Turn left or right:Are political preferences in the Netherlands changed               by media developments?      ARIMA mo...
Table of contentsINTRODUCTION................................................................................................
IntroductionThe public broadcasting system in the Netherlands is part of a recent political discussion:should the state in...
To answer this question, I used data from 1977 until 2000, which were analyzed with aARIMA model and an impact assessment ...
analyse the effects of those events, first an adequate ARIMA model is developed, which isfollowed by an impact assessment ...
Figure 2. The differenced value for the mean score on a political left-right dimension over time.The next step was predict...
Figure 3. ACF and PCF for the differenced mean score on a political left-right dimension.Table 2. ARIMA model for mean sco...
broadcasters in the Netherlands. However, as Table 3 shows, none of those developments hadan effect on the mean score for ...
at all by events. Only the second oil crisis seemed to affect peoples’ political preferences.Most events however are unlik...
Appendix 1: Do file* declare data to be time seriesreplace nr = nr + 766 + 52 + 52tsset nr, weekly* making differencesgen ...
replace sbs6 = 1 if nr>1823*Media developmentgen media = RTL+ veronica+ rtl5+ sbs6*in 1992 werden binnenlandse commerciële...
Turn left or right: Are political preferences in the Netherlands changed by media developments? - ARIMA models and impact ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Turn left or right: Are political preferences in the Netherlands changed by media developments? - ARIMA models and impact assessment analysis

652 views

Published on

Turn left or right: Are political preferences in the Netherlands changed by media developments?
ARIMA models and impact assessment analysis

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
652
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Turn left or right: Are political preferences in the Netherlands changed by media developments? - ARIMA models and impact assessment analysis

  1. 1. Turn left or right:Are political preferences in the Netherlands changed by media developments? ARIMA models and impact assessment analysis Assignment 2 Mark Boukes (markboukes@Hotmail.com) 5616298 1st semester 2010/2011 Dynamic Data Analysis Lecturer: Dr. R. Vliegenthart November 23, 2010 Communication Science (Research MSc) Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences University of Amsterdam
  2. 2. Table of contentsINTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................1METHOD........................................................................................................................................................2RESULTS........................................................................................................................................................3 ARIMA MODEL.......................................................................................................................................................3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................5CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................6REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................7APPENDIX 1: DO FILE......................................................................................................................................I
  3. 3. IntroductionThe public broadcasting system in the Netherlands is part of a recent political discussion:should the state invest the same amount of money in it or can the budget for Nederland 1, 2and 3 be reduced to limit the budget deficit of the state? Advocates of public broadcastingpoint to the (democratic) benefits of this system: it provides citizens with news from differentstands, involves people with politics and culture, and gives a voice to minority groups insociety without having much commercial pressure. According to former chairman of theBBC, Gavyn Davies (1999), should public broadcasters “… inform, educate and entertain in away which the private sector, left unregulated, would not do.” (p. 10) However, opponents ofpublic broadcasting think that financing television channels by the state is false competition toplayers on the market that gather revenues by advertising only. Those opponents claim alsothat public broadcasting is a waste of tax money, because they believe that commercial partiescan fulfil the tasks of public broadcasting as long as there is no false competition. Generalmanager of RTL 4 (commercial broadcaster in the Netherlands) Bert Habets thinks that a firststep in decreasing the budget of public broadcasting is cooperation with commercial channelson areas as sports and entertainment.1 Shortly, the position of the Dutch public broadcastingsystem is under pressure and therefore I investigated its impact. The purpose of this study is to research how the introduction of commercial televisionin the Netherlands affected political attitudes of citizens. Many studies before investigated theeffects of media use on political attitudes, like political interest, political knowledge, voteintention, government approval etc. Curran, Iyengar, Brink Lund and Salovaara-Moring(2009) found that, compared to people