Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel Study,

ICPSR Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research

Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel Study, 1989–1994

H. Anker and E.V. Oppenhuis ICPSR 6741

DUTCH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION PANEL STUDY, 1989-1994 (ICPSR 6741)

Principal Investigators H. Anker University of Nijmegen and E.V. Oppenhuis University of Amsterdam

Second ICPSR Version September 1997

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION

Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is:

Anker, H., and E.V. Oppenhuis. DUTCH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION PANEL STUDY, 1989-1994 [Computer file]. 2nd ICPSR version. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Dutch Electoral Research Foundation/Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics [producers], 1995. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Steinmetz Archive/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], 1997.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON USE OF ICPSR RESOURCES To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Please indicate in a cover letter which data were used.

DATA DISCLAIMER The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

DATA COLLECTION DESCRIPTION

H. Anker and E.V. Oppenhuis DUTCH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION PANEL STUDY, 1989-1994 (ICPSR 6741) SUMMARY: The Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel Study, 1989-1994, was conducted within the framework of the Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies. The survey was administered in three waves, one before and one after the election in 1989, and the third following the election in 1994. In the first wave, respondents provided information on their interest in politics; what they considered the most important national problem; how they intended to vote in the upcoming election; political party membership and affiliation; attitudes toward government policies and officials; opinions on political and social issues such as abortion, nuclear energy, income differences, and environmental pollution; and a variety of personal and demographic characteristics. Many first-wave items were repeated in the second and third waves. For these third waves, respondents also reported the name of the party they had voted for in the election and their reasons for doing so. Other variables recorded voter perceptions of the stance of various political parties on issues such as euthanasia, nuclear weapons, and economic concerns; voter knowledge of national politicians; rating of political parties based on a 10-point left-right scale; attitudes toward politics and the effectiveness of government; union membership; and opinions on European unification. Respondents were also asked to describe how they would participate in the governing process if they thought that the Second Chamber of Parliament was about to consider a bill that the voter thought unjust and, in addition, to state which national goals should receive the highest priority. UNIVERSE: Members of the Dutch electorate at the time of and 1994 parliamentary elections.

the

1989

SAMPLING: A sample of 4,000 households was drawn from the Geographic Base Register, which is based to a large extent on the national mail delivery register of the Netherlands. From all eligible citizens within each household, one person was randomly selected by interviewing the person whose birthday was first. No substitution by another person was allowed in the case of refusal, no-contact, or other factors precluding an interview. NOTE: (1) The data file contains string variables that are 255 characters long. Due to SAS limitations, these variables were split in the SAS data definition statements. As a result, 491 variables

are identified in the SAS data definition statements. (2) For documentation on the first two waves of this survey, users must refer to the codebook for DUTCH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION STUDY, 1989 (ICPSR 9950). (3) The data collection instruments are in Dutch. (4) The codebook, data collection instruments, and frequencies are provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet. EXTENT OF COLLECTION: 1 data file + machine-readable documentation (PDF) + SAS data definition statements + SPSS data definition statements EXTENT OF PROCESSING: DDEF.ICPSR/ REFORM.DATA/ REFORM.DOC/ FREQ.PR DATA FORMAT: Logical Record Length with definition statements and SPSS export file

SAS

and

SPSS

data

File Structure: rectangular Cases: 1,754 Variables: 488 Record Length: 1,777 Records Per Case: 1 RELATED PUBLICATIONS: Anker, H., and E.V. Oppenhuis. DUTCH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION STUDY, 1994. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC, 1995. Anker, H., and E.V. Oppenhuis. DUTCH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION STUDY, 1989. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC, 1993. Van Holsteyn. HET WOORD IS AAN DE KIEZER. EEN BESCHOUWING OVER VERKIEZINGEN EN STEMGEDRAG AAN DE HAND VAN OPEN VRAGEN. Leiden, the Netherlands: DSWO-Press, 1994.

Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel-Study 1989-1994

H. Anker E.V. Oppenhuis

Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel-Study 1989-1994

DEZE (LINKER) PAGINA MET OPZET WIT GELATEN

Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel-Study 1989-1994 An enterprise of the Dutch Political Science Community

H. Anker E.V. Oppenhuis

Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC Dutch Electoral Research Foundation (SKON)

CIP-DATA KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, THE HAGUE

Anker, H. Dutch parliamentary election panel study 1989-1994 : an enterprise of the Dutch political science community / H. Anker, E.V. Oppenhuis. - Amsterdam : Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC ; Dutch Electoral Research Foundation (SKON). - (Steinmetz archive codebook ; P1209) ISBN 90 71684 42 3 Subject headings: parliamentary elections ; The Netherlands ; 1989-1994. © Stichting Kiezersonderzoek Nederland (SKON) 1995 No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Published by Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC Printed and bound in the Netherlands STEINMETZ ARCHIVE/SWIDOC, HERENGRACHT 410-412, 1017 BX AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ASSISTANCE All manuscripts utilizing the data documented in this codebook should identify the original collectors of the data. All users are urged to include some adaptation of the following statement in their publication (the brackets indicate items which can be inserted or deleted as appropriate): The data [and tabulations] utilized in this [publication] were originally collected for the Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel-Study 1989-1994 by the Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics, in close cooperation with the Dutch Electoral Research Foundation (SKON). This study has been made possible by grants from the Ministry of Health and Sport (formerly the Ministry of Health and Culture), the Ministry of the Interior, the Social and Cultural Planning Office, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), and the Departments of Political Science of the University of Amsterdam and the University of Nijmegen. The original collectors of the data do not bear any responsibility for the analyses or interpretations published here. The data file has been prepared and documented by SKON, with the assistance of CBS. The data are distributed by Steinmetz Archive, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. In order to provide the funding agencies with essential information about the use of the data that have been collected with their assistance, each user of the data is expected to send two copies of each completed manuscript to the distributor of the data: Steinmetz Archive Herengracht 410-412 1017 BX Amsterdam The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] phone: +31206225061 fax: +31206238374


CONTENTS Part 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

General information Introduction Funding Study design Organization Sampling information Response and nonresponse Data processing Data files

Part 2 2.1 2.2 2.3

Documentation of variables Variable description list Guide to documentation of variables Documentation of variables wave 3

Part 3 3.1 3.2 3.3

Questionnaires wave 3 Introduction Questionnaire wave 3 Showcards wave 3

101 103 105 128

Construction of scale scores Most important national problems Motivation for party choice Motivation for not voting Dutch politicians Comparability of questions within the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd wave Outcome of the 1989 and 1994 parliamentary elections Information about other Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies

135 137 142 159 164 166 167 169 173

Appendices Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Appendix 8

References

1 3 3 3 4 5 6 8 9 11 13 30 33

175


PART 1

GENERAL INFORMATION


GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Introduction The Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel-Study 1989-1994 is a long-term election panel study, and was conducted within the framework of the Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies. For this study, respondents who participated in both waves of the 'regular' 1989 Dutch Parliamentary Election Study were interviewed one more time in 1994. This codebook provides information about the organization and design of the Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel-Study 1989-1994 and about the contents of the data file. Due to a number of practical considerations, this codebook does not contain all available information pertaining to the 1989-1994 panel study. Most of the information on the first two waves of interviews has already been documented in the codebook of the 'regular' 1989 Dutch Parliamentary Election Study (Anker and Oppenhuis 1993). To save space and, hence, to limit costs, this information has not been duplicated in this codebook. In a number of cases, therefore, it may be necessary to consult the codebook of the original 1989 study. This codebook can be obtained from Steinmetz Archive. The current codebook has been divided into four parts. The first part contains all relevant information about the general aspects of the study, such as funding, fieldwork, nonresponse, and data processing. The second part contains all panel-relevant information about the variables in the data file, such as variable numbers, variable labels, frequency distributions, English language question texts, and coding of missing values. The third part contains reproductions of the (electronic) questionnaire and the showcards used for the third wave of interviews. Finally, the fourth and last part consists of eight appendices with additional information on either specific variables included in the data file or on contextual aspects of the study.

1.2 Funding The Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1994 has been made possible by grants from the Ministry of Health and Sport (formerly the Ministry of Health and Culture), the Ministry of the Interior, the Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP) and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Additional personnel as well as computing and printing facilities were contributed by the Department of Political Science (PSCW) of the University of Amsterdam and by the Department of Political Science of the University of Nijmegen.

1.3 Study design The 1989-1994 panel study has been designed as a three wave panel study, and was carried out on the basis of a representative sample of the Dutch electorate at the time of the 1989 parliamentary elections. Panel attrition is cumulative, implying that respondents who did not participate in preceding waves of interviews were not approached for any of the following waves. 3

GENERAL INFORMATION

The first wave of interviews was conducted prior to the 1989 election in the period from July 15 until September 5 (one day before the election). The second wave of interviews started on September 9 (three days after the election) and continued through November 13. The third and final wave of interviews started on May 9, 1994 (six days after the 1994 election) and continued through June 29. The principal goal of the 1989-1994 panel study is to enable comparative research into the parliamentary elections of 1989 and 1994. From this perspective, the study best can be viewed to consist of two separate components: a 1989-component and a 1994-component. The first component runs parallel to the first two waves of interviews, which were both conducted in 1989, and which represent the familiar format of a short-term panel with mostly different questions. The second component runs parallel to the third wave of interviews, which were conducted in 1994. This wave of interviews contains a large number of questions which can be viewed as replications of questions asked in the first two waves of interviews. In addition, the third wave also contains a smaller number of 'stand alone' questions.

1.4 Organization The fieldwork of the Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel-Study 1989-1994 was carried out by the Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). The interviews were conducted by CBS's own corps of interviewers. The interviews were conducted by means of notebook computers. For all three waves, the interviewers were instructed by means of special meetings in which they were informed about specific aspects of the study, in particular the design and the contents of the questionnaires. After these meetings, the interviewers received printed instructions, which summarized the most important points of both meetings. About one week before the fieldwork started, the interviewers received the electronic questionnaires. This gave the interviewers enough time to familiarize themselves with the questionnaires by administering them to friends or relatives, or by filling them out personally. The questionnaires of the first two waves of interviews were designed by the board of the Dutch Electoral Research Foundation, abbreviated as SKON (Stichting Kiezersonderzoek Nederland). SKON is the formal successor of the interuniversity workgroups that were responsible for the Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies in the 1971-1989 period. At the time of the 1989 study, the board of SKON consisted of prof. dr. J.J.A. Thomassen (University of Twente, Chair), dr. B. Niemöller (University of Amsterdam, Secretary and Treasurer), dr. J.W. van Deth (University of Twente), dr. C. van der Eijk (University of Amsterdam), and prof. G.A. Irwin Ph.D. (University of Leiden). The questionnaires for the third wave of interviews were designed by a core group of electoral researchers under the responsibility of the board of SKON. At the time of the 1994 study, the board of SKON consisted of: prof. dr. J.J.A. Thomassen (University of Twente, Chair), dr. B. 4

GENERAL INFORMATION

Niemöller (University of Amsterdam, Secretary and Treasurer), prof. dr. J.W. van Deth (University of Nijmegen), prof. dr. C. van der Eijk (University of Amsterdam), prof. G.A. Irwin Ph.D. (University of Leiden), dr. C.W.A.M. Aarts (University of Twente), and dr. H. Anker (University of Nijmegen). The core group consisted of: dr. C.W.A.M. Aarts (University of Twente), dr. H. Anker (University of Nijmegen), dr. J.J.M. van Holsteyn (University of Leiden), drs. E.V. Oppenhuis (University of Amsterdam), dr. P.C.P.M. Pennings (Free University Amsterdam), and drs. K. Wittebrood (University of Nijmegen). By contract, CBS has the right to add questions to the questionnaires. The organization does so at its own expense and no permission of SKON is needed. In both 1989 and 1994, CBS actually made use of this right by adding several questions to (the end of) the questionnaires. The data obtained from these questions have only been documented if similar information was available in the data file of the 1989 Dutch Parliamentary Election Study (Anker and Oppenhuis 1993).

1.5 Sampling information The original sample for the 1989-1994 panel study is identical to the sample drawn for the 'regular' 1989 Dutch Parliamentary Election Study. This sample was designed in such a way as to represent the Dutch electorate at the time of the 1989 parliamentary elections. The sampling procedure is a two-stage procedure, which starts with a sample of households, after which one eligible citizen per household is randomly selected for interviewing. An extensive discussion of the merits of this procedure vis-a-vis other possibilities has been presented by Van der Eijk, Niemöller, and Eggen (1981); also refer to Van der Eijk and Irwin (1988). The sample of households has been drawn from the Geographic base register (Geografisch basisregister). This is an address register maintained by CBS. This register is based to a large extent on the national mail delivery register (postafgiftepuntenbestand). The sample size has been set at 4,000. To keep travel time and therefore costs within acceptable limits, the minimum number of addresses to be sampled for each municipality in the sample (i.e., the cluster size) has been set at sixteen. Thus, municipalities with more than 30,000 inhabitants were automatically included in the sample, as they contained sixteen or more sampled addresses. A random sample was drawn from the remaining municipalities with less than 30,000 inhabitants. Although most mail delivery points coincide with separate households, occasionally two or more households belong to the same mail delivery point. In such cases, each household (to a maximum of three) was included in the sample. Due to this phenomenon, the 4,000 addresses visited by the interviewers produced a total of 4,054 different households. From all eligible citizens within each household, one person was randomly selected by interviewing the person whose birthday was first. No substitution by another person was allowed in case of refusal, no-contact or other factors precluding an interview.

5

GENERAL INFORMATION

1.6 Response and nonresponse Several actions were taken to increase the response rate for all three waves of interviews. First, a letter of introduction was mailed to all sampled mail delivery points. This letter explained the nature of the study, announced that an interviewer would come along, and contained a telephone number for those persons who would like to have more information about the study. The letter also included the name of the interviewer, his or her telephone number, the intended date of visiting and information about whether the interviewer would show up in the morning, in the afternoon, or in the evening. Second, the interviewers were encouraged to visit the addresses as often as they thought was reasonably possible. The following table contains a summary of the response and nonresponse for the first wave of interviews: Response wave 1: Nonresponse wave 1: refusals respondent too busy illness no contact no reason registered not approached language barrier

1,754

(46.1%)

1,485 23 25 321 111 39 49

(39.0%) (0.6%) (0.7%) (8.4%) (2.9%) (1.0%) (1.3%)

Gross sample:

3,808

Other causes of nonresponse: uninhabited dwelling no eligible citizens Original sample:

))

)))

(100.0%)

177 69

))

4,054

For the second wave of interviews, the numbers are as follows: Response wave 2: Nonresponse wave 2: refusals respondent too busy illness no contact wrong person interviewed

1,506

(85.9%)

170 20 15 37 7

(9.7%) (1.1%) (0.9%) (2.1%) (0.4%)

Number of respondents from wave 1:

1,754

))

)))

(100.0%)

For the third wave of interviews, the numbers are as follows: Response wave 3: Nonresponse wave 3: refusals illness 6

875

(58.1%)

352 22

(23.4%) (1.5%)

GENERAL INFORMATION

no contact moved or deceased language barrier Number of respondents from wave 2:

62 194 1

(4.1%) (12.9%) (0.0%)

1,506

(100.0%)

))

)))

The following tables contain a breakdown of the distribution of nonresponse by various geographical characteristics for both the first and the second wave of interviews. These tables give an impression of the extent to which (non)response is evenly spread over the country. The percentage base used is the number of eligible citizens in the gross sample.

Size of municipality: Category # 5,000 5,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 20,000 20,000 - 50,000 50,000 - 100,000 $ 100,000 Amsterdam Rotterdam The Hague

Gross sample 145 446 531 1,098 501 575 214 169 129

Response wave 1 69 (47.6%) 232 (52.0%) 247 (46.5%) 528 (48.1%) 253 (50.5%) 267 (46.4%) 72 (33.6%) 50 (29.6%) 36 (27.9%)

Response wave 2 57 (39.3%) 204 (45.7%) 215 (40.5%) 461 (42.0%) 219 (43.7%) 225 (39.1%) 54 (25.2%) 41 (24.3%) 30 (23.3%)

Response wave 3 39 (26.9%) 121 (27.1%) 132 (24.9%) 279 (25.4%) 129 (25.7%) 76 (13.2%) 23 (10.7%) 18 (10.7%) 16 (12.4%)

3,808

1,754 (46.1%)

1,506 (39.5%)

875 (23.0%)

Gross sample 414 738 1,352 792 512

Response wave 1 214 (51.7%) 351 (47.6%) 634 (46.9%) 397 (50.1%) 158 (30.9%)

Response wave 2 189 (45.7%) 300 (40.7%) 549 (40.6%) 343 (43.3%) 125 (24.4%)

Response wave 3 104 (25.1%) 181 (24.5%) 380 (28.1%) 211 (26.6%) 57 (11.1%)

3,808

1,754 (46.1%)

1,506 (39.5%)

875 (23.0%)

Gross sample 154 149 111 245 48

Response wave 1 60 (39.0%) 92 (61.7%) 62 (55.9%) 123 (50.2%) 14 (29.2%)

Response wave 2 50 (32.5%) 86 (57.7%) 53 (47.7%) 108 (44.1%) 12 (25.0%)

Response wave 3 27 (17.5%) 49 (32.9%) 28 (25.2%) 61 (24.9%) 10 (20.8%)

))

))

))

))

Region: Category North East West South Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague

))

))

))

))

Province: Category Groningen Friesland Drenthe Overijssel Flevoland

7

GENERAL INFORMATION

Gelderland Utrecht Noord-Holland Zuid-Holland Zeeland Noord-Brabant Limburg

445 270 647 854 93 522 270

))

3,808

214 125 288 344 35 263 134

))

(48.1%) (46.3%) (44.5%) (40.3%) (37.6%) (50.4%) (49.6%)

1,754 (46.1%)

180 110 251 287 26 235 108

))

(40.4%) (40.7%) (38.8%) (33.6%) (28.0%) (45.0%) (40.0%)

1,506 (39.5%)

110 67 141 162 10 148 63

))

(24.7%) (24.8%) (21.8%) (19.0%) (10.8%) (28.4%) (23.3%)

875 (23.0%)

Degree of urbanization (for all practical purposes, the codes run from rural to urbanized; refer to Anker and Oppenhuis (1993, Appendix 9) for a detailed description of the codes): Category A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

Gross sample 122 277 272 540 517 119 298 250 387 514 512

Response wave 1 58 (47.5%) 165 (59.6%) 121 (44.5%) 260 (48.1%) 238 (46.0%) 62 (52.1%) 130 (43.6%) 129 (51.6%) 194 (50.1%) 239 (46.5%) 158 (31.4%)

Response wave 2 49 (41.0%) 148 (53.4%) 102 (37.5%) 219 (40.6%) 206 (39.8%) 55 (46.2%) 117 (39.3%) 115 (46.0%) 165 (42.6%) 205 (39.9%) 125 (24.4%)

Response wave 3 27 (22.1%) 83 (30.0%) 69 (25.4%) 137 (25.4%) 133 (25.7%) 33 (27.7%) 75 (25.2%) 60 (24.0%) 94 (24.3%) 107 (20.8%) 57 (11.1%)

3,808

1,754 (46.1%)

1,506 (39.5%)

875 (23.0%)

))

))

))

))

1.7 Data processing Data processing and data cleaning have been performed by the authors of this codebook, with few exceptions. The coding of the 1989 party choice motivations (refer to Appendix 3) has been performed by drs. J.J.M. van Holsteyn (University of Leiden), while similar codings for 1994 were provided by CBS. The coding of the most important problem responses in the first wave based on the 1986 coding scheme (VAR305 to VAR310) was performed by CBS, in particular drs. J.J.G. Schmeets. CBS also provided the information about response and nonresponse. Incorrect data entries were corrected only if it was possible to establish unequivocally that the interviewer or the coder had made a mistake in recording or coding the answers. If it was obvious that the interviewer had made such a mistake and the correct code could not be established without doubt, the incorrect codes were replaced by missing data codes. The data file contains various extra variables that have been added for the convenience of the analyst. The construction of these additional variables is documented in partly in section 2.3 of this codebook (documentation of variables) and in Appendix 1. 8

GENERAL INFORMATION

The data file has been affected by CBS's policy to prevent the possible identification of individual respondents. Due to this privacy protection policy, some of the variables have been categorized in terms of cruder categories (as compared to previous Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies), while other variables have been excluded from the data file altogether. Refer to Anker and Oppenhuis (1993) for a detailed listing of the affected variables.

1.8 Data files The Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel-Study 1989 is available as a 'public documentation file' (which is documented in this codebook) and as a 'micro file.' The latter differs from the former in that it contains some of the information that CBS considers to be privacy sensitive (refer to Anker and Oppenhuis 1993, Appendix 20, for details). The public documentation file is available without restrictions. Like all previous Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies, the 1989-1994 panel study (the public documentation file) can be obtained from Steinmetz Archive in Amsterdam (the Netherlands) or from the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) in Ann Arbor (United States). Unfortunately, the micro file cannot be accessed by foreign researchers, unless they reside in the Netherlands. The data can be obtained in one of the following formats: - an SPSS export file, containing 1,754 cases and 488 variables. This file is fully labeled, contains missing value definitions, and includes a document text. - a utility file, containing labels for variables and values, and missing value definitions. This utility file contains only normal ASCII code, and thus can also be edited in such a way that it can serve to label a data file in a different format than SPSS. In addition to the data described in this codebook, a small data file exists with 4,054 records, each of which represents one of the cases in the sample of mail delivery points. For each case, the file contains a number of variables by means of which the entire sample history can be reconstructed across the three waves of interviews. This file, however, has not been released by CBS for general use, as it contains information that may possibly lead to the identification of individual respondents. Readers who would like to use this data file should therefore contact CBS directly.

9

GENERAL INFORMATION


10

PART 2

DOCUMENTATION OF VARIABLES


VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST - WAVE 1

2.1 Variable description list VAR001 VAR002 VAR003

Study number Respondent identification number Type of interview record

FIRST WAVE OF INTERVIEWS Political interest and communication VAR004 Reads about national news? VAR005 Talks about national problems? VAR006 Reads about foreign news? VAR007 Interested in politics? VAR008 Political interest score VAR009 Frequency watching tv newscast VAR010 Daily newspaper - first answer VAR011 Daily newspaper - second answer VAR012 Daily newspaper - third answer VAR013 Daily newspaper - fourth answer Most important national problem VAR014 Most important national problem - first answer VAR015 Most important national problem - second answer VAR016 Most important national problem - third answer VAR017 Most important national problem - fourth answer VAR018 Most important national problem - fifth answer Vote intention Second Chamber 1989 VAR019 Intends to vote in 1989 parliamentary elections? VAR020 Vote intention 1989 parliamentary elections VAR021 Vote intention if obliged to vote Party adherence VAR022 Respondent is (not) an adherent to a party VAR023 Party respondent is an adherent to VAR024 Respondent is (not) convinced adherent VAR025 Respondent is not an adherent but attracted to a party VAR026 Party respondent is attracted to VAR027 Strength of adherence VAR028 Direction of adherence

13


Party membership VAR029 Respondent is (not) a member of a party VAR030 Party respondent is a member of VAR031 Has respondent ever been a member of a party? Government policy satisfaction VAR032 Satisfaction with government VAR033 Effect government policy on economic situation VAR034 Effect government policy on employment VAR035 Policy satisfaction score VAR036 Effect government policy on respondent's finances Political issues - abortion VAR037 Abortion - perception of CDA VAR038 Abortion - perception of PvdA VAR039 Abortion - perception of VVD VAR040 Abortion - perception of D66 VAR041 Abortion - respondent's preference Political issues - nuclear energy VAR042 Nuclear plants - perception of CDA VAR043 Nuclear plants - perception of PvdA VAR044 Nuclear plants - perception of VVD VAR045 Nuclear plants - perception of D66 VAR046 Nuclear plants - respondent's preference VAR047 Closing nuclear plants - yes or no? Political issues - differences in income VAR048 Income differences - perception of CDA VAR049 Income differences - perception of PvdA VAR050 Income differences - perception of VVD VAR051 Income differences - perception of D66 VAR052 Income differences - respondent's preference Previous voting behavior VAR053 Did (not) vote in 1989 European elections VAR054 Party voted for in 1989 European elections VAR055 Did (not) vote in 1986 parliamentary elections VAR056 Party voted for in 1986 parliamentary elections

14


Coalition preference VAR057 D66 preferred in cabinet? VAR058 PvdA preferred in cabinet? VAR059 CDA preferred in cabinet? VAR060 VVD preferred in cabinet? VAR061 Preferred government coalition VAR062 Does it matter who are in the coalition? Political issues - environmental pollution VAR063 Commuting expenses no longer deductible VAR064 Should car owners pay for pollution? VAR065 Should agriculture pay for pollution? VAR066 Should industry pay for pollution? Evaluation of cooperation between and within parties VAR067 CDA and VVD - cooperation in past government VAR068 CDA and PvdA - cooperation in future government VAR069 PvdA and VVD - cooperation in future government VAR070 CDA and VVD - cooperation in future government VAR071 Cooperation of politicians within PvdA VAR072 Cooperation of politicians within VVD VAR073 Cooperation of politicians within CDA VAR074 Cooperation of politicians within D66 Evaluation of politicians VAR075 Evaluation of Kok as floor leader VAR076 Evaluation of De Vries as floor leader VAR077 Evaluation of Voorhoeve as floor leader VAR078 Evaluation of Van Mierlo as floor leader VAR079 Evaluation of Lubbers as prime minister VAR080 Evaluation of Korthals Altes as minister VAR081 Evaluation of Deetman as minister VAR082 Evaluation of Nijpels as minister VAR083 Evaluation of Ruding as minister VAR084 Evaluation of De Korte as minister VAR085 Evaluation of Smit-Kroes as minister Left and right in politics VAR086 Left-right selfrating (7 point scale)

15


Political environment during adolescence VAR087 Discussed politics at home when adolescent VAR088 Recalls party preference of father? VAR089 Party preference of father during adolescence VAR090 Recalls party preference of mother? VAR091 Party preference of mother during adolescence Background data VAR092 Age of respondent VAR093 Sex of respondent VAR094 Education of respondent VAR095 Marital status of respondent VAR096 Employment status of respondent VAR097 EGP current occupation of respondent VAR098 EGP former occupation of respondent VAR099 Typology of household composition VAR100 Respondent is (not) head of household VAR101 Education of head of household VAR102 EGP current occupation of head of household VAR103 EGP former occupation of head of household VAR104 Respondent has (not) a partner VAR105 Degree of urbanization VAR106 Region Religion of respondent VAR107 Is respondent religious? VAR108 Religious denomination of respondent VAR109 Other religious denomination of respondent VAR110 Dutch Reformed denomination of respondent VAR111 Calvinist denomination of respondent VAR112 Respondent's attendance of religious services VAR113 Denomination under which respondent was raised VAR114 Other denomination under which respondent was raised Religion of partner VAR115 Religious denomination of partner VAR116 Other religious denomination of partner VAR117 Dutch Reformed denomination of partner VAR118 Calvinist denomination of partner VAR119 Partner's attendance of religious services

16


VAR120 VAR121

Denomination under which partner was raised Other denomination under which partner was raised

Subjective social class VAR122 Social class - self image Income VAR123 VAR124 VAR125 VAR126

Income of respondent's household Respondent has higher income than partner? Health insurance - head of household Is respondent or head of household house owner?

