SSOAR Logo
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • English 
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • Login
SSOAR ▼
  • Home
  • About SSOAR
  • Guidelines
  • Publishing in SSOAR
  • Cooperating with SSOAR
    • Cooperation models
    • Delivery routes and formats
    • Projects
  • Cooperation partners
    • Information about cooperation partners
  • Information
    • Possibilities of taking the Green Road
    • Grant of Licences
    • Download additional information
  • Operational concept
Browse and search Add new document OAI-PMH interface
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Download PDF
Download full text

(190.5Kb)

Citation Suggestion

Please use the following Persistent Identifier (PID) to cite this document:
https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-229205

Exports for your reference manager

Bibtex export
Endnote export

Display Statistics
Share
  • Share via E-Mail E-Mail
  • Share via Facebook Facebook
  • Share via Bluesky Bluesky
  • Share via Reddit reddit
  • Share via Linkedin LinkedIn
  • Share via XING XING

Applying Ideal Point Estimation Methods to the Council of Ministers

[journal article]

Hagemann, Sara

Abstract

This research note addresses an increasingly popular topic in the EU literature, namely the measurement of policy preferences in the Council of Ministers. It aims to provide conclusions on three issues: (1) what data are in fact available from the Council, (2) how preferences are measured in other l... view more

This research note addresses an increasingly popular topic in the EU literature, namely the measurement of policy preferences in the Council of Ministers. It aims to provide conclusions on three issues: (1) what data are in fact available from the Council, (2) how preferences are measured in other legislatures, and (3) whether these methods would be suitable for analyses of Council members' preference positions given the available data. Applying the popular scaling method NOMINATE and a Bayesian MCMC model to a data set consisting of all legislation adopted by the Council in 1999—2004, it is found that, although the two methods show similar voting patterns at the general level, the failure to report standard errors by NOMINATE in particular proves to be a severe problem when trying to identify individual governments' policy location. Conversely, the Bayesian approach provides a convincing method for analyses of Council decision records and is easily extended to include more advanced empirical information than merely the governments' decisions to support or oppose a proposal.... view less

Classification
European Politics

Free Keywords
Council; MCMC; NOMINATE; preferences; voting;

Document language
English

Publication Year
2007

Page/Pages
p. 279-296

Journal
European Union Politics, 8 (2007) 2

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116507076433

Status
Postprint; peer reviewed

Licence
PEER Licence Agreement (applicable only to documents from PEER project)


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.
 

 


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.