in countries with a market model, people had moreknowledge about both international and domestic news topics like the Kyoto Protocol andnews about the French president in countries with a public broadcasting system. Aarts andSemetko (2003) found a similar effect in the Netherlands. Watching more public broadcastinginstead of commercial broadcasters had positive effects on voter turnout, but also on politicalcognition and efficacy. DellaVigna and Kaplan (2007) also found evidence for the importanceof introducing new channels to citizens. They showed that voters in towns in the UnitedStates, in which Fox News was introduced in 2000, were more likely to vote Republican inthe first coming election. I aimed with my study to see if the introduction of commercialchannels to the Dutch range of television channels had a similar effect. The research questionwas therefore: Did the introduction of commercial broadcasting to Dutch television affect theaverage political preference on a left-right dimension?1 http://www.rtl.nl/%28/actueel/rtlboulevard/nieuws/articleview/%29/components/actueel/rtlboulevard/2010/11_november/entertainment/rtl_baas_handreiking_po.xml 1
  4. 4. To answer this question, I used data from 1977 until 2000, which were analyzed with aARIMA model and an impact assessment analysis. As no one conducted such a research before,I hope to find new information that gives more insight in the importance of publicbroadcasting in the Netherlands and enriches the debate about the existence and financing ofpublic broadcasting.MethodTo investigate which factors have an effect on the left-right preferences of Dutch citizens, I useda dataset that contains information about this for a long time period. The NIPO Weeksurveys1962-2000 was found on https://easy.dans.knaw.nl/dms and contained for the period1977-2000, 1.086.336 individual answers for the following question, Here you see seven boxesbetween the words left and right. Could you indicate on this scale how left, right or in betweenyour political opinion lies? The observations were transformed in such a way that the meananswer for every week was reported, because the answers were reported individually andaggregate level data is needed to answer the research question,. This resulted in 1226 weeklyitems containing the value for the average left-right preference of Dutch citizens. I included also data for various happenings that I have in mind to effect politicalpreferences of voters, to investigate whether they indeed had an effect. Various dummyvariables were created, to study the impact of the introduction of commercial television on theleft-right preferences of citizens. One for the introduction of RTL4 to the Dutch televisionviewers on October 2 1989 (dummy variables were 0 before this date and 1 after this date), andthe other for the moment (starting in 1992) it was allowed for commercial television channels tobroadcast in the Netherlands. Also dummy variables were created for the introduction of theother Dutch commercial channels that attract(ed) many viewers: Veronica, RTL5 and SBS6. Allthose effects were expected to have a permanent effect, which came about rather abrupt. Inaddition, a variable was created adding the values of the entrance of the different channelstogether; for instance, after RTL4 was introduced this variable was one, after Veronica wasintroduced this value was two, etc. The effect of this variable can thus be said to be gradual andpermanent. The following events were also taken into account by making dummy variables forthe periods that represent them, to control for other developments in Dutch and the globalsociety. Moments that were taken into account are the hijack of a train by Moluccans from May23 1977 untill June 11 1977; the second oil crisis in 1979/1980, the weeks before, during andafter European elections (in 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994, 1999); the fall of the Iron Curtain startingin April 1989 in Poland and lasting until the end of that year when also the Berlin Wall fell;Dutch politician Bolkestein who held a speech about the integration of ethnic minorities inDutch society on September 6 1991 and finally the happenings in Srebrenica in July 1995. To 2
  5. 5. analyse the effects of those events, first an adequate ARIMA model is developed, which isfollowed by an impact assessment analysis of the different events.ResultsI specify in this results section how the ARIMA model was created and thereafter what theresults were of the impact assessment analysis to include events in the analysis.ARIMA modelThe timeseries dataset is first being analysed according to the ARIMA-framework described byVliegenthart (n.d.). The first step was to establish whether the data was stationary. Therefore, Imade a graph was made (see Figure 1) to inspect the data in a convenient manner and threeaugmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) tests were used to check whether the series was a random walkwithout drift, a random walk with drift or a random walk with drift and trend (see Table 1). Oneof the results of this ADF indicates that the null hypotheses of non-stationarity should not berejected and therefore it was necessary to integrate the data and check again for stationarity.This time only significant results were found; the integrated series was stationary (see Figure 2).Figure 1. The mean score on a political left-right dimension over time.Table 1. The various augmented Dickey-Fuller tests. Augmented Dickey-Fuller testRandom walk without drift -0.374*Random walk with drift -12.779Random walk with drift and trend -21.805After integratingRandom walk without drift -57.741Random walk with drift -57.718Random walk with drift and trend -57.696Note. All tests without a * indicate the presence of an unit root. 3