Transportation to work VAR127 Does respondent or partner own a car? VAR128 Distance between respondent's home and work VAR129 Respondent's principal mode of transportation to work VAR130 Distance between head of household's home and work VAR131 Head of household's principal mode of transportation to work Interview information VAR132 Date of first interview (mmdd) VAR133 Start of first interview (hhmmss) VAR134 End of first interview (hhmmss) VAR135 Duration of first interview (hhmmss) VAR136 Present at interview - children under 6 years VAR137 Present at interview - children 6 years and over VAR138 Present at interview - spouse or partner VAR139 Present at interview - other relatives VAR140 Present at interview - other adults VAR141 Presence of disturbing influences VAR142 Disturbing influences - first coding VAR143 Disturbing influences - second coding

17


SECOND WAVE OF INTERVIEWS Interest in campaign VAR144 Reads about campaign news VAR145 Did (not) watch election debate on tv Voting behavior Second Chamber 1989 VAR146 Did (not) vote in 1989 parliamentary elections VAR147 Party voted for in 1989 parliamentary elections VAR148 Party choice - first reason VAR149 Party choice - second reason VAR150 Party choice - third reason VAR151 Party choice - fourth reason VAR152 Party choice - fifth reason VAR153 Did (not) cast preferential vote VAR154 Did cast preferential vote - first reason VAR155 Did cast preferential vote - second reason VAR156 Name of candidate respondent voted for VAR157 Party choice - when decided VAR158 Previous voting behavior of respondent VAR159 Parties previously voted for - first answer VAR160 Parties previously voted for - second answer VAR161 Parties previously voted for - third answer VAR162 Considered not to vote in 1989 VAR163 Did (not) hesitate about party choice VAR164 Party considered as alternative choice VAR165 Did not vote - reason VAR166 Did not vote - when decided VAR167 Preferred party of nonvoters Political issues - euthanasia VAR168 Euthanasia - perception of CDA VAR169 Euthanasia - perception of PvdA VAR170 Euthanasia - perception of VVD VAR171 Euthanasia - perception of D66 VAR172 Euthanasia - respondent's preference Political issues - nuclear weapons VAR173 Nuclear weapons - first item VAR174 Nuclear weapons - second item VAR175 Nuclear weapons - third item VAR176 Nuclear weapons - fourth item 18


VAR177 VAR178 VAR179 VAR180 VAR181 VAR182

Nuclear weapons - fifth item Nuclear weapons attitude score Nuclear weapons - perception of CDA Nuclear weapons - perception of PvdA Nuclear weapons - perception of VVD Nuclear weapons - perception of D66

Political issues - economy VAR183 Reduce deficit or reduce unemployment? Expectations of economic developments VAR184 Expected effect CDA-VVD government on respondent's finances VAR185 Expected effect PvdA-CDA government on respondent's finances VAR186 Expectation general prosperity in 4 years VAR187 Expected effect CDA-VVD government on general prosperity VAR188 Expected effect PvdA-CDA government on general prosperity Political knowledge VAR189 Photo a - Beckers VAR190 Party of Beckers VAR191 Political function of Beckers VAR192 Photo b - Korthals Altes VAR193 Party of Korthals Altes VAR194 Political function of Korthals Altes VAR195 Photo c - Kombrink VAR196 Party of Kombrink VAR197 Political function of Kombrink VAR198 Photo d - De Vries VAR199 Party of De Vries VAR200 Political function of De Vries VAR201 Political knowledge score (4 items) VAR202 Political knowledge score (12 items) Faith in prospective premiers VAR203 Faith in Lubbers as premier VAR204 Faith in Kok as premier VAR205 Faith in Voorhoeve as premier

19


Left and right in politics VAR206 Left-right selfrating (10 point scale) VAR207 Left-right rating of PvdA VAR208 Left-right rating of VVD VAR209 Left-right rating of D66 VAR210 Left-right rating of PPR VAR211 Left-right rating of CPN VAR212 Left-right rating of CDA VAR213 Left-right rating of GroenLinks VAR214 Left-right rating of SGP VAR215 Left-right rating of PSP VAR216 Left-right rating of GPV VAR217 Left-right rating of RPF VAR218 Left-right rating of CD/Centrumpartij Political efficacy VAR219 Political efficacy - first item VAR220 Political efficacy - second item VAR221 Political efficacy - third item VAR222 Political efficacy - fourth item VAR223 Political efficacy score Political cynicism VAR224 Political cynicism - first item VAR225 Political cynicism - second item VAR226 Political cynicism - third item VAR227 Political cynicism score Civic competence and civic political participation VAR228 Chance of acting against unjust bill VAR229 Did (not) contact cabinet ministers VAR230 Did (not) contact member of parliament VAR231 Did (not) sign a petition VAR232 Did (not) try to activate interest group VAR233 Did (not) try to activate radio or tv VAR234 Did (not) try to activate political party VAR235 Did (not) contact mayor or alderman VAR236 Did (not) contact municipal councillor VAR237 Did (not) join civic action group VAR238 Did (not) join demonstration VAR239 Did (not) try to activate newspaper VAR240 Did (not) lodge a complaint VAR241 Did (not) contact department official 20


VAR242 VAR243

Civic participation score Number of campaign activities

Union membership VAR244 Respondent is (not) a member of a union VAR245 Union of which respondent is a member VAR246 Respondent's union affiliated with FNV or CNV VAR247 Other union member in household VAR248 Respondent is (not) a member of professional organization Probability of ever voting for various parties VAR249 Probability of future vote for PvdA VAR250 Probability of future vote for VVD VAR251 Probability of future vote for D66 VAR252 Probability of future vote for PPR VAR253 Probability of future vote for CPN VAR254 Probability of future vote for CDA VAR255 Probability of future vote for GroenLinks VAR256 Probability of future vote for SGP VAR257 Probability of future vote for PSP VAR258 Probability of future vote for GPV VAR259 Probability of future vote for RPF VAR260 Probability of future vote for CD/Centrumpartij Confessional attitude VAR261 Should there be confessional parties? VAR262 Should there be confessional unions? VAR263 Should there be confessional schools? VAR264 Should there be confessional radio or tv? VAR265 Religion is a good guide in politics VAR266 Confessional attitude score Postmaterialism VAR267 Value priorities - first out of four items VAR268 Value priorities - second out of four items VAR269 Value priorities - third out of four items VAR270 Value priorities - fourth out of four items VAR271 Value priorities most important - first answer VAR272 Value priorities most important - second answer VAR273 Value priorities most important - third answer VAR274 Value priorities least important - first answer VAR275 Value priorities least important - second answer VAR276 Value priorities least important - third answer 21


Sympathy scores for politicians VAR277 Sympathy score Lubbers VAR278 Sympathy score Kok VAR279 Sympathy score Voorhoeve VAR280 Sympathy score Van Mierlo VAR281 Sympathy score De Vries VAR282 Sympathy score Korthals Altes VAR283 Sympathy score Deetman VAR284 Sympathy score Nijpels VAR285 Sympathy score Ruding VAR286 Sympathy score De Korte VAR287 Sympathy score Smit-Kroes Egoism and altruism VAR288 Egoism versus altruism - most people VAR289 Egoism versus altruism - selfrating Weighting variables VAR290 Weighting factor wave 1 VAR291 Weighting factor wave 2 VAR292 Weighting factor CBS Interview information VAR293 Date of second interview (mmdd) VAR294 Start of second interview (hhmmss) VAR295 End of second interview (hhmmss) VAR296 Duration of second interview (hhmmss) VAR297 Present at interview - children under 6 years VAR298 Present at interview - children 6 years and over VAR299 Present at interview - spouse or partner VAR300 Present at interview - other relatives VAR301 Present at interview - other adults VAR302 Presence of disturbing influences VAR303 Disturbing influences - first coding VAR304 Disturbing influences - second coding

22


ADDITIONAL VARIABLES - WAVE 1 VAR305 VAR306 VAR307 VAR308 VAR309 VAR310

Verbatim answer most important problem question Most important problem first answer - 1986 code Most important problem second answer - 1986 code Most important problem third answer - 1986 code Most important problem fourth answer - 1986 code Most important problem fifth answer - 1986 code

23


THIRD WAVE OF INTERVIEWS Political interest and communication VAR1001 Reads about national news? VAR1002 Talks about national problems? VAR1003 Reads about foreign news? VAR1004 Interested in politics? VAR1005 Political interest score VAR1006 Frequency watching NOS tv newscast VAR1007 Frequency watching RTL4 tv newscast Most important national problem VAR1008 Most important national problem - first answer VAR1009 Most important national problem - second answer VAR1010 Most important national problem - third answer VAR1011 Most important national problem - fourth answer VAR1012 Most important national problem - fifth answer Interest in campaign VAR1013 Reads about campaign news VAR1014 Did (not) watch election debates on tv Voting behavior Second Chamber 1994 VAR1015 Did (not) vote in 1994 parliamentary elections VAR1016 Party voted for in 1994 parliamentary elections VAR1017 Party choice - first reason VAR1018 Party choice - second reason VAR1019 Party choice - third reason VAR1020 Party choice - fourth reason VAR1021 Party choice - when decided VAR1022 Previous voting behavior of respondent VAR1023 Parties previously voted for - first answer VAR1024 Parties previously voted for - second answer VAR1025 Parties previously voted for - third answer VAR1026 Considered not to vote in 1994 VAR1027 Did (not) hesitate about party choice VAR1028 Party considered as alternative choice VAR1029 Did not vote - reason VAR1030 Did not vote - when decided VAR1031 Preferred party of nonvoters

24


Government policy satisfaction VAR1032 Effect government policy on economic situation VAR1033 Effect government policy on employment VAR1034 Effect government policy on respondent's finances VAR1035 Effect government policy on environment VAR1036 Effect government policy on social welfare VAR1037 Satisfaction with government VAR1038 Policy satisfaction score Political issues - euthanasia VAR1039 Euthanasia - perception of CDA VAR1040 Euthanasia - perception of PvdA VAR1041 Euthanasia - perception of VVD VAR1042 Euthanasia - perception of D66 VAR1043 Euthanasia - respondent's preference Political issues - differences in income VAR1044 Income differences - perception of CDA var1045 Income differences - perception of PvdA VAR1046 Income differences - perception of VVD VAR1047 Income differences - perception of D66 VAR1048 Income differences - respondent's preference Left and right in politics VAR1049 Left-right selfrating (10 point scale) VAR1050 Left-right rating of PvdA VAR1051 Left-right rating of VVD VAR1052 Left-right rating of D66 VAR1053 Left-right rating of CDA VAR1054 Left-right rating of GroenLinks VAR1055 Left-right rating of SGP VAR1056 Left-right rating of GPV VAR1057 Left-right rating of RPF VAR1058 Left-right rating of Centrumdemocraten Expectations of economic developments VAR1059 Expected effect CDA-VVD government respondent's finances VAR1060 Expected effect PvdA-CDA government respondent's finances VAR1061 Expectation general prosperity in 4 years VAR1062 Expected effect CDA-VVD government on general prosperity VAR1063 Expected effect PvdA-CDA government on general prosperity VAR1064 Expected effect PvdA-CDA-D66 government on general prosperity 25


VAR1065 Expected effect CDA-VVD-PvdA government on general prosperity VAR1066 Expected effect PvdA-VVD-D66 government on general prosperity VAR1067 Reduce deficit or reduce unemployment? Evaluations of cooperation in cabinets VAR1068 CDA and PvdA - cooperation in past government VAR1069 PvdA and VVD - cooperation in future government VAR1070 CDA and VVD - cooperation in future government VAR1071 CDA and PvdA - cooperation in future government VAR1072 CDA and PvdA and D66 - cooperation in future government VAR1073 PvdA and VVD and D66 - cooperation in future government VAR1074 CDA and VVD and D66 - cooperation in future government Trait evaluations of politicians VAR1075 Hans van Mierlo: knowledgeable VAR1076 Hans van Mierlo: compassionate VAR1077 Hans van Mierlo: decisive VAR1078 Hans van Mierlo: friendly VAR1079 Hans van Mierlo: honest VAR1080 Hans van Mierlo: leadership qualities VAR1081 Elco Brinkman: knowledgeable VAR1082 Elco Brinkman: compassionate VAR1083 Elco Brink: decisive VAR1084 Elco Brinkman: friendly VAR1085 Elco Brinkman: honest VAR1086 Elco Brinkman: leadership qualities VAR1087 Wim Kok: knowledgeable VAR1088 Wim Kok: compassionate VAR1089 Wim Kok: decisive VAR1090 Wim Kok: friendly VAR1091 Wim Kok: honest VAR1092 Wim Kok: leadership qualities VAR1093 Frits Bolkestein: knowledgeable VAR1094 Frits Bolkestein: compassionate VAR1095 Frits Bolkestein: decisive VAR1096 Frits Bolkestein: friendly VAR1097 Frits Bolkestein: honest VAR1098 Frits Bolkestein: leadership qualities VAR1099 Ruud Lubbers: knowledgeable VAR1100 Ruud Lubbers: compassionate VAR1101 Ruud Lubbers: decisive VAR1102 Ruud Lubbers: friendly VAR1103 Ruud Lubbers: honest 26


VAR1104 VAR1105 VAR1106 VAR1107 VAR1108 VAR1109 VAR1110

Ruud Lubbers: leadership qualities Ideal politician: knowledgeable Ideal politician: compassionate Ideal politician: decisive Ideal politician: friendly Ideal politician: honest Ideal politician: leadership qualities

Probability of ever voting for various parties VAR1111 Probability of future vote for PvdA VAR1112 Probability of future vote for VVD VAR1113 Probability of future vote for D66 VAR1114 Probability of future vote for CDA VAR1115 Probability of future vote for GroenLinks VAR1116 Probability of future vote for SGP VAR1117 Probability of future vote for GPV VAR1118 Probability of future vote for RPF VAR1119 Probability of future vote for Centrumdemocraten Postmaterialism VAR1120 Value priorities - first out of four items VAR1121 Value priorities - second out of four items VAR1122 Value priorities - third out of four items VAR1123 Value priorities - fourth out of four items VAR1124 Value priorities most important - first answer VAR1125 Value priorities most important - second answer VAR1126 Value priorities most important - third answer VAR1127 Value priorities least important - first answer VAR1128 Value priorities least important - second answer VAR1129 Value priorities least important - third answer Political efficacy VAR1130 Political efficacy - first item VAR1131 Political efficacy - second item VAR1132 Political efficacy - third item VAR1133 Political efficacy - fourth item VAR1134 Political efficacy score Political cynicism VAR1135 Political cynicism - first item VAR1136 Political cynicism - second item VAR1137 Political cynicism - third item VAR1138 Political cynicism score 27


Environment: preferences and intended behavior VAR1139 Environmental pollution - first preference VAR1140 Environmental pollution - second preference VAR1141 Environmental pollution - third preference VAR1142 Environmental pollution - fourth preference VAR1143 Relevance time and effort for preference VAR1144 Relevance pollution for preference VAR1145 Time and effort for environment VAR1146 Importance solving environmental pollution VAR1147 Other person's expected behavior VAR1148 Own behavior Civic competence and civic political participation VAR1149 Chance of acting against unjust bill VAR1150 Did (not) contact cabinet ministers VAR1151 Did (not) contact member of parliament VAR1152 Did (not) sign a petition VAR1153 Did (not) try to activate interest group VAR1154 Did (not) try to activate radio or tv VAR1155 Did (not) try to activate political party VAR1156 Did (not) contact mayor or alderman VAR1157 Did (not) contact municipal councillor VAR1158 Did (not) join civic action group VAR1159 Did (not) join demonstration VAR1160 Did (not) try to activate newspaper VAR1161 Did (not) lodge a complaint VAR1162 Did (not) contact department official VAR1163 Civic participation score Interview information VAR1164 Date of third interview (mdd) VAR1165 Start of third interview (hhmmss) VAR1166 End of third interview (hhmmss) VAR1167 Duration of first interview (hmmss) VAR1168 Present at interview - children under 6 years VAR1169 Present at interview - children 6 years and over VAR1170 Present at interview - spouse or partner VAR1171 Present at interview - other relatives VAR1172 Present at interview - other adults VAR1173 Presence of disturbing influences VAR1174 Disturbing influences - first coding VAR1175 Disturbing influences - second coding VAR1176 Verbatim answer most important problem 28


VAR1177 Verbatim answer reason party choice VAR1178 Verbatim answer reason not voting

29

GUIDE TO DOCUMENTATION OF VARIABLES

2.2 Guide to documentation of variables This section serves as a guide to the documentation of variables part of the codebook (section 2.3). It does so by means of a reproduction of one of the variables documented in the codebook, which has been presented below. This reproduction pertains to 'Reads about foreign news?'. It should be emphasized that the panel-component of the data has been the guiding principle for the way in which the variables have been documented. This implies that the 875 respondents who participated in the third wave of interviews are taken as the starting point. For each variable, two kinds of information are provided: first, information on the frequency distributions as measured in 1994, and second, information on the frequency distribution as measured in 1989. The frequency distributions for 1989 pertain to the same 875 respondents who participated in the third wave of interviews. Information on the 'fresh' distributions as measured in the first and/or second wave of interviews can be found in the 'regular' codebook of the 1989 study (Anker and Oppenhuis 1993). It is important to note that, although the information documented here, pertains exclusively to the 875 respondents participating in the third wave, the data file associated with the Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel-Study includes all 1,754 respondents who participated in the first wave of interviews (as such, the data file incorporates the entire original Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1989). All variables in the data file have been documented in the same format. Sixteen different types of information have been distinguished, and the reproduction contains at least one example of all sixteen types. Each type is represented by means of a small printed number followed by a parenthesis. These numbers are not printed in the actual documentation of variables part, but are references to the descriptions that follow these reproductions. VAR1003 1) 4)

QUEST 4 5) MD = GE 8

Reads about foreign news? 2)

VAR006 3)

When there is foreign news in the newspaper, for example about tensions or discussions between different countries, how often do you read such news? 6)

WAVE 1

Showcard 1 used, listing response alternatives. 7) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9.

9)

(nearly) always 10) often now and then seldom or never does not read papers 13)

DK 14) NA INAP (VAR1001,

code 5)

15)

185 240 290 116 1 0 0 43

21.1 27.4 33.1 13.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.9

22.2 28.8 34.9 13.9 0.1 MD MD MD

238 216 270 115 35 0 1 0

27.2 24.7 30.9 13.1 4.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

27.2 24.7 30.9 13.2 4.0 MD MD MD

))

))

))

))

))

))

875

100.0

100.0

875

100.0

100.0

Note: routing was implemented only in the third wave of interviews. 16)

30

11)

12)

8)

GUIDE TO DOCUMENTATION OF VARIABLES - WAVE 3

1.

2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

Variable name, which in this particular case is equal to VAR1003. A variable name is assigned to each of the 488 variables in the data file. The variables in the third wave of interviews are numbered VAR1001 to VAR1178. Variable label used in the data file. In this case, VAR1003 has the label 'Reads about foreign news?' Variable number of the variable with similar information gathered in 1989. If a series of periods is printed, no such variable exists. Question number used in the questionnaire to identify the question by means of which the data for the documented variable were obtained. In this case, the question number is 4. Information about the particular wave in which this question was asked is contained in the header of the page on which the variable is documented (which, in this case, appears to be wave 3). Missing data definition for the documented variable. This definition contains all the values for the documented variable that have been coded as 'missing' in the data file. In this case, all values equal to or greater than 7 have been coded as missing. English translation of original Dutch question text by means of which the data stored in the documented variable have been collected. The original Dutch question text can be retrieved from the facsimiles of the questionnaires presented in Part 3. Additional information about the variable or reference to the place where such information can be found. In this case, the reader is informed that a particular type of showcard was presented. Information about the particular wave (wave 1 or 2) in which this question (or a variant) was asked in the 1989 study. In this case, the information stored in VAR006 was gathered in the first wave of interviews. Code (also known as 'category' or 'value') under which the information has been stored in the data file. All respondents who read (nearly) always about foreign news in the newspaper have been assigned the code '1' on this variable. Labels of the values. In principle, each category has been assigned a different label, unless its meaning is absolutely clear. In this case, the labels are '(nearly) always', 'often', etc. Absolute and relative frequency of occurrence of each code in 1994 (and stored in the data file). In this case, 185 respondents indicated that they (nearly) always read about foreign news in the newspaper. This amounts to 21.1% of all 875 respondents who participated in the third wave of interviews, or to 22.2% of all valid responses; that is, the responses that are not coded as missing data (MD). Analogous information as described under type 11 for 1989. The frequencies only pertain to the information collected for the 875 respondents who also participated in 1994 (refer to Anker and Oppenhuis (1993) for an overview of the frequency distributions for all respondents interviewed). If in 1989 no analogous information was collected, no frequencies are printed and the area is left blank. This is a frequently used label, indicating that no answer has been ascertained. It is used for a 'don't know' response. In this case, there were no respondents who did not know how often they read about foreign news in both 1989 and 1994. This is a frequently used label, indicating that no answer has been ascertained. It is used for all situations in which no response was recorded other than a consequence of routing. 31

GUIDE TO DOCUMENTATION OF VARIABLES

In this case, for none of the respondents no answer has been ascertained in 1994; in 1989 this number was equal to one. 15. This is a frequently used label, indicating 'inappropriate.' This code is assigned when respondents were not presented the question as a consequence of routing. In this case, 43 respondents were not asked this question in 1994 due to routing (the routing path has been indicated by means of the extra information '(VAR1001, code 5)' in the label of the INAP category). In 1989, the number of respondents exluded due to routing was zero. 16. Cautionary remark about the variable. In most cases, these remarks pertain to 'hidden' differences with previous Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies that otherwise would easily be missed. In this case, it contains a warning about a difference in routing.

32

DOCUMENTATION OF VARIABLES - WAVE 3

2.3 Documentation of variables wave 3

VAR1001

Study number ICPSR

VAR002

study number is P1209.

Respondent identification number Respondent identification number ranges from 7202401 to 8309681.

VAR003

Type of interview record 1. 2. 3.

1st interview 1st and 2nd interview 1st, 2nd, and 3rd interview

248 632 875

))

14.1 36.0 49.9

))

14.1 36.0 49.9

))

1,754 100.0 100.0

VAR1001

Reads about national news?

VAR004

QUEST 2 MD = 9

Now a few questions about the news in Dutch newspapers. When there is Dutch news in the newspapers, for example news about governmental problems, how often do you read such news?

WAVE 1

Showcard 1 presented, listing response alternatives. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

(nearly) always often now and then seldom or never does not read papers

259 212 272 89 43

))

29.6 24.2 31.1 10.2 4.9

))

29.6 24.2 31.1 10.2 4.9

))

875 100.0 100.0

301 194 239 106 35

))

34.4 22.2 27.3 12.1 4.0

))

34.4 22.2 27.3 12.1 4.0

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1002

Talks about national problems?

VAR005

QUEST 3

When there is a discussion in a group about such problems in our country, do you generally join the conversation, do you listen with interest, do you not listen, or are you not interested?

WAVE 1

MD = GE 7

1. 2. 3. 7.

joins conversation listens with interest does not listen DK

494 321 60 0

56.5 36.7 6.9 0.0

56.5 36.7 6.9 MD

490 324 60 1

56.0 56.1 37.0 37.0 6.9 6.9 0.1 MD 33


))

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

))

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1003

Reads about foreign news?

VAR006

QUEST 4

When there is foreign news in the newspaper, for example about tensions or discussions between different countries, how often do you read such news?

WAVE 1

MD = GE 8

Showcard 1 used, listing response alternatives. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 9.

(nearly) always often now and then seldom or never does not read papers NA INAP

(VAR1001, code 5)

185 240 290 116 1 0 43

))

21.1 27.4 33.1 13.3 0.1 0.0 4.9

))

22.2 28.8 34.9 13.9 0.1 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

238 216 270 115 35 1 0

))

27.2 24.7 30.9 13.1 4.0 0.1 0

))

27.2 24.7 30.9 13.2 4.0 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

Note: routing was implemented only in the third wave of interviews.

VAR1004

Interested in politics?

VAR007

QUEST 5

Are you very interested in political topics, fairly interested or not interested?

WAVE 1

MD =

9

1. 2. 3.

very interested fairly interested not interested

125 627 123

))

14.3 71.7 14.1

))

14.3 71.7 14.1

))

875 100.0 100.0

145 579 151

))

16.6 16.6 66.2 66.2 17.3 17.3

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1005

Political interest score

VAR008

QUEST 2-5 MD = 9

Constructed from VAR1001 to VAR1004. Refer to Appendix 1 for a description of the test of unidimensionality and the construction of the score.

WAVE 1

0. 1. 2. 3. 4.

low

high

44 355 239 157 80

))

5.0 40.6 27.3 17.9 9.1

))

5.0 40.6 27.3 17.9 9.1

))

875 100.0 100.0

34

48 329 203 201 94

))

5.5 37.6 23.2 23.0 10.7

))

5.5 37.6 23.2 23.0 10.7

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1006

Frequency watching NOS tv newscast

VAR009

QUEST 6 MD = 9

Could you indicate on this card how often you generally watch the NOS television news?

WAVE 1

Showcard 2 presented, listing response alternatives. 1.

(almost) daily

594

67.9

67.9

684

78.2 78.2

2.

3 - 4 times per week

156

17.8

17.8

122

13.9 13.9

3. 4. 5.

1 - 2 times per week less than once a week does not own tv set

73 35 17

8.3 4.0 1.9

8.3 4.0 1.9

43 10 16

))

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

))

4.9 1.1 1.8

))

4.9 1.1 1.8

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1007

Frequency watching RTL4 tv newscast

..........

QUEST 7 MD = GE 7

Could you indicate on this card how often you generally watch the RTL4 television news? Showcard 2 presented, listing response alternatives. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 9.

