Politische Soziologie der Bundesrepublik - kai-arzheimer.com · die Politik I Annahmen I Parteien...

Wahlverhalten in der Bundesrepublik

Politische Soziologie der Bundesrepublik

https://www.kai-arzheimer.com/vorlesung-politische-soziologie-der-brd/

Wiederholung/UberblickIdeologie(n)

Politische Ideologien/Kognitionen in DZusammenfassung

Wahrnehmung der Parteien durch die Burger 2017 (MDS)

cdu

csuspdfdp

linke

gruene

afd

-.4

-.2

0

.2

.4

Dim

ensi

on 2

-.4 -.2 0 .2 .4Dimension 1

Region: West

cducsu

spd

fdp

linke

gruene

afd

-.4

-.2

0

.2

.4

Dim

ensi

on 2

-.4 -.2 0 .2 .4Dimension 1

Region: Ost

Politische Soziologie der Bundesrepublik Ideologie/politische Kognition (17/22)

Wiederholung/UberblickModelle des Wahlverhaltens

Wahlverhalten in DeutschlandZusammenfassung


Soziologische AnsatzeDer mikrosoziologische AnsatzDer makro-soziologische Ansatz

Der sozial-psychologische AnsatzRational-Choice Erklarungen


Politische Soziologie der Bundesrepublik Wahlverhalten (1/23)




Wiederholung:

I Extremismus: Phanomen auf der Einstellungsebene

I Im engeren Sinne extremistisches Verhalten (Pogrome,Rebellion etc.): Hochkostensituation

I Wahlverhalten (zugunsten extremistischer oder andererParteien): Niedrigkostensituation





Literatur fur heute

I Schoen, 2008

I Falter und Schoen, 2014





Uberblick: Wahlverhalten in der Bundesrepublik

I GegenstandI WahlbeteiligungI Wahlentscheidung

I Warum wahlen?

I 3/4 große Ansatze + jede Menge anderer Erklarungen





Soziologische AnsatzeDer sozial-psychologische AnsatzRational-Choice Erklarungen

Seit wann gibt es Theorien des Wahlverhaltens?

I Freie Wahlen mit massenhafter Beteiligung seit Ende 19.Jahrhundert / nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg

I Eklektische, induktive Theorien

I Fruher Versuch: Wahlgeographie (Siegfried) zu Beginn des 20.Jahrhunderts

I Systematische Theorientwicklung ab Mitte 20. Jahrhundert






Zentrale Theoriebausteine

I (Werte)

I Normen

I Rollen

I Gruppen und Sanktionen

I Begrunder konstruierten Modell induktiv

I Wenig Platz fur rationale Uberlegungen






Annahmen/Befunde

I Hauptwerke: Lazarsfeld, Berelson und Gaudet, 1944; Berelson,Lazarsfeld und McPhee, 1954

I Lokale multi-method Panelstudien zu amerikanischenPrasidentschaftswahlkampfen in 40er Jahren

I Soziale Kreise und”index of political predisposition“:

”A

person thinks, politically, as he is, socially“ (Lazarsfeld,Berelson und Gaudet, 1944, S. 27)

I”People who work or live or play together are likely to vote for

the same candidate“ (137)I cross-pressure: widerspruchliche soziale Erwartungen

I Spate WahlentscheidungI WechselwahlI Nichtwahl

I Woher kommen Wahlnormen?






Recap: Lipset/Rokkan

I Eher eine Theorie des Parteienwettbewerbs als eine Theoriedes Wahlverhaltens?

I Liefert Begrundung fur Entstehung von Wahlnormen, laßtMikro-Ebene unbeleuchtet

I (Lepsius, 1973 [1966])

I Kombination von Mikro- und Makro-soziologischem Ansatzdenkbar und moglich

I Wie erklart man (individuelle) Veranderungen imWahlverhalten?