  6. 6. Figure 2. The differenced value for the mean score on a political left-right dimension over time.The next step was predicting the data as good as possible by accounting for its past, either withautoregressive (AR) terms, moving average (MA) terms or both. This was done by inspectingthe autocorrelation (ACF) and partial autocorrelation functions (PACF) (see the graphs for both inFigure 2). Those functions suggest a moving average at lag 1; there was one peak in the ACFand a decaying order in the PACF. Therefore, a ARIMA(0,1,1) model was used which indeedhas a significant effect for this moving average term. This model was tested for autocorrelationand heteroscedasticity with the Ljung–Box Q test statistic for both the residuals as well as thesquared residuals. The (significant) results for both tests indicate that there wasautocorrelation present and thus not only white noise. Therefore the model was extended witha moving average term at lag 2 for tho reasons. First, because the ACF and PACF showed apeak at the second lag, however, the graphs did not give a clear indication for adding anautoregressive (AR) or moving average (MA) term. Second, adding a MA term increased thefit more than adding a AR term according to the values of the Akaike Information Criterion(AIC) and Schwarz Bayesian Criterion (BIC), therefore I choose to use a resulting ARIMA(0,1,2) model. The values of this resulting model can be found in Table 2. The results of the Ljung–Box Q test statistic for this model was insignificant for the residuals, therefore we can assumethe residuals to be white noise. However significant results were found for the squaredresiduals with the Ljung–Box Q test statistic, which indicates the presence ofheteroscedasticity. However for this moment no attention is paid to this, but hopefully it will besolved with ARCH and GARCH models later in this Dynamic Data Analysis course. 4
  7. 7. Figure 3. ACF and PCF for the differenced mean score on a political left-right dimension.Table 2. ARIMA model for mean score on a political left-right dimension over time. ARIMA (0,1,2)Constant -.000 (.000)MA(1) -.767 (.026)*MA(2) -.091 ( .026)*Ljung-Box Q(20) residuals 20.61Ljung-Box Q(20) residuals² 103.34*AIC -3583.93BIC -3563.49Note. Unstandardized coefficients. Standard errors in parentheses; * p<.001Impact assessment analysisI created various dummy variables were created to test if different events had an effect on themean score for the political preference on a left-right dimension over time. The duration ofthose events could be temporary or permanent and the onset could be gradual or abrupt(McCleary & Hay, 1980). How the duration and onset were implemented was based onsimple theory, common sense. The various events were incorporated in the ARIMA-modelthat was established before. Because the timeseries used as a dependent variable wasdifferenced, also differenced values of the independent (event) variables were used in theanalysis. Three models were the most interesting to study the impact of television developmentson political preferences; the one that makes clear what happened after RTL4’s introduction,the one for the moment commercial broadcasters had permission to broadcast in theNetherlands, and the one that can be used for the gradual introduction of more commercial 5
  8. 8. broadcasters in the Netherlands. However, as Table 3 shows, none of those developments hadan effect on the mean score for the political left-right dimension.Table 3. Influence on media developments on the mean score on a political left-right dimension over time. Permission All TVchannels ARIMA (0,1,2) RTL4-model model intro-modelConstant -.000 (.000) -.000 (.000) -.000 (.000) -.000 (.000)MA(1) -.767 (.026)* -.767 (.026)* -.766 (.026)* -.767 (.026)*MA(2) -.091 (.026)* -.089 (.026)* -.092 (.026)* -.090 (.026)*Introduction RTL4 .015 (.048)Permission for commercial broadcasting .020 (.026)Introduction different TV channels 0.007 (0.017)Ljung-Box Q(20) residuals 20.61 20.59 20.98 20.55Ljung-Box Q(20) residuals² 103.34* 103.54* 103.71* 103.79*AIC -3583.93 -3582.18 -3582.36 -3582.22BIC -3563.49 -3556.64 -3556.81 -3556.68Note. Unstandardized coefficients. Standard errors in parentheses; * p<.001To check whether this dependent timeseries variable is not influenced by any factor, theanalysis were repeated for various historical events that were specified in the methods sectionthat might have affected the political preferences of people. Also for those events thedifferenced series were used in the analysis. The results showed that only the second oil crisisin 1979/1980 had an effect on political preferences. As this effect was positive, it can be saidthat this crisis caused an increase in the preference for right-wing politics. Perhaps moreremarkable is that all other variables had no effect on the average political preference in