Party Groups and Policy Positions in the European Parliament



Party Positions in the EP -- p11

positions on EU integration, the two most salient policy dimensions of taxes v. spending and
EU federalism. Figure 2 portrays the main party groups in this two-dimension policy space,
with each point representing the position mean on the two dimensions. The dashed lines
indicate the nearest regions to each party, showing the midpoint lines between each set of
adjacent points. This nearest-neighbo
urhood division of the space is known as a Voronoi
tessellation and has been used to represent party policy in Laver and Hunt (1992). Finally, the
circles around each party group point are drawn proportional to the seat share of each group.

[Figure 2 about here]

Figure 2 confirms what we observed earlier, that the are two broad camps of economic
parties, with GUE, Greens, and PES on the left, the ELDR and EPP right of cent
re, and the
UEN and EDD farther to the right. On EU integration, we see a grouping of the PES, ELDR,
EPP, and Greens on the pro-integration side, the GUE in the cent
re, and the UEN and the
EDD on the Euro-s
ceptic side. In two dimensions, there appear to be three broad sets of
parties
: the PES, Greens and GUE on the left and pro-integration, the EPP and ELDR on the
cent
re-right, pro-integration region, and the UEN and EDD in their own policy region of
economic right and Euro-s
cepticism.

5. The EP Issue Space

Relative Issue Salience

Expert respondents were also asked to indicate the relative importance of each policy
dimension to each party group. Table 3 presents this information in the same format as Table
2. In terms of overall importance, the economic (
Taxes-Spending and Deregulation) and EU
issues (
Federalism, Authority, and Collective Security) were the most overall important, as
indicated by their average across all parties, weighted by party seat share (scoring between
14.1
and 14.9). Immigration also ranked highly at 13.9. The Environment and Social
Liberalism
were ranked as the least important, at 12.7 and 12.5 respectively. Interestingly,
these two dimensions were also the two that turned out to be (from Table 2) the most divisive
(social) and the least divisive (environment).



More intriguing information

1. DISCUSSION: ASSESSING STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN THE DEMAND FOR FOOD COMMODITIES
2. Nonparametric cointegration analysis
3. Can a Robot Hear Music? Can a Robot Dance? Can a Robot Tell What it Knows or Intends to Do? Can it Feel Pride or Shame in Company?
4. DETERMINANTS OF FOOD AWAY FROM HOME AMONG AFRICAN-AMERICANS
5. Cancer-related electronic support groups as navigation-aids: Overcoming geographic barriers
6. Word searches: on the use of verbal and non-verbal resources during classroom talk
7. The name is absent
8. The Formation of Wenzhou Footwear Clusters: How Were the Entry Barriers Overcome?
9. Knowledge, Innovation and Agglomeration - regionalized multiple indicators and evidence from Brazil
10. Financial Markets and International Risk Sharing
11. The name is absent
12. Tariff Escalation and Invasive Species Risk
13. Shifting Identities and Blurring Boundaries: The Emergence of Third Space Professionals in UK Higher Education
14. The name is absent
15. Towards a Mirror System for the Development of Socially-Mediated Skills
16. Constructing the Phylomemetic Tree Case of Study: Indonesian Tradition-Inspired Buildings
17. The name is absent
18. The name is absent
19. PRIORITIES IN THE CHANGING WORLD OF AGRICULTURE
20. The Environmental Kuznets Curve Under a New framework: Role of Social Capital in Water Pollution