Das Ann-Arbor-Modell

I Vaterfigur: Angus Campbell

I Plus Warren E. Miller, (Philip Converse, Donald E. Stokes):Campbell, Gurin und Miller, 1954

I Nationale standardisierte Interviews in den 50er Jahren

I Trias von Einstellungen: Parteiidentifikation,Kandidatenorientierungen, Sachorientierungen

I Kritik: Psychologismus, Tautologie: woher kommenEinstellungen

I Neues Modell: Campbell, Converse u. a., 1960






Der”Funnel of Causality“






Das (erweiterte) Modell

Kandidaten-orientierung

Partei-identifikation

Wahl-entscheidung

Themen-orientierung

langfristigeFaktoren






Das ((stark) erweiterte) Modell






Ubertragbarkeit auf Deutschland

I”Generally speaking . . .“

I Langliche Diskussion wahrend 70er Jahre

I Lose organisierte amerikanische Parteien vs. sozialstrukturellverankerte deutsche Mitgliederorganisationen

I Standardfrage:”Viele Leute in der Bundesrepublik neigen

langere Zeit einer bestimmten politischen Partei zu, obwohlsie auch ab und zu einmal eine andere Partei wahlen. Wie istdas bei Ihnen . . .“

I Falter, 1977






Downs und die Folgen

I Anthony Downs, 1957: Anwendung okonomischer Theorie aufdie Politik

I AnnahmenI Parteien nur an Machterwerb interessiertI Wahler nur an Einkommen aus Regierungstatigkeit interessiertI Raumliche Verteilung von Praferenzen/Angeboten

I Wird interessanter, wenn Annahme vollstandiger Informationaufgegeben wird

I Kann Wahlbeteiligung nicht erklaren

I Wozu?






Modelle vs. Theorien

I Reines Modell:”Als ob“ und

”Was ware wenn“ → Illustriert,

wie (und warum) sich reales Verhalten von einem einfachenModell unterscheidet

I Hochkosten vs. NiedrigkostensituationenI Verhalten von Burgern vs. Verhalten von Parteien

I Rational Choice-TheorienI

”Weiche/weite“ Varianten:

”voting is like cheering in a football

match (Brennan und Lomasky, 1993)I Konzentration auf issue voting (economic voting)I Kompatibilitat bzw. Neu-Interpretation von Ann-Arbor

(”Revisionismus“, Fiorina, 1977)

I Wichtige Erganzung, aber keine Erklarung vonWahlbeteiligung





Wahlnormen

I Wahlbeteiligungsnorm (”Wahlen ist Burgerpflicht“) mit

Abstand bester Pradikator fur Wahlbeteiligung

I Außerdem: soziale Integration (Meso- und Mikro-Effekte)

I Wahlnorm auf dem Ruckzug (Kohorteneffekte)

I Junge Menschen weniger integriert

I Tendentiell weiter sinkende Wahlbeteiligung, vor allem beiNebenwahlen





Dealignment

I Bindungen primar auf (ehemalige) Großparteien + evtl.(fruhere) PDS bezogen

I Schrumpfen der traditionellen Milieus (Makro-Effekt)

I Verlust individueller Bindungen (Mikro-Effekt)

I Langsamer und erratischer Prozeß

I Netto-Verlust ca. 0.7 bis Ende der 1990er JahreProzentpunkte Parteigebundene pro Jahr (Westdeutschland)





Dealignment

5464

7484

Per

cent

Iden

tifier

s

1975m1 1980m1 1985m1 1990m1 1995m1 2000m1

monthly samples lowess smoother (bw=0.8)

symbols scaled proportional to sample size





Dealignment

SPD

Union

Andere Parteien

gesamt

020

40

60

80

100

Ante

il m

it P

I fü

r...

1980m1 1990m1 2000m1 2010m1





Aber . . .

