Cited by 1,377Computational and Text Analysis MethodsElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data

LAVER, MICHAEL, BENOIT, KENNETH, GARRY, JOHN·2003·American Political Science Review

Abstract

We present a new way of extracting policy positions from political texts that treats texts not as discourses to be understood and interpreted but rather, as data in the form of words. We compare this approach to previous methods of text analysis and use it to replicate published estimates of the policy positions of political parties in Britain and Ireland, on both economic and social policy dimensions. We “export” the method to a non-English-language environment, analyzing the policy positions of German parties, including the PDS as it entered the former West German party system. Finally, we extend its application beyond the analysis of party manifestos, to the estimation of political positions from legislative speeches. Our “language-blind” word scoring technique successfully replicates published policy estimates without the substantial costs of time and labor that these require. Furthermore, unlike in any previous method for extracting policy positions from political texts, we provide uncertainty measures for our estimates, allowing analysts to make informed judgments of the extent to which differences between two estimated policy positions can be viewed as significant or merely as products of measurement error.We thank Raj Chari, Gary King, Michael McDonald, Gail McElroy, and three anonymous reviewers for comments on drafts of this paper.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0003055403000698

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • One method for scaling political actors using texts, based on Laver, Benoit, and Garry (2003), is a supervised method, analogous to dictionary methods, to situate actors in space based on their words.

    “One method, based on Laver, Benoit, and Garry (2003), is a supervised method-analogous to dictionary methods-to situate actors in space based on their words.”

    From Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts (2013) · cites this paper as Laver, Benoit, and Garry 2003

  • By defining liberal and conservative using only reference texts, Laver, Benoit, and Garry (2003) conflate ideological language with stylistic differences across authors and impose the ideological dominance assumption on the texts.

    “By defining “liberal” and “conservative” using only reference texts, Laver, Benoit, and Garry (2003) conflate ideological language with stylistic differences across authors and impose the ideological dominance assumption on the texts.”

    From Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts (2013) · cites this paper as Laver, Benoit, and Garry 2003

  • Laver, Benoit, and Garry (2003) introduced a fully automated method for scaling political actors, wordscores, rather than relying on manual coding or dictionary methods.

    “Rather than rely on difficult to replicate and hard to validate manual coding or dictionary methods, Laver, Benoit, and Garry (2003) introduced a fully automated method for scaling political actors: wordscores.”

    From Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts (2013) · cites this paper as Laver, Benoit, and Garry 2003

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
LAVER, M., BENOIT, K., & GARRY, J.
Affiliations
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
  • University of Reading (GB)
Venue
American Political Science Review
Published
2003-05
Volume
97
Issue
02
ISSN
  • 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5943
OpenAlex
W2009659525
Cited by
1,377
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 86 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 82 · 2012: 84
FWCI
112.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
  • Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge (InK) (Singapore Management University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
political parties, party manifestos, parliamentary speeches, economic policy, social policy, uncertainty measures, measurement error, German party system, PDS, replication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review