IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iis/dispap/iiisdp338.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A new Database of Parliamentary Debates in Ireland, 1922--2008

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Herzog

    (New York University)

  • Slava Mikhaylov

    (London School of Economics, Institute for International Integration Studies, Trinity College Dublin)

Abstract

We present a new database of parliamentary debates and written answers in Dáil Éireann for the entire time period from the third Dáil in 1922 to the thirtieth Dáil in 2008. This database was built from the Official Records of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Unlike its original version, our database integrates information about debates and information about deputies into a single database. This database therefore allows to search and retrieve contributions from individual deputies of the Dáil (Teachta Dála or TD) and to combine information about TDs' parties and constituencies with the history of political speeches and written answers. In addition, our database facilitates the application of content analysis software such as Wordscore (Laver, Benoit and Garry, 2003) or Wordfish (Slapin and Proksch, 2008) and makes it possible to estimate TDs' policy preferences from speeches. In this paper we document the structure of the database and how it was generated. We furthermore demonstrate how political debates can be used in social science research through a series of examples. These include an analysis of the policy agenda in all budget speeches from 1922 to today, the estimation of speakers' policy positions in the 2008 budget debate, and the estimation of ministers' policy positions in the 26th government in 2002.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Herzog & Slava Mikhaylov, 2010. "A new Database of Parliamentary Debates in Ireland, 1922--2008," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp338, IIIS, revised Jul 2010.
    • Handle: RePEc:iis:dispap:iiisdp338
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.tcd.ie/triss/assets/PDFs/iiis/iiisdp338.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grimmer, Justin, 2010. "A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 1-35, January.
    2. Louis M. Imbeau, 2009. "Dissonance in Fiscal Policy: A Power Approach," Studies in Public Choice, in: Louis M. Imbeau (ed.), Do They Walk Like They Talk?, chapter 0, pages 167-184, Springer.
    3. Monroe, Burt L. & Colaresi, Michael P. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2008. "Fightin' Words: Lexical Feature Selection and Evaluation for Identifying the Content of Political Conflict," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 372-403.
    4. Jonathan B. Slapin & Sven‐Oliver Proksch, 2008. "A Scaling Model for Estimating Time‐Series Party Positions from Texts," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 705-722, July.
    5. Étienne Charbonneau, 2009. "Talking Like a Tax Collector or a Social Guardian? The Use of Administrative Discourse by U.S. State Lottery Agencies," Studies in Public Choice, in: Louis M. Imbeau (ed.), Do They Walk Like They Talk?, chapter 0, pages 223-240, Springer.
    6. Laver, Michael & Benoit, Kenneth & Garry, John, 2003. "Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(2), pages 311-331, May.
    7. Daniel J. Hopkins & Gary King, 2010. "A Method of Automated Nonparametric Content Analysis for Social Science," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 229-247, January.
    8. Emma Galli & Veronica Grembi & Fabio Padovano, 2009. "Would You Trust an Italian Politician? Evidence from Italian Regional Politics," Studies in Public Choice, in: Louis M. Imbeau (ed.), Do They Walk Like They Talk?, chapter 0, pages 109-129, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Alexander Herzog & Slava Mikhaylov, 2010. "Estimating Government Discretion in Fiscal Policy Making," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp339, IIIS, revised Jul 2010.
    2. Pierre-Marc Daigneault & Dominic Duval & Louis M. Imbeau, 2018. "Supervised scaling of semi-structured interview transcripts to characterize the ideology of a social policy reform," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 2151-2162, September.
    3. Pádraig Carmody, 2011. "An Informationalised Economy in Africa? The Impact of New ICT on the Wood Products Industry in Durban, South Africa," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp383, IIIS.
    4. Martin Haselmayer & Marcelo Jenny, 2017. "Sentiment analysis of political communication: combining a dictionary approach with crowdcoding," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2623-2646, November.
    5. Greene, Zac & Ceron, Andrea & Schumacher, Gijs & Fazekas, Zoltan, 2016. "The Nuts and Bolts of Automated Text Analysis. Comparing Different Document Pre-Processing Techniques in Four Countries," OSF Preprints ghxj8, Center for Open Science.
    6. Merz, Nicolas & Regel, Sven & Lewandowski, Jirka, 2016. "The Manifesto Corpus: A new resource for research on political parties and quantitative text analysis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 3(2 (April-), pages 1-8.
    7. H Andrew Schwartz & Johannes C Eichstaedt & Margaret L Kern & Lukasz Dziurzynski & Stephanie M Ramones & Megha Agrawal & Achal Shah & Michal Kosinski & David Stillwell & Martin E P Seligman & Lyle H U, 2013. "Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-16, September.
    8. Gavin Abercrombie & Riza Batista-Navarro, 2020. "Sentiment and position-taking analysis of parliamentary debates: a systematic literature review," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 245-270, April.
    9. Anna Calissano & Simone Vantini & Marika Arena, 2020. "Monitoring rare categories in sentiment and opinion analysis: a Milan mega event on Twitter platform," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 29(4), pages 787-812, December.
    10. Pongsak Luangaram & Yuthana Sethapramote, 2016. "Central Bank Communication and Monetary Policy Effectiveness: Evidence from Thailand," PIER Discussion Papers 20, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research.
    11. Weiss, Max & Zoorob, Michael, 2021. "Political frames of public health crises: Discussing the opioid epidemic in the US Congress," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 281(C).
    12. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    13. Hanna Bäck & Marc Debus & Wolfgang C. Müller, 2016. "Intra-party diversity and ministerial selection in coalition governments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 355-378, March.
    14. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    15. Diaf, Sami & Döpke, Jörg & Fritsche, Ulrich & Rockenbach, Ida, 2022. "Sharks and minnows in a shoal of words: Measuring latent ideological positions based on text mining techniques," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    16. Osterloh, Steffen, 2012. "Words speak louder than actions: The impact of politics on economic performance," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 318-336.
    17. Christopher Wratil & Sara B Hobolt, 2019. "Public deliberations in the Council of the European Union: Introducing and validating DICEU," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(3), pages 511-531, September.
    18. Heike Klüver, 2015. "The promises of quantitative text analysis in interest group research: A reply to Bunea and Ibenskas," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 456-466, September.
    19. Ben Curran & Kyle Higham & Elisenda Ortiz & Demival Vasques Filho, 2018. "Look who’s talking: Two-mode networks as representations of a topic model of New Zealand parliamentary speeches," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, June.

    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:iis:dispap:iiisdp338. 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: Maeve (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cetcdie.html .

    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.