I ± 2/3 der Wahlberechtigten haben Parteiidentifikation

I Selbst bei negativer Bewertung von Themen/Kandidatenstimmen mehr als 80% der Parteianhanger fur ihre Partei

I Eher Nichtwahl,”Protestwahl“ oder Wahl eines potentiellen

Koalitionspartners als Wahl der”anderen“

I Wahlverhalten innerhalb der Lager relativ stabilI Trotz schwindender Milieus

I Immer noch relativ enge Beziehungen zwischenGewerkschaften/SPD bzw. Kirchen/Union

I Trotz sinkender Mitgliederzahlen starke institutionelle Stellungvon Kirchen/Gewerkschaften





Update: Dealignment 1977-2012

45

50

55

60

65

% P

I

1990m1 1995m1 2000m1 2005m1 2010m1 2015m1

OstdeutschlandPolitische Soziologie der Bundesrepublik Wahlverhalten (17/23)





60

65

70

75

80

85

% P

I

1980m1 1990m1 2000m1 2010m1

WestdeutschlandPolitische Soziologie der Bundesrepublik Wahlverhalten (17/23)





60

65

70

75

80

% P

I

1980m1 1990m1 2000m1 2010m1

Westdeutschland (geglattet)Politische Soziologie der Bundesrepublik Wahlverhalten (17/23)





60

65

70

75

80

% P

I

1980m1 1990m1 2000m1 2010m1

Educ: low Educ: high

Westdeutschland (geglattet, nach Bildung)Politische Soziologie der Bundesrepublik Wahlverhalten (17/23)





50

60

70

80

% P

I

1980m1 1990m1 2000m1 2010m1

Age: 18−34 Age: 35−59 Age: 60−

Westdeutschland (geglattet, nach Alter)Politische Soziologie der Bundesrepublik Wahlverhalten (17/23)




Andere langfristige Determinanten

I Wertorientierungen: Materialisten vs. Postmaterialisten

I Ideologien: okonomischer Liberalismus vs.Egalitarismus/Solidaritat; Sozialismus

I Regionale Verankerung





BTWs 1990-2017: Ost-West-Unterschiede

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

14

16

18

20

1990 2000 2010

Jahr

Inde

x






Stimmenanteil Linkspartei 2013Politische Soziologie der Bundesrepublik Wahlverhalten (19/23)





●●

●●●

●

●●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●●●

●

●

●●●●●●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●●

●●●●●●

●

●●●

●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●●

●●●●●

●●●●●●

●●●●●●

●●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●

●●

●

●●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●●●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●●

●●

●

●●●●●●

●

●●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●●●●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●●●

●

●●●●●●

●

●●●

●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●●●●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●

●●●

●●●●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●

●●

●●●

●●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●

●●●●●

●●●●●●

●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●●●

●●●●●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●

●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●

●●●●●●

●●●●●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●●

●

●●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●●●

●●

●●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●

●●●

●

●●●

●●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●●

●

●●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●●●●●●●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●

●

●●●

●●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●●

●●●●

●

●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●

●●●

●

●●●●●●●●

●●

●

●●●●●●●●

●●●●

●●●●●●●

●●●●●

●

●

●●●●●

●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●●●●

●

●●●

●●●

●

●●

●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●●

●●●●●

●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●

●●

●

●

●●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●●●●●

●

●●●●

●

●●●●●●

●●

●

●

●●●●●

●

●●●●●

●●●●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●

●●●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●●●

●●

●

●

●●

●●●●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●●●

●●●●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●●

●●●●●●●●●●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●

●

●●●●

●

●●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●●

●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●●

●●●

●

●●●●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●

●●

●●●

●

●●●●

●

●●●●●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●●●●

●

●●●●

●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●●●●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●●

●

●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●●●

●

●●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●●●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●●

●

●

●●●●

●●

●

●

●●●●

●●●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●●

●

●

●●

●●●

●●●

●●

●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●●●●

●●

●

●

●●

●●●●●●●●

●

●●

●

●●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●●●●●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●

●●●●●●

●●●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●●●●●●●●

●●

●

●●●●

●

●●

●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●●

●●●

●

●●●

●●●

●

●●●●●

●●●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●●

●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●●

●●●●●●●

●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●

●●

●●●●●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●●●●●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●

●●●

●

●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●●●●●●●

●●

●

●●

●●●●●

●

●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●●

●●●●●

●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●●●●●●●●

●

●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●

●●●●

●●●

●●

●

●

●●●●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●●●

●

●●●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●●●●●●●

●●●●●●●

●

●●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●●●

●●●●●

●

●

●●●

●●●●

●

●●●

●●

●

●●

●●●

●●●●●●

●●●●●●●

●●●●●

●●●●●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●

●

●●

●

●●

●●●●

●

●●●●●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●

●

●●●

●●●

●

●

●●●●●●

●

●●

●●

●●●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●

●●

●●●●●●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●

●●

●

●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●

●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●●●

●●●

●

●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●

●●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●●●●●●●

●

●

●●

●●●

●●●●●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●●●●●●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●●●