(almost) daily 3 - 4 times per week 1 - 2 times per week less than once a week cannot receive RTL4 DK INAP

(VAR1006, code 5)

217 137 181 277 45 1 17

))

24.8 15.7 20.7 31.7 5.1 0.1 1.9

))

25.3 16.0 21.1 32.3 5.3 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1008

Most important national problem - first answer

VAR014

QUEST 8 MD = GE

And now, I would like to ask you what you think are the most important problems in our country?

WAVE 1

90000

Refer to Appendix 2 for a description of the codes and frequencies.

VAR1009

Most important national problem - second answer

VAR015

QUEST 8

Refer to VAR1008 for complete question text and to Appendix 2 for a description of the codes and frequencies.

WAVE 1

MD = GE

91000

35


VAR1010

Most important national problem - third answer

VAR016

QUEST 8


WAVE 1

VAR1011

Most important national problem - fourth answer

VAR017

QUEST 8 MD = GE


WAVE 1

VAR1012

Most important national problem - fifth answer

VAR018

QUEST 8 MD = GE


WAVE 1

VAR1013

Reads about campaign news

VAR144

QUEST 9 MD = GE 7

I would like to begin with a question about the election campaign for the parliamentary election on May 3. If there was news about the campaign in the newspaper, how often did you read such news?

WAVE 2

MD = GE

91000

99995

99995

Showcard 3 presented, listing response alternatives. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7.

(nearly) always often now and then seldom or never does not read papers DK

155 167 342 166 44 1

))

17.7 19.1 39.1 19.0 5.0 0.1

))

17.7 19.1 39.1 19.0 5.0 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1014 10 9

QUEST MD =

))

20.0 22.1 38.5 14.2 5.3 0.0

))

20.0 22.1 38.5 14.2 5.3 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

Did (not) watch election debate on tv

VAR145

During the evening before the election a television debate was held in which the leaders of the three largest political parties participated. Did you watch this debate, or parts of it?

WAVE 2

1. 2.

watched did not watch

501 374

))

57.3 42.7

))

57.3 42.7

))

875 100.0 100.0

36

175 193 337 124 46 0

430 445

))

49.1 49.1 50.9 50.9

))

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1015

Did (not) vote in 1994 parliamentary elections

VAR146

QUEST 11 MD = 9

Did you vote in the parliamentary election on May 3, or not?

WAVE 2

1. 2.

voted did not vote

809 66

))

92.5 7.5

))

92.5 7.5

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1016 QUEST

12

825 50

))

94.3 94.3 5.7 5.7

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

Party voted for in 1994 parliamentary elections

VAR147

For which party?

WAVE 2

MD = GE 97

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9. 10. 11. 12. 14. 15. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 97. 98. 99.

PvdA CDA VVD D66

GroenLinks SGP GPV RPF CD/Centrumpartij SP

De Groenen VCN AOV, UNIE

55+ De nieuwe Partij Natuurwetpartij

NCPN DK NA INAP (VAR1015,

code 2)

193 176 149 154 33 12 15 17 6 20 1 0 24 1 1 1 2 4 66

))

22.1 20.1 17.0 17.6 3.8 1.4 1.7 1.9 0.7 2.3 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 7.5

))

24.0 21.9 18.6 19.2 4.1 1.5 1.9 2.1 0.7 2.5 0.1 0.0 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

250 266 119 91 49 11 14 9 1 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 50

))

28.6 30.4 13.6 10.4 5.6 1.3 1.6 1.0 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 5.7

))

30.5 32.4 14.5 11.1 6.0 1.3 1.7 1.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1017

Party choice - first reason

VAR148

QUEST 13 MD = GE 910

Why did you vote [party mentioned by respondent, VAR1016]?

WAVE 2

Could you further explain this? Refer to Appendix 3 for a description of the codes and frequencies.

VAR1018 QUEST

13

Party choice - second reason

VAR149


WAVE 2

MD = GE 995

37


VAR1019

Party choice - third reason

VAR150


WAVE 2

Party choice - fourth reason

VAR151


WAVE 2

VAR1021

Party choice - when decided

VAR157

QUEST 14 MD = 9

When did you decide to vote for [party mentioned by respondent, VAR1016]? Was this during the last days before the election, the last weeks before the election, a few months beforehand, or did you know even longer beforehand for which party you would vote?

WAVE 2

QUEST

13

MD = GE 995

VAR1020 QUEST

13

MD = GE 995

1. 2. 3. 4. 9.

last days last weeks last few months much earlier INAP (VAR1016, 98-99)

184 127 91 403 70

))

21.0 14.5 10.4 46.1 8.0

))

22.9 15.8 11.3 50.1 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

144 86 82 508 55

))

16.5 9.8 9.4 58.1 6.3

))

17.6 10.5 10.0 62.0 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1022

Previous voting behavior of respondent

VAR158

QUEST 15a-b MD = GE 7

Have you always voted for [party mentioned by respondent] or have you at times voted for [another party or a party]?

WAVE 2

1. 2. 3. 4. 7. 9.

always this party sometimes other party did not vote not entitled to vote DK INAP

(VAR1016, 98-99)

304 496 5 0 0 70

))

34.7 56.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 8.0

))

37.8 61.6 0.6 0.0 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

347 460 5 8 0 55

))

39.7 42.3 52.6 56.1 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.1 MD 6.3 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1023

Parties previously voted for - first answer

VAR159

QUEST 16 MD = GE 97

For which other party (or parties) have you voted?

WAVE 2

38


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 17. 33. 34. 35. 40. 41. 42. 45. 46. 97. 98. 99.

PvdA CDA VVD D66

GroenLinks CPN PPR PSP SGP GPV RPF CD/Centrumpartij EVP SP

Loesje Frysk Nasjonale Partij Gemeentebelangen Local party KVP CHU ARP

Boerenpartij DS70 DK NA INAP (VAR1022,

1, 3-9)

129 119 59 83 11 10 14 20 3 2 7 0 2 5 0 0 0 2 10 5 4 1 6 4 0 379

))

14.7 13.6 6.7 9.5 1.3 1.1 1.6 2.3 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.0 43.3

26.2 24.2 12.0 16.9 2.2 2.0 2.8 4.1 0.6 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.2 1.2 MD MD MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1024 QUEST

16

81 73 82 83 2 8 29 25 6 3 11 1 0 4 2 2 1 0 16 7 9 6 2 6 1 415

))

9.3 8.3 9.4 9.5 0.2 0.9 3.3 2.9 0.7 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.8 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.1 47.4

))

17.9 16.1 18.1 18.3 0.4 1.8 6.4 5.5 1.3 0.7 2.4 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 3.5 1.5 2.0 1.3 0.4 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

Parties previously voted for - second answer

VAR160

Refer to VAR1023 for complete question text.

WAVE 2

MD = GE 95

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 13. 14. 40. 41. 42. 43. 45. 46. 95.

PvdA CDA VVD D66

GroenLinks CPN PPR PSP SGP GPV EVP SP KVP CHU ARP SDAP

Boerenpartij DS70

no second answer

25 27 19 19 11 5 7 14 3 5 4 2 3 0 1 1 3 1 342

2.9 3.1 2.2 2.2 1.3 0.6 0.8 1.6 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 39.1

16.7 18.0 12.7 12.7 7.3 3.3 4.7 9.3 2.0 3.3 2.7 1.3 2.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 2.0 0.7 MD

14 9 12 18 0 3 6 10 5 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 366

1.6 1.0 1.4 2.1 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 41.8

16.1 10.3 13.8 20.7 0.0 3.4 6.9 11.5 5.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 MD

39


99.

INAP

(VAR1023, 97-99)

383

))

43.8

))

MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

422

))

48.2

))

MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1025

Parties previously voted for - third answer

VAR161

QUEST 16 MD = GE 95


WAVE 2

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 13. 14. 41. 42. 45. 95. 99.

PvdA CDA VVD D66

GroenLinks CPN PPR PSP GPV RPF EVP SP CHU ARP

Boerenpartij no third answer INAP (VAR1024, 95-99)

5 1 3 4 4 3 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 121 725

))

0.6 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 13.8 82.9

))

17.2 3.4 10.3 13.8 13.8 10.3 3.4 6.9 3.4 0.0 6.9 3.4 0.0 3.4 3.4 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1026 17a 9

QUEST MD =

4 2 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 71 788

))

0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.1 90.1

))

25.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 6.3 12.5 0.0 6.3 0.0 6.3 6.3 0.0 0.0 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

Considered not to vote in 1994

VAR162

Did you seriously consider not voting at the parliamentary elections of May 3?

WAVE 2

1. 2. 9.

yes no INAP

(VAR1015, code 2)

66 743 66

))

7.5 84.9 7.5

))

8.2 91.8 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

37 788 50

))

4.2 4.5 90.1 95.5 5.7 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1027

Did (not) hesitate about party choice

VAR163

QUEST 17b MD = GE 7

And did you seriously consider voting for [a different party than party mentioned by respondent or a party] at the parliamentary elections of May 3?

WAVE 2

1. 2. 7. 9. 40

yes no DK INAP

(VAR1016, 98-99)

247 557 1 70

28.2 63.7 0.1 8.0

30.7 69.3 MD MD

216 609 0 50

24.7 26.2 69.6 73.8 0.0 MD 5.7 MD


))

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

))

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1028

Party considered as alternative choice

VAR164

QUEST 18 MD = GE 97

Which one?

WAVE 2

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 14. 15. 97. 98. 99.

PvdA CDA VVD D66

GroenLinks PPR SGP GPV RPF CD/Centrumpartij SP

De Groenen DK NA INAP

(VAR1027, codes 2-9)

36 19 35 73 29 0 3 5 9 10 6 0 12 10 628

))

4.1 2.2 4.0 8.3 3.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.0 1.4 1.1 71.8

))

15.2 8.0 14.8 30.8 12.2 0.0 1.3 2.1 3.8 4.2 2.5 0.0 5.1 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

37 40 18 58 39 1 4 5 2 1 4 1 3 3 659

))

4.2 4.6 2.1 6.6 4.5 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 75.3

))

17.6 19.0 8.6 27.6 18.6 0.5 1.9 2.4 1.0 0.5 1.9 0.5 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1029

Did not vote - reason

VAR165

QUEST 19 MD = GE 910

Why did you not vote?

WAVE 2


VAR1030

Did not vote - when decided

VAR166

QUEST 20 MD = GE 7

When did you decide that you definitely would not vote? Was that during the last days before the election, the last weeks before the election, a few months beforehand or did you know even longer beforehand that you would not vote?

WAVE 2

1. 2.

last days last weeks

3.

last few months

4.

much earlier

7. 9.

DK INAP

(VAR1015, code 1)

34 8

3.9 0.9

53.1 14.0

22 7

4

0.5

8.0

4

18

2.1

34.0

17

2 809

0.2 92.5

MD MD

0 825

))

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

))

2.5 44.0 0.8 12.5 0.5

6.3

1.9 28.1 0.2 94.3

))

MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

41


VAR1031

Preferred party of nonvoters

VAR167

QUEST 21 MD = GE 90

Suppose that you had in fact voted, for which party would you have voted?

WAVE 2

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 9. 10. 12. 14. 18. 90. 97. 98. 99.

PvdA CDA VVD D66

GroenLinks CPN SGP GPV CD/Centrumpartij SP AOV, UNIE 55+

blank DK NA INAP

(VAR1015, code 1)

20 4 9 16 4 0 0 1

2.3 0.5 1.0 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1

33.3 6.7 15.0 26.7 6.7 0.0 0.0 1.7

18 15 2 6 0 1 1 0

1 1 4 0 6 0 809

0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 92.5

1.7 1.7 6.7 0.0

0 0 0 1 5 1 825

))

))

MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

))

2.1 41.9 1.7 34.9 0.2 4.7 0.7 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.3 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 94.3

))

0.0 0.0 0.0 MD MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1032

Effect government policy on economic situation

QUEST 22a MD = GE 7

I would now like to ask a few questions about what you think of the policies that the government has conducted during the past four years. First, the general economic situation: do you think that the economic situation has been influenced favorably, unfavorably or neither by the past government policies? 1. 2. 3. 7.

favorable unfavorable not (un)favorable DK

116 267 460 32

))

13.3 30.5 52.6 3.7

))

13.8 31.7 54.6 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR033

489 88 277 21

))

55.9 57.3 10.1 10.3 31.7 32.4 2.4 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1033

Effect government policy on employment

VAR034

QUEST 22b MD = GE 7

And employment: do you think that employment in the Netherlands has been influenced favorably, unfavorably, or neither by the past government policies?

WAVE 1

1. 2. 3. 7.


65 471 305 34

))

7.4 53.8 34.9 3.9

))

7.7 56.0 36.3 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

42

288 220 335 32

))

32.9 34.2 25.1 26.1 38.3 39.7 3.7 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1034

Effect government policy on respondent's finances

VAR036

QUEST 22c MD = GE 7

And your personal financial situation: do you think that your personal financial situation has been influenced favorably, unfavorably, or neither by the past government policies?

WAVE 1

1. 2. 3. 7.


135 276 451 13

))

15.4 31.5 51.5 1.5

))

15.7 32.0 52.3 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

167 267 427 14

))

19.1 19.4 30.5 31.0 48.8 49.6 1.6 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1035

Effect government policy on environment

QUEST 22d MD = GE 7

And the environment: do you think that the environment has been influenced favorably, unfavorably, or neither by the past government policies? 1. 2. 3. 7.


366 226 258 25

))

41.8 25.8 29.5 2.9

))

..........

43.1 26.6 30.4 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1036

Effect government policy on social welfare

QUEST 22e MD = GE 7

And social welfare: do you think that social welfare has been influenced favorably, unfavorably, or neither by the past government policies? 1. 2. 3. 7. 8.

VAR1037 QUEST

23

MD = GE 7

favorable unfavorable not (un)favorable DK NA

133 501 212 28 1

..........

15.2 57.3 24.2 3.2 0.1

15.7 59.2 25.1

875 100.0

100.

))

))

MD MD

))

Satisfaction with government

VAR032

With the help of this card, could you indicate how satisfied you are in general with what the government has done during the past four years?

WAVE 1

Showcard 4 presented, listing response alternatives.

43


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7.

very satisfied satisfied not (dis)satisfied dissatisfied very dissatisfied DK

1 198 425 215 32 4

))

0.1 22.6 48.6 24.6 3.7 0.5

))

0.1 22.7 48.8 24.7 3.7 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

27 290 364 136 52 6

))

3.1 3.1 33.1 33.4 41.6 41.9 15.5 15.7 5.9 6.0 0.7 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1038

Policy satisfaction score

VAR035

QUEST 22a-b,23 MD = 9

Constructed from VAR1032, VAR1033 and VAR1037. Refer to Appendix 1 for a description of the test of unidimensionality and the construction of the score.

WAVE 1

0. 1. 2. 3.

low high

613 166 74 22

))

70.1 19.0 8.5 2.5

))

70.1 19.0 8.5 2.5

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1039 24a = GE 97

QUEST MD

27 317 337 194

))

3.1 3.1 36.2 36.2 38.5 38.5 22.2 22.2

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

Euthanasia - perception of CDA

VAR168

Now a few questions about political affairs that are regularly in the news. When a doctor ends the life of a person at the latter's request, this is called euthanasia. At the moment, euthanasia is forbidden by law and some people feel it should stay that way. Others feel that a doctor should always be allowed to end a life, if the patient makes that request. Of course, there are also people whose opinions lie somewhere in between.

WAVE 2

Suppose that the people who would like euthanasia to be forbidden are at the beginning of this line (at number 1), and the people who feel that a doctor should always be allowed to end a life upon a patient's request are at the end of the line (at number 7). So beginning of the line: euthanasia should always be forbidden; end of the line: euthanasia is allowed. I will ask you first to place some political parties on the line. If you have no idea at all which position a party has, then please feel free to say so. Where would you place the CDA on this line?

44


Showcard 5 presented, listing a horizontal line with seven categories numbered 1 to 7, categories 1 and 7 labeled as described in question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 97.

forbid euthanasia

allow euthanasia DK

153 242 185 141 54 16 11 73

))

17.5 27.7 21.1 16.1 6.2 1.8 1.3 8.3

))

19.1 30.2 23.1 17.6 6.7 2.0 1.4 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

202 293 155 104 40 15 7 59

))

23.1 33.5 17.7 11.9 4.6 1.7 0.8 6.7

))

24.8 35.9 19.0 12.7 4.9 1.8 0.9 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1040

Euthanasia - perception of PvdA

VAR169

QUEST 24b MD = GE 97

And where the PvdA?

WAVE 2

Refer to VAR1039 for complete question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 97.

forbid euthanasia

allow euthanasia DK

7 28 53 129 212 240 89 117

0.8 3.2 6.1 14.7 24.2 27.4 10.2 13.4

0.9 3.7 7.0 17.0 28.0 31.7 11.7

))

))

))

MD

875 100.0 100.0

20 19 40 92 199 289 143 73

2.3 2.2 4.6 10.5 22.7 33.0 16.3 8.3

2.5 2.4 5.0 11.5 24.8 36.0 17.8

))

))

))

MD

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1041

Euthanasia - perception of VVD

VAR170

QUEST 24c MD = GE 97

And where the VVD?

WAVE 2


forbid euthanasia

allow euthanasia DK

15 31 48 104 159 237 121 160

))

1.7 3.5 5.5 11.9 18.2 27.1 13.8 18.3

))

2.1 4.3 6.7 14.5 22.2 33.1 16.9 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

27 33 70 116 164 220 104 141

))

3.1 3.8 8.0 13.3 18.7 25.1 11.9 16.1

))

3.7 4.5 9.5 15.8 22.3 30.0 14.2 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

45


VAR1042 QUEST

24d

Euthanasia - perception of D66

VAR171

And where D66?

WAVE 2

MD = GE 97


forbid euthanasia

allow euthanasia DK

8 12 38 97 165 261 146 148

))

0.9 1.4 4.3 11.1 18.9 29.8 16.7 16.9

))

1.1 1.7 5.2 13.3 22.7 35.9 20.1 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

11 22 34 83 122 246 200 157

))

1.3 2.5 3.9 9.5 13.9 28.1 22.9 17.9

))

1.5 3.1 4.7 11.6 17.0 34.3 27.9 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1043

Euthanasia - respondent's preference

VAR172

QUEST 24e MD = GE 97

And where would you place yourself on the line?

WAVE 2


forbid euthanasia

allow euthanasia DK

68 45 39 85 124 251 256 7

))

7.8 5.1 4.5 9.7 14.2 28.7 29.3 0.8

))

7.8 5.2 4.5 9.8 14.3 28.9 29.5 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1044 QUEST

25a

MD = GE 97

81 63 46 110 130 225 215 5

))

9.3 7.2 5.3 12.6 14.9 25.7 24.6 0.6

))

9.3 7.2 5.3 12.6 14.9 25.9 24.7 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

Income differences - perception of CDA

VAR048

Here is another showcard. Some people think that the differences in incomes in our country should be increased (at number 1). Others think that these differences should be decreased (at number 7). Of course, there are also people whose opinion is somewhere in between.

WAVE 1

Where would you place the CDA on this line? Showcard 6 presented, listing a horizontal line with seven categories numbered 1 to 7, categories 1 and 7 labeled as described in question text. 1. 2. 3. 46

larger differences

33 80 269

3.8 9.1 30.7

4.3 10.3 34.8

60 92 221

6.9 7.5 10.5 11.4 25.3 27.5


4. 5. 6. 7. 97. 98.

smaller differences DK NA

257 94 30 10 101 1

))

29.4 10.7 3.4 1.1 11.5 0.1

))

33.2 12.2 3.9 1.3 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1045 QUEST

25b

277 103 38 14 70 0

))

31.7 34.4 11.8 12.8 4.3 4.7 1.6 1.7 8.0 MD 0.0 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

Income differences - perception of PvdA

VAR049

And the PvdA?

WAVE 1

MD = GE 97

Refer to VAR1040 for complete question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 97. 98.

larger differences


16 33 40 76 171 295 171 72 1

))

1.8 3.8 4.6 8.7 19.5 33.7 19.5 8.2 0.1

))

2.0 4.1 5.0 9.5 21.3 36.8 21.3 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1046 QUEST

25c

17 22 19 29 93 267 377 51 0

))

1.9 2.1 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.3 3.3 3.5 10.6 11.3 30.5 32.4 43.1 45.8 5.8 MD 0.0 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

Income differences - perception of VVD

VAR050

And the VVD?

WAVE 1

MD = GE 97


larger differences


199 266 136 76 41 37 31 88 1

))

22.7 30.4 15.5 8.7 4.7 4.2 3.5 10.1 0.1

))

25.3 33.8 17.3 9.7 5.2 4.7 3.9 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

246 279 141 74 33 29 16 57 0

))

28.1 30.1 31.9 34.1 16.1 17.2 8.5 9.0 3.8 4.0 3.3 3.5 1.8 2.0 6.5 MD 0.0 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

47


VAR1047

Income differences - perception of D66

VAR051

QUEST 25d MD = GE 97

And D66?

WAVE 1


larger differences


6 28 103 259 201 133 21 123 1

))

0.7 3.2 11.8 29.6 23.0 15.2 2.4 14.1 0.1

))

0.8 3.7 13.7 34.5 26.8 17.7 2.8 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

3 24 57 192 218 194 53 134 0

))

0.3 0.4 2.7 3.2 6.5 7.7 21.9 25.9 24.9 29.4 22.2 26.2 6.1 7.2 15.3 MD 0 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1048

Income differences - respondent's preference

VAR052


And where would you place yourself on this line?

WAVE 1


larger differences

smaller differences DK

39 66 114 219 165 144 112 16

))

4.5 7.5 13.0 25.0 18.9 16.5 12.8 1.8

))

4.5 7.7 13.3 25.5 19.2 16.8 13.0 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

41 58 85 209 132 130 209 11

))

4.7 6.6 9.7 23.9 15.1 14.9 23.9 1.3

))

4.7 6.7 9.8 24.2 15.3 15.0 24.2 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1049

Left-right selfrating (10 point scale)

VAR206

QUEST 26 MD = GE 97

It is often said of political beliefs that they are leftist or rightist. When you think of your own political beliefs, where would you place yourself on this line? Please mention the number that applies to you.

WAVE 2

Showcard 7 presented, listing a horizontal line with ten categories numbered 1 to 10, category 1 labeled 'left' and category 10 labeled 'right'. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 48

left

26 46 109 130 164 117

3.0 5.3 12.5 14.9 18.7 13.4

3.1 5.5 13.0 15.6 19.6 14.0

31 49 126 110 136 109

3.5 5.6 14.4 12.6 15.5 12.5

3.6 5.7 14.8 12.9 15.9 12.8


7. 8. 9. 10. 97. 98.

right DK NA

123 80 15 26 37 2

))

14.1 9.1 1.7 3.0 4.2 0.2

))

14.7 9.6 1.8 3.1 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

108 120 28 36 20 2

))

12.3 12.7 13.7 14.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 2.3 MD 0.2 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1050

Left-right rating of PvdA

VAR207

QUEST 27a MD = GE 97

It is also said of political parties that they are leftist or rightist. Would you please indicate the degree to which you think that a party is leftist or rightist?

WAVE 1

The PvdA? Showcard 8 presented, listing one horizontal line with ten categories numbered 1 to 10, category 1 labeled 'left' and category 10 labeled 'right'. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 97. 98.

left

right DK NA

83 142 267 195 63 26 20 12 2 3 61 1

))

9.5 16.2 30.5 22.3 7.2 3.0 2.3 1.4 0.2 0.3 7.0 0.1

))

10.2 17.5 32.8 24.0 7.7 3.2 2.5 1.5 0.2 0.4 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

116 139 315 170 58 13 16 11 2 4 30 1

))

13.3 15.9 36.0 19.4 6.6 1.5 1.8 1.3 0.2 0.5 3.4 0.1

))

13.7 16.5 37.3 20.1 6.9 1.5 1.9 1.3 0.2 0.5 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

Note: showcard differs from that used in the Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1989.

VAR1051 QUEST

27b

Left-right rating of VVD

VAR208

And the VVD?

WAVE 2

MD = GE 97


left

5 15 33 38 49 77 141 229 160

0.6 1.7 3.8 4.3 5.6 8.8 16.1 26.2 18.3

0.6 1.9 4.2 4.8 6.2 9.7 17.7 28.8 20.1

5 9 17 20 59 84 140 260 140

0.6 1.0 1.9 2.3 6.7 9.6 16.0 29.7 16.0

0.6 1.1 2.0 2.4 7.0 10.0 16.6 30.8 16.6 49


10. 97. 98.

right DK NA

48 79 1

))

5.5 9.0 0.1

))

6.0 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

110 30 1

))

12.6 13.0 3.4 MD 0.1 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1052

Left-right rating of D66

VAR209


And D66?

WAVE 2

Refer to VAR1050 for complete question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 97. 98.

left

right DK NA

14 44 89 197 215 140 67 14 2 2 90 1

))

1.6 5.0 10.2 22.5 24.6 16.0 7.7 1.6 0.2 0.2 10.3 0.1

))

1.8 5.6 11.4 25.1 27.4 17.9 8.5 1.8 0.3 0.3 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

21 76 148 231 228 92 26 8 2 2 40 1

))

2.4 8.7 16.9 26.4 26.1 10.5 3.0 0.9 0.2 0.2 4.6 0.1

))

2.5 9.1 17.7 27.7 27.3 11.0 3.1 1.0 0.2 0.2 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1053

Left-right rating of CDA

VAR212


And the CDA?

WAVE 2


left

right DK NA

6 13 21 38 147 206 175 119 60 18 71 1

))

0.7 1.5 2.4 4.3 16.8 23.5 20.0 13.6 6.9 2.1 8.1 0.1

))

0.7 1.6 2.6 4.7 18.3 25.7 21.8 14.8 7.5 2.2 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

50

5 6 10 23 128 179 163 162 95 71 32 1

))

0.6 0.7 1.1 2.6 14.6 20.5 18.6 18.5 10.9 8.1 3.7 0.1

))

0.6 0.7 1.2 2.7 15.2 21.3 19.4 19.2 11.3 8.4 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1054 QUEST

27d

Left-right rating of GroenLinks

VAR213

And GroenLinks?

WAVE 2

MD = GE 97


left

right DK NA

238 280 137 60 33 11 9 10 4 2 90 1

))

27.2 32.0 15.7 6.9 3.8 1.3 1.0 1.1 0.5 0.2 10.3 0.1

))

30.4 35.7 17.5 7.7 4.2 1.4 1.1 1.3 0.5 0.3 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

330 333 96 37 30 3 4 1 2 0 38 1

))

37.7 39.5 38.1 39.8 11.0 11.5 4.2 4.4 3.4 3.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.3 MD 0.1 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1055

Left-right rating of SGP

VAR214

QUEST 27f

And the SGP?

