|
|||||||||||||
Coding Results. The coding results for BV201 the first and second halves of our time period are presented in Tables 4.1a and 4.1b. According to the assumption of cumulative scaling, we would expect to encounter only summated scores of 0, ±1, ±3, ±7, ±15, and ±16. (The score of ±16 is actually not a scale type according to the strict principles of cummulative scaling; it becomes acceptable here due to the arbitrary limit of ±16 imposed on the maximum allowable value.) Only these scores could be reached if the more extreme forms of discrimination were always accompanied by less exptreme forms. A score of +7, for example, could be attained only by a party which enjoyed--as its most extreme form of favored treatment--governmental promotion of party meetings (+4) while also reaping the benefits of special access to mass media (+2) and benevolent election regulations (+1). A score of -6, on the other hand, indicates a nonscale type, for it could be reached only by a party whose meetings were disrupted by the government (-4), whose messages were banned from state communications media (-2), but which did not also face a hostile electoral system (-1). With more than 10 percent of the scores in each half departing from the scale patterns, the assumption of cumulative scaling is untenable in its pristine form. It seems more useful to treat the scale values simply as points along a continuum, with severity of discrimination built into the distances between points. At the extremes of the continuum, whether a party is scored ±16 or ±15 depends on whether the government actually declares the party either illegal (-16) or the only legal one (+16) or it merely practices all four available forms of discrimination toward the party without making a formal declaration of the party's status--which would result in ±15 by the summated scoring method. The difference seems
TABLE 4.1b: Early 1960s: BV2.01 Government Discrimination
|
|||||||||||||