●

●●●

●●●●●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●

●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●●

●●

●●●●●●●

●●

●●

●●●

●●

●●

●●●●●●●

●

●

●●●●

●

●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●●●●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●●●

●●

●

●●

●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●●●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●●●●●●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●●●●

●

●●●●●●

●

●●

●●●●

●●●●●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●

●

●●●●●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●●●●●●

●●●●●

●

●

●●●

●●●●

●●

●

●

●●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●●●

●

●

●●●●●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●

●

●●●●●

●

●●●

●●●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●●

●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●

●

●●●●●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●●●

●

●

●●●●●●

●●

●●

●

●

●●●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●●●●

●●

●

●

●●●●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●●

●

●●●●●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●●

●●

●●●●●●●●●●●

●●●

●●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●●

●

●●●

●●●

●●●●●

●●●●

●●

●

●

●●

●●●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●

●●●

●●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●●●●

●●●

●●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●●●●●●

●

●●●●

●

●●●

●●●

●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●●●●

●●

West Ost

RP BY HB BW NI HE NW HH SH SL BE TH MV BB ST SN

0

10

20

30

40

Pro

zent

(W

ahlb

erec

htig

te)

Partei

AfD

Linke






● ●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●●

●

●●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

● ●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●●●

48°N

50°N

52°N

54°N

6°E 8°E 10°E 12°E 14°E





Zusammenfassung

I Wahlverhalten theoretisch relativ gut aufgearbeitet undempirisch sehr gut erforscht

I Trotzdem große individuelle”Fehlervarianzen“

I Niedrigkostensituation

I (Noch) relativ klare Zusammenhange, aber (seit Jahrzehntenandauernde) Auflosungsprozesse



Literatur

Literatur I

Berelson, Bernard, Paul F. Lazarsfeld und William N. McPhee(1954). Voting. A Study of Opinion Formation in a PresidentialCampaign. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Brennan, Geoffrey und Loren Lomasky (1993). Democracy andDecision. The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference. Cambridge,New York: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse u. a. (1960). The AmericanVoter. New York: John Wiley.

Campbell, Angus, Gerald Gurin und Warren E. Miller (1954). TheVoter Decides. Evanston: Harper und Row.

Downs, Anthony (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy.New York: Harper.



Literatur

Literatur II

Falter, Jurgen W. (1977). “Zur Validierung theoretischerKonstrukte - Wissenschaftstheoretische Aspekte desValidierungskonzepts”. In: Zeitschrift fur Soziologie 6,S. 349–369.

Falter, Jurgen W. und Harald Schoen, Hrsg. (2014). HandbuchWahlforschung. 2. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Fiorina, Morris P. (1977). “An Outline for a Model of PartyChoice”. In: American Journal of Political Science 21.3,S. 601–625.

Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Bernard Berelson und Hazel Gaudet (1944).The People’s Choice. How the Voter Makes up His Mind in aPresidential Campaign. Chicago: Columbia University Press.



Literatur

Literatur III

Lepsius, M. Rainer (1973 [1966]). “Parteiensystem undSozialstruktur: Zum Problem der Demokratisierung derdeutschen Gesellschaft”. In: Deutsche Parteien vor 1918.Hrsg. von Gerhard A. Ritter. Koln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch,S. 56–80.

Schoen, Harald (2008). “Wahlsoziologie”. In: PolitischeSoziologie. Ein Studienbuch. Hrsg. von Viktoria Kaina undAndrea Rommele. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, S. 181–208.



Politische Soziologie der Bundesrepublik - kai-arzheimer.com · die Politik I Annahmen I Parteien...

Documents

Transcript of Politische Soziologie der Bundesrepublik - kai-arzheimer.com · die Politik I Annahmen I Parteien...