WAVE 2

MD = GE 97


left

right DK NA

14 17 19 15 35 35 73 144 184 123 215 1

))

1.6 1.9 2.2 1.7 4.0 4.0 8.3 16.5 21.0 14.1 24.6 0.1

))

2.1 2.6 2.9 2.3 5.3 5.3 11.1 21.9 27.9 18.7 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

16 19 32 28 43 42 76 149 187 160 122 1

))

1.8 2.2 3.7 3.2 4.9 4.8 8.7 17.0 21.4 18.3 13.9 0.1

))

2.1 2.5 4.3 3.7 5.7 5.6 10.1 19.8 24.9 21.3 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1056

Left-right rating of GPV

VAR216

QUEST 27g MD = GE 97

And the GPV?

WAVE 2


51


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 97. 98.

left

right DK NA

11 9 14 16 31 43 85 142 208 88 227 1

))

1.3 1.0 1.6 1.8 3.5 4.9 9.7 16.2 23.8 10.1 25.9 0.1

))

1.7 1.4 2.2 2.5 4.8 6.6 13.1 21.9 32.1 13.6 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

7 9 18 17 47 35 94 161 203 156 127 1

))

0.8 1.0 2.1 1.9 5.4 4.0 10.7 18.4 23.2 17.8 14.5 0.1

))

0.9 1.2 2.4 2.3 6.3 4.7 12.6 21.6 27.2 20.9 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1057

Left-right rating of RPF

VAR217

QUEST 26h MD = GE 97

And the RPF?

WAVE 2


left

right DK NA

8 12 8 13 39 42 76 152 170 83 270 2

))

0.9 1.4 0.9 1.5 4.5 4.8 8.7 17.4 19.4 9.5 30.9 0.2

))

1.3 2.0 1.3 2.2 6.5 7.0 12.6 25.2 28.2 13.8 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

6 11 25 21 44 49 75 145 185 126 187 1

))

0.7 1.3 2.9 2.4 5.0 5.6 8.6 16.6 21.1 14.4 21.4 0.1

))

0.9 1.6 3.6 3.1 6.4 7.1 10.9 21.1 26.9 18.3 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1058

Left-right rating of Centrumdemocraten

VAR218

QUEST 26i

And the Centrumdemocraten?

WAVE 2

MD = GE 97

Refer to VAR1050 for complete question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 52

left

89 18 6 6 12 3 9 16

10.2 2.1 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.3 1.0 1.8

12.6 2.6 0.9 0.9 1.7 0.4 1.3 2.3

144 30 20 13 33 10 13 23

16.5 19.3 3.4 4.0 2.3 2.7 1.5 1.7 3.8 4.4 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.6 3.1


9. 10. 97. 98.

right DK NA

53 493 153 17

))

6.1 56.3 17.5 1.9

))

7.5 69.9 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

59 400 115 15

))

6.7 7.9 45.7 53.7 13.1 MD 1.7 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

Note: in the 1989 study, the party labels 'Centrumdemocraten' en 'Centrumpartij' were treated as synonymous. In the 1994 study, preference is given to the label 'Centrumdemocraten', to separate this party from the newly founded Centrumpartij '86 (which has managed to make some electoral inroads in the 1994-elections).

VAR1059

Expected effect CDA-VVD government respondent's finances

VAR184

QUEST 28a MD = GE 7

Now a few questions concerning economic problems. If you consider the next four years and think about your own financial situation during this period, do you think that a cabinet consisting of CDA and VVD would have a favorable influence, an unfavorable influence or neither a favorable nor an unfavorable influence on your own financial situation?

WAVE 2

1. 2. 3. 7.


228 262 360 25

))

26.1 29.9 41.1 2.9

))

26.8 30.8 42.4 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

258 192 411 14

))

29.5 30.0 21.9 22.3 47.0 47.7 1.6 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1060

Expected effect CDA-PvdA government respondent's finances

VAR185

QUEST 28b MD = GE 7

And do you think that a cabinet consisting of PvdA and CDA in the next four years would have a favorable influence, an unfavorable influence or neither a favorable nor an unfavorable influence on your own financial situation?

WAVE 2

1. 2. 3. 7.


100 270 476 29

))

11.4 30.9 54.4 3.3

))

11.8 31.9 56.3 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

215 213 429 18

))

24.6 25.1 24.3 24.9 49.0 50.1 2.1 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1061

Expectation general prosperity in 4 years

VAR186

QUEST 29a MD = GE 7

Do you think that general prosperity in the Netherlands will be larger in four years than it is now, smaller, or about the same?

WAVE 2

53


1. 2. 3. 7. 8.

greater smaller about the same DK NA

123 350 365 35 2

))

14.1 40.0 41.7 4.0 0.2

))

14.7 41.8 43.6 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

221 97 499 56 2

))

25.3 27.1 11.1 11.9 57.0 61.1 6.4 MD 0.2 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1062

Expected effect CDA-VVD government general prosperity

VAR187

QUEST 29b MD = GE 7

Do you think that a cabinet consisting of CDA and VVD would have a favorable influence, an unfavorable influence or neither a favorable nor an unfavorable influence on the development of general prosperity in the Netherlands?

WAVE 2

1. 2. 3. 7. 8.


239 255 324 55 2

))

27.3 29.1 37.0 6.3 0.2

))

29.2 31.2 39.6 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

361 150 338 25 1

))

41.3 42.5 17.1 17.7 38.6 39.8 2.9 MD 0.1 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1063

Expected effect CDA-PvdA government general prosperity

VAR188

QUEST 29c MD = GE 7

And do you think a cabinet consisting of CDA and PvdA would have a favorable influence, an unfavorable influence, or neither a favorable nor an unfavorable influence on the development of general prosperity in the Netherlands?

WAVE 2

1. 2. 3. 7. 8.


169 241 410 53 2

))

19.3 27.5 46.9 6.1 0.2

))

20.6 29.4 50.0 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

270 192 379 34 0

))

30.9 32.1 21.9 22.8 43.3 45.1 3.9 MD 0.0 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1064

Expected effect PvdA-CDA-D66 government general prosperity

QUEST 29d MD = GE 7

And do you think a cabinet consisting of CDA, PvdA, and D66 would have a favorable influence, an unfavorable influence, or neither a favorable nor an unfavorable influence on the development of general prosperity in the Netherlands? 1. 2. 3. 7. 8.

54


255 191 365 62 2

29.1 21.8 41.7 7.1 0.2

31.4 23.6 45.0 MD MD

..........


))

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1065 QUEST

29e

MD = GE 7

Expected effect CDA-VVD-PvdA government general prosperity

..........

And do you think a cabinet consisting of CDA, VVD, and PvdA would have a favorable influence, an unfavorable influence, or neither a favorable nor an unfavorable influence on the development of general prosperity in the Netherlands? 1. 2. 3. 7. 8.


163 226 409 75 2

))

18.6 25.8 46.7 8.6 0.2

))

20.4 28.3 51.3 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1066

Expected effect PvdA-VVD-D66 government general prosperity

QUEST 29f MD = GE 7

And do you think a cabinet consisting of PvdA, VVD, and D66 would have a favorable influence, an unfavorable influence, or neither a favorable nor an unfavorable influence on the development of general prosperity in the Netherlands? 1. 2. 3. 7. 8.


274 183 339 78 1

))

31.3 20.9 38.7 8.9 0.1

))

..........

34.4 23.0 42.6 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1067 QUEST

30

MD = GE 7

Reduce deficit or reduce unemployment?

VAR183

Two big problems in the Dutch economy are unemployment and the fact that the government spends more money than it takes in, the so-called government budget deficit. Many people feel that it is not possible to solve these two problems simultaneously. Which should, in your opinion, take precedence during the coming four years: the reduction of unemployment, or the reduction of the budget deficit?

WAVE 2

1. 2. 7. 8.

reduce unemployment reduce deficit DK NA

674 185 15 1

))

77.0 21.1 1.7 0.1

))

78.5 21.5 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

613 229 32 1

))

70.1 72.8 26.2 27.2 3.7 MD 0.1 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

55


VAR1068

CDA

and PvdA - cooperation in past government

VAR067


And now some questions about the cooperation among political parties. In the past years there was a government of CDA and PvdA. How good or how bad do you think the cooperation between CDA and VVD has been in the past period? The numbers on the line indicate how good or how bad: 1 stands for very bad, 7 for very good, and the other numbers for an opinion somewhere in between.

WAVE 1

Select the number that best represents your opinion. Showcard 8 presented, listing a horizontal line with seven categories numbered 1 to 7, categories 1 and 7 labeled as described in question text. At the right of this line the number '8' was printed, labeled 'don't know'. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 97. 98.

very bad

very good DK NA

))

13 43 182 270 239 97 12 19 0

))

1.5 4.9 20.8 30.9 27.3 11.1 1.4 2.2 0.0

))

1.5 5.0 21.3 31.5 27.9 11.3 1.4 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

48 72 187 229 211 67 5 55 1

))

5.5 5.9 8.2 8.8 21.4 22.8 26.2 28.0 24.1 25.8 7.7 8.2 0.6 0.6 6.3 MD 0.1 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

Note: in 1994 the incumbent parties were CDA and PvdA; in 1989 the incumbent parties were CDA and VVD.

VAR1069

PvdA

and VVD - cooperation in future government

VAR069


Suppose that after the elections a government were formed by PvdA and VVD. How good or how bad do you think such a cooperation between PvdA and VVD would be? Refer to VAR1068 for introduction of question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 97.

very bad

very good DK

44 204 262 186 105 29 3 42

))

5.0 23.3 29.9 21.3 12.0 3.3 0.3 4.8

))

5.3 24.5 31.5 22.3 12.6 3.5 0.4 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

56

161 237 175 124 75 31 5 67

))

18.4 27.1 20.0 14.2 8.6 3.5 0.6 7.7

))

19.9 29.3 21.7 15.3 9.3 3.8 0.6 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

WAVE 1


VAR1070

CDA

and VVD - cooperation in future government

VAR070


Suppose that after the elections a government were formed by CDA and VVD. How good or how bad do you think such a cooperation between CDA and VVD would be?

WAVE 1

Refer to VAR1068 for introduction of question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 97.

very bad

very good DK

13 50 117 203 256 171 21 44

))

1.5 5.7 13.4 23.2 29.3 19.5 2.4 5.0

))

1.6 6.0 14.1 24.4 30.8 20.6 2.5 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1071 QUEST

31d

MD = GE 97

CDA

49 88 156 210 197 116 13 46

))

5.6 10.1 17.8 24.0 22.5 13.3 1.5 5.3

))

5.9 10.6 18.8 25.3 23.8 14.0 1.6 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

and PvdA - cooperation in future government

VAR068

Suppose that after the elections a government were formed by CDA and PvdA. How good or how bad do you think such a cooperation between CDA and PvdA would be?

WAVE 1


very bad

very good DK

17 58 178 262 220 101 4 35

1.9 6.6 20.3 29.9 25.1 11.5 0.5 4.0

2.0 6.9 21.2 31.2 26.2 12.0 0.5

))

))

))

MD

875 100.0 100.0

38 139 187 232 152 47 13 67

4.3 15.9 21.4 26.5 17.4 5.4 1.5 7.7

4.7 17.2 23.1 28.7 18.8 5.8 1.6

))

))

))

MD

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1072

CDA

and PvdA and D66 - cooperation in future government


Suppose that after the elections a government were formed by CDA, PvdA, and D66. How good or how bad do you think such a cooperation between CDA, PvdA, and D66 would be?

..........

Refer to VAR1068 for introduction of question text.

57


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 97.

very bad

very good DK

9 42 179 252 247 93 5 48

))

1.0 4.8 20.5 28.8 28.2 10.6 0.6 5.5

))

1.1 5.1 21.6 30.5 29.9 11.2 0.6 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1073

PvdA

QUEST 31f

Suppose that after the elections a government were formed by PvdA, VVD, and D66. How good or how bad do you think such a cooperation between and PvdA, VVD, and D66 would be?

MD = GE 97

and VVD and D66 - cooperation in future government

..........


very bad

very good DK

11 72 195 250 196 88 14 49

))

1.3 8.2 22.3 28.6 22.4 10.1 1.6 5.6

))

1.3 8.7 23.6 30.3 23.7 10.7 1.7 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1074

CDA

and VVD and D66 - cooperation in future government


Suppose that after the elections a government were formed by CDA, VVD, and D66. How good or how bad do you think such a cooperation between CDA, VVD, and D66 would be? Refer to VAR1068 for introduction of question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 97.

very bad

very good DK

6 59 158 294 213 84 7 54

))

0.7 6.7 18.1 33.6 24.3 9.6 0.8 6.2

))

0.7 7.2 19.2 35.8 25.9 10.2 0.9 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

58

..........


VAR1075

Hans van Mierlo: knowledgeable

..........


In judging politicians, one can pay attention to different characteristics. This card lists a number of such characteristics. Could you indicate to what extent the following politicians possess these characteristics? Showcard 9 presented, listing six horizontal lines (pertaining to six different characteristics) with ten categories numbered 1 to 10, category 1 labeled 'does not possess this characteristic' and category 10 labeled 'does possess this characteristic'. Refer to Appendix 5 for further information on politicians. First, Hans van Mierlo. To what extent do you think Hans van Mierlo is knowledgeable? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 90. 97. 98.

low

high DK politician DK NA

5 10 24 57 83 103 214 253 65 20 11 29 1

))

0.6 1.1 2.7 6.5 9.5 11.8 24.5 28.9 7.4 2.3 1.3 3.3 0.1

))

0.6 1.2 2.9 6.8 10.0 12.4 25.7 30.3 7.8 2.4 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1076

Hans van Mierlo: compassionate


And to what extent is he compassionate?

..........

Refer to VAR1075 for introduction of question text and to Appendix 5 for further information on politicians. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 97. 98.

low

high DK NA

4 4 13 36 93 118 249 231 61 9 45 1

0.5 0.5 1.5 4.1 10.6 13.5 28.5 26.4 7.0 1.0 5.1 0.1

0.5 0.5 1.6 4.4 11.4 14.4 30.4 28.2 7.5 1.1 MD MD

59


99.

INAP

(VAR1075, code 90)

11

))

1.3

))

MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1077

Hans van Mierlo: decisive


And decisive?

..........

Refer to VAR1075 for introduction of question text and to Appendix 5 for further information on politicians. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 97. 98. 99.

low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1075, code 90)

6 10 44 79 128 139 173 156 64 10 54 1 11

))

0.7 1.1 5.0 9.0 14.6 15.9 19.8 17.8 7.3 1.1 6.2 0.1 1.3

))

0.7 1.2 5.4 9.8 15.8 17.2 21.4 19.3 7.9 1.2 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1078 QUEST

32d

Hans van Mierlo: friendly

..........

And friendly?

MD = GE 97


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1075, code 90)

3 3 14 33 44 91 193 267 135 46 34 1 11

))

0.3 0.3 1.6 3.8 5.0 10.4 22.1 30.5 15.4 5.3 3.9 0.1 1.3

))

0.4 0.4 1.7 4.0 5.3 11.0 23.3 32.2 16.3 5.5 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

60


VAR1079

Hans van Mierlo: honest


And honest?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1075, code 90)

6 11 20 45 116 133 195 171 67 19 80 1 11

))

0.7 1.3 2.3 5.1 13.3 15.2 22.3 19.5 7.7 2.2 9.1 0.1 1.3

))

0.8 1.4 2.6 5.7 14.8 17.0 24.9 21.8 8.6 2.4 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1080

Hans van Mierlo: leadership qualities

..........

QUEST 32f MD = GE 97

And to what extent does he possess leadership qualities? Refer to VAR1075 for introduction of question text and to Appendix 5 for further information on politicians. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 97. 98. 99.

low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1075, code 90)

4 13 31 71 94 121 184 181 89 15 60 1 11

))

0.5 1.5 3.5 8.1 10.7 13.8 21.0 20.7 10.2 1.7 6.9 0.1 1.3

))

0.5 1.6 3.9 8.8 11.7 15.1 22.9 22.5 11.1 1.9 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

61


VAR1081

Elco Brinkman: knowledgeable

..........


And to what extent do you think Elco Brinkman is knowledgeable? Refer to VAR1075 for introduction of question text and to Appendix 5 for further information on politicians. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 90. 97. 98.

low


7 11 22 41 80 131 219 250 67 15 6 25 1

))

0.8 1.3 2.5 4.7 9.1 15.0 25.0 28.6 7.7 1.7 0.7 2.9 0.1

))

0.8 1.3 2.6 4.9 9.5 15.5 26.0 29.7 7.9 1.8 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1082

Elco Brinkman: compassionate


And to what extent is he compassionate?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1081, code 90)

16 25 58 105 136 208 171 98 14 2 35 1 6

))

1.8 2.9 6.6 12.0 15.5 23.8 19.5 11.2 1.6 0.2 4.0 0.1 0.7

))

1.9 3.0 7.0 12.6 16.3 25.0 20.5 11.8 1.7 0.2 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

62


VAR1083

Elco Brinkman: decisive


And decisive?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1081, code 90)

10 17 56 102 117 146 180 138 55 10 37 1 6

))

1.1 1.9 6.4 11.7 13.4 16.7 20.6 15.8 6.3 1.1 4.2 0.1 0.7

))

1.2 2.0 6.7 12.3 14.1 17.6 21.7 16.6 6.6 1.2 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1084

Elco Brinkman: friendly


And friendly?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1081, code 90)

28 45 69 113 164 194 148 63 13 3 27 2 6

))

3.2 5.1 7.9 12.9 18.7 22.2 16.9 7.2 1.5 0.3 3.1 0.2 0.7

))

3.3 5.4 8.2 13.5 19.5 23.1 17.6 7.5 1.5 0.4 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

63


VAR1085

Elco Brinkman: honest


And honest?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1081, code 90)

29 33 59 75 122 149 148 142 53 8 50 1 6

))

3.3 3.8 6.7 8.6 13.9 17.0 16.9 16.2 6.1 0.9 5.7 0.1 0.7

))

3.5 4.0 7.2 9.2 14.9 18.2 18.1 17.4 6.5 1.0 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1086

Elco Brinkman: leadership qualities

..........



low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1081, code 90)

20 46 81 90 123 155 148 115 34 7 49 1 6

))

2.3 5.3 9.3 10.3 14.1 17.7 16.9 13.1 3.9 0.8 5.6 0.1 0.7

))

2.4 5.6 9.9 11.0 15.0 18.9 18.1 14.0 4.2 0.9 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

64


VAR1087

Wim Kok: knowledgeable

..........


And to what extent do you think Wim Kok is knowledgeable? Refer to VAR1075 for introduction of question text and to Appendix 5 for further information on politicians. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 90. 97. 98.


5 9 12 35 68 210 326 158 29 2 20 1

))

0.6 1.0 1.4 4.0 7.8 24.0 37.3 18.1 3.3 0.2 2.3 0.1

))

0.6 1.1 1.4 4.1 8.0 24.6 38.3 18.5 3.4 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1088 QUEST

34b

Wim Kok: compassionate

..........

And compassionate?

MD = GE 97


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1087, code 90)

2 8 8 10 29 73 193 287 187 49 26 1 2

))

0.2 0.9 0.9 1.1 3.3 8.3 22.1 32.8 21.4 5.6 3.0 0.1 0.2

))

0.2 0.9 0.9 1.2 3.4 8.6 22.8 33.9 22.1 5.8 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

65


VAR1089

Wim Kok: decisive


And decisive?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1087, code 90)

1 5 14 33 73 150 259 231 67 9 30 1 2

))

0.1 0.6 1.6 3.8 8.3 17.1 29.6 26.4 7.7 1.0 3.4 0.1 0.2

))

0.1 0.6 1.7 3.9 8.7 17.8 30.8 27.4 8.0 1.1 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1090

Wim Kok: friendly


And friendly?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1087, code 90)

3 9 14 29 55 132 251 240 89 28 21 2 2

))

0.3 1.0 1.6 3.3 6.3 15.1 28.7 27.4 10.2 3.2 2.4 0.2 0.2

))

0.4 1.1 1.6 3.4 6.5 15.5 29.5 28.2 10.5 3.3 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

66


VAR1091

Wim Kok: honest


And honest?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1087, code 90)

6 9 20 31 85 124 219 214 94 20 50 1 2

))

0.7 1.0 2.3 3.5 9.7 14.2 25.0 24.5 10.7 2.3 5.7 0.1 0.2

))

0.7 1.1 2.4 3.8 10.3 15.1 26.6 26.0 11.4 2.4 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1092

Wim Kok: leadership qualities

..........



low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1087, code 90)

4 4 13 24 45 119 225 266 115 25 32 1 2

))

0.5 0.5 1.5 2.7 5.1 13.6 25.7 30.4 13.1 2.9 3.7 0.1 0.2

))

0.5 0.5 1.5 2.9 5.4 14.2 26.8 31.7 13.7 3.0 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

67


VAR1093

Frits Bolkestein: knowledgeable

..........


And to what extent do you think Frits Bolkestein is knowledgeable? Refer to VAR1075 for introduction of question text and to Appendix 5 for further information on politicians. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 90. 97. 98.

low


1 10 15 48 79 124 242 202 61 10 35 47 1

))

0.1 1.1 1.7 5.5 9.0 14.2 27.7 23.1 7.0 1.1 4.0 5.4 0.1

))

0.1 1.3 1.9 6.1 10.0 15.7 30.6 25.5 7.7 1.3 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1094

Frits Bolkestein: compassionate


And compassionate?

..........


low

DK NA INAP

(VAR1093, code 90)

11 38 69 97 170 200 150 44 5 55 1 35

))

1.3 4.3 7.9 11.1 19.4 22.9 17.1 5.0 0.6 6.3 0.1 4.0

))

1.4 4.8 8.8 12.4 21.7 25.5 19.1 5.6 0.6 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

68


VAR1095

Frits Bolkestein: decisive


And decisive?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1093, code 90)

3 14 20 45 104 187 213 136 48 6 63 1 35

))

0.3 1.6 2.3 5.1 11.9 21.4 24.3 15.5 5.5 0.7 7.2 0.1 4.0

))

0.4 1.8 2.6 5.8 13.4 24.1 27.4 17.5 6.2 0.8 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1096

Frits Bolkestein: friendly


And friendly?

..........


low

DK NA INAP

(VAR1093, code 90)

10 25 44 67 146 218 192 70 17 50 1 35

))

1.1 2.9 5.0 7.7 16.7 24.9 21.9 8.0 1.9 5.7 0.1 4.0

))

1.3 3.2 5.6 8.5 18.5 27.6 24.3 8.9 2.2 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

69


VAR1097

Frits Bolkestein: honest


And honest?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1093, code 90)

4 21 34 66 125 160 211 105 27 2 84 1 35

))

0.5 2.4 3.9 7.5 14.3 18.3 24.1 12.0 3.1 0.2 9.6 0.1 4.0

))

0.5 2.8 4.5 8.7 16.6 21.2 27.9 13.9 3.6 0.3 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1098

Frits Bolkestein: leadership qualities

..........



low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1093, code 90)

8 8 41 54 104 168 200 143 30 7 76 1 35

))

0.9 0.9 4.7 6.2 11.9 19.2 22.9 16.3 3.4 0.8 8.7 0.1 4.0

))

1.0 1.0 5.4 7.1 13.6 22.0 26.2 18.7 3.9 0.9 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

70


VAR1099

Ruud Lubbers: knowledgeable

..........


And to what extent do you think Ruud Lubbers is knowledgeable? Refer to VAR1075 for introduction of question text and to Appendix 5 for further information on politicians. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 90. 97. 98.

low


2 3 2 4 16 36 141 307 260 83 1 19 1

))

0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.8 4.1 16.1 35.1 29.7 9.5 0.1 2.2 0.1

))

0.2 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.9 4.2 16.5 35.9 30.4 9.7 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1100

Ruud Lubbers: compassionate


And compassionate?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1099, code 90)

11 7 16 36 87 161 269 193 60 9 24 1 1

))

1.3 0.8 1.8 4.1 9.9 18.4 30.7 22.1 6.9 1.0 2.7 0.1 0.1

))

1.3 0.8 1.9 4.2 10.2 19.0 31.7 22.7 7.1 1.1 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

71


VAR1101

Ruud Lubbers: decisive


And decisive?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1099, code 90)

3 2 5 9 42 85 178 286 192 42 29 1 1

))

0.3 0.2 0.6 1.0 4.8 9.7 20.3 32.7 21.9 4.8 3.3 0.1 0.1

))

0.4 0.2 0.6 1.1 5.0 10.1 21.1 33.9 22.7 5.0 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1102

Ruud Lubbers: friendly


And friendly?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1099, code 90)

5 7 13 26 74 175 263 197 74 17 21 2 1

))

0.6 0.8 1.5 3.0 8.5 20.0 30.1 22.5 8.5 1.9 2.4 0.2 0.1

))

0.6 0.8 1.5 3.1 8.7 20.6 30.9 23.1 8.7 2.0 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

72


VAR1103

Ruud Lubbers: honest


And honest?

..........


low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1099, code 90)

17 10 32 58 111 137 241 154 65 7 41 1 1

))

1.9 1.1 3.7 6.6 12.7 15.7 27.5 17.6 7.4 0.8 4.7 0.1 0.1

))

2.0 1.2 3.8 7.0 13.3 16.5 29.0 18.5 7.8 0.8 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1104

Ruud Lubbers: leadership qualities

..........



low

high DK NA INAP

(VAR1099, code 90)

5 1 2 4 13 39 114 251 286 134 24 1 1

))

0.6 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.5 4.5 13.0 28.7 32.7 15.3 2.7 0.1 0.1

))

0.6 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.5 4.6 13.4 29.6 33.7 15.8 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

73


VAR1105

Ideal politician: knowledgeable

..........


And to what extent do you think the, in your eyes, ideal politician is knowledgeable? Showcard 10 presented, listing six horizontal lines (pertaining to six different characteristics) with ten categories numbered 1 to 10, category 1 labeled 'does not have to possess this characteristic' and category 10 labeled 'should possess this characteristic'. Refer to VAR1075 for introduction of question text. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 97. 98.

high DK NA

2 3 5 16 101 334 222 179 12 1

))

0.2 0.3 0.6 1.8 11.5 38.2 25.4 20.5 1.4 0.1

))

0.2 0.3 0.6 1.9 11.7 38.7 25.8 20.8 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1106

Ideal politician: compassionate


And compassionate?

..........