theNetherlands, both when tested alone in the ARIMA(0,1,2)-model or when tested together asshown in Table 4.ConclusionMy main aim in this paper was to study the impact of the introduction of commercialbroadcasting to Dutch viewers. It seems that this had no effect on the political preferences ofDutch people; the mean score on a left-right scale was not affected by the various events. Todo this analysis first a proper ARIMA-model was build by integrating it one time and takingthe first and the second lag into account with moving average terms. The resulting model didreflect white noise in the residuals, however the squared residuals did still correlate, whichindicates heteroscedasticity. Thereafter, events like the introduction of RTL4, the moment ofpermission for commercial broadcasting and the introduction of different commercialchannels were included in the model. All three however seemed to have no effect. Therefore,other (historical) events were also taken into account to see if this dataseries was not affected 6
  9. 9. at all by events. Only the second oil crisis seemed to affect peoples’ political preferences.Most events however are unlikely to influence the average political preference on a left-rightdimension; the media developments did not achieve it and also most historical events did nothave an effect.Table 4. Influence on historical events on the mean score on a political left-right dimension over time. Historical events modelConstant -.000 (.000)MA(1) -.767 (.026)**MA(2) -.091 (.026)**Introduction different TV channels .009 (.016)Train hijack -.025 (.054)Second oil crisis .036 (0.015)*European elections .014 (.017)Fall of Iron Curtain .022 (.027)Bolkestein’s speech .020 (.298)Srebrenica .013 (.036)Ljung-Box Q(20) residuals 21.43Ljung-Box Q(20) residuals² 101.81**AIC -3575.97BIC -3519.77Note. Unstandardized coefficients. Standard errors in parentheses; *p<0.05, ** p<.001ReferencesAarts, K., & Semetko, H. A. (2003). The divided electorate: Media use and political involvement. The Journal of Politics, 65(3), 759-784.Curran, J., Iyengar, S., Brink Lund, A., & Salovaara-Moring, I. (2009). Media system, public knowledge and democracy. European Journal of Communication, 24(1), 5-26.Davies, G. (1999). The Future Funding of the BBC. Report of the Independent Review Panel to Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Retrieved on November 23, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/bbc_funding_review/reviewco.pdfDellaVigna, S. & Kaplan, E. (2007). The Fox News effect: Media bias and voting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1187-1234.McCleary, R., & Hay, R. (1980). Applied Time Series Analysis for the Social Sciences. London: Sage.Vliegenthart, R. (n.d.). Moving up. Applying aggregate level time series analysis in communication science. Unpublished manuscript. 7
  10. 10. Appendix 1: Do file* declare data to be time seriesreplace nr = nr + 766 + 52 + 52tsset nr, weekly* making differencesgen dleftright=leftright - l.leftright* graphictwoway (tsline leftright, lcolor(black))* 3 tests for stationarity, 1)without constant=random walk without drift,2)normal ADF: random walk with drift, 3) ADF trend: random walk with driftand trenddfuller leftright, noconstantdfuller leftrightdfuller leftright, trendtwoway (tsline d.leftright, lcolor(black))dfuller d.leftright, noconstantdfuller d.leftrightdfuller d.leftright, trend* arima modelac leftrightpac leftrightac d.leftrightpac d.leftrightarima d.leftright, ma(1,2)estat icpredict r, reswntestq r, lags(20)gen r_s=r*rwntestq r_s, lags(20)ac rpac rac r_spac r_sdrop r r_s* create intervention for RTL. eerste uitzending was op 2 oktober 1989 =week 40gen RTL=0replace RTL = 1 if nr>1520*Veronicagen veronica=0replace veronica = 1 if nr>1825*rtl5 2 oktober 1993gen rtl5=0replace rtl5 = 1 if nr>1725*sbs6 28 augustus 1995gen sbs6=0 i
  11. 11. replace sbs6 = 1 if nr>1823*Media developmentgen media = RTL+ veronica+ rtl5+ sbs6*in 1992 werden binnenlandse commerciële omroepen toegestaangen comm=0replace comm = 1 if nr>1635*EU elections 1979,1984, 1989,1994,1999gen euelect=0replace euelect = 1 if nr>=991 & nr<=993replace euelect = 1 if nr>=1245 & nr<=1247replace euelect = 1 if nr>=1502 & nr<=1504replace euelect = 1 if nr>=1759 & nr<=1761replace euelect = 1 if nr>=2016 & nr<=2018*Fall of iron curtain starting in Poland, then berlin wall, untill and of1989, minus christmas weeksgen IronCurtain=0replace IronCurtain = 1 if nr>=1493 & nr<=1529*Bolkestein 6 september 1991gen bolkestein=0replace bolkestein= 1 if nr==1618*Molukse acties: Treinkaping bij De Punt 23 mei (21)-11 juni 1977(23)gen moluk=0replace moluk= 1 if nr>=904 & nr<=906*2e oliecrisis: March 26 1979 (13): OPEC makes full 14.5 percent priceincrease for 1979 effective on April 1*December 1980 (48): Collapse of OPECs pricing structure. Saudis use $32per barrel marker, others use $36 per barrel benchmark.gen oil=0replace oil= 1 if nr>=983 & nr<=1067*Srebrenica 11 juli 1995 (28)gen srebrenica=0replace srebrenica= 1 if nr>=1818 & nr<=1828arima d.leftright d.srebrenica, ma(1,2)estat icpredict r, reswntestq r, lags(20)gen r_s = r*rwntestq r_s, lags(20)drop r r_sarima d.leftright d.media d.euelect d.IronCurtain d.bolkestein d.molukd.oil d.srebrenica, ma(1,2)estat icpredict r, reswntestq r, lags(20)gen r_s = r*rwntestq r_s, lags(20)drop r r_s ii

×