TABLE 14.7 (continued): Summary of the Results
from the Empirical Application of the Conceptual
Framework
|
No. of
Original Variables
|
Concept and
Comments
|
Name of
Scale Produced
|
No. of
Variables in Scale
|
Scale
Reliability
|
|
|
|
8
|
Centralization of Power. All the
variables interrelated as expected in an overall
scale of power:
|
Centralization of Power
|
8
|
0.83
|
|
|
9.01
|
Nationalization of Structure
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.02
|
Selecting the National Leader
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.03
|
Selecting Parliamentary Candidates
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.04
|
Allocating Funds
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.05
|
Formulating Policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.06
|
Controlling Communications
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.07
|
Administering Discipline
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.08
|
Leadership Concentration
|
|
|
|
|
|
But factor analysis disclosed two subclusters in
the above set. One set of three variables formed a
structural power scale:
|
Structural Power
|
3
|
0.77
|
|
|
9.01
|
Nationalization of Structure
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.06
|
Controlling Communications
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.07
|
Administering Discipline
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again in an a posteriari manner, the
other subcluster formed the personal power
scale:
|
Personal Power
|
3
|
0.75
|
|
|
9.02
|
Selecting the National Leader
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.05
|
Formulating Policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.08
|
Leadership Concentration
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Coherence. One variable did not
intercorrelate as expected. The other five did, but
with the lowest reliability in the study:
|
Coherence
|
5
|
0.72
|
|
|
10.01
|
Legislative Cohesion
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.02
|
Ideological Factionalism
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.03
|
Issue Factionalism
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.04
|
Leadership Factionalism
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.05
|
Strategic or Tactical Factionalism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Involvement. One variable did not correlate as
strongly with the others as expected. The other
five formed the involvement scale:
|
Involvement
|
5
|
0.78
|
|
|
11.01
|
Membership Requirements
|
|
|
11.02
|
Membership Participation
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.03
|
Material Incentives
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.04
|
Purposive Incentives
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.05
|
Doctrinism
|
|
|
|
data on political parties throughout the world gathered
to test the a priori conceptualization.
Of the remaining four concept clusters, the variables two
performed "mostly" as expected. Concerning the diversity of
social support, the measures of social ataction,
concentration, and reflection interrelated exactly as
expected for the religion, ethnicity, regional, and
urban-rural cleavages, and the reliabilities for each these
diversity scales were all well above. 80. For socionomic and
educational diversity, however, the concentration measure
did not relate the attraction as strongly as expected, and
it was almost unrelated to reflection. The scales for
socioeconomic and educational diversity had reliabilities of
only about .70. Concerning the concept of issue orientation,
seven of the original thirteen variables did cluster as
expected, but another four clustered on a distinct and
completely unrelated dimension. These two clustering of
left-right issues invited interpretation as two different
faces of leftism-Marxism and liberalism. The resulting
scales for these two dimensions had reliabilities above
.80.
Of the two last concept clusters, one was not given a
chance for validation due to the problem of missing data,
and the expectations of the other were overwhelm-
|