Rice index

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Rice Index shows the degree of agreement within a group .

The formula is widely used in the social sciences. It is the ratio of the difference between majority and minority to the sum of majority and minority. This so-called Rice Index (RI) is a measure of agreement and can have values ​​between 0 (= stalemate) and 1 (= consensus).

Yes = absolute number of yes votes, No = absolute number of no votes.

The Rice Index was developed in 1924 by Stuart Arthur Rice , he published it in 1928 in his book "Quantitative Methods in Politics". Rice designed and named two measurement methods for group behavior: an index of group cohesion and an index of group likeness .

Rice's "Index of Voting Likeness" is the absolute difference between the number of yes and no votes of the members of a party divided by the sum of the yes and no votes. However, there is a problem with the Rice Index in the European Parliament as MEPs have three choices: yes, no and abstain. For example, if a party got ten yes-votes, ten no-votes, and 100 abstentions, the Rice Index would measure the party as fully divided (0,000).

With the Rice Index of Cohesion , for example, the social cohesion within a political party can be measured by subtracting the proportion of abstentions and dissenting votes from the proportion of votes in favor, which represent the majority of the parliamentary group.

Despite the criticism they have faced since the 1920s, these measurement methods continue to provide a unique way to study legislative voting behavior. In the context of the current methodology , Rice's singularity emerges between measuring group behavior, for which his indices are designed, and measuring individual behavior, as determined by correlations ( Guttman scale ) and factor analysis.

literature

  • A. Diekmann: Empirical social research, fundamentals, methods, applications . 16th edition, Reinbek bei Hamburg 2006, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, ISBN 3-499-55551-4 .

Individual evidence

  1. a b Christine Benesch, Monika Bütler, Katharina E. Hofer: Transparency in Parliamentary Voting. February 17, 2015, accessed August 30, 2018 .
  2. Glenn H. Utter, Charles Lockhart, Charles Lockhart: American Political Scientists: A Dictionary . ABC-CLIO, 2002, ISBN 978-0-313-31957-0 , p. 343 ( google.de [accessed on August 29, 2018]).
  3. Andrea Ceron: Social Media and Political Accountability: Bridging the Gap between Citizens and Politicians . Springer, 2017, ISBN 978-3-319-52627-0 , pp. 97 ( google.de [accessed on August 29, 2018]).
  4. James H. Broussard: The Southern Federalists, 1800--1816 . LSU Press, 1999, ISBN 978-0-8071-2520-5 , pp. 300 ( google.de [accessed on August 30, 2018]).
  5. ^ A b Werner Reutter: On the future of state parliamentarism: The state parliament of North Rhine-Westphalia in a comparison of the federal states . Springer-Verlag, 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-04582-1 , pp. 33–34 ( google.de [accessed August 30, 2018]).
  6. a b Simon Hix, Abdul Noury, Gérard Roland: Power to the Parties: Cohesion and Competition in the European Parliament, 1979-2001. In: Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 7–8 , accessed August 30, 2018 .
  7. ^ Aage R. Clausen: The Measurement of Legislative Group Behavior. University of Wisconsin, accessed August 30, 2018 .