Refer to VAR1105 for introduction of question text. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 97. 98.

high DK NA

1 2 2 26 44 149 327 191 121 11 1

))

0.1 0.2 0.2 3.0 5.0 17.0 37.4 21.8 13.8 1.3 0.1

))

0.1 0.2 0.2 3.0 5.1 17.3 37.9 22.1 14.0 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

74


VAR1107

Ideal politician: decisive


And decisive?

..........

Refer to VAR1105 for introduction of question text. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 97. 98.

high DK NA

2 2 2 11 20 85 314 275 152 11 1

))

0.2 0.2 0.2 1.3 2.3 9.7 35.9 31.4 17.4 1.3 0.1

))

0.2 0.2 0.2 1.3 2.3 9.8 36.4 31.9 17.6 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1108

Ideal politician: friendly

..........

And friendly? 37d MD = GE 97 QUEST

Refer to VAR1105 for introduction of question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 97. 98.

low

high DK NA

3 3 9 13 71 114 215 238 119 79 9 2

))

0.3 0.3 1.0 1.5 8.1 13.0 24.6 27.2 13.6 9.0 1.0 0.2

))

0.3 0.3 1.0 1.5 8.2 13.2 24.9 27.5 13.8 9.1 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1109

Ideal politician: honest


And honest?

..........

Refer to VAR1105 for introduction of question text.

75


1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 97. 98.

low

high DK NA

2 3 1 11 13 58 214 241 318 12 2

))

0.2 0.3 0.1 1.3 1.5 6.6 24.5 27.5 36.3 1.4 0.2

))

0.2 0.3 0.1 1.3 1.5 6.7 24.9 28.0 36.9 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1110

Ideal politician: leadership qualities

..........


And to what extent does he possess leadership qualities? Refer to VAR1105 for introduction of question text. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 97. 98.

high DK NA

1 2 10 13 57 259 294 229 9 1

))

0.1 0.2 1.1 1.5 6.5 29.6 33.6 26.2 1.0 0.1

))

0.1 0.2 1.2 1.5 6.6 29.9 34.0 26.5 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1111

Probability of future vote for PvdA

VAR249


Some people are quite certain that they will always vote for the same party. Others reconsider in each case to which party they will give their vote. I shall mention a number of parties. Would you indicate for each party how probable it is that you will ever vote for that party? Mention to me the number that applies to the party. If you do not know a party or if you have no answer, feel free to say so and we shall continue with the next party.

WAVE 2

The PvdA? Showcard 11 presented, listing a horizontal line with ten categories numbered 1 to 10, category 1 labeled 'I will certainly never vote for this party' and category 10 labeled 'I will vote for this party some time certainly'. 1. 2. 76

certainly never

170 57

19.4 6.5

19.5 6.6

207 55

23.7 23.7 6.3 6.3


3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 90. 97. 98.

some time certainly party

DK DK NA

72 45 64 62 106 101 67 126 1 4 0

))

8.2 5.1 7.3 7.1 12.1 11.5 7.7 14.4 0.1 0.5 0.0

))

8.3 5.2 7.4 7.1 12.2 11.6 7.7 14.5 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1112 QUEST

38b

64 51 63 39 52 92 56 193 0 2 1

))

7.3 7.3 5.8 5.8 7.2 7.2 4.5 4.5 5.9 6.0 10.5 10.6 6.4 6.4 22.1 22.1 0.0 MD 0.2 MD 0.1 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

Probability of future vote for VVD

VAR250

And the VVD?

WAVE 2

MD = GE 90

Refer to VAR1111 for complete question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 90. 97. 98.

certainly never


DK DK NA

189 89 87 95 80 73 60 69 49 75 3 6 0

))

21.6 10.2 9.9 10.9 9.1 8.3 6.9 7.9 5.6 8.6 0.3 0.7 0.0

))

21.8 10.3 10.0 11.0 9.2 8.4 6.9 8.0 5.7 8.7 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

287 90 90 62 61 52 57 49 45 78 0 3 1

))

32.8 33.0 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0 5.9 6.0 6.5 6.5 5.6 5.6 5.1 5.2 8.9 9.0 0.0 MD 0.3 MD 0.1 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1113

Probability of future vote for D66

VAR251


And D66?

WAVE 2


certainly never

117 51 55 47 91 104 111 130

13.4 5.8 6.3 5.4 10.4 11.9 12.7 14.9

13.5 5.9 6.4 5.4 10.5 12.0 12.8 15.0

135 43 76 59 104 92 112 103

15.4 4.9 8.7 6.7 11.9 10.5 12.8 11.8

15.5 4.9 8.7 6.8 12.0 10.6 12.9 11.8 77


9. 10. 90. 97. 98.

99 61 3 6 0

some time certainly DK party DK NA

))

11.3 7.0 0.3 0.7 0.0

))

11.4 7.0 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

84 62 0 4 1

))

9.6 7.1 0.0 0.5 0.1

))

9.7 7.1 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1115

Probability of future vote for CDA

VAR254


And the CDA?

WAVE 2


certainly never


DK DK NA

170 71 79 74 97 77 86 80 62 73 2 4 0

))

19.4 8.1 9.0 8.5 11.1 8.8 9.8 9.1 7.1 8.3 0.2 0.5 0.0

))

19.6 8.2 9.1 8.5 11.2 8.9 9.9 9.2 7.1 8.4 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

183 52 52 40 60 65 70 86 104 160 0 2 1

))

20.9 21.0 5.9 6.0 5.9 6.0 4.6 4.6 6.9 6.9 7.4 7.5 8.0 8.0 9.8 9.9 11.9 11.9 18.3 18.3 0.0 MD 0.2 MD 0.1 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1114

Probability of future vote for GroenLinks

VAR255

QUEST 38f

And GroenLinks?

WAVE 2

MD = GE 90


78

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 90. 97.

certainly never

31.1 11.8 9.9 9.1 9.9 7.4 5.6 7.1 2.9 2.6 1.3 1.3

31.9 12.1 10.2 9.4 10.2 7.6 5.7 7.3 2.9 2.7

DK DK

272 103 87 80 87 65 49 62 25 23 11 11

MD MD

325 107 74 63 68 61 39 59 32 36 0 10

98.

NA

0

0.0

MD

1


37.1 37.6 12.2 12.4 8.5 8.6 7.2 7.3 7.8 7.9 7.0 7.1 4.5 4.5 6.7 6.8 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.2 0.0 MD 1.1 MD 0.1

MD


))

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

))

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1116

Probability of future vote for SGP

VAR256

QUEST 38h MD = GE 90

And the SGP?

WAVE 2


certainly never


DK DK NA

474 106 66 36 32 15 23 14 5 12 67 25 0

))

54.2 12.1 7.5 4.1 3.7 1.7 2.6 1.6 0.6 1.4 7.7 2.9 0.0

))

60.5 13.5 8.4 4.6 4.1 1.9 2.9 1.8 0.6 1.5 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

508 120 56 34 34 18 13 16 12 13 0 50 1

))

58.1 61.7 13.7 14.6 6.4 6.8 3.9 4.1 3.9 4.1 2.1 2.2 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 0.0 MD 5.7 MD 0.1 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1117

Probability of future vote for GPV

VAR258

QUEST 38j MD = GE 90

And the GPV?

WAVE 2


certainly never


DK DK NA

472 105 68 26 31 16 23 23 10 13 64 24 0

))

53.9 12.0 7.8 3.0 3.5 1.8 2.6 2.6 1.1 1.5 7.3 2.7 0.0

))

60.0 13.3 8.6 3.3 3.9 2.0 2.9 2.9 1.3 1.7 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

508 125 59 21 30 21 15 14 23 16 0 42 1

))

58.1 61.1 14.3 15.0 6.7 7.1 2.4 2.5 3.4 3.6 2.4 2.5 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.6 2.8 1.8 1.9 0.0 MD 4.8 MD 0.1 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

79


VAR1118

Probability of future vote for RPF

VAR259

QUEST 38k MD = GE 90

And the RPF?

WAVE 2


certainly never


DK DK NA

470 113 58 31 28 19 14 15 14 20 69 24 0

))

53.7 12.9 6.6 3.5 3.2 2.2 1.6 1.7 1.6 2.3 7.9 2.7 0.0

))

60.1 14.5 7.4 4.0 3.6 2.4 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.6 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

515 131 53 22 21 20 8 19 16 12 0 57 1

))

58.9 63.0 15.0 16.0 6.1 6.5 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.4 0.9 1.0 2.2 2.3 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.5 0.0 MD 6.5 MD 0.1 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1119

Probability of future vote for Centrumdemocraten

VAR260

QUEST 38l MD = GE 90

And the Centrumpartij?

WAVE 2


certainly never


DK DK NA

776 24 14 6 10 4 5 2 1 7 7 8 11

))

88.7 2.7 1.6 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3

))

91.4 2.8 1.6 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.8 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

80

786 29 10 6 8 6 0 1 3 12 8 0 6

))

89.8 91.3 3.3 3.4 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 1.4 1.4 0.9 MD 0.0 MD 0.7 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1120

Value priorities - first out of four items

VAR267

QUEST 39a MD = GE 7

In politics, it is not always possible to obtain everything one might wish all at once. Often, a choice will have to be made. This card lists several goals one could strive for in politics. Suppose you personally had to choose: what would then be your first choice?

WAVE 2

Showcard 12 presented, listing the following political goals: A. maintain order in the nation B. give people more say in the decisions of the government C. fight rising prices D. protect freedom of speech 1. 2. 3. 4. 7. 8.

maintaining order more say in politics fight rising prices freedom of speech DK NA

424 122 65 259 5 0

48.5 13.9 7.4 29.6 0.6 0.0

48.7 14.0 7.5 29.8

))

))

))

MD MD

875 100.0 100.0

344 130 63 333 3 2

))

39.3 39.5 14.9 14.9 7.2 7.2 38.1 38.3 0.3 MD 0.2 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1121

Value priorities - second out of four items

VAR268

QUEST 39b MD = GE 7

What would be your second choice?

WAVE 2

Refer to VAR1120 for complete question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 7. 9.

maintaining order more say in politics fight rising prices freedom of speech DK INAP


245 165 163 296 1 5

))

28.0 18.9 18.6 33.8 0.1 0.6

))

28.2 19.0 18.8 34.1 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

249 191 158 270 2 5

))

28.5 21.8 18.1 30.9 0.2 0.6

))

28.7 22.0 18.2 31.1 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1122

Value priorities - third out of four items

VAR269

QUEST 39c MD = GE 7

And what would be your third choice?

WAVE 2

Refer to VAR1120 for complete question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 7.

maintaining order more say in politics fight rising prices freedom of speech DK

140 279 267 178 4

16.0 31.9 30.5 20.3 0.5

16.2 32.3 30.9 20.6 MD

174 254 285 147 8

19.9 29.0 32.6 16.8 0.9

20.2 29.5 33.1 17.1 MD

81


8. 9.

NA INAP


1 6

))

0.1 0.7

))

MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

0 7

))

0.0 0.8

))

md MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1123

Value priorities - fourth out of four items

VAR270

QUEST 39a-c MD = 9

Constructed from VAR1120 to VAR1122.

WAVE 2

1. 2. 3. 4. 9.

maintaining order more say in politics fight rising prices freedom of speech INAP (VAR1122, codes 7-9)

59 300 371 134 11

))

6.7 34.3 42.4 15.3 1.3

))

6.8 34.7 42.9 15.5 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

101 288 357 114 15

))

11.5 32.9 40.8 13.0 1.7

))

11.7 33.5 41.5 13.3 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1124

Value priorities most important - first answer

VAR271


These cards contain a number of goals on which, according to some people, our country should focus. Each card contains a letter. Would you mention to me the letters of the three goals that for you, personally, are the most important ones?

WAVE 2

Showcards 13a-h presented, each containing one of the following political goals: A: maintain a high rate of economic growth B: make sure that this country has strong defence forces C: give people more say in how things are decided at work and in their community D: try to make our cities and countryside more beautiful E: maintain stable economy F: fight against crime G: move toward a friendlier, less impersonal society H: move toward a society where ideas are more important than money 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 97. 98.

economic growth strong defense more say at work beautiful cities stable economy fighting crime humane society nonmaterialist society DK NA

171 5 92 19 245 231 66 36 10 0

))

19.5 0.6 10.5 2.2 28.0 26.4 7.5 4.1 1.1 0.0

))

19.8 0.6 10.6 2.2 28.3 26.7 7.6 4.2 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

82

146 7 105 26 255 173 103 55 4 1

))

16.7 0.8 12.0 3.0 29.1 19.8 11.8 6.3 0.5 0.1

))

16.8 0.8 12.1 3.0 29.3 19.9 11.8 6.3 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1125

Value priorities most important - second answer

VAR272



WAVE 2

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 98. 99.

economic growth strong defense more say at work beautiful cities stable economy fighting crime humane society nonmaterialist society

83 5 72 12 276 260 95 56 NA 6 INAP (VAR1124, codes 97-98) 10

))

9.5 0.6 8.2 1.4 31.5 29.7 10.9 6.4 0.7 1.1

))

9.7 0.6 8.4 1.4 32.1 30.3 11.1 6.5 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

49 12 88 23 226 258 130 74 10 5

))

5.6 1.4 10.1 2.6 25.8 29.5 14.9 8.5 1.1 0.6

))

5.7 1.4 10.2 2.7 26.3 30.0 15.1 8.6 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1126

Value priorities most important - third answer

VAR273



WAVE 2

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 98. 99.


78 9 95 29 114 215 201 104 NA 14 INAP (VAR1125, codes 98-99) 16

))

8.9 1.0 10.9 3.3 13.0 24.6 23.0 11.9 1.6 1.8

))

9.2 1.1 11.2 3.4 13.5 25.4 23.8 12.3 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

40 8 90 33 113 208 229 125 14 15

))

4.6 0.9 10.3 3.8 12.9 23.8 26.2 14.3 1.6 1.7

))

4.7 0.9 10.6 3.9 13.4 24.6 27.1 14.8 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1127

Value priorities least important - first answer

VAR274


And which three do you find, personally, the least important?

WAVE 2



104 499 46 97 4 3 30 77

11.9 57.0 5.3 11.1 0.5 0.3 3.4 8.8

12.1 58.0 5.3 11.3 0.5 0.3 3.5 9.0

121 476 49 80 16 15 34 72

13.8 14.0 54.4 55.2 5.6 5.7 9.1 9.3 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.7 3.9 3.9 8.2 8.3 83


97.

15

DK

))

1.7

))

MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

12

))

1.4

))

MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

Note: In 1989 respondents could rank the same items among both the three most important goals and the three least important goals. 125 respondents actually did so for one or more items.

VAR1128 QUEST

40b

Value priorities least important - second answer

VAR275


WAVE 2

MD = GE 98

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 98. 99.

economic growth strong defense more say at work beautiful cities stable economy fighting crime humane society nonmaterialist society NA INAP

(VAR1127, codes 97)

111 159 93 200 19 5 77 147 49 15

))

12.7 18.2 10.6 22.9 2.2 0.6 8.8 16.8 5.6 1.7

))

13.7 19.6 11.5 24.7 2.3 0.6 9.5 18.1 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1129 QUEST

40b

107 162 101 201 17 16 55 106 98 12

))

12.2 18.5 11.5 23.0 1.9 1.8 6.3 12.1 11.2 1.4

))

14.0 21.2 13.2 26.3 2.2 2.1 7.2 13.9 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

Value priorities least important - third answer

VAR276


WAVE 2

MD = GE 98

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 98. 99.


71 81 108 171 25 19 113 163 NA 60 INAP (VAR1128, codes 98-99) 64

))

8.1 9.3 12.3 19.5 2.9 2.2 12.9 18.6 6.9 7.3

))

9.5 10.8 14.4 22.8 3.3 2.5 15.0 21.7 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1130 QUEST

41a

MD = GE 7

100 50 98 163 33 26 71 178 46 110

))

))

13.9 7.0 13.6 22.7 4.6 3.6 9.9 24.8 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

Political efficacy - first item

VAR219

I shall now read you a number of statements. Would you tell me for each statement if, according to you, it is true or false?

WAVE 2

Members of parliament do not care about the opinions of people like me.

84

11.4 5.7 11.2 18.6 3.8 3.0 8.1 20.3 5.3 12.6


Showcard 14 presented, listing response alternatives. 1. 2. 7. 8.

agree disagree DK NA

386 475 14 0

))

44.1 54.3 1.6 0.0

))

44.8 55.2 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1131 QUEST

41b

291 564 19 1

))

33.3 34.0 64.5 66.0 2.2 MD 0.1 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

Political efficacy - second item

VAR220

Political parties are only interested in my vote and not in my opinions.

WAVE 2

MD = GE 7

Refer to VAR1130 for introduction of question text. 1. 2. 7.

agree disagree DK

442 425 8

))

50.5 48.6 0.9

))

51.0 49.0 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

338 532 5

))

38.6 38.9 60.8 61.1 0.6 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1132

Political efficacy - third item

VAR221

QUEST 41c MD = GE 7

People like me have absolutely no influence on governmental policy.

WAVE 2


agree disagree DK

414 455 6

))

47.3 52.0 0.7

))

47.6 52.4 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

362 502 11

))

41.4 41.9 57.4 58.1 1.3 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1133

Political efficacy - fourth item

VAR222

QUEST 41d MD = GE 7

So many people vote in elections that my vote does not matter.

WAVE 2


agree disagree DK

58 810 7

))

6.6 92.6 0.8

))

6.7 93.3 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

57 816 2

))

6.5 6.5 93.3 93.5 0.2 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

85


VAR1134

Political efficacy score

VAR223

QUEST 41a-d MD = 9


WAVE 2

0. 1. 2. 3. 4.

low

high

46 215 167 172 275

))

5.3 24.6 19.1 19.7 31.4

))

5.3 24.6 19.1 19.7 31.4

))

875 100.0 100.0

27 157 146 215 330

))

3.1 17.9 16.7 24.6 37.7

))

3.1 17.9 16.7 24.6 37.7

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1135

Political cynicism - first item

VAR224

QUEST 42a MD = GE 7

Some people say that there is much to criticize in politics, others say that it is not so bad. Could you say to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements?

WAVE 2

Although they know better, politicians promise more than they can deliver. Showcard 15 presented, listing response alternatives. 1. 2. 3. 4. 7.

fully agree agree disagree fully disagree DK

241 549 80 0 5

))

27.5 62.7 9.1 0.0 0.6

))

27.7 63.1 9.2 0.0 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

163 564 136 4 8

))

18.6 18.8 64.5 65.1 15.5 15.7 0.5 0.5 0.9 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1136

Political cynicism - second item

VAR225

QUEST 42b MD = GE 7

Ministers and state secretaries are primarily concerned about their personal interests.

WAVE 2

Refer to VAR1135 for introduction of question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 7.

fully agree agree disagree fully disagree DK

61 225 529 51 9

))

7.0 25.7 60.5 5.8 1.0

))

7.0 26.0 61.1 5.9 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

86

51 191 571 54 8

))

5.8 5.9 21.8 22.0 65.3 65.9 6.2 6.2 0.9 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1137

Political cynicism - third item

VAR226

QUEST 42c MD = GE 7

One is more likely to become a member of parliament because of one's political friends than because of one's abilities.

WAVE 2

Refer to VAR1135 for introduction of question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 7. 8.

fully agree agree disagree fully disagree DK NA

64 291 452 30 38 0

))

7.3 33.3 51.7 3.4 4.3 0.0

))

7.6 34.8 54.0 3.6 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1138 42a-c 9

QUEST MD =

43a

MD = GE 7

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR227


WAVE 2

low high

60 375 264 176

))

6.9 42.9 30.2 20.1

))

6.9 42.9 30.2 20.1

))

875 100.0 100.0

QUEST

))

7.2 7.5 28.0 29.3 55.2 57.7 5.3 5.5 4.2 MD 0.1 MD

Political cynicism score

0. 1. 2. 3.

VAR1139

63 245 483 46 37 1

108 387 250 130

))

12.3 44.2 28.6 14.9

))

12.3 44.2 28.6 14.9

))

875 100.0 100.0

Environmental pollution - first preference

..........

I would like to ask you a few questions about toxic waste such as batteries and leftovers of paint. Everybody faces the choice: throw away the waste with the regular garbage or to take the waste to a special collection point where toxic waste can be processed properly. Your choice will determine, together with the choices others will make, what the consequences will be for the environment. Showcard 16 presented, listing four possible situations. - Situation A is described as 'You throw the waste away, but other people take their waste to the collection point. This doesn't take any of your time and/or effort and environmental pollution will be reduced.' - Situation B is described as 'You throw the waste away, and other people will do so as well. This doesn't take any of your time and/or effort and environmental pollution will increase.' - Situation C is described as 'You take the waste to the collection point, and so do others. This costs you extra time and effort but environmental pollution will decrease.' - Situation D is described as 'You take the waste to the collection point, but others do not. This costs you extra time and effort and environmental pollution will increase.

87


This card lists four possible situations. I would like to ask you to rate these situations in terms of your preference. Which situation do you prefer the most? 1. 2. 3. 4. 7.

Situation A Situation B Situation C Situation D DK

72 28 734 29 12

))

8.2 3.2 83.9 3.3 1.4

))

8.3 3.2 85.1 3.4 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1140 QUEST

43b

Environmental pollution - second preference

..........

Which situation do you prefer secondly?

MD = GE 7

Refer to VAR1139 for introduction of question text. 1. 2. 3. 4. 7. 8. 9.

Situation A Situation B Situation C Situation D DK NA INAP

(VAR1139, code 7)

308 60 94 361 36 4 12

))

35.2 6.9 10.7 41.3 4.1 0.5 1.4

))

37.4 7.3 11.4 43.9 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1141 QUEST

43c

Environmental pollution - third preference

..........

Which situation do you prefer thirdly?

MD = GE 7




316 156 21 286 36 8 52

))

36.1 17.8 2.4 32.7 4.1 0.9 5.9

))

40.6 20.0 2.7 36.7 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

88


VAR1142

Environmental pollution - fourth preference

QUEST 43d MD = GE 7

Which situation do you prefer lastly?

..........




106 537 7 123 5 1 96

))

12.1 61.4 0.8 14.1 0.6 0.1 11.0

))

13.7 69.5 0.9 15.9 MD MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1143 QUEST

44a

MD = GE 7

Relevance time and effort for preference

..........

Was the extra effort involved in taking the toxic waste to the collection point a consideration in indicating your preference?

1. 2. 7. 8.

yes, relevant no, not relevant DK NA

183 674 17 1

))

20.9 77.0 1.9 0.1

))

21.4 78.6 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1144

Relevance pollution for preference

QUEST 44b MD = GE 7

Was the importance of reducing environmental pollution a consideration in indicating your preference? 1. 2. 7.

yes, relevant no, not relevant DK

781 78 16

))

..........

89.3 8.9 1.8

))

90.9 9.1 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

89


VAR1145

Time and effort for environment

..........


Some people are prepared to invest a lot of time and effort for the environment. Others are prepared to invest less or no time at all in the environment. Showcard 17 presented, listing response alternatives. Could you indicate by means of this card how much time and effort you are prepared to invest in the environment? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 97. 99.

little time + effort

much time + effort DK INAP


3 5 12 27 63 48 24 1 692

))

0.3 0.6 1.4 3.1 7.2 5.5 2.7 0.1 79.1

1.6 2.7 6.6 14.8 34.6 26.4 13.2 MD MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1146

Importance solving environmental pollution

..........


Some people find solving environmental pollution very important, while others find this less important or not important at all. Showcard 18 presented, listing response alternatives. Could you indicate by means of this card how important you find solving environmental pollution? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 98. 99.

not important

very important NA INAP


2 2 6 24 81 246 415 5 94

))

0.2 0.2 0.7 2.7 9.3 28.1 47.4 0.6 10.7

))

0.3 0.3 0.8 3.1 10.4 31.7 53.5 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

90


VAR1147

Other person's expected behavior

QUEST 46a MD = GE 7

Do you expect other people to just throw away their toxic waste or take their waste to the collection point? 1. 2. 7. 8.

throw out go to dump site DK NA

..........

218 629 27 1

))

24.9 71.9 3.1 0.1

))

25.7 74.3 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1148 QUEST

46b

MD = GE 7

Own behavior

..........

And how about yourself? Will you just throw out the toxic waste or will you take it to the collection point? 1. 2. 7.

throw out go to dump site DK

37 834 4

))

4.2 95.3 0.5

))

4.2 95.8 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1149 QUEST

47

MD = GE 7

Chance of acting against unjust bill

VAR228

Suppose the Second Chamber were considering a bill that you felt was extremely unjust or wrong. How great is the chance that you would attempt to do something about it? Is this chance very great, great, small, or very small?

WAVE 2

1. 2. 3. 4. 7. 8.

very great great small very small DK NA

40 172 395 265 3 0

))

4.6 19.7 45.1 30.3 0.3 0.0

))

4.6 19.7 45.3 30.4 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

20 101 402 350 1 1

))

2.3 2.3 11.5 11.6 45.9 46.0 40.0 40.1 0.1 MD 0.1 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1150

Did (not) contact cabinet ministers

VAR229

QUEST 48 MD = 9

This card lists what you could do if the Second Chamber were to consider a bill that you felt to be unjust or wrong. Could you tell me for each of these possibilities whether or not you have ever used them? You can mention one of the numbers at the bottom of the card.

WAVE 2

Contacted a minister

91


Showcard 19 presented, listing 13 possible forms of political participation. The response alternatives were listed at the bottom of the showcard.

1. 2.

used not used

25 850

))

2.9 97.1

))

2.9 97.1

))

875 100.0 100.0

47 828

))

5.4 5.4 94.6 94.6

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

Note: users should be aware that the 1989 question is different from those used in other Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies in that the set of possible forms of political participation was not presented at once to the respondents, but that the questions were asked one by one. Refer to Van der Eijk, Pennings, and Wille (1992) for details.

