Path: Janda: Political Parties, Home Page > Part 1: Table of Contents > Chapter 6 pracBLE>
Chapter 6: Issue Orientation (pp. 53-77), this is p. 66
(you can navigate to other pages by clicking on page numbers below)
p. 53
p. 54
p. 55
p. 56
p. 57
p. 58
p. 59
p. 60
p. 61
p. 62
p. 63
p. 64
p. 67
p. 70
p. 73
p. 74
p. 77

somewhat more anti in the later 1950s. The mean scores would be even higher were it not for the large number of parties (about 15 percent) scored in the 0 or "neutral" category. These data should be used with the understanding that the 0 codes often pertained to parties in nations which were not involved in any colonial or neocolonial relationships. Also, the user should be warned of the significant positive correlation of .27 between BV508 and AC508; confident judgments tended to be associated with anticolonial scores. In part, of course, this is due to the tendency to grant an AC code of only 3 for BV codes of 0-when colonialism was not an issue in the country and perhaps never discussed.

Table 6.10a: Mid 1950s: Anti-Colonialism

Table 6.10b: Early 1960s: Anti-Colonialism

Basic Variable 5.09: Supranational Integration*

Supranational integration is interpreted as an economic and political issue, not a military one. The military alliance dimension is covered in the "alignment with East/West blocs" variable in the issue orientation cluster. The supranational integration variable seeks to measure parties' attitudes toward movements such as pan-Africanism and pan-Europeanism, as well as toward ties with a commonwealth or other supranational grouping.

Europe Must Unite, by Count R. N. Coudenhove-Kalergi, states the essence of pan-Europeanism: "creation . . . of a single European Commonwealth based on such measure of political and economic unity as may be found possible, but, above all, on a common European ideal, transcending without weakening, and including, as a matter of course, the fullest toleration of minorities in each state" (1940, p. 12). Altering Haas's definition of political integration slightly, we define supranational integration as the process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings voluntarily shift their loyalties, expectations, and political activities toward an encompassing unit, whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the preexisting nation-states (1964, p. 27).

The extreme classifications of parties on the issue of supranational integration may be seen as impractical, or even unrealizable, Nevertheless, these extremes represent opposite poles of a concept of supranational integration. The negative extreme is a prohibition against trade and/or a desire for economic and political self-sufficiency (isolation) of the nation-state, while the positive extreme is the elimination of the specific nation-state as it now exists and complete economic and political union with other nation-states.

Operational Definition. Parties are coded according to the degree to which they support or oppose supranational integration. A supportive position is somewhat arbitrarily equated with the pro, or leftist, position, and opposition to the idea becomes the rightist response.



Party favors elimination of specific nation-state as it now exists, as well as complete economic and political union with other nation-states.



Party favors political and economic federation with other nation-states, but also favors individual state identity.

go to page 67