | The 2001 and 2004 Taiwanese studies were coded as having | one electoral tier. However, for these respective elections, | Taiwan employed two electoral segments: | The first tier consisted out of 29 multi-member districts in | which 168 mandates were awarded by single non-transferable vote. | The second tier returned 41 seats by proportional representation | in a nationwide district. Hence, data on IMD5041_1 has been | recoded to 2. | Source: Chi, E. (2014). Two-party Contests and the Politics of | Electoral Reforms: The Case of Taiwan. Government and Opposition | 49(4), 658-681. doi: 10.1017/gov.2013.46 | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - DENMARK (1998 & 2001): IMD5041_1 | | The 1998 and 2001 Danish contests were originally classified | as having one tier in the CSES MODULES 1 and 2. For CSES IMD, | both contests were classified as having two tiers based | on information sourced from the IDEA database - see: | https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/94/44 | Date accessed: November 27, 2020. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - ICELAND (1999 & 2003): IMD5041_1 | | The 1999 and 2003 Icelandic contests were originally classified | as having one tier in the CSES MODULES 1 and 2. For CSES IMD, | both contests were classified as having two tiers based | on information sourced from the IDEA database - see: | https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/150/44 | Date accessed: November 27, 2020. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996 & 2004): IMD5041_1 | | The 1996 Japanese study was based on lower house elections. | Hence, the classification is based on the number of tiers | for the lower house. The 2004 study was based on upper house | elections. Hence, the classification is based on the number of | tiers for the upper house. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - MEXICO (2003): IMD5041_1 | | The 2003 Mexican contest was originally classified as having | one tier in the CSES MODULE 2. For CSES IMD, the contest is | classified as having two tiers based on information sourced | from the IDEA database - see: | https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/220/44 | Date accessed: November 27, 2020. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NORWAY (1997 AND 2001): IMD5041_1 | | The 1997 and 2001 Norwegian contests were originally classified | as having one tier in the CSES MODULES 1 and 2. For CSES IMD, | both contests were classified as having two tiers based | on information sourced from the IDEA database - see: | https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/228/44 | Date accessed: November 27, 2020. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (1997): IMD5041_1 | | Until 2001, Poland employed a two-tier electoral system: | The first tier returned 391 seats from 52 multi-member districts | to the Sejm. The second tier consisted out of a 69-seat national | list. The upper national tier was abolished in a new electoral | law passed in March 2001, before the September 2001 lower house | election. | Source: Benoit, K. & Hayden, J. (2004). Institutional Change and | Persistence: The Evolution of Poland's Electoral System, 1989 - | 2001. The Journal of Politics 66(2), 396-427. | doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00157.x | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SWEDEN (1998 & 2002): IMD5041_1 | | The 1998 and 2002 Swedish contests were originally classified | as having one tier in the CSES MODULES 1 and 2. For CSES IMD, | both contests were classified as having two tiers based | on information sourced from the IDEA database - see: | https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/261/44 | Date accessed: November 27, 2020. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5041_2 >>> LINKED ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether countries with multiple segments (tiers) have linked (connected) or unlinked (unconnected) segments (tiers). .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5041_2 | | Definition: Linkage occurs whenever (i) unused votes from one | electoral segment (tier) are used at another level or (ii) the | allocation of seats in one segment (tier) is conditional on the | seats received in another segment (tier). | | Sources of data: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available | Sources. | | The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's | database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, | 1946-2000 - see http://mattgolder.com/elections | Date accessed: May 17, 2018 | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5060 | MODULE 4: D5060 | MODULE 5: E5057 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5041_2 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULES 1, 2, and 5, and | MEXICO (2006, 2009, 2012, 2015). | POLITY NOTES - HONG KONG: IMD5041_2 | | In CSES MODULE 4, this variable was classified as "7. NOT | APPLICABLE" for the 2012 study. However, after electoral | reform in 2010, this variable is classified in CSES IMD as | "0. NO" with the introduction of a second tier. | The original values remain unaffected in the respective | Standalone CSES Modules. | [POLITY NOTES] - MEXICO: IMD5041_2 | | The 2006, 2012 and 2015 Mexican election studies were | originally coded as "1. YES" in the CSES MODULES 3 and 4 | Whereas the 2009 election study was originally coded as | "7. NOT APPLICABLE" in CSES MODULE 3. In CSES IMD, all four | studies are classified as "9. MISSING" as we had insufficient | information to resolve these inconsistencies and to classify | Mexico consistently on this metric across time. | The original values remain unaffected in the respective | Standalone CSES Modules. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NORWAY (2005): IMD5041_2 | | The 2005 Norwegian election study was originally coded as | "7. Not applicable" in the CSES MODULE 3. For CSES IMD, it was | reclassified as "1. YES" based on the classification | of the Golder database. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5042_1 >>> DEPENDENT FORMULA IN MIXED SYSTEMS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether the two electoral formulas used in a mixed system are dependent or independent. .................................................................. 1. INDEPENDENT 2. INDEPENDENT/DEPENDENT 3. DEPENDENT 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5042_1 | | Definition: A dependent mixed system is one in which the | application of one formula is dependent on the outcome produced | by the other formula. An independent mixed system is one in which | the two electoral formulas are implemented independently of each | other. | The definition of E5058 is taken from Matt Golder's database | about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2011 | (http://mattgolder.com/elections; Date accessed: April 05, 2019). | | Source of data: Publicly Available Sources. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5061 | MODULE 4: D5061 | MODULE 5: E5058 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5042_1 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULES 1, 2, and 5, and | THAILAND (2007). | [POLITY NOTES] - PHILIPPINES: IMD5042_1 | | The 2010 Philippine election study was originally coded as | "7. Not applicable" in the CSES Standalone MODULE 3 whereas | the 2016 election study was coded as "1. Independent" in | the CSES Standalone MODULE 4. Both studies were recoded into | "3. Dependent" in CSES IMD based on the classification of | Matt Golder's database. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - TAIWAN (2008): IMD5042_1 | | The 2008 Taiwanese election study was originally coded as | "7. Not applicable" in the CSES Standalone MODULE 3. It was | recoded into "1. Independent" in CSES IMD based on the | classification of Matt Golder's database. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - THAILAND (2007): IMD5042_1 | | The 2007 Thai election study was originally coded as | "7. Not applicable" in the CSES Standalone MODULE 3. It was | recoded into "9. Missing" in CSES IMD because the database | of Matt Golder did not provide any information for the | 2007 Thai election, but it is a mixed system. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5042_2 >>> SUBTYPES OF MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEMS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub-types of mixed electoral systems. .................................................................. 1. COEXISTENCE 2. SUPERPOSITION 3. FUSION 4. CORRECTION 5. CONDITIONAL 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5042_2 | | Definitions of the classifications: | - COEXISTENCE: This is a system in which some districts use a | majoritarian formula, while others employ a | proportional formula in a single electoral | segment (tier). Coexistence systems are | independent mixed systems. | | - SUPERPOSITION: This is a system in which a majoritarian and | proportional formula are applied in independent | electoral districts. | | - FUSION: This is a system in which majoritarian and | proportional formulas are used in an | independent manner within a single district. | | - CORRECTION: This is a system in which seats distributed by | proportional representation in one set of | districts are used to correct the distortions | created by the majoritarian formula in another. | Correction systems are a dependent form of | mixed system. | | - CONDITIONAL: This is a system in which the actual use or not | of one electoral formula depends on the outcome | produced by the other. Conditional systems are | a dependent form of mixed system. | | The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's | database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, | 1946-2011 (http://mattgolder.com/elections, Date accessed: | November 21, 2016). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5062 | MODULE 4: D5062 | MODULE 5: E5059 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5042_2 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULES 1, 2, and 5. | [POLITY NOTES] - PHILIPPINES: IMD5042_2 | | The 2010 Philippine election study was originally coded as | "7. Not applicable" in the CSES Standalone MODULE 3 whereas | the 2016 election study was coded as "2. Superposition" in | the CSES Standalone MODULE 4. Both studies were recoded into | "4. Correction" in CSES IMD based on the classification of | Matt Golder's database. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5044 >>> FUSED VOTE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not a fused vote was used for Presidential and legislative elections. .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 7. NOT APPLICABLE: NO DIRECTLY ELECTED PRESIDENT/ NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5044 | | Definition: A fused vote is when a citizen casts a single ballot | for the elections of more than one political office. | IMD5044 captures when the single ballot is for the Presidency | and the legislature. Citizens are unable to divide their votes | among the candidates or lists of different parties. Split-ticket | voting is expressly prohibited. | | Sources of data: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available | Sources. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5074 | MODULE 4: D5074 | MODULE 5: E5071 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5044 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULES 1, 2, and 5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): IMD5044 | | While voters in Argentina can cast a fused vote, Argentine | election law considers each election (the Presidential | and legislative elections) to be a separate choice and thus a | voter casting a fused ballot is considered to have made two | individual choices. According to the Argentine collaborator, | voters can and regularly do split their votes by physically | cutting their ballot paper in half and thus combining a | vote for a Presidential candidate for one party/alliance and | a legislative vote for another party/alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): IMD5044 | | Voters have a single vote. However, each ballot contains a | Presidential ticket, a closed list for Senate, and a closed | list for the Lower Chamber. Each ballot must necessarily | contain lists of a single party. Electors cast votes necessarily | (for President and two chambers) for the same party. Hence, the | election results are basically identical for all three | institutions - both houses of the Parliament, and for the | President (first round). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5045_1 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average district magnitude in the first or lowest electoral segment (tier). .................................................................. 001.00-900.00. NUMBER OF SEATS ELECTED PER DISTRICT 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5045_1 | | IMD5045_1 details the average district magnitude in the first | tier, calculated as the total number of seats allocated in the | lowest segment (tier) divided by the total number of districts | in that segment (tier). | | Sources of data: CSES Macro Reports and Publicly Available | Sources. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5028_1 | MODULE 2: B5034_1 | MODULE 3: C5064 | MODULE 4: D5064 | MODULE 5: E5061 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5045_1 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | In the harmonization of variables IMD5045_, the CSES Secretariat | consulted Matt Golder's and Nils-Christian Bormann's database | about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2016. | http://mattgolder.com/elections | (Date accessed: October 20, 2020). | Additional information comes from the Electoral System Change | in Europe since 1945 (ESCE) project. | http://www.electoralsystemchanges.eu | (Date accessed: October 20, 2020). | [POLITY NOTES] - GREECE: IMD5045_1 | | The 2009 Greek election study was originally coded as having | two tiers in the CSES Standalone MODULE 3. To be consistent with | 2012 and 2015, the 2009 election study was recoded into three | tiers in CSES IMD. Please consult IMD5041_. | For the Greek 2009 election, there were in total 300 seats, of | which 248 were awarded in 56 multi-member districts in the first | tier. Thus, the Greek 2009 study is set to 4.42 for IMD5045_1. | For the Greek 2012 and January 2015 elections, there were in | total 300 seats, out of which 238 were awarded in 56 multi-member | districts. Thus, the Greek 2012 and January 2015 studies are set | to 4.25 for IMD5045_1. | [POLITY NOTES] - ICELAND: IMD5045_1 | | The 1999 and 2003 Icelandic election studies were originally | coded as having an average district magnitude of 6.2 and 10.5 | in the Standalone CSES MODULES 1 and 2, respectively. | The Icelandic parliament has 63 seats. According to the | Icelandic constitution, the sizes of the lower and upper tier | for the 1999 election were not fixed. Rather, up to one-fourth | of seats for each constituency were eligible to be allocated at | the national level (tier 2), equaling 13 out of 63 seats. | The remaining 50 seats were awarded in eight multi-member | districts. Hence, data for Iceland 1999 has been recoded to | 6.25 for IMD5045_1 (50 divided by eight). | For the 2003 elections, constitutional amendments reduced the | number of multi-member districts to 6, and set the number of | seats to be returned from tier 1 to 54. Therefore, data for | Iceland 2003 has been recoded to 9.00 (54 divided by 6), in | accordance with later Icelandic studies included in CSES. | Source: http://www.electoralsystemchanges.eu/Files/media/ | MEDIA_215/FILE/Iceland_summary.pdf | (Date accessed: October 15, 2020) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): IMD5045_1 | | The Estonian parliament consists of 101 members elected via 12 | multi-member districts. Seats are allocated across three tiers. | The first tier involves seats allocated by personal mandates | determined by Hare quota. Candidates are awarded a seat if their | vote surpasses the quota. Here, the average district magnitude | value is 8.42 (101/12). The second tier is the allocation of | seats based on the party list. Seats are awarded to | parties/coalitions based on the number of times the | party/coalition exceeds the district's quota. The third tier is | compensatory seats between the national lists of | parties/alliances whose candidates obtained at least 5% of the | national vote or three candidates. As the second and third-tier | magnitudes vary in each election, these values (IMD5045_2 and | IMD5045_3 respectively) are set to "999. MISSING", with the | average district magnitude for Estonia reported in IMD5045_1. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - NORWAY (1997): IMD5045_1 | | For Norway 1997, average district magnitude was coded as 8.60 | in CSES MODULE 1. However, until 2001, 157 seats were returned | from 19 districts in the first tier (see POLITY NOTE on | IMD5045_2 for details). Hence, IMD5045_1 has been recoded to | 8.26 (157 divided by 19) for Norway 1997, in line with the | Norwegian 2001 study. | Source: Fiva, J. H. & Smith, D.M. (2017). Norwegian Parliamentary | Elections, 1906-2013: Representation and Turnout Across Four | Electoral Systems. West European Politics 40(6), 1373 - 1391. | doi: 10.1080/01402382.2017.1298016 | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SPAIN (1996 & 2000): IMD5045_1 | | For the Spanish 1996 and 2000 studies, data was originally | coded as 7.00 in CSES MODULE 1. However, Spain operated | the same electoral system for all studies included in CSES. | There is one electoral segment in which the 350 seats in the | lower house are allocated within 52 multi-member districts. | Hence, data in IMD5045_1 has been recoded to 6.73 (350 divided | by 52) for Spain 1996 and 2000, in accordance with later studies. | Source: http://www.electoralsystemchanges.eu/Files/media/ | MEDIA_219/FILE/Spain_summary.pdf | (Date accessed: October 19, 2020). | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - TAIWAN (2001 & 2004): IMD5045_1 | | For the Taiwanese 2001 and 2004 studies, data was originally | coded as 5.68 in CSES MODULE 1. However, for the respective | elections, the first tier consisted of 29 multi-member | districts in which 168 mandates were awarded by single non- | transferable vote. Hence, data in IMD5045_1 has been recoded to | 5.79 (168 divided by 29). | Source: Chi, E. (2014). Two-party Contests and the Politics of | Electoral Reforms: The Case of Taiwan. Government and Opposition | 49(4), 658-681. doi: 10.1017/gov.2013.46 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5045_2 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average district magnitude in the second electoral segment (tier). .................................................................. 001.00-900.00. NUMBER OF SEATS ELECTED PER DISTRICT 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5045_2 | | IMD5045_2 details the average district magnitude in the second | tier, calculated as the total number of seats allocated in the | second segment (tier) divided by the total number of districts | in that segment (tier). | | Sources of data: CSES Macro Reports and Publicly Available | Sources. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: A5028_2 | MODULE 2: B5034_2 | MODULE 3: C5067 | MODULE 4: D5067 | MODULE 5: E5064 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5045_2 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | For variables IMD5045_, the CSES Secretariat consulted | Matt Golder's and Nils-Christian Bormann's database about | Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2016. | http://mattgolder.com/elections | (Date accessed: October 20, 2020). | Additional information comes from the Electoral System Change | in Europe since 1945 (ESCE) project. | http://www.electoralsystemchanges.eu | (Date accessed: October 20, 2020). | [POLITY NOTES] - DENMARK: IMD5045_2 | | The 1998 and 2001 Danish election studies were originally coded | as having one electoral segment in the Standalone CSES MODULES | 1 and 2. However, according to the electoral law applicable to | the 1998 and 2001 elections, Denmark employed two electoral | segments: | The first tier consisted of 135 seats from 17 multi-member | constituencies, with an average district magnitude of 7.94 | (135 divided by 17). | The second tier awarded 40 compensatory seats on a national | level, resulting in a district magnitude of 40. Hence, data for | Denmark 1998 and 2002 in IMD5045_2 were corrected for the IMD. | | The 2006 electoral reform reduced the number of multi-member | districts in tier 1 from 17 to 10, resulting in an increase | in average district magnitude from 7.94 to 13.50 (135 / 10). | Source: http://www.electoralsystemchanges.eu/Files/media | /MEDIA_748 /FILE/Denmark_summary.pdf | (Date accessed: October 15, 2020). | [POLITY NOTES] - GERMANY: IMD5045_2 | | Data on IMD5045_2 has been coded inconsistently for Germany | in the Standalone CSES Modules. Inconsistencies occur because | average district magnitude in the second tier in Germany is | liable to change depending on whether overhang or compensatory | seats are allotted or not (see POLITY NOTES on IMD5027 for | details). | For Germany, IMD5045_2 reflects average district magnitude | disregarding compensatory seats. Specifically, until the 1998 | election, the second tier returned 328 seats to the Bundestag, | with separate party lists for each of the 16 Laender. Hence, the | value for 1998 is 20.5 (328 divided by 16). | In 2002, the number of seats allocated in the second tier were | reduced to 299, resulting in an average district magnitude of | 18.69 (299 divided by 16), which is the value the IMD reflects | for the 2002 and later studies. | | The table below lists results for average district magnitude | including compensatory mandates: | | Tier 2 Tier 2 Average district | Regular Additional magnitude with | Seats IMD5045_2 Seats additional seats | ----------------------------------------------------------- | GERMANY (1998) 328 20.50 13 21.31 | GERMANY (2002) 299 18.69 5 19.00 | GERMANY (2005) 299 18.69 16 19.69 | GERMANY (2009) 299 18.69 24 20.19 | GERMANY (2013) 299 18.69 33 20.75 | POLITY NOTES - GREECE: IMD5045_2 | | The 2009 Greek election study was originally coded as having | two tiers in the CSES Standalone MODULE 3. To be consistent with | 2012 and 2015, the 2009 election study was recoded into three | tiers in CSES IMD. Please consult IMD5041_. | For all three elections, there were 12 national-level seats. | Thus, all three Greek studies (2009, 2012, and 2015) are coded | 12.00 for IMD5045_2. | [POLITY NOTES] - HONG KONG: IMD5045_2 | | Hong Kong has a unicameral legislature, the Legislative Council. | Since the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative | Region (HKSAR) in 1997, a proportion of the legislative council | is returned by popular geographic constituency elections; the | remaining seats are returned by indirect functional constituency | elections, with the precise number of returned seats varying | over time. | In the Geographical Constituency (GC) election (tier 1), | Hong Kong is divided into five constituencies, and voters elect | candidates by universal suffrage. In the "traditional" | Functional (FC) election, voter registration requires special | qualifications in some FCs, such as being a registered medical | practitioner or dentist for the Medical FC. | In CSES MODULE 1, the traditional FCs were coded as second tier. | However, since suffrage for the traditional FCs is limited, | the CSES IMD regards Hong Kong as a one-tier system until the | electoral reform in 2010. That reform first applicable to the | 2012 election introduced an additional tier, the District Council | (Second) Functional Constituency (tier 2). This segment returns | five LegCo members from one general constituency. | [POLITY NOTES] - ICELAND: IMD5045_2 | | The 1999 and 2003 Icelandic election studies were originally | coded as having one electoral segment in the Standalone CSES | MODULES 1 and 2, respectively. However, Iceland employs two | tiers for lower house elections (See POLITY NOTES on IMD5045_1 | for details). | In 1999, the second and national-level tier returned 13 seats, | equaling an average district magnitude of 13.00. Since 2003, | the number of seats awarded in the national-level tier has been | reduced to nine, resulting in an average district magnitude | of 9.00. Data on IMD5045_2 for Iceland 1999 and 2003 have been | recoded accordingly for the IMD. | Source: http://www.electoralsystemchanges.eu/Files/media/ | MEDIA_215/FILE/Iceland_summary.pdf | (Date accessed: October 15, 2020) | [POLITY NOTES] - NORWAY: IMD5045_2 | | The 1997 and 2001 Norwegian studies were originally coded as | having one electoral segment in the Standalone CSES MODULES 1 | and 2. However, for all studies included in IMD, Norway | employed two electoral segments: | Until 2001, Norway's first electoral segment returned 157 seats | from 19 multi-member districts, with seats being allocated by | Modified Sainte-Lague. The national-level second tier consisted | of eight adjustment seats to strengthen proportionality. Hence, | IMD5045_2 has been recoded to 8.00 for the IMD (8 divided by 1) | for the 1997 and 2001 studies. | In 2005, the number of adjustment seats increased to 19 (one for | each multi-member district), while the number of seats allocated | in the first tier was reduced to 150. | Source: Fiva, J. H. & Smith, D.M. (2017). Norwegian Parliamentary | Elections, 1906-2013: Representation and Turnout Across Four | Electoral Systems. West European Politics 40(6), 1373 - 1391. | doi: 10.1080/01402382.2017.1298016 | [POLITY NOTES] - SWEDEN: IMD5045_2 | | The 1998 and 2002 Swedish studies were originally coded as | having one electoral segment in the Standalone CSES MODULES 1 | and 2. However, for all studies included in IMD, Sweden employed | two electoral segments: | Since 1997, Sweden's first electoral segment returns 310 seats | from 29 multi-member districts, with seats being allocated by | Modified Sainte-Lague. The national-level second tier consists | of 39 adjustment seats to strengthen proportionality. Hence, | IMD5045_2 has been recoded to 39.00 for the IMD (39 divided by | 1) for Sweden 1998 and 2002. | Source: http://www.electoralsystemchanges.eu/Files/media/ | MEDIA_175/FILE/Sweden_summary.pdf | (Date accessed: October 19, 2020) | [POLITY NOTES] - TAIWAN: IMD5045_2 | | The 2001 and 2004 Taiwanese studies were originally coded as | having one electoral segment in CSES MODULE 2. However, for the | respective elections, Taiwan employed two electoral segments: | The first tier consisted of 29 multi-member districts in | which 168 mandates were awarded by single non-transferable vote. | The second tier returned 41 seats by proportional representation | in a nationwide district. Hence, data on IMD5045_2 has been | recoded to 45.00 (45 divided by 1) for Taiwan 2001 and 2004. | The electoral system changed significantly for the 2008 and 2012 | elections: The first tier was reduced to 73 seats elected from | single-member districts by first-past-the-post, while the number | of seats returned in the second tier decreased to 34. | Source: Chi, E. (2014). Two-party Contests and the Politics of | Electoral Reforms: The Case of Taiwan. Government and Opposition | 49(4), 658-681. doi: 10.1017/gov.2013.46 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): IMD5045_2 | | The Estonian parliament consists of 101 members elected via 12 | multi-member districts. Seats are allocated across three tiers. | The first tier involves seats allocated by personal mandates | determined by Hare quota. Candidates are awarded a seat if their | vote surpasses the quota. Here, the average district magnitude | value is 8.42 (101/12). The second tier is the allocation of | seats based on the party list. Seats are awarded to | parties/coalitions based on the number of times the | party/coalition exceeds the district's quota. The third tier is | compensatory seats between the national lists of | parties/alliances whose candidates obtained at least 5% of the | national vote or three candidates. As the second and third-tier | magnitudes vary in each election, these values (IMD5045_2 and | IMD5045_3 respectively) are set to "999. MISSING", with the | average district magnitude for Estonia reported in IMD5045_1. | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - MEXICO (2003): IMD5045_2 | | The 2003 Mexican election study was originally coded as having | one electoral segment in CSES MODULE 2. However, for all studies | included in CSES, Mexico employs a two-tier system for lower | house elections: | The first tier returns 300 seats from single-member districts | by plurality, while the second tier returns 200 seats from | five multi-member districts by proportional representation. | Hence, IMD5045_2 has been recoded to 40.00 for Mexico 2003 | (200 divided by 5), in accordance with all other Mexican | studies included in the IMD. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (1997): IMD5045_2 | | Until 2001, Poland employed a two-tier electoral system: | The first tier returned 391 seats from 52 multi-member districts | to the Sejm, resulting in an average district magnitude of 7.52 | (391 divided by 52). The second tier consisted of a 69-seat | national list, with an average district magnitude of 69.00. | The upper national tier was abolished in a new electoral law | passed in March 2001, before the September 2001 lower house | election. | Source: Benoit, K. & Hayden, J. (2004). Institutional Change and | Persistence: The Evolution of Poland's Electoral System, 1989 - | 2001. The Journal of Politics 66(2), 396-427. | doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00157.x | [ELECTION STUDY NOTES] - SLOVENIA (1996 & 2004): IMD5045_2 | | For the Slovenian 1996 and 2004 studies, data was originally | coded as 1.00 in the Standalone CSES MODULES 1 and 2. | That data referred to the two seats awarded to Hungarian and | Italian minorities. In accordance with later Slovenian studies, | data in IMD5045_2 has been recoded to 997. NOT APPLICABLE | for Slovenia 1996 and 2004. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5045_3 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average district magnitude in the third electoral segment (tier). .................................................................. 001.00-900.00. NUMBER OF SEATS ELECTED PER DISTRICT 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5045_3 | | IMD5045_3 details the average district magnitude in the third | tier, calculated as the total number of seats allocated in the | third segment (tier) divided by the total number of districts | in that segment (tier). | | Sources of data: CSES Macro Reports and Publicly Available | Sources. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5070 | MODULE 4: D5070 | MODULE 5: E5067 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5045_3 are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | For variables IMD5045_, the CSES Secretariat consulted | Matt Golder's and Nils-Christian Bormann's database about | Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2016. | http://mattgolder.com/elections | (Date accessed: October 20, 2020). | Additional information comes from the Electoral System Change | in Europe since 1945 (ESCE) project. | http://www.electoralsystemchanges.eu | (Date accessed: October 20, 2020). | | Data on IMD5045_3 are unavailable for CSES MODULE 1 and CSES | MODULE 2, and ESTONIA (2011). | POLITY NOTES - GREECE: IMD5045_3 | | The 2009 Greek election study was originally coded as having | two tiers in the CSES Standalone MODULE 3. To be consistent with | 2012 and 2015, the 2009 election study was recoded into three | tiers in CSES IMD. Please consult IMD5041_. | For the Greek 2009 election, there were in total 300 seats, of | which 40 premium seats were awarded to the strongest party. | Thus, the Greek 2009 study is set to 40.00 for IMD5045_3. | For the Greek 2012 and January 2015 elections, there were in | total 300 seats, of which 50 premium seats were awarded to the | strongest party. Thus, the Greek 2012 and January 2015 studies | are set to 50.00 for IMD5045_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): IMD5045_3 | | The Estonian parliament consists of 101 members elected via 12 | multi-member districts. Seats are allocated across three tiers. | The first tier involves seats allocated by personal mandates | determined by Hare quota. Candidates are awarded a seat if their | vote surpasses the quota. Here, the average district magnitude | value is 8.42 (101/12). The second tier is the allocation of | seats based on the party list. Seats are awarded to | parties/coalitions based on the number of times the | party/coalition exceeds the district's quota. The third tier is | compensatory seats between the national lists of | parties/alliances whose candidates obtained at least 5% of the | national vote or three candidates. As the second and third-tier | magnitudes vary in each election, these values (IMD5045_2 and | IMD5045_3 respectively) are set to "999. MISSING", with the | average district magnitude for Estonia reported in IMD5045_1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5046_1 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5046_2 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5046_3 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) IMD5046_4 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are the votes transferable? .................................................................. 0. NO / NO PREFERENCE VOTE SYSTEM 1. YES 7. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM / NO SECOND TIER 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5046_ | | Definition: In systems with preferential voting, a voter can | express a list of preferences. For example, votes can be cast | by putting a '1' in the column next to the voter's preferred | candidate, a '2' beside their second favorite candidate and | so on. Votes are counted according to the first preferences and | any candidates who have achieved the predetermined quota are | elected. To decide which of the remaining candidates are elected | the votes are transferred from candidates who have more than the | necessary number to achieve the quota and from the candidate with | the least number of votes. An example of this is the election in | Ireland in 2002. | | Sources of data: CSES Macro Reports and Publicly Available | Sources. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: B5040 | MODULE 3: C5042_1-4 | MODULE 4: D5042_1-4 | MODULE 5: E5044_1-4 (see VARIABLE NOTES below) | | Data for IMD5046_ are available in the Standalone CSES MODULE 5 | dataset, but these data are not yet available in CSES IMD. | | Data are unavailable for CSES MODULES 1 and 5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5048 >>> REGIME: TYPE OF EXECUTIVE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Classification of political regimes. .................................................................. 1. PARLIAMENTARY REGIME 2. MIXED REGIME 3. PRESIDENTIAL REGIME 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5048 | | Sources of data: Publicly Available Sources and Cheibub, Jose | Antonio. 2007. "Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy". | New York. Cambridge University Press. | | In CSES IMD, classifications of political regimes mainly rely on | the following decision rule as presented by Cheibub, 2007: | | A. The system is parliamentary either (i) if there is no | independently (indirectly or directly) elected President or (ii) | if there is an independently (indirectly or directly) elected | President but the government is not responsible to the | President. | B. The system is mixed either if there is an independently | (indirectly or directly) elected President and government is | responsible to the President. | C. The system is Presidential if the government is not | responsible to the elected legislature. | | NOTE: Responsibility refers to whether the survival of the | executive depends directly on legislature (i.e. vote of | confidence). | | However, researchers are advised that in a small number of | cases, coding employed in IMD diverges from regime | classifications as suggested by Cheibub. We detail these | instances in ELECTION STUDY notes below. | Further, all polities included in IMD are classified according | to the above coding scheme, irrespective of their democratic | status. Researchers interested in democracy ratings may | refer to IMD5050_ (Freedom House) or IMD5051_ (Polity IV). | | Data on IMD5048 were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLES NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLES NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5054 | MODULE 4: D5054 | MODULE 5: E5051 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): IMD5048 | | Austrian executive power is coded as Mixed or Semi-Presidential, | given that the President can dissolve the National Council. | Article 29 of the Constitution states: | "(1) The Federal President can dissolve the National Council, | but he may avail himself of this prerogative only once for the | same reason." However, in practice, the system works mostly | like a parliamentary system. | POLITY NOTES - FINLAND: IMD5048 | | Classifying the Finnish executive power is subject to some | controversy. In the CSES Standalone Modules and in IMD, | Finland is coded as 2. MIXED REGIME, although Cheibub | classifies it as parliamentary. | Some key features of the Finnish system that distinguish | it from a traditional parliamentary system are that by | constitution a) the President is popularly elected by direct | vote for a fixed term of six years, and for no more than two | consecutive terms of office; b) the President can, on | recommendation of the Prime Minister, dissolve the legislature; | c) the President can veto legislature, though parliament can | override the Presidential veto with a simple majority; and | d) the President may issue decrees that have the force of law. | Nonetheless, it has been argued that Finland, after | constitutional reforms in the 1990s works in practice as a | parliamentary system. | POLITY NOTES - ICELAND: IMD5048 | | The coding of Iceland on IMD5048 is subject to various | interpretations, with different sources providing diverging | assessments (DPI classifies it as parliamentary and Matt Golder | considers it Semi-Presidential). | In the CSES Standalone Modules and IMD, Iceland is classified | as 1. PARLIAMENTARY REGIME, although Cheibub classifies it as | Semi-Presidential. | While Iceland does have a popularly elected President, who does | have powers under the Icelandic constitution to dissolve | parliament, submit a bill to parliament, and exercise emergency | powers, the powers exercised have varied depending on the | particular person occupying the Presidency. Accordingly, the | position is largely considered ceremonial. | The fact that Presidential elections often go uncontested | (e.g., 2000 and 2008) highlight this. Therefore, CSES classifies | Iceland as a parliamentary system. | POLITY NOTES - HONG KONG: IMD5048 | | Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, but a Special Administrative | Region (SAR) in China. The Central Government authorizes the | HKSAR to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, | legislative and independent judicial power. Therefore, the HKSAR | Government comparable to a local government. | The Chief Executive (CE) is the President of the Executive | Council of Hong Kong and head of the Government of the Hong | Kong Special Administrative Region. The Chief Executive is | elected by an 800-member Election Committee. The elected CE | must then be appointed by the Central People's Government. | Regarding the relationship between the CE and Legislative | Council, the type of executive may be regarded as some form of a | Presidential system, because the CE and the LegCo members are | returned by different elections. | According to Article 52, the CE must resign in case of refusal | to sign a bill passed by a two-thirds majority of the | Legislative Council. | [POLITY NOTES] - PORTUGAL: IMD5048 | | Portugal's regime type is coded inconsistently in the | Standalone Modules 3 and 4. While the Portuguese 2009 study | was coded as a mixed regime, the Portuguese 2015 study was coded | as parliamentary. | Following Cheibub (2007), Portugal is regarded as 2. MIXED | REGIME in IMD, as Portugal's President is directly elected | and the government is accountable to both to parliament and to | the President (Article 190 of the constitution). | [POLITY NOTES] - SOUTH KOREA: IMD5048 | | South Korea's regime type is coded inconsistently in the | Standalone MODULES 3 and 4. While the country is coded as | parliamentary for 2008 (MODULE 3), MODULE 4 classifies it | as Presidential regime. | The IMD follows both Cheibub and MODULE 4 in categorizing | South Korea as 3. PRESIDENTIAL REGIME. Apart from the | President being directly elected (Article 67 of the | constitution), parliament is not empowered to remove the | government from office, but may only pass a formal | recommendation for removal (Article 63). Although the | National Assembly may impeach ministers (Article 65), that | impeachment equals a suspension, with the final decision laying | with the Constitutional Court. | [POLITY NOTES] - TAIWAN (2012): IMD5048 | | Taiwan's regime type is coded inconsistently in the | Standalone MODULES 3 and 4. While Taiwan is coded as | Presidential for 2008 (MODULE 3), MODULE 4 classifies the | country as a mixed regime. | In IMD, Taiwan is coded as 2. MIXED REGIME, following the | MODULE 4 classification, although the constitution provides | for the direct election of a President. Our coding decision is | based on the assessment that executive Yuan is responsible to | the legislative Yuan, provided that the legislative Yuan is in | session, its members have the right to interpolate the | President of the Executive Yuan, and Ministers and chairmen of | the Commissions of the said Yuan (Article 57 of the | constitution). However, the legislature cannot vote no | confidence in the government and can be dissolved by the | President. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): IMD5048 | | The constitutional amendments approved in the 2017 Turkish | constitutional referendum turned the Presidency into an executive | post, effective with the 2018 general election. Hence, the | Republic of Turkey changed its regime type from a parliamentary | to a Presidential type of executive with the 2018 election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5049 >>> AGE OF CURRENT REGIME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of years since the most recent regime change. .................................................................. 000-500. AGE OF THE REGIME (YEARS) 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5049 | | IMD5049 details the number of years since the most recent | regime change. It is taken from the POLITY IV project and | is based on the "DURABLE" variable. | | Definition: The number of years since the last fundamental | abrupt polity change. For polities that were formed before | 1800, the appropriate number of years were added to the | score. The change is defined by a three-point change in | the POLITY score over a period of three years or less or | the end of transition periods defined by the lack of stable | political institutions, as denoted by a standardized | AUTHORITY score. | | Denoted by the variable "Durable" from the Polity IV project. | The Polity IV Dataset Users' Manual, available at: | http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2017.pdf | (Date accessed: April 5, 2019). | | Source of data: | POLITY IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and | Transitions, 1800-2017, Monty G. Marshall and Keith Jaggers, | George Mason University and Colorado State University. | Available at: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018) | | The Polity IV annual time-series dataset, available at: | http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4v2017.xls | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018) | | Data on IMD5049 were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD, based on the sources indicated above. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5052 | MODULE 4: D5052 | MODULE 5: E5050 | | Data are unavailable for HONG KONG and ICELAND as they are not | included in Polity IV. | [POLITY NOTES] - ISRAEL: IMD5049 | | The most recent Polity IV dataset dates the last regime change | in Israel back to 1981, the year of Israel's de-facto annexation | of the Golan Heights. However, previous versions of Polity IV | used for CSES MODULES 3 and 4 set 1948 as the year in which | Israel's last regime change occurred. CSES does not | retroactively update estimates as to do so might impede | replication. Therefore, for all Israeli election studies in the | CSES IMD, IMD5049 was coded in such a way that it dates the last | regime change back to 1948. | POLITY NOTES - PERU: IMD5049 | | The age of the current regime is coded 0 for both Peru 2000 | and Peru 2001 - reflecting the period when Peru's President | Alberto Fujimori won the elections and a controversial third | term in office in May 2000, but fled the country later the same | year when he was charged with corruption and human rights | violations. As a consequence, early Presidential elections were | held in spring 2001. | POLITY NOTES - RUSSIA: IMD5049 | | Polity IV distinguishes two recent regime changes in Russia: one | in 1992 after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, meaning the | the 1999 Russian study is coded "7" for this variable. The second | regime change was classified in 2000, meaning the 2000 Russian | study is coded 0 for this variable and the 2004 Russian study | is coded "4" for this variable. | POLITY NOTES - THAILAND: IMD5049 | | Thailand has experienced several breaks with democracy in its | history. Polity IV marks three regime changes. The first occurs | in 1992, meaning the 2001 Thai study is coded "9" for this | variable. The second regime change was classified in 2006-8, | meaning the 2007 Thai study is coded "0" for this variable, and | the third in 2011, meaning the 2011 Thai study is coded "0" for | this variable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5050_1 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T IMD5050_2 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5050_3 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-2 YEARS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Freedom House's rating at three time periods (average of the "Political Rights" and "Civil Liberties" scores). .................................................................. 1.0-7.0. FREEDOM HOUSE RATING SCORE 9.0. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5050_ | | IMD5050_ detail Freedom House's rating of freedom in a country | at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year | before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). | | Each country and territory is assigned a numerical rating, on a | scale of 1 to 7. A rating of 1 indicates the highest degree of | freedom and 7 the least amount of freedom. CSES reports the | average of the "Political Rights" and "Civil Liberties" scores. | | Sources of data: | Freedom House's annual publications "Freedom in the World" | (http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/FIW%20All%20Scores, | %20Countries,%201973-2010.xls and http://www.freedomhouse.org | /images/File/FIW%20All%20Scores,Territories,%201973-2010.xls. | Downloaded on October 13, 2010). | | Until 2003, countries whose combined average ratings for | Political Rights and for Civil Liberties fell between 1.0 and | 2.5 were designated "Free"; between 3.0 and 5.5 "Partly Free", | and between 5.5 and 7.0 "Not Free". Beginning with the ratings | for 2003, countries whose combined average ratings fall between | 3.0 and 5.0 are "Partly Free", and those between 5.5 and 7.0 are | "Not Free". | | More information about Freedom House's methodology is available | at: http://freedomhouse.org/. | | Data on IMD5050_ were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5050_1-C5050_3 | MODULE 4: D5050_1-D5050_3 | MODULE 5: E5090_1-E5090_3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5051_1 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T IMD5051_2 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5051_3 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-2 YEARS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The POLITY IV ratings of institutionalized democracy versus autocracy in a country at three time periods. .................................................................. 10. DEMOCRATIC 09. 08. 07. 06. 05. 04. 03. 02. 01. 00. -01. -02. -03. -04. -05. -06. -07. -08. -09. -10. AUTOCRATIC -66. INTERRUPTION PERIODS -77. INTERREGNUM PERIODS -88. TRANSITION PERIODS 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5051_ | | IMD5051_ detail POLITY IV ratings of institutionalized | democracy versus autocracy in a country, at three time periods: | the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), | and two years before election (T-2). | | CSES reports the original variable POLITY - Combined Polity | Score. The variable is constructed by subtracting the | autocracy score from the democracy score; the resulting scale | ranges from +10 (strongly democratic) to -10 (strongly | autocratic). | | Sources of data: | POLITY IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and | Transitions, 1800-2007, Monty G. Marshall and Keith Jaggers, | George Mason University and Colorado State University. | Available at: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). | | The Polity IV Dataset Users' Manual, available at: | http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2012.pdf | (Date accessed: November 25, 2010). | | The Polity IV annual time-series dataset, available at: | http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). | | Data on IMD5051_ were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5051_1-C5051_3 | MODULE 4: D5051_1-D5051_3 | MODULE 5: E5091_1-E5091_3 | | Data are unavailable for CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA (2021), GERMANY | (2021), HONG KONG (1998, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016), ICELAND | (1999, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2013, 2016, 2017), NETHERLANDS (2021), | PERU (2021) and TUNISIA (2019). | | Data for IMD5051_1 are unavailable for BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019), | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), EL SALVADOR (2019), GREAT BRITAIN | (2019), GREECE (2019), HUNGARY (2018), INDIA (2019), ISRAEL | (2020), LITHUANIA (2020), NETHERLANDS (2021), POLAND (2019), | SLOVAKIA (2020), THAILAND (2019) and UNITED STATES (2020). | | Data for IMD5051_2 are unavailable for LITHUANIA (2020), | SLOVAKIA (2020) and UNITED STATES (2020). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5052_1 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T IMD5052_2 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5052_3 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 YEARS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- World Bank estimate of the annual GDP growth at three time periods. .................................................................. -20.000 to +25.000. PERCENT ANNUAL GROWTH 99.000. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5052_ | | IMD5052_ report World Bank estimates of the annual GDP growth, | at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year | before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). | | Definition: Annual percentage growth rate of GDP at market | prices based on constant local currency. Aggregates are | based on constant U.S. dollars. GDP is the sum of gross | value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any | product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value | of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for | depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and | degradation of natural resources. | | Data for studies included in MODULES 1 and 2 comes from the | World Bank World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG | (Date accessed: July 1, 2019). | | Data for studies included in MODULE 3 comes from the World | Bank World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development- | indicators. | | Data for studies included in MODULE 4 comes from the World Bank | World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Data for studies included in MODULE 5 comes from the World Bank | World Development Indicators Open - see: | Database: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | CSES collects the most up-to-date data for each polity available | at the time the data is originally being processed by the CSES | Secretariat (for most of this data, that is when the data was | first included in the respective Standalone CSES Module). | However, aggregate-level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more, see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: July 15, 2019). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | When the data at the time of processing of Standalone Modules | was unavailable, but since has become available, we included it | in the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5080_1-C5080_3 | MODULE 4: D5080_1-D5080_3 | MODULE 5: E5093_1-E5093_3 | | Data are unavailable for IMD5052_ for TAIWAN (1996, 2001, 2004). | | Data for IMD5052_1 are unavailable for LITHUANIA (2020) and | TAIWAN (2020). | | Data for IMD5052_3 are unavailable for LITHUANIA (1997) and | TAIWAN (2016). | POLITY NOTES - TAIWAN: IMD5052_ | | Source of data for TAIWAN (2008, 2012, 2016, 2020): | CIA World Fact Book. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5053_1 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T IMD5053_2 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5053_3 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 YEARS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- World Bank estimate of the GDP per capita at three time periods. .................................................................. 000000.00-899999.00. GDP PER CAPITA 999999.00. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5053_ | | IMD5053_ detail World Bank estimates of the GDP per capita at | three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before | election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). | | Definition: GDP is gross domestic product at purchaser prices | divided by midyear population. It is the sum of the gross value | added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product | taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the | products. It is calculated without deductions for depreciation | of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural | resources. PPP GDP is gross domestic product converted to | international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An | international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as a | U.S. dollar has in the United States. Data are in constant | international dollars. | | Data for studies included in MODULES 1 and 2 comes from the | World Bank World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD | (Date accessed: July 1, 2019). | | Data for studies included in MODULE 3 comes from the World | Bank World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development- | indicators. | | Data for studies included in MODULE 4 comes from the World Bank | World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Data for studies included in MODULE 5 comes from the World Bank | World Development Indicators Open - see: | Database: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | CSES collects the most up-to-date data for each polity available | at the time the data is originally being processed by the CSES | Secretariat (for most of this data, that is when the data was | first included in the respective Standalone CSES Module). | However, aggregate-level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more, see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: July 15, 2019). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | When the data at the time of processing of Standalone Modules | was unavailable, but since has become available, we included it | in the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5081_1-C5081_3 | MODULE 4: D5081_1-D5081_3 | MODULE 5: E5094_1-E5094_3 | | Data for IMD5053_ are unavailable for TAIWAN (1996, 2001, 2004). | | Data for IMD5053_1 are unavailable for LITHUANIA (2020) and | TAIWAN (2020). | Data for IMD5053_3 are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016, 2020). | POLITY NOTES - TAIWAN: IMD5053_ | | Source of data for TAIWAN (2008, 2012): CIA World Fact Book. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): IMD5053_2 | | Source of data: Statista data platform | (https://www.statista.com/statistics/725742/countries-with-the- | largest-gross-domestic-product-gdp-at-purchasing-power-parity- | per-capita/) (Date accessed: July 14, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5054_1 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T IMD5054_2 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5054_3 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 YEARS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- World Bank estimates of the unemployment rate (% of total labor force) at three time periods. .................................................................. 00.00-100.00. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (% OF TOTAL LABOR FORCE) 999.00. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5054_ | | IMD5054_ detail World Bank estimates of the total unemployment | rate (% of total labor force) at three time periods: the | election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and | two years before election (T-2). | | Definition: Unemployment is the share of the labor force without | work but available for and seeking employment. Definitions of | labor force and unemployment may differ by country, and users are | advised to consult the World Bank directly for more information. | | Data for studies included in MODULES 1 and 2 comes from the | World Bank World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS | (Date accessed: July 1, 2019). | | Data for studies included in MODULE 3 comes from the World | Bank World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development- | indicators. | | Data for studies included in MODULE 4 comes from the World Bank | World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Data for studies included in MODULE 5 comes from the World Bank | World Development Indicators Open - see: | Database: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS | (Date accessed: April 09, 2017). | | CSES collects the most up-to-date data for each polity available | at the time the data is originally being processed by the CSES | Secretariat (for most of this data, that is when the data was | first included in the respective Standalone CSES Module). | However, aggregate-level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more, see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: July 15, 2019). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | When the data at the time of processing of Standalone Modules | was unavailable, but since has become available, we included it | in the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5085_1-C5085_3 | MODULE 4: D5085_1-D5085_3 | MODULE 5: E5099_1-E5099_3 | | Data for IMD5054_ are unavailable for TAIWAN (1996, 2001, 2004). | | Data for IMD5054_1 are unavailable for TAIWAN (2020). | | Data for IMD5054_2 and IMD5054_3 are unavailable for TAIWAN | (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): IMD5054_ | | Unemployment estimates are not available from the World Bank | for these years in Belarus. In this case, figures reported are | from the International Labor Organization (ILO), and represent | unemployment rates for men aged 16 to 59 years and women aged 16 | to 54 years, in December for each of the respective years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): IMD5054_ | | These data are from the International Labor Organization (ILO) | and represent persons aged ten years and over. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): IMD5054_ | | Source of data: CIA World Factbook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD5054_ | | These data are from the International Labor Organization (ILO). | The figures represent total, yearly unemployment rates, for | persons aged 15 years and over. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): IMD5054_ | | Taiwan data are unavailable in the WDI database. Source of data: | International Monetary Fund (IMF) - World economic outlook | database. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): IMD5054_ | | Source of data: CIA World Factbook. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5055_1 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T IMD5055_2 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5055_3 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-2 YEARS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) at three time periods. .................................................................. 00.00-1.00. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX 999.00. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5055_ | | IMD5055_ detail the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) at three | time periods: the election year (time T), one year before | election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). | | Definition: The human development index (HDI) is a composite | index that measures the average achievements in a country in | three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy | life; access to knowledge; and a decent standard of living. These | dimensions are measured by life expectancy at birth, adult | literacy and combined gross enrollment in primary, secondary and | tertiary level education, and gross domestic product (GDP) per | capita in Purchasing Power Parity US dollars (PPP US$), | respectively. | | Data for studies included in MODULES 1 and 2 comes from the | United Nations Human Development Database see: | http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi | (Date accessed: July 1, 2019). | | Data for studies included in MODULE 3 comes from the Human | Development Report 2010, see: | http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/49806.html | (Date accessed: December 9, 2010). | | Data for studies included in MODULE 4 comes from the United | Nations Human Development Database see: | http://hdr.undp.org/en/data | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Data for studies included in MODULE 5 comes from the United | Nations Human Development Database see: | http://hdr.undp.org/en/data | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | As of 2010, HDI data are different from the previous | reports, due to the revision of the HDI methodology. Hence, | data for all the countries included in this CSES release are | updated accordingly. For more details about the change in the | HDI methodology, see: | http://hdr.undp.org/en/faq-page/human-development-index-hdi | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | When the data at the time of processing of Standalone Modules | was unavailable, but since has become available, we included it | in the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5083_1-C5083_3 | MODULE 4: D5083_1-D5083_3 | MODULE 5: E5097_1-E5097_3 | Data are unavailable at the time of publication for IMD5055_ for | TAIWAN (1996, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016). | | Data for IMD5055_1 are unavailable for ROMANIA (2016), LITHUANIA | (2020) and TAIWAN (2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): IMD5055 | | Source of data: Directorate General of Budget, Accounting, and | Statistics of Taiwan | https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/112116036FDX2D8F3.pdf | (Date accessed: July 14, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5056_1 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T IMD5056_2 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5056_3 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 YEARS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- World Bank estimate of Inflation at three time periods. .................................................................. -100.00-10000.00. INFLATION (ANNUAL %) 99999.00. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5056_ | | IMD5056_ detail World Bank estimates of inflation at three time | periods: the election year (time T), one year before election | (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). | | Definition: Inflation as measured by the annual growth rate of | the GDP implicit deflator shows the rate of price change in the | economy as a whole. The GDP implicit deflator is the ratio of | GDP in current local currency to GDP in constant local currency. | | Data for studies included in MODULES 1 and 2 comes from the | World Bank World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.KD.ZG | (Date accessed: August 8, 2019). | | Data for studies included in MODULE 3 comes from the World | Bank World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development- | indicators. | | Data for studies included in MODULE 4 comes from the World Bank | World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.KD.ZG | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Data for studies included in MODULE 5 comes from the World Bank | World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.KD.ZG | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | CSES collects the most up-to-date data for each polity available | at the time the data is originally being processed by the CSES | Secretariat (for most of this data, that is when the data was | first included in the respective Standalone CSES Module). | However, aggregate-level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more, see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: July 15, 2019). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | When the data at the time of processing of Standalone Modules | was unavailable, but since has become available, we included | in the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5082_1-C5082_3 | MODULE 4: D5082_1-D5082_3 | MODULE 5: E5095_1-E5095_3 | | Data for IMD5056_ are unavailable for TAIWAN (1996, 2001, 2004). | | Data for IMD5056_1 are unavailable for LITHUANIA (2020). | Data for IMD5056_2 are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016). | Data for IMD5056_3 are unavailable for LITHUANIA (1997) and | TAIWAN (2012, 2016). | POLITY NOTES - TAIWAN: IMD5056_ | | Source of data for TAIWAN (2008, 2012, 2016): CIA World Fact | Book. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): IMD5056_ | | Source of data: Statista data platform | (https://www.statista.com/statistics/727598/inflation- | rate-in-taiwan/) (Date accessed: July 14, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5057_1 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T IMD5057_2 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 YEAR IMD5057_3 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 YEARS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- World Bank estimates of the total population size, at three time periods. .................................................................. 1000-9,999,999,999. POPULATION SIZE 9,999,999,999. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5057_ | | IMD5057_ detail World Bank estimates of the total population | size, at three time periods: the election year (time T), one | year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). | | Definition: Total population is based on the de facto definition | of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal | status or citizenship - except for refugees not permanently | settled in the country of asylum, who are generally considered | part of the population of their country of origin. | | Data for studies included in MODULES 1 and 2 comes from the | World Bank World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL | (Date accessed: August 8, 2019). | | Data for studies included in MODULE 3 comes from the World | Bank World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development- | indicators. | | Data for studies included in MODULE 4 comes from the World Bank | World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Data for studies included in MODULE 5 comes from the World Bank | World Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | CSES collects the most up-to-date data for each polity available | at the time the data is originally being processed by the CSES | Secretariat (for most of this data, that is when the data was | first included in the respective Standalone CSES Module). | However, aggregate-level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more, see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: July 15, 2019). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | When the data at the time of processing of Standalone Modules | was unavailable, but has since become available, we included it | in the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5084_1-C5084_3 | MODULE 4: D5084_1-D5084_3 | MODULE 5: E5098_1-E5098_3 | | Data are unavailable for IMD5057_ for TAIWAN (1996, 2001, 2004). | | Data for E5098_1 are unavailable for LITHUANIA (2020). | | Data are unavailable for IMD5057_2 and IMD5057_3 for TAIWAN | (2012, 2016). | POLITY NOTES - TAIWAN: IMD5057_ | | Data for Taiwan (2008) is from Taiwan's Council for Economic | Planning and Development (CEPD). Figures for 2008 are from | projected estimates, medium variant. | | Data for Taiwan (2012) for IMD5057_1 is from the CIA World Fact | Book. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): IMD5057_1 | | The data for Austria (2013) in CSES Module 4 comes from The | Statistics Austria, Population forecast 2013 at: | http://www.statistik.at (Date accessed: October 18, 2013). | | The data has since become available in the World Bank World | Development Indicators Open Database. This source was used for | Austria (2013) study in IMD. So, users should be aware of small | differences in this variable for Austria (2013) between CSES | Module 4 dataset and CSES IMD. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): IMD5057_1 & IMD5057_2 | | The population estimates come from Worldometers.info. Author: | Worldometers.info, Publishing Date: March 24, 2019. Place of | publication: Dover, Delaware, U.S.A. (http://www.worldometers. | info/world-population/taiwan-population/; Date accessed: May | 08, 2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): IMD5057_1 & IMD5057_2 | | The population estimates come from Worldometers.info. Author: | Worldometers.info, Place of publication: Dover, Delaware, U.S.A. | (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/taiwan-population | (Date accessed: July 14, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5058_1 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Number of Electoral Parties (ENEP). .................................................................. 000.00-150.00. EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES 997.00. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONLY - NOT CALCULATED 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5058_1 | | Definition based on Laakso, M. and R. Taagepera (1979) | '"Effective" Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to | West Europe', Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27. | | The underlying premise of the measure is to count parties and | simultaneously take account of their relative strength (i.e., | their vote share). | | Formula: ENPP = 1/(SUM[V_i^2]) | where V_i represents the vote share of party i, and all | parties (i=1,2...n) receiving votes are included in the | calculation. | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | For countries with mixed electoral systems, the electoral | returns come from the segment containing the most seats. If | there are an equal amount of seats in each segment, the results | come from the proportional representation segment. | | For MODULES 1 and 2, data was collected from: | Gallagher, Michael, 2019. "Election indices dataset" - see: | http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/people/michael_gallagher/ | ElSystems/index.php, | (Date accessed: December 11, 2023). | | For MODULES 3, 4, and 5, the CSES Secretariat calculated these | data for each polity's election and cross-checked it against the | same source. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5093 | MODULE 4: D5102 | MODULE 5: E5078 | | Data are unavailable for IMD5058_1 for HONG KONG (1998, 2000, | 2004), JAPAN (2004), PHILIPPINES (2004), THAILAND (2001), | TAIWAN (2001) and UKRAINE (1998). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): IMD5058_1 | | Calculating the effective number of electoral parties in | Argentina is complex, given that parties form alliances at the | regional level and moreover election results data is not always | aggregated consistently for parties/alliances. Thus, consistent | estimates of this metric are difficult to arrive at, something | which is noted by Gallagher (2017) in his estimates of the same | data. CSES estimates of this metric are arrived at using the | following approach: | - Parties and alliances are treated as one party/grouping. | - Only parties contesting seats in the 2015 election are | counted. Parties not contesting but who held holdover seats | in parliament are not included in the estimate. | - While 158 parties are estimated to have fielded candidates | in the election, the number of parties competing reduces to | 20 if coalitions are counted as one grouping. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): IMD5058_1 | | This data is calculated by treating the Liberals (Liberal party | and Liberal National Party) and the Nationals (the National | Party and the Country Liberals) as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): IMD5058_1 | | These data are calculated by treating the Liberals (Liberal | Party and Liberal National Party) and the Nationals (the | National Party and the Country Liberals) as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): IMD5058_1 | | The large differences between the effective number of political | parties and the corrected measure stems from the very large | number of independent candidates gaining a seat. | The residual category "other" in Belarus encompasses more than | 86 percent of the vote, and is entirely composed of independent | candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): IMD5058_1 | | These data are calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Flanders. The effective number of electoral parties (ENEP) | for Belgium is 10.94. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): IMD5058_1 | | These data are calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Wallonia. The effective number of electoral parties (ENEP) | for Belgium is 10.94. Data from the Brussels Capital Region is | not included in the calculation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): IMD5058_1 | | These data are calculated by taking parties that competed in | mainland Denmark only. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): IMD5058_1 | | Electoral returns in France contain more than one "other" | category. The broader categories "regionalist", "Divers", "other | left wing" "other right wing" and "others" were treated as | single parties where appropriate and not amalgamated in a | broader "other" category. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): IMD5058_1 | | Data unavailable as the 2012 CSES study in France relates to | the Presidential elections held on April 22, 2012 (Round 1) | and May 6, 2012 (Round 2). Parliamentary elections were | subsequently held on June 10 and June 17, 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2021): IMD5058_1 | | These data are calculated by classifying the CDU and CSU as | separate entities. With the CDU and CSU classified as one entity | (Unionsparteien), the ENEP is 6.14. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): IMD5058_1 | | These data are calculated on the national share of the vote | and share of seats attained by parties who fielded candidates | in England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland data is not | included in the calculation of the Effective Number of Electoral | or Parliamentary Parties as the 2015 British Election Study | did not include respondents from Northern Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017 & 2019): IMD5058_1 | | These data are calculated on the national share of the vote | and share of seats attained by parties who fielded candidates | in England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland data is not | included in the calculation of the Effective Number of Electoral | or Parliamentary Parties as the 2017 and 2019 British Election | Studies did not include respondents from Northern Ireland. | Including parties contesting in Northern Ireland, the ENEP for | 2017 is 2.89 and 3.23 for 2019, respectively. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): IMD5058_1 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Legislative | Council (LegCo), i.e., the election of 35 representatives | in Geographical Constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): IMD5058_1 | | These data are calculated by treating the Anti-Austerity | Alliance (AAA, Party E) made up of the Socialist Party and the | United Left Alliance as a single entity. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): IMD5058_1 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Upper | House electoral system (majoritarian segment - Prefectoral | Districts), because the Japanese (2013) CSES data refer to the | Upper House elections of 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006 & 2009): IMD5058_1 | | This entry is calculated using the marginal vote distribution of | the single-member districts. Recall that the proportional | representation vote distribution is calculated using the outcome | of the single-member districts. Additionally, for the 2006 | contest there were two pre-electoral coalitions whose results | are aggregated in the official electoral results, and thus are | calculated as a single entity, but in reality include two and | three parties each. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): IMD5058_1 | | The data is calculated based on constituency votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): IMD5058_1 | | The data is calculated based on the national level election | results. | Mexican voters cast a single vote in a single-member district | plurality election. However, this also counts for the allocation | of the proportional representation seats disputed in the larger | regional multi-member districts (five circumscriptions). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2018): IMD5058_1 | | These data are calculated based on parties and not coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2019): IMD5058_1 | | These data are calculated based on parties and not coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): IMD5058_1 | | These data are based on the May 10, 2010, Philippine House | of Representatives election results for representatives from | congressional districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): IMD5058_1 | | These data are based on the congressional district election | results (first segment of the Lower House). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): IMD5058_1 | | These data are based on the 2008 parliamentary elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD5058_1 | | These data are calculated by treating the Alliances Social | Liberal Union (PARTY A) and Alliance for a Just Romania | (PARTY B) as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): IMD5058_1 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. Hence, this variable is | coded Missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): IMD5058_1 | | Effective number of political parties was calculated without | taking into account parties/candidates competing for the two | seats reserved for the representatives of Hungarian and Italian | minorities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): IMD5058_1 | | The data refers to the second tier of the Parliament | (the proportional segment). They reflect the nationwide | proportion of votes cast for party lists. This data is | provided since the results from single-member constituencies | was not available. Notice that 54 out of 300 parliamentary | seats are allocated through the second segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD5058_1 | | These data are calculated using the constituency level | returns from the 2008 legislative (Yuan) elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): IMD5058_1 | | The data was calculated for the lowest tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007, 2011): IMD5058_1 | | Effective number of political parties was calculated using vote | shares from the PR list tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): IMD5058_1 | | These data refer to the fused votes that count for both tiers of | the Lower House. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): IMD5058_1 | | The Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) did not participate in the | elections as a political party, but fielded its candidates as | independents. This figure takes into account the BDP as a | political party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): IMD5058_1 | | As US states are responsible for election counts, results for | different blocs are often reported differently by each state. | Consequently, the ENEP estimates include results data for | Independent candidates, blank votes, undervotes, and overvotes. | Excluding these categories, the ENEP for the 2020 contest is | 2.063. The ENEP estimate for the 2020 Electoral College, | which determines the US Presidency, is 2.09. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5058_2 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corrected Effective Number of Electoral Parties (CENEP). .................................................................. 000.00-150.00. CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES 997.00. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONLY - NOT CALCULATED 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5058_2 | | Definition based on Taagepera, R. (1997). 'Effective Number of | Parties for incomplete Data', Electoral Studies 16: 145-151. | | The underlying premise of the measure is to count parties and | simultaneously take account of their relative strength (i.e., | their vote share). The CENEP differs from ENEP in its | classification of the other category. CENEP corrects for the | "other" category using the least component method of bounds | suggested by Taagepera (2015). The method requires calculating | the ENEP twice. One method treats the "other" category | as a single party and the second calculates the ENEP as if | every vote in the "other" category belonged to a different | party. The CENEP is the mean of both measures. | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | For countries with mixed electoral systems, the electoral returns | come from the segment containing the most seats. If there are | an equal amount of seats in each segment the results come from | the proportional representation segment. | | The CSES Secretariat calculates these data for each polity's | election and cross-checks it against the standard source, | namely: | Gallagher, Michael, 2019. "Election indices dataset" - see: | http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/people/michael_gallagher/ | ElSystems/index.php, | (Date accessed: December 11, 2023). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5094 | MODULE 4: D5103 | MODULE 5: E5079 | | Data are unavailable for IMD5058_2 for CSES MODULES 1 and 2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): IMD5058_2 | | Calculating the corrected effective number of electoral parties | in Argentina is complex given that parties form alliances at the | regional level and moreover election results data is not always | aggregated consistently for parties/alliances. Thus, consistent | estimates of this metric are difficult to arrive at, something | which is noted by Gallagher (2017) in his estimates of the same | data. CSES estimates of this metric are arrived at using the | following approach: | - Parties and alliances are treated as one party/grouping. | - Only parties contesting seats in the 2015 election are | counted. Parties not contesting but who held holdover seats | in parliament are not included in the estimate. | - While 158 parties are estimated to have fielded candidates | in the election, the number of parties competing reduces to | 20 if coalitions are counted as one grouping. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013 & 2019): IMD5058_2 | | This data is calculated by treating the Liberals (Liberal party | and Liberal National Party) and the Nationals (the National | Party and the Country Liberals) as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): IMD5058_2 | | The large differences between the effective number of political | parties and the corrected measure stems from the very large | number of independent candidates gaining a seat. | The residual category "other" in Belarus encompasses more than | 86 percent of the vote and is entirely composed of independent | candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): IMD5058_2 | | These data are calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Flanders. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): IMD5058_2 | | These data are calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Wallonia. Data from the Brussels Capital Region is not | included in the calculation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): IMD5058_2 | | These data are calculated by taking parties that competed in | mainland Denmark only. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): IMD5058_2 | | Electoral returns in France contain more than one "other" | category. The broader categories "regionalist", "Divers", "other | left wing" "other right wing" and "others" were treated as | single parties where appropriate and not amalgamated in a | broader "other" category. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): IMD5058_2 | | See Election Study Note for variable IMD5058_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2021): IMD5058_2 | | These data are calculated by classifying the CDU and CSU as | separate entities. With the CDU and CSU classified as one entity | (Unionsparteien), the CENEP is 5.75. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015, 2017, 2019): | IMD5058_2 | | These data are calculated on the national share of the vote | and share of seats attained by parties who fielded candidates | in England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland data is not | included in the calculation of Effective Number of Electoral | or Parliamentary Parties as the 2015, 2017 and 2019 British | Election Studies did not include respondents from Northern | Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): IMD5058_2 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Legislative | Council (LegCo), i.e., the election of 35 representatives | in Geographical Constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): IMD5058_2 | | These data are calculated by treating the Anti-Austerity | Alliance (AAA, Party E) made up of the Socialist Party and the | United Left Alliance as a single entity. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): IMD5058_2 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Upper | House electoral system (majoritarian, segment - Prefectoral | Districts), because the Japanese (2013) CSES data refer to the | Upper House elections of 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012, 2018): IMD5058_2 | | This data is calculated on the basis of the constituency votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): IMD5058_2 | | Data is calculated on the basis of the national | level election results. | Mexican voters cast a single vote in a single-member district | plurality election. However, this also counts for the allocation | of the proportional representation seats disputed in the larger | regional multi-member districts (five circumscriptions). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): IMD5058_2 | | These figures are based on the May 10, 2010, Philippine House | of Representatives election results for representatives from | congressional districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): IMD5058_2 | | These data are based on the congressional district election | results (first segment of the Lower House). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2019): IMD5058_2 | | These data are calculated based on parties and not coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): IMD5058_2 | | These figures are based on the 2008 parliamentary elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD5058_2 | | These data are calculated by treating the Alliances Social | Liberal Union (PARTY A) and Alliance for a Just Romania | (PARTY B) as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): IMD5058_2 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. Hence, this variable is | coded Missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): IMD5058_2 | | Corrected effective number of political parties was calculated | without taking into account parties/candidates competing for | the two seats reserved for the representatives of Hungarian | and Italian minorities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): IMD5058_2 | | Data refers to the second tier of the Parliament | (the proportional segment). They reflect the nationwide | proportion of votes cast for party lists. This data is | provided since the results from single-member constituencies | was not available. Notice that 54 out of 300 parliamentary | seats are allocated through the second segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD5058_2 | | These figures are calculated using the constituency level | returns from the 2008 legislative (Yuan) elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): IMD5058_2 | | Data were calculated for the lower tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007, 2011): IMD5058_2 | | Effective number of political parties was calculated using vote | shares from the PR list tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): IMD5058_2 | | These data refer to the fused votes that count for both tiers of | the Lower House. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): IMD5058_2 | | The Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) did not participate in the | elections as a political party, but fielded its candidates as | independents. This figure does not take into account the BDP as | a political party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): IMD5058_2 | | These data are calculated based on elections to the US House of | Representatives. As US states are responsible for election | counts, results for different blocs are often reported | differently by each state. Consequently, the CENEP estimates | include results data for Independent candidates, blank votes, | undervotes, and overvotes. Excluding these categories, the CENEP | for the 2020 contest is 2.064. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5059_1 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective Number of Parliamentary Parties (ENPP). .................................................................. 000.00-150.00. EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES 997.00. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONLY - NOT CALCULATED 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5059_1 | | Definition based on Laakso, M. and R. Taagepera (1979): | '"Effective" Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to | West Europe', Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27; and | Taagepera, R. (1997): 'Effective Number of Parties for | incomplete Data', Electoral Studies 16: 145-151. | | The underlying premise of the measure is to count parties and | simultaneously take account of their relative strength (i.e., | their vote share). | Corrected Effective Number of Electoral Parties (CENEP) corrects | for the "other" category using the least component method of | bounds suggested by Taagepera (1997). The method requires | calculating the ENEP two times. One is treating the "other" | category as a single party and the second is calculating the ENEP | as if every seat in the "other" category belonged to a different | party. The CENEP is the mean of both measures. | | For the Formula used to calculate ENEP, see variable IMD5058_1. | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | | For MODULES 1 and 2, data was collected from: | Gallagher, Michael, 2019. "Election indices dataset" - see: | http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/people/michael_gallagher/ | ElSystems/index.php, | (Date accessed: December 11, 2023). | | For MODULES 3 and 4, the CSES Secretariat calculated these data | for each polity's election and cross-checked it against the same | source. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLE NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5095 | MODULE 4: D5104 | MODULE 5: E5080 | | Data are unavailable for IMD5059_1 for CSES MODULES 1 and 2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): IMD5059_1 | | Calculating the effective number of parliamentary parties in | Argentina is complex, given that parties form alliances at the | regional level and moreover election results data is not always | aggregated consistently for parties/alliances. Thus, consistent | estimates of this metric are difficult to arrive at, something | which is noted by Gallagher (2017) in his estimates of the same | data. CSES estimates of this metric are arrived at using the | following approach: | - Parties and alliances are treated as one party/grouping. | - All parties represented in the Chamber of Deputies post the | 2015 elections are included in the count, including parties | /groupings that held holdover seats but did not contest/or | win additional Chamber of Deputy seats in 2015. | - The number of parties/alliances represented in the Chamber | of Deputies after the 2015 elections is estimated by our | count to be 28. This is treating for the most part parties/ | alliances as one. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013, 2019): IMD5059_1 | | This data is calculated by treating the Liberals (Liberal party | and Liberal National Party) and the Nationals (the National | Party and the Country Liberals) as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): IMD5059_1 | | The large differences between the effective number of political | parties and the corrected measure stem from the very large | number of independent candidates gaining a seat. | The residual category "other" in Belarus encompasses more than | 86 percent of the vote, and is entirely composed of independent | candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): IMD5059_1 | | These data are calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Flanders. The effective number of parliamentary parties | (ENPP) for Belgium is 9.70. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): IMD5059_1 | | These data are calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Wallonia. The effective number of parliamentary parties | (ENPP) for Belgium is 9.70. Data from the Brussels Capital | Region is not included in the calculation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): IMD5059_1 | | These data are calculated by taking parties that competed in | mainland Denmark only. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): IMD5059_1 | | Electoral returns in France contain more than one "other" | category. The broader categories "regionalist", "Divers", "other | left wing" "other right wing" and "others" were treated as | single parties where appropriate and not amalgamated in a | broader "other" category. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): IMD5059_1 | | See Election Study Note for variable IMD5058_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2021): IMD5059_1 | | These data are calculated by classifying the CDU and CSU as | separate entities. With the CDU and CSU classified as one entity | (Unionsparteien), the ENPP is 4.84. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015, 2017, 2019): | IMD5059_1 | | These data are calculated on the national share of the vote | and share of seats attained by parties who fielded candidates | in England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland data is not | included in the calculation of Effective Number of Electoral | or Parliamentary Parties as the 2015, 2017, and 2019 British | Election Studies did not include respondents from Northern | Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): IMD5059_1 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Legislative | Council (LegCo), i.e., the election of 35 representatives | in Geographical Constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): IMD5059_1 | | These data are calculated based on the first tier only (i.e., | the 35 representatives elected in the geographical | constituencies). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): IMD5059_1 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Upper | House electoral system (majoritarian, segment - Prefectoral | Districts), because the Japanese (2013) CSES data refer to the | Upper House elections of 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): IMD5059_1 | | The data is calculated on the basis of the total number of | seats, won in both single-member constituencies (300 seats) and | in the national proportional district (200 seats). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2018): IMD5059_1 | | These data are calculated based on parties and not coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): IMD5059_1 | | These figures are based on the May 10, 2010, Philippine House | of Representatives election results for representatives from | congressional districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): IMD5059_1 | | These data reflect the seat share won in the | congressional district election (first segment | of the Lower House). However, the percentages are calculated | against all seats in the Lower House, i.e., including | those obtained via the proportional party list segment | (59 seats). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2019): IMD5059_1 | | These data are calculated based on parties and not coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): IMD5059_1 | | These figures are based on the 2008 parliamentary elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD5059_1 | | These data are calculated by treating the Alliances Social | Liberal Union (PARTY A) and Alliance for a Just Romania | (PARTY B) as single entities. Where the parties that make | up the coalitions counted separately, the effective number | of parliamentary parties (ENPP) is 4.463. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): IMD5059_1 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. Hence, this variable is | coded Missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): IMD5059_1 | | Data was calculated without taking into account | parties/candidates competing for the two seats reserved for the | representatives of Hungarian and Italian minorities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): IMD5059_1 | | The data is based on the total number of representatives | elected into the parliament. The data includes both the | 54 representatives on the basis of a proportional tier, and | the 246 representatives from the single-member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD5059_1 | | These figures are calculated using the constituency level | returns from the 2008 legislative (Yuan) elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): IMD5059_1 | | Data were calculated for the lower tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): IMD5059_1 | | Data was calculated using seat shares from both tiers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): IMD5059_1 | | The Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) did not participate in the | elections as a political party, but fielded its candidates as | independents. This figure takes into account the BDP as a | political party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): IMD5059_1 | | These data are calculated based on elections to the US House of | Representatives. As US states are responsible for election | counts, results for different blocs are often reported | differently by each state. Consequently, the ENPP estimates | include results data for Independent candidates, blank votes, | undervotes, and overvotes. Excluding these categories, the ENEP | estimate is 1.999. The 2020 election ENEP estimate for the | Electoral College, which determines the US Presidency, is 1.96. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5059_2 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corrected Effective Number of Parliamentary Parties (CENPP). .................................................................. 000.00-150.00. CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES 997.00. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONLY - NOT CALCULATED 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5059_2 | | Definition based on Laakso, M. and R. Taagepera (1979): | '"Effective" Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to | West Europe', Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27; and | Taagepera, R. (1997): 'Effective Number of Parties for | incomplete Data', Electoral Studies 16: 145-151. | | The underlying premise of the measure is to count parties and | simultaneously take account of their relative strength (i.e., | their parliamentary seat share). | Corrected Effective Number of Parliamentary Parties (CENPP) | corrects for the "other" category using the least component | method of bounds suggested by Taagepera (1997). The method | requires calculating the ENPP twice. The first treats | the "other" category as a single party and the | second is calculating the ENPP as if every seat in the "other" | category belonged to a different party. The CENEP is the | mean of both measures. | | For the Formula used to calculate ENPP, see variable IMD5058_2. | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | | The CSES Secretariat calculates these data for each polity's | election and cross-checks it against the standard source, | namely: | Gallagher, Michael, 2019. "Election indices dataset" - see: | http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/people/michael_gallagher/ | ElSystems/index.php, | (Date accessed: August 14, 2019). | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: C5096 | MODULE 4: D5105 | MODULE 5: E5081 | | Data are unavailable for IMD5059_1 for HONG KONG (1998, 2000, | 2004), JAPAN (2004), PHILIPPINES (2004), SPAIN (2000), THAILAND | (2001), TAIWAN (2001) and UKRAINE (1998). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): IMD5059_2 | | Calculating the effective number of parliamentary parties in | Argentina is complex, given that parties form alliances at the | regional level and moreover election results data is not always | aggregated consistently for parties/alliances. Thus, consistent | estimates of this metric are difficult to arrive at, something | which is noted by Gallagher (2017) in his estimates of the same | data. CSES estimates of this metric are arrived at using the | following approach: | - Parties and alliances are treated as one party/grouping. | - All parties represented in the Chamber of Deputies post the | 2015 elections are included in the count, including parties | /groupings that held holdover seats but did not contest/or | win additional Chamber of Deputy seats in 2015. | - The number of parties/alliances represented in the Chamber | of Deputies after the 2015 elections is estimated by our | count to be 28. This is treating for the most part parties/ | alliances as one. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013, 2019): IMD5059_2 | | Data is calculated by treating the Liberals | (Liberal Party and Liberal National Party) and the | Nationals (the National Party and the Country Liberals) | as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): IMD5059_2 | | The large differences between the effective number of political | parties and the corrected measure stems from the very large | number of independent candidates gaining a seat. | The residual category "other" in Belarus encompasses more than | 86 percent of the vote, and is entirely composed of independent | candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): IMD5059_2 | | These data are calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Flanders. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): IMD5059_2 | | These data are calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Wallonia. Data from the Brussels Capital Region is not | included in the calculation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): IMD5059_2 | | These data are calculated by taking parties that competed in | mainland Denmark only. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): IMD5059_2 | | Electoral returns in France contain more than one "other" | category. The broader categories "regionalist", "Divers", "other | left wing" "other right wing" and "others" were treated as | single parties where appropriate and not amalgamated in a | broader "other" category. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): IMD5059_2 | | See Election Study Note for variable IMD5058_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2021): IMD5059_2 | | These data are calculated by classifying the CDU and CSU as | separate entities. With the CDU and CSU classified as one entity | (Unionsparteien), the CENPP is also 4.84. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015, 2017, 2019): | IMD5059_2 | | These data are calculated on the national share of the vote | and share of seats attained by parties who fielded candidates | in England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland data is not | included in the calculation of Effective Number of Electoral | or Parliamentary Parties as the 2015, 2017, and 2019 British | Election Studies did not include respondents from Northern | Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012, 2016): IMD5059_2 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Legislative | Council (LegCo), i.e., the election of 35 representatives | in Geographical Constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): IMD5059_2 | | Data refers to the first segment of the Upper House electoral | system (majoritarian segment - Prefectoral Districts), because | the Japanese (2013) CSES data refer to the Upper House elections | of 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): IMD5059_2 | | Data is calculated on the basis of the total number of seats, | won in both single-member constituencies (300 seats) and in the | national proportional district (200 seats). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2018): IMD5059_2 | | These data are calculated based on parties and not coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): IMD5059_2 | | These figures are based on the May 10, 2010, Philippine House | of Representatives election results for representatives from | congressional districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): IMD5059_2 | | These data reflect the seat share won in the congressional | district election (first segment of the Lower House). However, | the percentages are calculated against all seats in the Lower | House, i.e., including those obtained via the proportional party | list segment (59 seats). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2019): IMD5059_2 | | These data are calculated based on parties and not coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): IMD5059_2 | | These figures are based on the 2008 parliamentary elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): IMD5059_2 | | These data are calculated by treating the Alliances Social | Liberal Union (PARTY A) and Alliance for a Just Romania | (PARTY B) as single entities. Where the parties that make | up the coalitions counted separately, the corrected effective | number of parliamentary parties (ENPP) is 4.445. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): IMD5059_2 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. Hence, this variable is | coded Missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): IMD5059_2 | | Corrected effective number of parliamentary parties was | calculated without taking into account parties/candidates | competing for the two seats reserved for the representatives of | Hungarian and Italian minorities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): IMD5059_2 | | Data is based on the total number of representatives | elected into the parliament. The data includes both the | 54 representatives on the basis of a proportional tier, and | the 246 representatives from the single-member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): IMD5059_2 | | These figures are calculated using the constituency level | returns from the 2008 legislative (Yuan) elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): IMD5059_2 | | Data were calculated for the lower tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011, 2019): IMD5059_2 | | Corrected effective number of parliamentary parties was | calculated using seat shares from both tiers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): IMD5059_2 | | The Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) did not participate in the | elections as a political party, but fielded its candidates as | independents. This figure does not take into account the BDP as | a political party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): IMD5059_2 | | These data are calculated based on elections to the US House of | Representatives. As US states are responsible for election | counts, results for different blocs are often reported | differently by each state. Consequently, the CENPP estimates | include results data for Independent candidates, blank votes, | undervotes, and overvotes. Excluding these categories, the ENEP | estimate is 1.999. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5061 >>> CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL STRUCTURE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is the country a federation? .