VAR1151

Did (not) contact member of parliament

VAR230

QUEST 48 MD = 9

Contacted a member of the Second Chamber

WAVE 2

Refer to VAR1150 for introduction of question text. 1. 2.

used not used

56 819

))

6.4 93.6

))

6.4 93.6

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1152 QUEST

48

84 791

))

9.6 9.6 90.4 90.4

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

Did (not) sign a petition

VAR231

Participated in a petition drive

WAVE 2

MD = GE 7


used not used DK

537 338 0

))

61.4 38.6 0.0

))

61.4 38.6 MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

597 276 2

))

68.2 68.4 31.5 31.6 0.2 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1153

Did (not) try to activate interest group

VAR232

QUEST 48 MD = 9

Sought assistance from an organization

WAVE 2


used not used

116 759

))

13.3 86.7

))

13.3 86.7

))

875 100.0 100.0

92

188 687

))

21.5 21.5 78.5 78.5

))

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1154

Did (not) try to activate radio or tv

VAR233

QUEST 48 MD = 9

Sought assistance from radio, television

WAVE 2


used not used

33 842

))

3.8 96.2

))

3.8 96.2

))

875 100.0 100.0

51 824

))

5.8 5.8 94.2 94.2

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1155

Did (not) try to activate political party

VAR234

QUEST 48 MD = 9

Tried to get assistance from a political party

WAVE 2


used not used

85 790

))

9.7 90.3

))

9.7 90.3

))

875 100.0 100.0

113 762

))

12.9 12.9 87.1 87.1

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1156

Did (not) contact mayor or alderman

VAR235

QUEST 48 MD = 9

Contacted the mayor or alderman

WAVE 2


used not used

104 771

))

11.9 88.1

))

11.9 88.1

))

875 100.0 100.0

136 739

))

15.5 15.5 84.5 84.5

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1157

Did (not) contact municipal councillor

VAR236

QUEST 48 MD = 9

Contacted a member of the municipal council

WAVE 2


used not used

147 728

))

16.8 83.2

))

16.8 83.2

))

875 100.0 100.0

189 686

))

21.6 21.6 78.4 78.4

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

93


VAR1158

Did (not) join civic action group

VAR237

QUEST 48 MD = 9

Participated in an action group

WAVE 2


used not used

135 740

))

15.4 84.6

))

15.4 84.6

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1159 48 9

QUEST MD =

204 671

))

23.3 23.3 76.7 76.7

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

Did (not) join demonstration

VAR238

Participated in a demonstration

WAVE 2


used not used

213 662

))

24.3 75.7

))

24.3 75.7

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1160 48 9

QUEST MD =

250 625

))

28.6 28.6 71.4 71.4

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

Did (not) try to activate newspaper

VAR239

Sought assistance from a newspaper

WAVE 2


used not used

66 809

))

7.5 92.5

))

7.5 92.5

))

875 100.0 100.0

80 795

))

9.1 9.1 90.9 90.9

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1161

Did (not) lodge a complaint

VAR240

QUEST 48 MD = 9

Sent a letter of appeal

WAVE 2


used not used

137 738

))

15.7 84.3

))

15.7 84.3

))

875 100.0 100.0

94

156 719

))

17.8 17.8 82.2 82.2

))

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1162

Did (not) contact department official

VAR241

QUEST 48 MD = 9

Contacted someone from a ministry

WAVE 2


used not used

39 836

))

4.5 95.5

))

4.5 95.5

))

875 100.0 100.0

71 804

))

8.1 8.1 91.9 91.9

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1163

Civic participation score

VAR242

QUEST 48 MD = 99


WAVE 2

0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

low

high

209 265 158 98 57 34 20 10 6 7 4 5 2 0

23.9 30.3 18.1 11.2 6.5 3.9 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.0

23.9 30.3 18.1 11.2 6.5 3.9 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.0

))

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

VAR1164

207 196 145 107 59 54 30 29 12 9 13 7 5 2

23.7 22.4 16.6 12.2 6.7 6.2 3.4 3.3 1.4 1.0 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.2

23.7 22.4 16.6 12.2 6.7 6.2 3.4 3.3 1.4 1.0 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.2

))

))

))

875 100.0 100.0

Date of third interview (mdd)

VAR293

Registered by built-in calendar in laptop computer. First two digits indicate month; last two digits indicate day. Date of second interview ranges from 509 (May 9) to 629 (June 6).

WAVE 2

QUEST none MD = GE 998

Note: there is also a similar variable in the second wave of interviews (VAR297).

VAR1165

Start of third interview (hhmmss)

VAR294


Registered by built-in clock in laptop computer. First two digits indicate hour (24 hour clock used); next two digits indicate minute; last two digits indicate seconds. Start of second interview ranges from 83649 (8 hours, 36 minutes, and 49 seconds a.m.) to 215536 (9 hours, 55 minutes, and 36 seconds p.m.).

WAVE 2

95



VAR1166 QUEST

none 999998

MD = GE

End of third interview (hhmmss)

VAR295

Registered by built-in clock in laptop computer. First two digits indicate hour (24 hour clock used); next two digits indicate minute; last two digits indicate seconds. End of second interview ranges from 90922 (9 hours, 9 minutes, and 22 seconds, a.m.) to 223501 (10 hours, 35 minutes, and 1 second p.m.).

WAVE 2


VAR1167

Duration of third interview (hmmss)

VAR296


Constructed from VAR294 and VAR295. First digit indicates number of hours; next two digits indicate number of minutes; last two digits indicate number of seconds. Duration of second interview ranges from 1541 (15 minutes and 41 seconds) to 35150 (3 hours, 51 minutes, and 50 seconds).

WAVE 2


VAR1168

Present at interview - children under 6 years

VAR136


Would you indicate who besides the respondent was present during the interview? Would you also indicate: - if they followed the conversation completely or in part; i.e., listened actively. - if they intruded into the interview; i.e., offered an own opinion, corrected the respondent, offered suggestions, etc.?

WAVE 1

Children under 6 years Completed by interviewer. 1. 2. 3. 4.

not present did not listen did listen did participate

823 46 4 2

))

93.3 5.3 0.5 0.2

))

94.1 5.3 0.5 0.2

))

875 100.0 100.0

791 69 13 2

))

90.4 90.4 7.9 7.9 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.2

))

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1169

Present at interview - children 6 years and over

VAR137


Children over 6 years

WAVE 1

96


Completed by interviewer. Refer to VAR1168 for complete question text. 1. 2. 3. 4.


833 25 16 1

))

95.2 2.9 1.8 0.1

))

95.2 2.9 1.8 0.1

))

875 100.0 100.0

775 58 41 1

))

88.6 88.6 6.6 6.6 4.7 4.7 0.1 0.1

))

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1170

Present at interview - spouse or partner

VAR138


Husband, wife, or partner

WAVE 1



687 96 75 17

))

78.5 11.0 8.6 1.9

))

78.5 11.0 8.6 1.9

))

875 100.0 100.0

564 117 164 30

))

64.5 64.5 13.4 13.4 18.7 18.7 3.4 3.4

))

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1171

Present at interview - other relatives

VAR139


Other relatives

WAVE 1



853 11 9 2

))

97.5 1.3 1.0 0.2

))

97.5 1.3 1.0 0.2

))

875 100.0 100.0

827 18 24 6

))

94.5 94.5 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.7 0.7 0.7

))

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1172 49a-b,54 9

QUEST MD =

Present at interview - other adults

VAR140

Other adults

WAVE 1

Completed by interviewer. Refer to VAR1168 for complete question text. 1.

not present

860

98.3

98.3

837

95.7 95.7 97


2. 3. 4.

did not listen did listen did participate

8 6 1

))

0.9 0.7 0.1

))

0.9 0.7 0.1

))

875 100.0 100.0

20 24 4

))

2.3 1.6 0.5

))

2.3 1.6 0.5

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1173 55a 9

QUEST MD =

Presence of disturbing influences

VAR141

Were there any disturbing influences during the interview, such as a television set or radio that was on, other people arriving for a visit, etc.?

WAVE 1

Completed by interviewer. 1. 2.

yes no

69 806

))

7.9 92.1

))

7.9 92.1

))

875 100.0 100.0

61 814

))

7.0 7.0 93.0 93.0

))

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1174

Disturbing influences - first coding

VAR142

QUEST 55b MD = GE 8

The disturbing factors were ....

WAVE 1

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 9.

visitors tv, radio or music children telephone other NA INAP

(VAR1173, code 2)

7 48 5 2 7 0 806

))

0.8 5.5 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.0 92.1

))

10.1 69.6 7.2 2.9 10.1 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

2 32 11 0 15 1 814

))

0.2 3.3 3.7 53.3 1.3 18.3 0.0 0.0 1.7 25.0 0.1 MD 93.0 MD

))

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1175 QUEST

55b

Disturbing influences - second coding

VAR143


WAVE 1

MD = GE 6

1. 2. 3. 4. 98

visitors tv, radio or music children telephone

0 1 2 1

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1

0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0

1 0 1 1

0.1 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 20.0 0.1 20.0


5. 6. 9.

other no second coding INAP (VAR1174, codes 8-9)

0 65 806

))

0.0 7.4 92.1

))

0.0 MD MD

))

875 100.0 100.0

2 55 815

))

0.2 40.0 6.3 MD 93.1 md

))

))

875 100.0 100.0


VAR1176

Verbatim answer most important problem question

VAR305

QUEST 8

Refer to VAR1008 for complete question text and to Appendix 2 for more detailed information on this variable.

WAVE 2

VAR1177

Verbatim answer reason party choice

..........

QUEST 13 MD = none


VAR1178

Verbatim answer reason not voting

VAR306

QUEST 19 MD = none


WAVE 2

MD

= none

99



100

PART 3

QUESTIONNAIRE WAVE 3


INTRODUCTION

3.1 Introduction This part of the codebook contains reproductions of the questionnaire and showcards that were used for the third wave of interviews. Reproductions of the questionnaires and showcards used for the first and second wave can be found in Anker and Oppenhuis (1993). Since the data were collected by means of computer-assisted interviewing it is not possible to simply provide a facsimile of the original questionnaire and showcards. Instead, an attempt was made to reproduce as closely as possible the information on the computer screens as they were shown to the interviewers. Copies of the original interviewing program, which run on any type of IBM pc computer, can be obtained from the Steinmetz Archive. The following remarks pertain to the information contained in this part of the codebook: - All question texts are in Dutch. English translations of these questions can be found in the variable documentation part of this codebook. - Each question was presented on a separate screen, along with the answering categories. The interviewer read the text of the question to the respondent and recorded the answer given by the respondent by typing the number of the precoded categories, or by typing the full answer if necessary. The answering categories were not read to the respondents. - The answering categories 'don't know' and 'refused to answer' could be entered in two different ways. The interviewer could either type the code shown on the screen or strike the (somewhat obscure) '[' key for a 'don't know response' or the ']' key for a 'refused to answer' response. In a handful of cases, the '[' and ']' keys were blocked for technical reasons. - The interviewer could always type extra information in a special 'memo field', which could be entered by striking a specified key combination ('Ctrl F4'). - In addition to the question text and answering categories, the screens also contained interviewer instructions. Most of these instructions were preceded by the letters 'ENQ:'. The instructions occasionally contained the CBS-abbreviation 'OP', which stands for 'person being interviewed' (onderzoekspersoon). Another important set of interviewer instructions pertains to the (range of) codes that could be entered by the interviewer. These instructions were all shown within parentheses and read something like 'voer getal in tussen ... en ...' Of course, none of these instructions were read to the respondents. - The routing of the questions is indicated by the words 'Ga naar [question number]' after each answering category. In all cases where such an indication is absent, the interview proceeded with the question next in line. In cases where the 'don't know' and 'refused to answer' codes were not shown on the screen, they have nonetheless been included in the reproductions in all cases where the presence of a routing had to be indicated. These codes

103

INTRODUCTION

are not preceded by a code and are shown in square brackets ([ and ]) to emphasize that these answering categories were not shown on the computer screen. - Some of the questions are preceded by one or more lines with additional information on the routing scheme employed for the question next in line. This information is shown in italics. - The text of the questions has been copied as closely as possible from the original questionnaires, except for spelling errors. All words shown in uppercase (written that way in order to instruct the interviewers to emphasize these words) were also projected that way on the computer screens. - Occasionally, part of the information obtained by means of previous questions (for example, the name of the party a respondent voted for) was imputed in the text of other questions. Whenever this was done, this is indicated by means of a square opening bracket ([) at the beginning of the imputed text and a square closing bracket (]) at the end of the imputed text.

104


3.2 Questionnaire wave 3 1a.

STEL VAST: Bij de vorige 2e Kamerverkiezingen in 1989 is een interview gehouden met de (geslacht) die op (geboortedatum) geboren is. Zijn de gegevens van deze persoon correct? (voer maximaal 2 codes in) 1. gegevens zijn correct 2. geslacht is niet juist 3. geboortedatum is niet juist 4. deze gegevens zijn niet van de persoon die in 1989 is geïnterviewd maar van iemand anders uit het huishouden

(Ga naar 2) (Ga naar 1b) (Ga naar 1c) (Ga naar 1b)

Alleen vastgesteld indien geslacht onjuist. 1b.

ENQ: Stel vast wat het geslacht is van de persoon die in 1989 is geïnterviewd. 1. 2.

man vrouw

Alleen vastgesteld indien geboortedatum onjuist. 1c.

ENQ: Stel vast wat de geboortedatum is van de persoon die vóór de verkiezingen is geïnterviewd. __ __ __ (datum)

2.

Ik wil beginnen met een paar vragen over het nieuws in de krant. Als er in de krant binnenlands nieuws staat, bijvoorbeeld nieuws over regeringsproblemen, hoe vaak leest u dat dan? ENQ: Overhandig kaart 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3.

bijna altijd vaak zo nu en dan zelden of nooit leest geen krant

Als er in gezelschap over zulke problemen van ons land gesproken wordt, doet u dan meestal mee met het gesprek, luistert u met belangstelling, luistert u niet of heeft u geen belangstelling? 1. 2. 3.

doet meestal mee luistert met belangstelling luistert niet, geen belangstelling

105


Alleen te stellen indien OP krant leest. 4.

Als er in de krant buitenlands nieuws staat, bijvoorbeeld nieuws over spanningen of besprekingen tussen verschillende landen, hoe vaak leest u dat dan? ENQ: Overhandig kaart 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5.

Bent u zeer geïnteresseerd in politieke onderwerpen, tamelijk geïnteresseerd of niet geïnteresseerd? 1. 2. 3.

6.

(bijna) altijd vaak zo nu en dan zelden of nooit leest geen krant

zeer geïnteresseerd tamelijk geïnteresseerd niet geïnteresseerd

ENQ: Overhandig kaart 2 Kunt u met behulp van dit kaartje aangeven hoe vaak u gewoonlijk het NOS-journaal (het nieuws) volgt op de t.v.? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

7.

(vrijwel) dagelijks 3 a 4 keer per week 1 a 2 keer per week minder dan 1 keer per week n.v.t. (geen t.v.)

(Ga naar 8)

ENQ: Kaart 2 Kunt u met behulp van dit kaartje aangeven hoe vaak u gewoonlijk het RTL4-nieuws volgt op de t.v.? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

8.

(vrijwel) dagelijks 3 a 4 keer per week 1 a 2 keer per week minder dan 1 keer per week n.v.t. (geen t.v.)

Vervolgens zou ik u willen vragen wat u de belangrijkste problemen in ons land vindt? ENQ: Doorvragen, meer antwoorden mogelijk. Door OP genoemde problemen duidelijk van elkaar onderscheiden d.m.v een puntkomma (;).

106


9.

Ik wil een paar vragen stellen over de campagne die aan de Kamerverkiezingen van 3 mei is voorafgegaan. Als er in de krant nieuws over de verkiezingscampagne stond, hoe vaak las u dat dan? ENQ: Overhandig kaart 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

10.

In de week voorafgaand aan de verkiezingen werden op de televisie enkele debatten gehouden waaraan de lijsttrekkers van de grote politieke partijen meededen. Heeft u een van deze debatten geheel of grotendeels gezien? 1. 2.

11.

ja nee [weet niet/weigert]

(Ga naar 12) (Ga naar 19) (Ga naar 22a)

Op welke partij heeft u gestemd? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13.

ja nee

Heeft u gestemd bij de Kamerverkiezingen van 3 mei of niet? 1. 2.

12.

bijna altijd vaak zo nu en dan zelden of nooit leest geen krant

PvdA CDA VVD D66

GroenLinks SGP GPV RPF

Centrumdemocraten andere, nl. ... ongeldig blanco [weet niet/weigert]

(Ga naar 17a)

Waarom heeft u [antwoord vraag 12]/[deze partij] gestemd? ENQ: Doorvragen bij onduidelijk antwoord of 'beste partij'. Toets het antwoord letterlijk en volledig in.

107


14.

Wanneer heeft u besloten om [antwoord op vraag 12]/[deze partij] te stemmen? Was dat de laatste DAGEN voor de verkiezingen, de laatste WEKEN voor de verkiezingen, een paar MAANDEN tevoren of wist u al LANGER van tevoren hoe u zou gaan stemmen? 1. 2. 3. 4.

laatste dagen laatste weken een paar maanden tevoren langer van tevoren [weet niet/weigert]

Als GroenLinks is geantwoord bij vraag 12, ga naar vraag 15b 15a.

Heeft u altijd [antwoord vraag 12]/[deze partij] gestemd of heeft u weleens op een [andere partij]/[partij] gestemd? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

15b.

altijd deze partij weleens een andere partij niet kiesgerechtigd was kiesgerechtigd maar heeft nooit gestemd weet niet

Welke partij was dat of welke partijen waren dat? ENQ: Meer antwoorden mogelijk. (voer maximaal 19 codes in) 1. PvdA 2. CDA 3. VVD 4. D66 5. GroenLinks 6. CPN 7. PPR 8. PSP 9. SGP 10. GPV 11. RPF 12. Centrumpartij 13. Centrumdemocraten 14. EVP

108

(Ga naar 16) (Ga naar 16) (Ga naar 16) (Ga naar 16) (Ga naar 16) (Ga naar 16)

Heeft u altijd GroenLinks gestemd of heeft u weleens op een andere partij gestemd? Partijen waaruit GroenLinks is ontstaan zoals de PPR, de PSP, de CPN en de EVP moet u beschouwen als andere partijen. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

16.

altijd [antwoord vraag 12] weleens een andere partij niet kiesgerechtigd was kiesgerechtigd maar heeft nooit gestemd weet niet [weet niet/weigert]


15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

17a.

ja nee weet niet [weet niet/weigert]

(Ga naar 22a) (Ga naar 22a) (Ga naar 22a)

Op welke? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

19.

ja nee

En heeft u bij de Kamerverkiezingen van 3 mei serieus overwogen om op [een andere partij dan antwoord vraag 12]/[een partij]/[een andere partij dan de partij waarop u gestemd heeft] te gaan stemmen? 1. 2. 3.

18.

andere, nl. ...

Heeft u bij de Kamerverkiezingen van 3 mei serieus overwogen om niet te gaan stemmen? 1. 2.

17b.

KVP CHU ARP SDAP

PvdA CDA VVD D66

GroenLinks SGP GPV RPF

Centrumdemocraten andere, nl. ... [weet niet/weigert]

(Ga naar 22a) (Ga naar 22a) (Ga naar 22a) (Ga naar 22a) (Ga naar 22a) (Ga naar 22a) (Ga naar 22a) (Ga naar 22a) (Ga naar 22a) (Ga naar 22a) (Ga naar 22a)

Waarom heeft u niet gestemd? ENQ: Doorvragen bij onduidelijk antwoord. Toets het antwoord letterlijk en volledig in.

20.

21.

Wanneer werd duidelijk dat u niet zou gaan stemmen? Was dat de laatste DAGEN voor de verkiezingen, de laatste WEKEN voor de verkiezingen, een paar MAANDEN van tevoren of wist u al LANGER dat u niet zou gaan stemmen? 1. laatste dagen 2. laatste weken 3. een paar maanden tevoren 4. langer van tevoren Stel dat u toch had gestemd, op welke partij had u dan gestemd?

109


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

22a.

110

gunstig ongunstig niet gunstig/niet ongunstig



En de SOCIALE ZEKERHEID: denkt u dat de sociale zekerheid in Nederland door het gevoerde regeringsbeleid 'gunstig', 'ongunstig' of 'niet gunstig maar ook niet ongunstig' beïnvloed is? 1. 2. 3.

23.


En het MILIEU: denkt u dat het milieu in Nederland door het gevoerde regeringsbeleid 'gunstig', 'ongunstig' of 'niet gunstig maar ook niet ongunstig' beïnvloed is? 1. 2. 3.

22e.

Centrumdemocraten andere, nl. ...

En uw PERSOONLIJKE FINANCIELE SITUATIE: denkt u dat uw persoonlijke financiële situatie door het gevoerde regeringsbeleid 'gunstig', 'ongunstig' of 'niet gunstig maar ook niet ongunstig' beïnvloed is? 1. 2. 3.

22d.

SGP GPV RPF

En de WERKGELEGENHEID: denkt u dat de werkgelegenheid in Nederland door het gevoerde regeringsbeleid 'gunstig', 'ongunstig' of 'niet gunstig maar ook niet ongunstig' beïnvloed is? 1. 2. 3.

22c.

GroenLinks

Ik wil nu een paar vragen stellen over wat u vindt van het beleid dat de afgelopen 4 jaar door de regering gevoerd is. Allereerst de ALGEMENE ECONOMISCHE TOESTAND: denkt u dat de economische toestand door het gevoerde regeringsbeleid 'gunstig', 'ongunstig' of 'niet gunstig maar ook niet ongunstig' beïnvloed is? 1. 2. 3.

22b.

PvdA CDA VVD D66


ENQ: Overhandig kaart 4


Kunt u met behulp van de kaart aangeven hoe tevreden u IN HET ALGEMEEN bent met wat de regering in de afgelopen 4 jaar heeft gedaan? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

24a.

zeer tevreden tevreden niet tevreden, maar ook niet ontevreden ontevreden zeer ontevreden

Nu een paar vragen over politieke zaken die regelmatig in het nieuws zijn. Als een arts het leven van een patiënt op diens verzoek beëindigt noemen we dat EUTHANASIE. Sommige mensen vinden dat euthanasie verboden moet zijn. Anderen vinden dat een arts altijd euthanasie mag toepassen als de patiënt daartoe de wens te kennen geeft. Natuurlijk zijn er ook mensen met een mening die daar tussenin ligt. ENQ: Overhandig kaart 5 Stel: de mensen die vinden dat euthanasie verboden moet zijn staan aan het BEGIN van de lijn (bij cijfer 1) en de mensen die vinden dat de arts altijd euthanasie mag toepassen als de patiënt daarom vraagt staan aan het EINDE van de lijn (bij cijfer 7). Dus, begin van de lijn: euthanasie moet altijd verboden zijn; eind van de lijn: euthanasie mag. Ik ga u nu eerst vragen om politieke partijen te plaatsen op deze lijn. Als u helemaal niet weet welk standpunt een partij heeft, zegt u het dan gerust! Waar zou u het CDA op de lijn plaatsen? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

24b.

En waar de PvdA? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

24c.

En waar de VVD? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

24d.

En waar D66? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

24e.

En waar zou u zichzelf op de lijn plaatsen? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

25a.

ENQ: Overhandig kaart 6

111


Sommige mensen vinden dat DE VERSCHILLEN IN INKOMENS IN ONS LAND groter moeten worden (bij cijfer 1). Anderen vinden dat deze verschillen kleiner moeten worden (bij cijfer 7). Natuurlijk zijn er ook mensen met een mening die hier ergens tussen in ligt. Waar zou u het CDA op deze lijn plaatsen? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7) 25b.

En waar de PvdA? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

25c.

En waar de VVD? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

25d.

En waar D66? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

25e.

En waar zou u zichzelf op deze lijn plaatsen? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

26.

ENQ: Overhandig kaart 7 Van politieke opvattingen wordt vaak gezegd dat zij LINKS OF RECHTS zijn. Wanneer u denkt aan uw eigen politieke opvattingen, waar zou u dan zichzelf op deze lijn plaatsen? Noemt u maar het cijfer dat op u van toepassing is. (voer getal in tussen 1 en 10)

27a.

Ook van politieke partijen wordt gezegd dat zij LINKS of RECHTS zijn. ENQ: Overhandig kaart 7 Wilt u aangeven in welke mate u vindt dat een partij links of rechts is? De PvdA? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 10)

27b.

En de VVD? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 10)

112


27c.

En D66? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 10)

27d.

En GroenLinks? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 10)

27e.

En het CDA? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 10)

27f.

En de SGP? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 10)

27g.

En het GPV? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 10)

27h.

En de RPF? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 10)

27i.

En de Centrumdemocraten? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 10)

28a.

Nu een paar vragen over economische vraagstukken. Als u naar de komende 4 jaar kijkt en denkt aan uw EIGEN financiële situatie: verwacht u dan dat een kabinet van CDA en VVD op uw eigen financiële situatie een gunstige invloed, een ongunstige invloed of geen gunstige maar ook geen ongunstige invloed zal hebben? 1. 2. 3.


113


28b.

En denkt u dat een kabinet van PvdA en CDA in de komende 4 jaar op uw EIGEN financiële situatie een gunstige invloed, een ongunstige invloed of geen gunstige maar ook geen ongunstige invloed zal hebben? 1. 2. 3.

29a.

Denkt u dat de ALGEMENE welvaart in Nederland over 4 jaar groter zal zijn dan nu, of kleiner, of ongeveer hetzelfde? 1. 2. 3.

29b.


Denkt u dat een kabinet van CDA, VVD en PvdA een gunstige invloed, een ongunstige invloed of geen gunstige maar ook geen ongunstige invloed zal hebben op de ontwikkeling van de ALGEMENE welvaart in Nederland? 1. 2. 3.

114


Denkt u dat een kabinet van CDA, PvdA en D66 een gunstige invloed, een ongunstige invloed of geen gunstige maar ook geen ongunstige invloed zal hebben op de ontwikkeling van de ALGEMENE welvaart in Nederland? 1. 2. 3.

29e.


Denkt u dat een kabinet van CDA en PvdA een gunstige invloed, een ongunstige invloed of geen gunstige maar ook geen ongunstige invloed zal hebben op de ontwikkeling van de ALGEMENE welvaart in Nederland? 1. 2. 3.

29d.

groter kleiner ongeveer hetzelfde

Denkt u dat een kabinet van CDA en VVD een gunstige invloed, een ongunstige invloed of geen gunstige maar ook geen ongunstige invloed zal hebben op de ontwikkeling van de ALGEMENE welvaart in Nederland? 1. 2. 3.

29c.




29f.

Denkt u dat een kabinet van PvdA, VVD en D66 een gunstige invloed, een ongunstige invloed of geen gunstige maar ook geen ongunstige invloed zal hebben op de ontwikkeling van de ALGEMENE welvaart in Nederland? 1. 2. 3.

30.


Twee grote problemen van de Nederlandse economie zijn de WERKLOOSHEID en het feit dat de overheid meer geld uitgeeft dan ze ontvangt: het zogenaamde FINANCIERINGSTEKORT. Veel mensen zijn van mening dat het niet mogelijk is deze twee problemen tegelijkertijd op te lossen. Wat moet naar uw mening de komende 4 jaar voorrang krijgen: het verminderen van de werkloosheid of het verminderen van het financieringstekort? 1. 2.

