IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jns/jbstat/v231y2011i5-6p598-607.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Production of Historical “Facts”: How the Wrong Number of Participants in the Leipzig Monday Demonstration on October 9, 1989 Became a Convention

Author

Listed:
  • Opp Karl-Dieter

    (Universität Leipzig (Emeritus), University of Washington, Seattle (Affiliate Professor))

Abstract

This paper deals with the demonstration in Leipzig on October 9, 1989, an important episode in the history of the East German Revolution. It is generally held that 70,000 demonstrators participated. This paper shows that this number is clearly wrong. The paper describes briefly the results of a survey that were inconsistent with this number and how the authors of the study proceeded to make a new estimate. The paper further outlines how the original estimate was made and found its way into the media and historical accounts. Finally, some general lessons are drawn from the case. The case study this paper focuses on is not an example of the faking of data, but rather of negligent data handling. However, it is argued that the lessons from this case discussed in the final section hold for faked data as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Opp Karl-Dieter, 2011. "The Production of Historical “Facts”: How the Wrong Number of Participants in the Leipzig Monday Demonstration on October 9, 1989 Became a Convention," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 231(5-6), pages 598-607, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:jns:jbstat:v:231:y:2011:i:5-6:p:598-607
    DOI: 10.1515/jbnst-2011-5-603
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2011-5-603
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jbnst-2011-5-603?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lohmann, Susanne, 1993. "A Signaling Model of Informative and Manipulative Political Action," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 319-333, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ho Fai Chan & Bruno S. Frey & Ahmed Skali & Benno Torgler, 2019. "Political Entrenchment and GDP Misreporting," CREMA Working Paper Series 2019-02, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    2. Stevanov, Mirjana & Dobšinska, Zuzana & Surový, Peter, 2016. "Assessing survey-based research in forest science: Turning lemons into lemonade?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 105-117.
    3. Anton Oleinik, 2015. "On content analysis of images of mass protests: a case of data triangulation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 2203-2220, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Micael Castanheira, 2003. "Why Vote For Losers?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(5), pages 1207-1238, September.
    2. Abraham Aldama & Mateo Vásquez-Cortés & Lauren Elyssa Young, 2019. "Fear and citizen coordination against dictatorship," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(1), pages 103-125, January.
    3. Michael K Miller, 2013. "Electoral authoritarianism and democracy: A formal model of regime transitions," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(2), pages 153-181, April.
    4. Viktor BOCHARNIKOV & Sergey SVESHNIKOV & Stepan VOZNYAK & Vladimir YUZEFOVICH, 2010. "Model For Revelation Of Unfriendly Information Impacts In Mass-Media Which Are Directed On Change Of Public Opinion," Management Research and Practice, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 2(1), pages 21-38, March.
    5. Julia Cage & Yasmine Bekkouche, 2018. "The Price of a Vote: Evidence from France, 1993-2014," Sciences Po publications 12614, Sciences Po.
    6. Thomas P. Lyon & John W. Maxwell, 2004. "Astroturf: Interest Group Lobbying and Corporate Strategy," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 561-597, December.
    7. Francesco Passarelli & Guido Tabellini, 2017. "Emotions and Political Unrest," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(3), pages 903-946.
    8. Martin Gregor, 2011. "Corporate lobbying: A review of the recent literature," Working Papers IES 2011/32, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Nov 2011.
    9. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    10. Sangnier, Marc & Zylberberg, Yanos, 2017. "Protests and trust in the state: Evidence from African countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 55-67.
    11. Richard Ball, 1995. "Interest Groups, Influence And Welfare," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(2), pages 119-146, July.
    12. Lucia Buenrostro & Amrita Dhillon & Myrna Wooders, 2007. "Protests and reputation," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 35(3), pages 353-377, February.
    13. Christian Salas, 2019. "Persuading policy-makers," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(4), pages 507-542, October.
    14. Chris Edmond, 2013. "Information Manipulation, Coordination, and Regime Change," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(4), pages 1422-1458.
    15. Apolte, Thomas & Müller, Julia, 2022. "The persistence of political myths and ideologies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    16. Sargis Karavardanyan, 2021. "Are Actions Costlier Than Words? Formal Models of Protester-Police Dynamic Interactions and Evidence from Empirical Analysis," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 1-29, December.
    17. Battaglini, Marco & Morton, Rebecca & Patacchini, Eleonora, 2020. "Social Groups and the Effectiveness of Protests," CEPR Discussion Papers 14385, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Wit, Jorgen, 1999. "Social Learning in a Common Interest Voting Game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 131-156, January.
    19. Kubinec, Robert, 2018. "Politically-Connected Firms and the Military-Clientelist Complex in North Africa," SocArXiv mrfcu, Center for Open Science.
    20. González, Felipe, 2020. "Collective action in networks: Evidence from the Chilean student movement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jns:jbstat:v:231:y:2011:i:5-6:p:598-607. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.