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5061 | | Federations are "compound polities, combining strong constituent | units and strong general government, each possessing power | delegated to it by the people through a constitution and each | empowered to deal directly with the citizens in the exercise of | the legislative, administrative, and taxing powers, and each | directly elected by the citizens" (Watts, 2008:12). | | Source: Ronald L. Watts, (2008). "Comparing Federal Systems". | Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University, | Kingston, Ontario, Canada. | | Data on IMD5061 were originally not included in MODULE 1 and | MODULE 2, but were now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included (See VARIABLES NOTES above) | MODULE 2: Not included (See VARIABLES NOTES above) | MODULE 3: C5090 | MODULE 4: D5099 | MODULE 5: E5073 | | Users are advised that the Standalone CSES MODULE 2 dataset | includes the variable B5094 measuring a similar, but not | identical concept to IMD5061. Specifically, B5094 is based on | the following Macro Report question: | QIII.E.11. "Is there a constitutionally guaranteed division of | power between the central government and regional and/or local | governments?" | As QIII.E.11 is not exclusively concerned with federal | structures, but also includes references to local governments, | B5094 has been disregarded for IMD. | [POLITY NOTES] - PHILIPPINES: IMD5061 | | In CSES MODULE 3, the Philippines were classified as a federal | state for 2010. However, the Republic of the Philippines | (Filipino: Republika ng Pilipinas) is a unitary Presidential | constitutional republic, with the 81 provinces being the primary | political and administrative division of the country. Therefore, | the Philippine 2010 study has been recoded to "0. NO" for the | CSES IMD. =========================================================================== ))) CSES IMD VARIABLES: DATA BRIDGING - PARTY/COALITION IDENTIFIERS =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5100_A >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A IMD5100_B >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B IMD5100_C >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C IMD5100_D >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D IMD5100_E >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E IMD5100_F >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F IMD5100_G >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G IMD5100_H >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H IMD5100_I >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- MARPOR/CMP numeric party identifier for PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I]. .................................................................. 11110-181910. MARPOR/CMP PARTY/COALITION IDENTIFIER [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 5 FOR PARTY/COALITION NUMERICAL BRIDGING IDENTIFIERS] 999999. NOT AVAILABLE IN MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) DATASET | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5100_A-I | | POTENTIAL PARTY/COALITION LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD5100_ detail the party identification codes from the Manifesto | Research on Political Representation (MARPOR/CMP) project. Codes | are provided for parties that are assigned an alphabetical code | (A-I) by the CSES and for polities for which MARPOR/CMP | identifiers are available. | | The complete list of parties (A-I) and their MARPOR/CMP codes | are detailed in Part 5 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | The Manifesto Project (MARPOR/CMP) provides the scientific | community with parties' policy positions derived from a content | analysis of parties' electoral manifestos. It covers over 1000 | parties from 1945 until today in over 50 countries on five | continents. The DFG-funded MARPOR/CMP project continues the work | of the Manifesto Research Group (MRG) and the Comparative | Manifestos Project (CMP). | | The MARPOR/CMP party codes for studies included in MODULES 1-3 | were retrieved from the Manifesto Project Dataset (version | 2019b): | Volkens, A., Lehmann, P., Matthie , T., Merz, N., Regel, S., | and Wessels, B. (2019): The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto | Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2019b. Berlin: | Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin f r Sozialforschung (WZB). | doi: 10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2019b | Available at: https://manifestoproject.wzb.eu/datasets | (Date accessed: February 5, 2020). | | The MARPOR/CMP party codes for studies included in MODULE 4 | were retrieved from the Manifesto Project Dataset (version | 2017b): | Volkens, A., Lehmann, P., Matthie , T., Merz, N., Regel, S., | and Wessels, B. (2017): The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto | Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2017b. Berlin: | Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin f r Sozialforschung (WZB). | doi: 10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2017b | Available at: https://manifestoproject.wzb.eu/datasets | (Date accessed: May 22, 2018). | | When the data at the time of processing of Standalone Modules | was unavailable, but has since become available, this has | been included in CSES IMD. | | Users are advised that CSES and MARPOR/CMP sometimes classify | coalitions differently in elections and across polities. For | example, CSES sometimes has data solely on coalitions and not | the parties comprising the alliance, while MARPOR/CMP may have | data concerning the individual parties in the coalition, or | vice versa. Consequently, some parties may have multiple | identifiers within the MARPOR/CMP dataset across time. A non | comprehensive list of these deviations are noted in Part 5 | of the CSES IMD Codebook in POLITY NOTES. | | Data on IMD5100_ were originally not included in MODULES 1-3 | but are now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: D5200_A-I | MODULE 5: E5200_A-I | | Data are unavailable for BRAZIL (2002, 2006,2010, 2014, 2018), | CHILE (1999, 2005, 2009, 2017), EL SALVADOR (2019), HONG KONG | (1998, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016), INDIA (2019), KENYA | (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), PERU (2000, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016, | 2021), PHILIPPINES (2004, 2010, 2016), TAIWAN (1996, 2001, | 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020), THAILAND (2001, 2007, 2011, | 2019) and TUNISIA (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5101_A >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A IMD5101_B >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B IMD5101_C >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C IMD5101_D >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D IMD5101_E >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E IMD5101_F >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F IMD5101_G >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G IMD5101_H >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H IMD5101_I >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ParlGov numeric party identifier for PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I]. .................................................................. 0002-2808. PARLGOV PARTY/COALITION IDENTIFIER [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 5 FOR PARTY/COALITION NUMERICAL BRIDGING IDENTIFIERS] 9999. NOT AVAILABLE IN PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5101_A-I | | POTENTIAL PARTY/COALITION LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD5101_ detail the party identification codes from the | Parliaments and Government Database (ParlGov) project. Codes are | provided for parties that are assigned an alphabetical code (A-I) | by the CSES and for polities for which ParlGov identifiers are | available. | | The complete list of parties (A-I) and their ParlGov codes are | detailed in Part 5 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | ParlGov is a database which contains information about elections, | parties and cabinets. ParlGov is a data infrastructure for | political science and it covers all EU and most OECD democracies | (37 countries). The database combines approximately 1700 parties, | 1000 elections (9400 results), and 1600 cabinets (3900 parties). | | The ParlGov party codes were retrieved from the project website, | available at: | http://www.parlgov.org/#data | (Date accessed: February 5, 2020). | | The ParlGov party codes for studies included in MODULE 4 were | retrieved from a previous version of the ParlGov dataset | (accessed on April 4, 2018). When the data at the time of | processing of Standalone Modules was unavailable, but since has | become available, we included it in the CSES IMD. | | Data on IMD5101_ were originally not included in MODULES 1-3 | but are now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: D5201_A-I | MODULE 5: E5201_A-I | | Data are unavailable for ALBANIA (2005, 2017), ARGENTINA (2015), | BELARUS (2001, 2008), BRAZIL (2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018), | CHILE (1999, 2005, 2009, 2017), COSTA RICA (2018), EL SALVADOR | (2019), HONG KONG (1998, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016), INDIA | (2019), KENYA (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), MEXICO (1997, 2000, | 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018), MONTENEGRO (2012, 2016), | PERU (2000, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021), PHILIPPINES (2004, | 2010, 2016), RUSSIA (1999, 2000, 2004), SERBIA (2012), | SOUTH AFRICA (2009, 2014), SOUTH KOREA (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, | 2016), TAIWAN (1996, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020), | THAILAND (2001, 2007, 2011, 2019), TUNISIA (2019), UKRAINE | (1998), UNITED STATES (1996, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020) and | URUGUAY (2009, 2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5102_A >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A IMD5102_B >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B IMD5102_C >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C IMD5102_D >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D IMD5102_E >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E IMD5102_F >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F IMD5102_G >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G IMD5102_H >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H IMD5102_I >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHES numeric party identifier for PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I]. .................................................................. 102- 6007. CHES PARTY/COALITION IDENTIFIER [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 5 FOR PARTY/COALITION BRIDGING IDENTIFIERS] 9999. NOT AVAILABLE IN CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) DATABASE | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5102_A-I | | POTENTIAL PARTY/COALITION LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD5102_ detail the party identification codes from the Chapel | Hill Expert Survey Database (CHES) project. Codes are provided | for parties that are assigned an alphabetical code (A-I) by the | CSES and for polities for which CHES identifiers are available. | | The complete list of parties (A-I) and their CHES codes are | detailed in Part 5 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | The Chapel Hill expert surveys estimate party positioning on | European integration, ideology and policy issues for national | parties in a variety of European countries. The first survey was | conducted in 1999, with subsequent waves in 2002, 2006, 2010, | 2014, and 2019. Questions on parties' general position on | European integration, several EU policies, general left/right, | economic left/right, and social left/right are common to all | surveys. | | The CHES party codes were retrieved from the project website, | available at: | https://www.chesdata.eu/our-surveys | (Date accessed: February 5, 2020). | | Data on IMD5102_ were originally not included in MODULES 1-4 | but are now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E5202_A-I | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (1996, | 2004, 2007, 2013, 2019), BELARUS (2001, 2008), CANADA (1997, | 2004, 2008, 2011, 2015, 2019), EL SALVADOR (2019), HONG KONG | (1998, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016), ICELAND (1999, 2003, | 2007, 2009, 2013), INDIA (2019), ISRAEL (1996, 2003, 2006, | 2013, 2020), JAPAN (1996, 2004, 2007, 2013, 2017), KENYA | (2013), KYRGYZSTAN (2005), MONTENEGRO (2012), NEW ZEALAND | (1996, 2002, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020), PERU (2000, 2001, | 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021), PHILIPPINES (2004, 2010, 2016), | RUSSIA (1999, 2000, 2004), SOUTH AFRICA (2009, 2014), SOUTH | KOREA (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016), TAIWAN (1996, 2001, 2004, | 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020), THAILAND (2001, 2007, 2011, 2019), | TUNISIA (2019), UKRAINE (1998) and UNITED STATES (1996, 2004, | 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMD5103_A >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY A IMD5103_B >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY B IMD5103_C >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY C IMD5103_D >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY D IMD5103_E >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY E IMD5103_F >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY F IMD5103_G >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY G IMD5103_H >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY H IMD5103_I >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Party Facts numeric party identifier for PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I]. .................................................................. 003-9089. PARTY FACTS PARTY/COALITION IDENTIFIER [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 5 FOR PARTY/COALITION NUMERICAL BRIDGING IDENTIFIERS] 9999. NOT AVAILABLE IN PARTY FACTS PROJECT | VARIABLE NOTES: IMD5103_A-I | | POTENTIAL PARTY/COALITION LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | IMD5103_ detail the party identification codes from the Party | Facts project. Codes are provided for parties that are assigned | an alphabetical code (A-I) by the CSES and for polities for | which Party Facts identifiers are available. | | The complete list of parties (A-I) and their Party Facts codes | are detailed in Part 5 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | Party Facts links datasets on political parties and provides an | online platform about parties and their history as recorded in | social science datasets. | Political scientists have accumulated a large amount of data on | political parties. With this information, we can trace the | dynamics of party competition across countries and time. However, | the many existing datasets with crucial information about | political parties are difficult to link. Party Facts establishes | an infrastructure that supports political scientists in linking | parties across datasets. | | The Party Facts codes were retrieved from the project website, | available at: | https://partyfacts.herokuapp.com/download/ | (Date accessed: July 15, 2020). | | Data on IMD5103_ were originally not included in MODULES 1-4 | but are now collected for these election studies for | the CSES IMD. | | The corresponding variables in the Standalone CSES Modules are: | MODULE 1: Not included | MODULE 2: Not included | MODULE 3: Not included | MODULE 4: Not included | MODULE 5: E5203_A-I //END OF FILE