31a.

verminderen werkloosheid verminderen financieringstekort

Nu enkele vragen over de samenwerking tussen politieke partijen. In de afgelopen jaren was er een regering van CDA en PvdA. ENQ: kaart 8 Hoe goed of hoe slecht vindt u dat de afgelopen periode de samenwerking tussen CDA en PvdA is geweest? De cijfers op de lijn geven aan hoe goed of hoe slecht. 1 staat voor zeer slecht, 7 voor zeer goed en de andere cijfers voor iets daartussen in. Kies het cijfer dat het meest met uw mening overeenkomt. (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

31b.

Veronderstel dat er na de verkiezingen een regering komt van PvdA en VVD. Hoe goed of slecht denkt u dat zo'n samenwerking tussen PvdA en VVD zou verlopen? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

31c.

Veronderstel dat er na de verkiezingen een regering komt van CDA en VVD. Hoe goed of slecht denkt u dat de zo'n samenwerking tussen CDA en VVD zou verlopen? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

31d.

Veronderstel dat er na de verkiezingen een regering komt van CDA en PvdA. Hoe goed of slecht denkt u dat zo'n samenwerking tussen CDA en PvdA zou verlopen? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

31e.

Veronderstel dat er na de verkiezingen een regering komt van CDA, PvdA en D66. Hoe goed of slecht denkt u dat zo'n samenwerking tussen CDA, PvdA en D66 zou verlopen? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

115


31f.

Veronderstel dat er na de verkiezingen een regering komt van PvdA, VVD en D66. Hoe goed of slecht denkt u dat zo'n samenwerking tussen PvdA, VVD en D66 zou verlopen? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

31g.

Veronderstel dat er na de verkiezingen een regering komt van CDA, VVD en D66. Hoe goed of slecht denkt u dat zo'n samenwerking tussen CDA, VVD en D66 zou verlopen? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

32a.

Bij de beoordeling van politici kan men op verschillende eigenschappen letten. Op de kaart staan enkele van deze eigenschappen vermeld. Zou u kunnen aangeven in welke mate de genoemde politici deze eigenschappen volgens u bezitten? ENQ: Overhandig kaart 9 Allereerst Hans van Mierlo. In hoeverre denkt u dat Van Mierlo kennis van zaken heeft? ENQ: 11 betekent OP kent politicus niet. (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11)

32b.

En in hoeverre is hij sociaal bewogen? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11)

32c.

En doortastend? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11)

32d.

En vriendelijk? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11)

32e.

En eerlijk? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11)

32f.

En in hoeverre bezit hij leidinggevende capaciteiten? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11)

33a. 116

In hoeverre denkt u dat Elco Brinkman kennis van zaken heeft?


ENQ: 11 betekent OP kent politicus niet. (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11) 33b.


33c.


33d.


33e.


33f.


34a.

In hoeverre denkt u dat Wim Kok kennis van zaken heeft? ENQ: 11 betekent OP kent politicus niet. (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11)

34b.


34c.


34d.


34e.

En eerlijk? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11) 117


34f.


35a.

In hoeverre denkt u dat Frits Bolkestein kennis van zaken heeft? ENQ: 11 betekent OP kent politicus niet. (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11)

35b.


35c.


35d.


35e.


35f.


36a.

In hoeverre denkt u dat Ruud Lubbers kennis van zaken heeft? ENQ: 11 betekent OP kent politicus niet. (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11)

36b.

En in hoeverre is hij sociaal bewogen?

36c.

(voer getal in tussen 1 en 11) En doortastend? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11)

36d. 118

En vriendelijk?


(voer getal in tussen 1 en 11) 36e.


36f.


37a.

ENQ: Overhandig kaart 10 Tenslotte, de in uw ogen ideale politicus: In hoeverre zou hij of zij kennis van zaken moeten hebben? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11)

37b.

In hoeverre zou hij of zij sociaal bewogen moeten zijn? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11)

37c.


37d.


37e.


37f.

En in hoeverre zou hij of zij leidinggevende capaciteiten moeten bezitten? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 11)

38a.

Voor sommigen is het heel zeker dat zij altijd op dezelfde partij zullen stemmen. Anderen bekijken elke keer opnieuw aan welke partij zij hun stem geven. Ik noem u een aantal partijen. Wilt u voor elke partij aangeven hoe waarschijnlijk het is dat u er ooit op zult stemmen? Noemt u maar het cijfer dat van toepassing is. ENQ: Overhandig kaart 11 Als u een partij niet kent of het niet weet, zeg het gerust, we gaan dan verder met de volgende partij. 119


De PvdA? ENQ: Als OP deze partij niet kent dan code 12 gebruiken. (voer getal in tussen 1 en 12) 38b.

En de VVD? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 12)

38c.

En D66? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 12)

38d.

En GroenLinks? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 12)

38e.

En het CDA? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 12)

38f.

En de SGP? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 12)

38g.

En het GPV? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 12)

38h.

En de RPF? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 12)

38i.

En de Centrumdemocraten? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 12)

39a.

ENQ: Overhandig kaart 12 In de politiek is het niet altijd mogelijk alles wat men zich voorgenomen heeft in één keer te bereiken. Er zal vaak een keuze gemaakt moeten worden. Op deze kaart staan enkele doelstellingen die men in de politiek kan nastreven. Stel dat u persoonlijk hieruit moet kiezen: wat is dan uw EERSTE keuze? 1. 2. 3.

120

orde in dit land handhaven de politieke inspraak van de burgers vergroten prijsstijgingen tegengaan


4.

39b.

orde in dit land handhaven de politieke inspraak van de burgers vergroten prijsstijgingen tegengaan de vrijheid van meningsuiting beschermen [weet niet/weigert]

(Ga naar 40a)

En daarna? 1. 2. 3. 4.

40a.

(Ga naar 40a)

En wat vindt u op de tweede plaats wenselijk? 1. 2. 3. 4.

39c.

de vrijheid van meningsuiting beschermen [weet niet/weigert]

orde in dit land handhaven de politieke inspraak van de burgers vergroten prijsstijgingen tegengaan de vrijheid van meningsuiting beschermen

ENQ: Overhandig Kaart 13a-h Op deze kaarten staan enkele doelen waarop ons land zich volgens sommige mensen moet richten. Op iedere kaart staat een letter. Wilt u de letters opnoemen van de DRIE doelstellingen die voor u persoonlijk het MEEST belangrijk zijn? (voer maximaal 3 codes in) 1. A 2. B 3. C 4. D 5. E 6. F 7. G 8. H

40b.

En welke drie vindt u persoonlijk het MINST belangrijk? (voer maximaal 3 codes in) 1. A 2. B 3. C 4. D 5. E 6. F 7. G 8. H

41a.

Ik lees u nu enkele uitspraken voor. Wilt u voor elke uitspraak zeggen of dit volgens u zo is of niet zo is?

121


ENQ: Overhandig kaart 14 Kamerleden bekommeren zich niet om de mening van mensen zoals ik. 1. 2. 41b.

De politieke partijen zijn alleen maar geïnteresseerd in mijn stem en niet in mijn mening. 1. 2.

41c.

dat is zo dat is niet zo

Er stemmen zoveel mensen bij de verkiezingen dat mijn stem er niet toe doet. 1. 2.

42a.


Mensen zoals ik hebben geen enkele invloed op de regeringspolitiek. 1. 2.

41d.



Sommigen zeggen dat er veel is aan te merken op de politiek, anderen zeggen dat het wel meevalt. Kunt u zeggen in hoeverre u het met de volgende uitspraken eens of oneens bent? ENQ: Overhandig kaart 15 Tegen beter weten in beloven politici meer dan ze kunnen waarmaken. 1. 2. 3. 4.

42b.

Ministers en staatssecretarissen zijn vooral op hun eigenbelang uit. 1. 2. 3. 4.

42c.

helemaal mee eens mee eens mee oneens helemaal mee oneens

Kamerlid word je eerder door je politieke vrienden dan door je bekwaamheden. 1. 2. 3. 4.

122




43a.

Ik wil u een paar vragen stellen over milieuschadelijk afval zoals batterijen en verfresten. Iedereen staat voor de keuze: het afval gewoon weggooien met de rest van het huisvuil of het afval naar een speciaal verzamelpunt brengen waar milieuschadelijk afval wordt verwerkt. uw keuze bepaalt, samen met de keuzen die anderen maken, wat de gevolgen zijn voor het milieu. ENQ: Indien de respondent aangeeft nooit met milieuschadelijk afval te maken te hebben: probeert u zich voor te stellen dat u wel in zo'n situatie bent. ENQ: kaart 16 Op deze kaart staan vier situaties. Ik wil u vragen om deze situaties in de volgorde te plaatsen van uw voorkeur. Welke situatie heeft uw grootste voorkeur? 1. 2. 3. 4.

43b.

(Ga naar 44a)

Situatie A Situatie B Situatie C Situatie D [weet niet/weigert]

(Ga naar 44a)

En welke situatie heeft uw laagste voorkeur? 1. 2. 3. 4.

44a.


En welke uw derde voorkeur? 1. 2. 3. 4.

43d.

(Ga naar 44a)

Welke situatie heeft uw tweede voorkeur? 1. 2. 3. 4.

43c.


Situatie A Situatie B Situatie C Situatie D

Heeft de extra tijd en inspanning die het kost om uw milieuschadelijk afval weg te brengen een rol gespeeld bij het aangeven van uw voorkeur? 1.

ja 123


2. 44b.

nee

Heeft het belang om de milieuvervuiling terug te dringen een rol gespeeld bij het aangeven van uw voorkeur? 1. 2.

ja nee

Alleen gesteld indien vraag 44a, code 1; anders vraag 45b. 45a.

Sommige mensen hebben heel veel tijd en inspanning over voor het milieu. Anderen hebben minder of helemaal geen tijd en inspanning over voor het milieu. ENQ: kaart 17 Kunt u aan de hand van deze kaart aangeven in welke mate u tijd en inspanning over hebt voor het milieu? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7) Alleen gesteld indien vraag 44b, code 1; anders vraag 46a.

45b.

Sommige mensen vinden het oplossen van de milieuvervuiling heel belangrijk terwijl anderen dit minder of helemaal niet belangrijk vinden. ENQ: kaart 18 Kunt u aan de hand van deze kaart aangeven hoe belangrijk u het oplossen van de milieuvervuiling vindt? (voer getal in tussen 1 en 7)

124


46a.

Verwacht u dat andere mensen hun milieuschadelijke afval gewoon weggooien of dat zij hun afval naar het verzamelpunt brengen? ENQ: het gaat er niet om wat de OP hoopt dat zij doen, maar wat de OP verwacht. 1. 2.

46b.

En uzelf? Gooit u uw milieuschadelijke afval gewoon weg of brengt u uw afval naar het verzamelpunt? 1. 2.

47.

ik gooi mijn afval gewoon weg ik breng mijn afval naar het verzamelpunt

Stel: de Tweede Kamer behandelt een wetsvoorstel dat u zeer onrechtvaardig of verkeerd vindt. Hoe groot is de kans dat u zou proberen er iets tegen te doen? Is die kans: 1. 2. 3. 4.

48.

zij gooien hun afval gewoon weg zij brengen hun afval naar het verzamelpunt

zeer groot groot klein zeer klein

ENQ: Overhandig kaart 19 Op deze kaart staat wat u zou kunnen doen als de Tweede Kamer een wetsvoorstel behandelt dat volgens u onrechtvaardig of verkeerd is. Wilt u deze mogelijkheden bekijken, en mij dan zeggen van welke daarvan u wel eens gebruik hebt gemaakt? U kunt de nummers noemen van de mogelijkheden waarvan u wel eens gebruik hebt gemaakt. (voer maximaal 13 codes in) 1. contact opgenomen met minister 2. contact opgenomen met lid van de Tweede Kamer 3. meegedaan aan handtekeningenactie 4. een organisatie ingeschakeld 5. radio/televisie ingeschakeld 6. geprobeerd politieke partij in te schakelen 7. contact opgenomen met burgemeester of wethouder 8. contact opgenomen met gemeenteraadslid 9. meegedaan aan actiegroep 10. meegedaan aan demonstratie 11. de krant ingeschakeld 12. een bezwaarschrift ingediend 13. contact opgenomen met ambtenaar van ministerie 14. geen van deze mogelijkheden Dit is het einde van de vragenlijst. Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking.

49a.

ENQ: Stel vast of er tijdens het gesprek ook andere personen in de kamer waren. 125


1. 2.

49b.

ja nee [weet niet/weigert]

(Ga naar 55a) (Ga naar 55a)

ENQ: Stel vast wie dat waren. (voer maximaal 5 codes in) 1. Kind(eren) jonger dan 6 jaar 2. Oudere kinderen 3. Man, vrouw, partner 4. Overige familieleden 5. Overige volwassenen

50.

Wilt u van deze persoon of personen aangeven of zij het gesprek geheel of gedeeltelijk volg-den d.w.z. actief meeluisterden, zich in het gesprek mengden d.w.z. een eigen mening gaven, of zij de ondervraagde persoon corrigeerden, of zij antwoorden suggereerden etcetera? Alleen gesteld indien kinderen jonger dan 6 jaar aanwezig. Kinderen jonger dan 6 jaar: 1. 2. 3.

volgden gesprek niet volgden gesprek wel mengden zich in gesprek

Alleen gesteld indien oudere kinderen aanwezig. 51.

Oudere kinderen: 1. 2. 3.


Alleen gesteld indien man, vrouw, partner aanwezig. 52.

Man, vrouw, partner: 1. 2. 3.

126



Alleen gesteld indien overige familieleden aanwezig. 53.

Overige familieleden: 1. 2. 3.


Alleen gesteld indien overige volwassenen aanwezig. 54.

Overige volwassenen: 1. 2. 3.

55a.

ENQ: Waren er storende invloeden bij het gesprek, zoals bijvoorbeeld: TV of radio stond aan, mensen kwamen op bezoek, etcetera? 1. 2.

55b.


wel storende invloeden geen storende invloeden

De storende invloeden waren nl. ...

(Ga naar 55b) (EINDE INTERVIEW) (EINDE INTERVIEW)

EINDE INTERVIEW

127


3.3 Showcards wave 3

Kaart 1 (bijna) altijd vaak zo nu en dan zelden of nooit leest geen krant

Kaart 2 (vrijwel) dagelijks 3 a 4 keer per week 1 a 2 keer per week minder dan 1 keer per week heeft geen televisie

Kaart 3 (bijna) altijd vaak zo nu en dan zelden of nooit leest geen krant

128


Kaart 4 zeer tevreden tevreden niet tevreden. maar ook niet ontevreden ontevreden zeer ontevreden

Kaart 5 1

I

,

2

3

,

4

t

5

,

6

1

7

I

1

~

em arts mag altijd euthanasia toepassen als de pati&it daarom vraagt

het meet verboden zijn dat een arts het Ieven van een patient op dlens verzoek kan be$hdigen

I weet niet

Kaart 6 1

I

1

2

3

1

4

,

5

,

6

,

1

,

2

1

3

t

4

s

1

1

6

,

7

e

,

9

,

,

1

zeer slecht

10

I_l_l

1

rechts

links

I

)

de verschillen in inkomens in ons land moeten ldeiner worden

de verschillen in inkomens in ons land moeten groter worden

1

7

1

,

2

,

3

,

4

,

5

,

6

,

7

I weet niet

&

I weet niet

1

zeer goed

i29


Kaart 9 kennis van zaken

I

8

1

1

2

I

3

1

4

1

5

,

6

t

7

1

8

1

9

1

10

1

I

bezit deze eiget3schap wel

deze eigenscbap xtiet bezit

sociaal bewogen I

1

1

2

#

3

1

4

1

5

1

6

,

7

,

a

1

9

1

10

bezit deze eigensehap niet

1

bezit deze eigenschap wel

doortastend

-1

1

2

0

3

1

4

,

5

1

6

I

7

1

8

I

9

I

10

bezit deze eigenscttap niet

I

bezit deze eigenschap wel I

vriendeliik I

1

,

2

1

3

i

4

5

1

6

1

7

1

8

1

9

,

10

1


bezit deze eigenschap niet eerliik I

1

,

2

#

3

,

4

1

5

I

6

,

7

,

8

,

9

1

10

J


bezit deze eigenschap niet Ieidinggevende kwaliteiten 1

1

bezit deze eigeoschap niet

130

,

2

,

3

1

4

,

s

I

6

1

7

,

8

1

9

I

10

1


QU@SI’IONNAIRE WAVE 3

Kaart 10 kennis van zaken 1

I

2

3

,

4

,

5

,

6

,

7

,

a

,

1

9

10

1

behoort deze eigenschap eigenschap wel

hoeft deze eigenschap niet te bezitten I

sociaal bewogen 1

1

#

2

,

3

4

I

5

6

I

1

7

8

I

1

9

10

t

I

behoort deze eigenschap eigenschap wel

hoeft deze eigenschap niet te bezitten doortastend i

1

,

2

,

3

1

4

,

5

0

6

,

7

,

8

,

9

1

10

1

behoort deze eigeoschap eigeoschap wel

hoeft deze eigenschap niet te bezitten I vriendelijk I

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

#

5

1

6

I

7

,

n

1

9

1

10

t

behoort deze eigenschap eigenschap we]

hoeft deze eigenschap niet te bezitten eerliik 1

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

t

5

t

6

1

7

1

a

1

9

1

10

1

behoort deze eigenschap eigenschap we]

hoeft deze eigenschap niet te bezitten Ieidinggevende kwaliteiten L

1

hoeft deze eigenschap niet te bezitten

1

2

1

3

1

4

,

5

,

6

,

7

,

8

9

,

10

1

behoort deze eigenschap wel te bezitten

131

QUESTIONNAIREWAVE 3

Kaart 11 L

1

I

2

I

3

1

4

#

5

,

6

,

7

I

a

ik zal zeker nooit op deze partij stemmen

1

9

1

10

I

A

ik zal zeker I weet rdet weleens op deze partij stemmen

Krtart12 1. de orde in dlt land handhaven 2. de politieke inspraak van de burgers vergroten 3. prijsstijgingen tegengaan 4. de vnjheid van meningsuiting beschermen

Kaart 13a-h (elke uitspraak op een apart kaartje) a. handhaven van een grote economische groei b. zorgen voor een sterk leger c. geven van meer inspraak aan mensen blj beslissingen op hun werk en in hun woonplaata d. verfraaien van onze steden en het platteland e. handhaven van een stabiele eeonomie f. optreden tegen de misdaad g. bouwen aan een vriendelijker en minder onpersoordijke samenleving h. bouwen aan een sametdeving waarin idee&t belangrijker zijn dan geld

Kaart 14

datis 20 dat is niet zo

I

132

I

I

QUFSTtONNAIREWAVE 3

Kaart 15

helemaal mee eens mee eens mee oneens helernaal mee oneens

Kaart 16

Situatie A:

U gooit het al%al weg rnaar andere personen brengen hun a!%al naar het verzamelpunt. Dit kost u geen extra tijd en insparming en de milieuvenmiling neemt af.

Shade

U gooit het afval weg en andere personen doen dat ook. Dit kost u geen extra tijd en inspanrdng maar de rnilieuvewuiling neemt toe.

B:

Situatie C:

U brengt het alkd naar het verzamelpunt en andere persmen dotn dat bk. Dit kost u extra tijd en inspanning maar de milieuvexvuiling neemt af.

Situatie D:

U gooit het afval naar het verzamelpunt maar andere personen doen dat niet. Dit kost u extra tijd en imspanning en de rnilieuvewuiling neemt toe.

Kaart 17 t

1

1

2

1

3

1

4

,

5

6

i

7

I

heed veel tijd en insparming

heel weinig tijd en inspanning

Kaart 18 I

niet belangrijk

1

1

2

I

3

1

4

1

5

0

6

1

7

I

heel belangnjk

133


Kaart 19 1. contact opgenomen met minister 2. contact opgenomen met lid van Tweede Kamer 3. meegedaan aan handtekeningenactie 4. een organisatie ingeschakeld 5. radio/televisie ingeschakeld 6. geprobeerd politieke partij in te schakelen 7. contact opgenomen met burgemeester of wethouder 8. contact opgenomen met gemeenteraadslid 9. meegedaan aan actiegroep 10. meegedaan aan demonstratie 11. de krant ingeschakeld 12. een bezwaarschrift ingediend 13. contact opgenomen met ambtenaar van ministerie

134

APPENDICES


APPENDIX 1 - CONSTRUCTION OF SCALE SCORES

APPENDIX 1: Construction of scale scores This appendix is used in conjunction with VAR1005, VAR1038, VAR1134, VAR1138, and VAR1163

The data file contains several series of variables which can be considered as indicators of a single latent construct. In many instances, the researcher will feel the need to assess the homogeneity (that is, unidimensionality) of these items, and, if possible, to combine them into a single score to be used in subsequent analyses. To facilitate the use of the data, such tests have already been performed. This appendix reports the construction of such scores of homogeneous sets of items on: - political interest; - policy satisfaction; - political efficacy; - political cynicism; - civic participation. All these sets of variables were analyzed with a scaling model known as 'Mokken scaling' (Mokken 1971; Niemöller and Van Schuur 1983). Within the Mokken model, items and individuals are viewed as occupying positions on a single latent continuum, which, for example, can run from 'not at all interested in politics' to 'very much interested in politics'. To be analyzed by means of the Mokken model, items have to be dichotomized. The dichotomized items vary in terms of their 'difficulty'; that is, for some items it takes less of the latent attribute to give a 'positive' answer than for other items. The model assumes a cumulative relationship between the responses given to the items and the latent attribute. For these reasons, Mokken scaling can best be viewed as a stochastic variant of the well-known cumulative Guttman scale. The following three cautionary remarks apply to all reported analyses: All items were dichotomized Until the late 1980s, items had to be dichotomized before they could be analyzed by means of the Mokken model. Thanks to recent advancements in the field of Mokken scaling (e.g., Sijtsma 1988; Sijtsma, Debets, and Molenaar 1990), this is no longer the case. It has now become possible to consider each category as a so-called 'item step', and to think of these item steps (rather than items) as being ordered with individuals on the same latent continuum. However, within the context of this codebook, no such polytomous (i.e., multicategory) analyses were performed, although it should be realized that the dichotomous model is just a special case of the polytomous model. The main reason for not using the polytomous model was to maintain comparability with the 1989 Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies, in which all items were dichotomized.

137


Different scale definitions are possible The definition of a scale, and hence of a scale score, hinges on the decision which of the manifest responses are considered as an expression of the latent construct to be measured (or in other words, which responses are defined as 'positive'). The dichotomization into 'positive' and 'negative' responses can usually be made in various ways, each of which will yield its own coefficient of scalability and its own distribution of scores. The scale definitions used here are conventional ones; that is, definitions which have proven to be useful in previous research in the Netherlands (in particular the 1989 Dutch Parliamentary Election Study), and which make sense a priori as definitions of the construct under consideration. This, of course, does not preclude the possibility that for specific purposes other dichotomizations than those reported here might be preferable. Not all sets of items were scaled The analyses performed and reported here were undertaken to facilitate the use of the data. However, no claim is made that all possible sets of items which might form a scale were tested in this respect. For a number of scales it is possible to include more items than reported here. The reason for not doing so is, again, to maintain comparability with similar scales in the 1989 Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies. Analysts are therefore encouraged to perform their own scale analyses for sets of items which are not included in this appendix. The following section describes the results of the scale analyses. The results were obtained by means of the computer program MSP (Mokken Scale analysis for Polychotomous items, Debets and Brouwer 1989). The results are reported below in terms of the difficulties of the items (i.e., the proportion of the sample providing a 'positive' response) and the scalability coefficients H and Hi. The first of these coefficients (i.e., H) yields information about the (unidimensional) scalability of the entire set of items, whereas the second (Hi) reports the (unidimensional) scalability of each item vis-a-vis the other items combined. In general, the following guidelines are used for the interpretation of the size of these coefficients: .40 .50

> >

H H H H

.40 .50

> >

Hi Hi Hi Hi

<

.30

-

no scale weak scale medium scale strong scale

<

.30

-

nonscalable item weak item medium item strong item

$ .30 $ .40 $ .50

$ .30 $ .40 $ .50

Scale scores have only been constructed and included in the data file if the scale conforms to the requirement that H $ .30 and the Hi's $ .30. An explanation of how to read the results of the analyses is provided solely for the political interest scale. All other reported results can be interpreted in an analogous way.

138


Political interest The data file contains at least four items that can be viewed as indicators of respondents' level of political interest. These items are participation in political discussions, self-exposure to national and foreign news in newspapers, and subjective political interest (see the variable documentation part of the codebook for details, VAR1001 to VAR1004). Scale analysis yields the following results: Codes of 'positive' Item Label responses VAR1001 Reads about national news? 1 VAR1002 Talks about national problems? 1,2 VAR1003 Reads about foreign news? 1,2 VAR1004 Interested in politics? 1 Scale coefficient for entire set of four items: H = .62. Political interest score constructed, named VAR1005, range 0-4.

Difficulty .30 .93 .49 .14

Hi .62 .62 .63 .61

The information above refers to: - the variable names and labels used in the analysis (columns 'item' and 'label'). - the codes of the answers which were designated as indicative for the presence of a certain degree of political interest (column 'codes of 'positive' responses'). All other responses together constitute the 'negative' responses (reflecting the absence of the specified degree of political interest). The latter also include 'don't know' and 'not ascertained.' - the proportion of the sample which answered positively on the respective items (column 'difficulty'). For example, 30% of the respondents who participated in the third wave answered positively on VAR1001 (that is, by means of code 1, which stands for '(nearly) always'). - the scalability of the set, and of the separate items. As H is equal to .62, the items together constitute a strong scale; the Hi values indicate that all items fit very well in this scale. The results of the scale analysis allow the construction of a political interest score (VAR1005) by counting the number of times a respondent gave a 'positive' response on the four items involved. As there are four items under consideration, no less than zero and no more than four 'positive' answers can be given. Hence the values of the sum score range from zero to four. The distribution of the respondents over these scores (VAR1005) is given in the variable documentation part of this codebook.

Policy satisfaction The data file contains three variables in which respondents are asked to evaluate government policy (see the variable documentation part of the codebook, VAR1032 to VAR1034). The 'positive' answers are those which indicate satisfaction with government policy, or the evaluation that government policy has been beneficial to economic development, or to employment.

139


Codes of 'positive' Item Label responses VAR1032 Satisfaction with government 1,2 VAR1033 Effect government policy on economic situation 1 VAR1037 Effect government policy on employment 1 Scale coefficient for entire set of three items: H = .46. Policy satisfaction score constructed, named VAR1038, range 0-3.

Difficulty .13 .07 .23

Hi .45 .47 .46

Political efficacy The data file contains a set of four items designed to tap respondents' sense of political efficacy (see the variable documentation part of this codebook, VAR1130 to VAR1133). Mokken scale analysis yields the following results: Codes of 'positive' Item Label responses VAR1130 Political efficacy - first item 2 VAR1131 Political efficacy - second item 2 VAR1132 Political efficacy - third item 2 VAR1133 Political efficacy - fourth item 2 Scale coefficient for entire set of four items: H = .54. Political efficacy score constructed, named VAR1134, range 0-4.

Difficulty .54 .49 .52 .93

Hi .56 .56 .46 .66

Political cynicism The data file contains three items on political cynicism (see the variable documentation part of this codebook, VAR1135 to VAR1137). Mokken scale analysis yields the following results: Codes of 'positive' Item Label responses VAR1135 Political cynicism - first item 1,2 VAR1136 Political cynicism - second item 1,2 VAR1137 Political cynicism - third item 1,2 Scale coefficient for entire set of three items: H = .40. Political cynicism score constructed, named VAR1138, range 0-3.

Difficulty .90 .33 .44

Hi .49 .39 .39

Civic participation The data file contains thirteen variables that can be regarded as indicators of civic participation. Each of these variables contains information about whether the respondents had ever engaged in a specific form of civic participation (see the variable documentation part of this codebook, VAR1150 to VAR1162).

140


Codes of 'positive' Item Label responses VAR1150 Did (not) contact cabinet ministers 1 VAR1151 Did (not) contact member of parliament 1 VAR1152 Did (not) sign a petition 1 VAR1153 Did (not) try to activate interest group 1 VAR1154 Did (not) try to activate radio or tv 1 VAR1155 Did (not) try to activate political party 1 VAR1156 Did (not) contact mayor or alderman 1 VAR1157 Did (not) contact municipal councillor 1 VAR1158 Did (not) join civic action group 1 VAR1159 Did (not) join demonstration 1 VAR1160 Did (not) try to activate newspaper 1 VAR1161 Did (not) lodge a complaint 1 VAR1162 Did (not) contact department official 1 Scale coefficient for entire set of thirteen items: H = .32. Civic participation score constructed, named VAR1163, range 0-13.

Difficulty .03 .06 .61 .13 .04 .10 .12 .17 .15 .24 .08 .16 .04

Hi .44 .36 .42 .33 .27 .37 .32 .31 .31 .28 .28 .25 .30

It should be noted that in order to preserve comparability with the civic participation scores in the 1989 study, items VAR1159, VAR1160, and VAR1161 have been included in the scale, even though their Hi-coefficients are smaller than 0.30. As indicated in the codebook for the 'regular' 1989 study, the skewness of many of the items (for 12 out of the 13 items, the proportion of positive responses is smaller than .30) may have affected scalability in a negative sense. In addition, the large number of zero scores on the scale may obscure the distinctions between separate, but correlated, subdimensions, if those would exist (also refer to Anker and Oppenhuis 1995). For these reasons, the scale scores provided in the data file should be used with some caution; if the participation domain itself is the subject of investigation, the analyst should analyze the dimensionality of these items in more depth.

141

APPENDIX 2 - IMPORTANT PROBLEMS

APPENDIX 2: Most important national problems This appendix is used in conjunction with VAR1008 to VAR1012 and VAR1176

The data file contains five variables concerning the problems that the respondents thought were "the most important in our country" (VAR1008 to VAR1012). This appendix contains a description of the meaning of the codes and the frequency distribution for each of the five variables. The interviewers were instructed to type the answers to the most important problem question directly into their notebook computers. These 'verbatim' answers were coded in order of appearance as recorded by the interviewer. Up to five different answers were coded. The coding scheme used for coding the answers to the most important problem question is a very detailed one. It was designed with the explicit purpose in mind that the resulting codes in turn can be used as input for a coding scheme matching the substantive interests of the analyst. This resulted in the development of a coding scheme whose coded answers stay as close as possible to the original 'verbatim' answers as recorded by the interviewer. The 'verbatim' answers as recorded by the interviewers have also been stored in a separate alphanumeric variable (VAR1176). This variable was cleaned and corrected for spelling errors. Users should be aware that these answers are all in Dutch, and that English translations are not available. The following remarks apply to the codes obtained by means of the coding scheme: - Each code contains five digits. The first three digits indicate the general substantive problem (e.g., aids, defense, aliens). The fourth digit pertains to a more detailed distinction (e.g., defense cuts, defense expenses), while the fifth digit pertains to still finer distinctions (e.g., defense expenses too high, defense expenses too low). Users are recommended to collapse the codes along the third or the fourth digit if all they need is a crude categorization of the most important problems. - Although the interviewers were explicitly instructed to mark separate political problems by means of a semicolon (;), in a small number of cases there were still some difficulties in determining the exact number of problems mentioned by the respondent. This problem was solved by relying on the context of the complete answer given by the respondent. - A considerable proportion of the political problems in the coding scheme are deeply rooted in the Dutch political context. Consequently, it is not always easy to provide a satisfactory English translation for these problems. Therefore, the English descriptions of the codes are followed by their original descriptions in Dutch. - Some of the codes in the coding scheme were not assigned to any of the respondents. These codes have nonetheless been included to preserve the consistency of the coding scheme and to facilitate longitudinal analyses. 142


The coding scheme, with its translation in Dutch, is presented below. The distinction in terms of the first three digits, the fourth digit, and the fifth digit of the codes is shown graphically by the use of indents. Code 1000. 1500. 1510. 1520. 1530. 1540. 1550. 2000. 2010. 2020. 2500. 3000. 3010. 3020. 3500. 3510. 4000. 4010. 4020. 4030. 4040. 4500. 4510. 4520. 5000. 5010. 5020. 5030. 5040. 5500. 5510. 5520. 5530. 5531. 5532. 5533. 5540. 5541. 5542. 5543. 5544. 5545.

Important problem (English) Cultural policy Media policy commercial television negative impact unfair reporting journalism Ethical problems abortion euthanasia Aids Bureaucracy (increasing) government role (too many) rules Single people loneliness Tax(pressure) too high system sales tax road tax (Social) levies too high becoming more severe Population growth population policies overpopulation population density Netherlands is (too) full Elderly people policy cuts elderly homes cuts too few too few personnel elderly care cuts increase salary personnel negligence of care too little

Important problem (Dutch) Cultureel beleid Media beleid commerciële tv negatieve invloed oneerlijke berichtgeving journalistiek Ethische problemen abortus euthanasie Aids Burocratie (toenemende) overheidsbemoeienis regelgeving (te veel) Alleenstaanden eenzaamheid Belasting(druk) te hoog stelsel btw wegenbelasting (Sociale) lasten te hoog verzwaring Bevolkingsgroei bevolkingspolitiek overbevolking bevolkingsdichtheid Nederland is (te) vol Bejaarden en ouderen beleid bezuinigingen bejaardenhuizen bezuinigingen te weinig te weinig personeel bejaardenverzorging bezuinigingen toename salariëring personeel verwaarlozing verpleging te weinig

143


Code 5546. 5550. 5560. 5570. 5580. 5590. 6000. 6010. 6500. 6510. 6520. 7000. 7010. 7500. 7510. 7520. 7530. 7540. 7550. 7560. 7570. 7580. 8000. 8010. 8020. 8500. 8510. 8520. 8530. 8540. 9000. 9010. 9020. 9030. 9500. 9510. 9520. 9530. 9540. 9550. 9560. 10000. 10010. 10020. 10030. 10040. 10500. 11000. 11010. 11020. 11030. 11040. 11500. 144

Important problem (English) reduction nursery homes loneliness provision for old age pension finances Greying social services Physically and mentally handicapped care own financial contribution Health mental health Health care cuts shortage of personnel shortage of money salaries policy elderly financing domiciliary care Hospitals cuts behavior of doctors Health costs increase insurance health insurance (mandatory) elderly Refugees flood policy economic Asylum seekers flood relief policy (too) many being favored negative attitude toward Aliens Vreemdelingen policy admission hatred law Guest workers (foreign) (Ethnic) minorities, immigrants policy integration guidance, attention relationship with autochtones Foreigners

Important problem (Dutch) afname verpleeghuizen eenzaamheid oudedagsvoorziening pensioen financiën Vergrijzing sociale voorzieningen Lichamelijk en geestelijk gehandicapten verzorging eigen bijdrage voor voorzieningen Gezondheid geestelijke gezondheid Gezondheidszorg bezuinigingen personeelstekort geldtekort salariering beleid ouderen financiering thuiszorg Ziekenhuizen bezuinigingen gedrag van artsen Ziektekosten stijging verzekering ziekenfonds ouderen Vluchtelingen (toe)stroom beleid economisch Asielzoekers (toe)stroom opvang beleid (te) veel voortrekken afwijzende houding t.o.v. beleid toelating haat wet Gastarbeiders (buitenlandse werknemers) (Etnische) minderheden, allochtonen beleid integratie begeleiding, aandacht verhouding tot autochtonen Buitenlanders


Code 11510. 11511. 11520. 11530. 11540. 11550. 11560. 11570. 11580. 11581. 11590. 11600. 11610. 11620. 11630. 12000. 12500. 13000. 13010. 13020. 13030. 13040. 13050. 13500. 14000. 14010. 14020. 14030. 14500. 14510. 15000. 15010. 15020. 15030. 15040. 15050. 15060. 15070. 15080. 15090. 15500. 15510. 15520. 15530. 15540. 15550. 16000. 16010. 16020. 16030. 16040. 16050. 16500.

Important problem (English) (too) many Surinamese flood relief cultural differences adjustment problems illegal preferential treatment muslims ruled by family reunifications second and third generation policy own churches intolerance toward Multicultural society Racial issue Discrimination races foreigners gays Dutch people positive (affirmative action) Racism Corruption government corporate police Fraud fighting Crime fighting increase regional international big cities youth white collar organized asylum seekers Violence (aggression) increase living environment sexual in traffic youngsters (Un)safety on streets living environment women elderly cities Vandalism

Important problem (Dutch) (te) veel Surinamers (toe)stroom opvang cultuurverschillen aanpassingsmoeilijkheden illegalen voortrekken moslims overheersing gezinshereniging tweede en derde generatie beleid eigen kerken intolerantie t.a.v. Multi-culturele samenleving Rassenvraagstuk Discriminatie rassen buitenlanders homo's nederlanders positieve Racisme Corruptie overheid bedrijfsleven politie Fraude bestrijding Criminaliteit (misdaad) bestrijding toename regionaal internationaal grote steden jeugd witte boorden georganiseerde asielzoekers Geweld (agressie) toename woonomgeving sexueel in het verkeer jongeren (On)veiligheid op straat woonomgeving vrouwen ouderen steden Vandalisme

145


Code 16510. 16520. 16530. 17000. 17010. 17500. 18000. 18500. 18510. 18520. 18530. 18540. 18550. 18560. 19000. 19010. 19020. 19030. 19031. 19040. 19050. 19060. 19061. 19070. 19500. 19510. 19520. 19530. 19540. 19550. 19560. 19570. 20000. 20010. 20020. 20030. 20040. 20050. 20051. 20052. 20500. 21000. 21010. 21020. 21030. 21040. 21050. 21060. 21070. 21080. 21090. 21500. 21510. 146

Important problem (English) fighting malice soccer Child abuse incest Animals: sorrow, protection, abuse Alcohol Drugs fighting trade use addiction policy legalization Judiciary reduction of personnel maintaining order administration of justice inequality of justice penalties too light lack of cells (prisons) legislation too many changes in legislation guarding of borders (customs) Police (force) policy cuts reduction of personnel too little protection help for victims not enough regional Defense cuts armament nuclear arms disarmament expenses too high too low Peace International relations foreign policy detente east-west relationship developing countries and aid wars communism hunger tensions middle east European community abolish

Important problem (Dutch) bestrijding baldadigheid voetbal Kindermishandeling incest Dierenleed, -bescherming, -mishandeling Alcohol Drugs bestrijding handel gebruik verslaving beleid legalisering Justitie inkrimping personeel handhaving van rechtsorde rechtspraak rechtsongelijkheid straffen te licht cellentekort wetgeving te veel wetswijzigingen grensbewaking (douane) Politie(apparaat) beleid bezuinigingen inkrimping personeel te weinig bescherming slachtofferhulp te weinig regionaal Defensie bezuinigingen bewapening kernwapens ontwapening uitgaven te hoog te laag Vrede Internationale betrekkingen buitenlandse politiek ontspanningspolitiek oost west verhouding ontwikkelingslanden en -hulp oorlogen communisme honger spanningen midden oosten Europese gemeenschap afschaffen


Code 21520. 21530. 22000. 22010. 22020. 22030. 22040. 22050. 22060. 22500. 22510. 22520. 23000. 23500. 23510. 23520. 23530. 23540. 24000. 24500. 25000. 25010. 25020. 25030. 25040. 25500. 25510. 25520. 25530. 25540. 25550. 26000. 26010. 26020. 26030. 26040. 26050. 26500. 26510. 26520. 26530. 27000. 27010. 27020. 27030. 27031. 27500. 27510. 27520. 27530. 27540. 27550. 27560.

Important problem (English) integration size of European Parliament Economy, economic problems inflation growth (recovery, recession) policy import-export international structure of competition flight of capital to foreign countries Corporate climate small and medium-sized businesses law for closing of shops Child care Emancipation subordination of women equal rights men and women too far policy Governmental policy Cuts (State) finances budget deficit budget financial policy financial situation Government expenses limits distribution spending too many subsidies rising Youth supervision over work ethic wages too high independence future Study loans cuts paying back student train card Energy nuclear energy nuclear plants natural gas price Agriculture and fishing butter milk problem too few reform products manure tensions overproduction

Important problem (Dutch) integratie omvang Europees Parlement Economie, economische problemen inflatie ontwikkeling (groei, herstel, op peil houden, recessie) beleid import-export internationale concurrentieverhoudingen kapitaalvlucht naar buitenland Ondernemersklimaat midden- en kleinbedrijf winkelsluitingswet Kinderopvang Emancipatie achterstelling vrouwen gelijke rechten man en vrouw te ver doorgevoerd beleid Regeringsbeleid Bezuinigingen (Staats)financiën financierings, begrotingstekort begroting financiële beleid financiële toestand Overheidsuitgaven beperking verdeling besteding te veel subsidies stijging Jeugd gezag over arbeidsethos te hoge lonen zelfstandigheid toekomst Studiefinanciering korting terugbetaling OV-studentenkaart Energie kernenergie kerncentrales gas prijs Landbouw en visserij boter melkprobleem te weinig natuurprodukten mest spanningen overproduktie

147


Code 27570. 27580. 28000. 28010. 28020. 28030. 28040. 28050. 28060. 28070. 28080. 28090. 28100. 28110. 28120. 28121. 28130. 28500. 28510. 28520. 28530. 28540. 28541. 28550. 28560. 28561. 28562. 28570. 28580. 28590. 28600. 28610. 29000. 29010. 29020. 29030. 29040. 29050. 29060. 29500. 29510. 29520. 29530. 29540. 29550. 29560. 29570. 29580. 30000. 30010. 30011. 30020. 30030. 148

Important problem (English) environmental laws for farmers young farmers Environment (pollution) policy costs trash problem pesticides nature conservation soil dumping and release of toxins air acid rain ozone layer car rules, laws too many on the streets Traffic policy driving a car too expensive congestion infrastructure waste of money mobility public transportation increase price of tickets elderly refunds of travel expenses traffic safety speeding car use in residential areas Work not willing to stimulate illegal work too little attention for workers not being able to find quicker acceptance unsuitable work Employment difficult to hire personnel children women distribution lack of green employment relation working vs nonworking people policy jobs going abroad Unemployment fighting mandatory education layoffs youth

Important problem (Dutch) milieuwetgeving voor boeren jonge boeren Milieu (vervuiling) beleid kosten afvalprobleem bestrijdingsmiddelen natuurbehoud bodem storten en lozen gif lucht zure regen ozonlaag auto regel(wet)geving te veel op straat Verkeer beleid autorijden te duur files infrastructuur geldverspilling mobiliteit openbaar vervoer prijsverhoging ouderen reiskostenvergoeding verkeersveiligheid snelheidsovertredingen autogebruik in woonwijk Werken niet willen stimuleren zwart werken te weinig aandacht voor werkenden niet kunnen vinden sneller accepteren niet passend werk Werkgelegenheid moeilijk personeel te krijgen kinderen vrouwen werkverdeling gebrek aan groene werkgelegenheid houding werkenden-niet werkenden beleid verdwijnt naar buitenland Werkloosheid bestrijding verplichte scholing gedwongen ontslagen jongeren


Code 30040. 30050. 30060. 30070. 30080. 30500. 30510. 30511. 30520. 30521. 30530. 30540. 30550. 30551. 31000. 31010. 31020. 31021. 31022. 31023. 31024. 31030. 31031. 31032. 31033. 31034. 31040. 31041. 31050. 31051. 31052. 31060. 31070. 31080. 31081. 31082. 31090. 31100. 31500. 31510. 32000. 32010. 32500. 32510. 32520. 32530. 32540. 32550. 32560. 32570. 32580. 32590. 32591.

Important problem (English) older people foreigners social aspects long-term increase Job relations collective labor agreement health care system strikes (actions) health care unions flexible working hours temporary contracts young people Income relations distribution equal, decreasing income gap unequal, increasing income gap just unjust difference (becoming too big) poor - rich wages - benefits youth benefit - minimum wage gross - net low incomes (the financially weak) subordination minimum incomes subordination, pay cut too low base income wages minimum wages too low no increase decline politics (policy) Poverty increase Those on welfare too many Social services, benefits policy unfair breakdown affordability level too high too low too many youth too high

Important problem (Dutch) ouderen buitenlanders sociale aspecten langdurige toename Arbeidsverhoudingen CAO (arbeidsvoorwaarden) gezondheidszorg stakingen (acties) gezondheidszorg vakbonden flexibele arbeidstijd tijdelijke contracten jongeren Inkomen verhouding verdeling gelijk, nivellering ongelijk, denivellering rechtvaardig onrechtvaardig verschil ((wordt) (te) groot) arm - rijk loon - uitkeringen jeugduitkering - jeugdminimumloon bruto - netto lage inkomens (minder draagkrachtigen) achterstelling minima achterstelling, korten te laag basisinkomen lonen minimumlonen te laag niet verhogen achteruitgang politiek Armoede toename Uitkeringsgerechtigden (te) veel Sociale voorzieningen, uitkeringen, zekerheid beleid onrechtvaardig afbraak betaalbaarheid hoogte te hoog te laag te veel jongeren te hoog

149


Code 32600. 32601. 32610. 32620. 32630. 32631. 32632. 32640. 32650. 32660. 32670. 32680. 32690. 32700. 33000. 33500. 33510. 34000. 34500. 35000. 35500. 36000. 36010. 36020. 36030. 36040. 36500. 37000. 37010. 37020. 37030. 37040. 37500. 37510. 37520. 37530. 37531. 37540. 37541. 37550. 37560. 37570. 37580. 37590. 37600. 37610. 38000. 38010. 38020. 38030. 38040. 38050. 38060. 150

Important problem (English) single mothers on welfare too low welfare norm disabled pension pension cuts not enough wrong people abuse elderly provision of employment age of early retirement health law welfare Disenfranchised Division of society between citizens and illegal aliens Link between wages and social benefits (Shortcomings of) social system (Dependence on) welfare state Social-economic problems Social policy/problems Social inequality social care social legislation execution Social sector Prosperity distribution lack of satisfaction with preservation welfare state too expensive Education policy cuts special education cuts Christian education cuts elementary education quality system changes freedom of education accessibility shortening of duration of studies Politics new (early) elections lack of interest no say unreliability murkiness of politics slowness

Important problem (Dutch) bijstandmoeders te laag bijstandsnorm WAO AOW

korten te weinig verkeerde mensen misbruik bejaarden werkvoorziening (wsw) vut leeftijd ziektewet bijstand Sociaal zwakkeren Tweedeling maatschappij tussen burgers en illegalen Koppeling (uitkering en lonen) Sociaal stelsel (tekortkomingen) (Afhankelijkheid van de) verzorgingstaat Sociaal economische problemen Sociaal beleid/problemen sociale ongelijkheid sociale zorg sociale wetgeving uitvoering Sociale sector Welvaart verdeling ontevredenheid behoud te dure welvaartstaat Onderwijs beleid bezuinigingen speciaal onderwijs bezuinigingen christelijk onderwijs bezuinigingen basisonderwijs kwaliteit systeem veranderingen vrijheid van onderwijs toegankelijkheid studieduurverkorting Politiek nieuwe verkiezingen desinteresse geen inspraak onbetrouwbaarheid onduidelijkheid politiek traagheid


Code 38070. 38080. 38090. 38100. 38110. 38120. 38130. 38140. 38150. 38160. 38170. 38180. 38190. 38200. 38201. 38210. 38220. 38230. 38240. 38250. 38260. 38270. 38280. 38500. 38510. 38520. 38530. 38540. 38550. 38560. 38570. 38580. 35890. 38600. 38610. 39000. 39010. 39020. 39500. 40000. 40010. 40020. 40030. 40040. 40050. 40060. 40070. 40080. 40090. 40100. 40110. 40120. 40500.

Important problem (English) Important problem (Dutch) stagnant relationships verhoudingen verroest cooperation between parties/politicians samenwerking tussen partijen/politici division within parties/politicians verdeeldheid in partijen/tussen politici city council deelraad voting system kiesstelsel party system partijstelsel CD/Centrumpartij CD/Centrumpartij demise of VVD verval VVD political affairs (scandals) politieke affaires move to the (extreme) right ver(extreem-)rechtsing (rise of) extreme right (opkomst) extreem rechts (rise of) extreme left (opkomst) extreem links indecision besluiteloosheid CDA

losses gap between citizens and politics election campaign elderly party malaise unrest election manifestoes instability PvdA Government (formation) future government outgoing cabinet right people in the government strong government leader cabinet crisis governing system rigidity dividedness key position CDA indecision (weak) gap between citizens and government Church (religion) secularization relationship with politics Well-being Housing policy rent (increases) renting houses shortage adjusting houses youth, students social housing single people impoverishment of cities lowering housing subsidies elderly foreigners are favored Royal family

CDA

verlies kloof burgers-politiek verkiezingscampagne ouderenpartij malaise onrust verkiezingsprogramma's instabiliteit PvdA Regering (formatie) toekomstige regering demissionaire regering juiste mensen in regering sterke regeringsleider kabinetscrisis regeringssysteem starre houding verdeeldheid sleutelpositie CDA besluiteloosheid (zwak) kloof burgers - regering Kerk (geloof) ontkerkelijking relatie tot politiek Welzijn Huisvesting beleid huur(verhogingen) huurwoningen woningnood aanpassen woning jongeren, studenten sociale woningbouw alleenstaanden verpaupering steden huursubsidie verlagen ouderen buitenlanders krijgen voorrang Koningshuis

151


Code 41000. 41500. 42000. 42500. 43000. 43010. 43500. 43510. 44000. 44010. 44500. 45000. 45500. 45510. 45520. 45530. 50000. 50500. 50510. 51000. 51010. 51500. 52000. 52500. 53000. 70000. 70010. 70020. 70030. 70040. 70050. 70060. 70070. 70080. 70090. 70100. 70110. 70120. 70130. 70140. 70150. 70160. 70170. 70180. 70190. 70200. 70210. 70220. 70230. 70240. 70250. 70260. 70270. 152

Important problem (English) (Societal) inequality Technological development Privacy protection Labor market Social renewal getting started Human rights political prisoners Living expenses too high Money Immigration Civil servants, public administration bad ungovernability rigid Big cities Unrest in society civil disobedience Town and country planning too many buildings being built Absence through sickness Child benefits Fascism Nationalism General tendencies individualization intolerance injustice lack of satisfaction satisfaction narrowmindedness boredom materialism egocentrism indifference mentality egoism jealousy impoverishment achievement-oriented society fading of norms degeneration morale family not cornerstone of society solidarity livability, quality of life alienation honesty tolerance equality disagreement relationships dealing with authority

Important problem (Dutch) (Maatschappelijke) ongelijkheid Technologische ontwikkeling Privacy bescherming Arbeidsmarkt Sociale vernieuwing op gang helpen Mensenrechten politieke gevangenen Kosten van levensonderhoud te hoog Geld Immigratie Ambtenarij, openbaar bestuur slecht onbestuurbaarheid starheid Grote steden Maatschappelijk onrust burgerlijke ongehoorzaamheid Ruimtelijke ordening Nederland wordt te vol gebouwd Ziekteverzuim Kinderbijslag Fascisme Nationalisme Algemene tendenzen individualisering intolerantie onrechtvaardigheid ontevredenheid tevredenheid bekrompenheid verveling materialisme egocentrisme onverschilligheid mentaliteit egoisme jaloersheid, naijver verpaupering prestatiemaatschappij normvervaging verloedering moraal gezin niet hoeksteen van de samenleving solidariteit leefbaarheid vervreemding eerlijkheid tolerantie gelijkwaardigheid onenigheid gezagsverhoudingen


Code 70280. 70290. 70300. 70310. 80000. 90000. 91000. 99995. 99997. 99998. 99999.

Important problem (English) cultural poverty people not interested hardening of society americanization Miscellaneous No problems Uncodable No second, third, fourth, or fifth answer Don't know (DK) Not ascertained (NA) Inappropriate (INAP)

Important problem (Dutch) cultuurarmoede ongeinteresseerdheid verharding maatschappij veramerikanisering Overig Geen problemen Niet codeerbaar Geen tweede, derde, vierde, of vijfde antwoord Weet niet Niet vastgesteld Niet van toepassing

Frequency distributions VAR016 to VAR020: CodeVAR1008VAR1009VAR1010VAR1011VAR1012 1000. 0 0 0 0 0 1500. 0 0 0 0 0 1510. 0 0 0 0 0 1520. 0 0 0 0 0 1530. 0 0 0 0 0 1540. 0 0 0 0 0 1550. 0 0 0 0 0 2000. 0 0 0 0 0 2010. 0 1 0 0 1 2020. 1 1 1 2 2 2500. 0 1 0 0 0 3000. 0 1 2 0 0 3010. 0 0 0 0 0 3020. 2 1 0 0 0 3500. 0 0 0 0 0 3510. 0 0 0 0 1 4000. 0 1 2 1 0 4010. 2 2 1 1 1 4020. 0 0 0 0 0 4030. 0 0 0 0 0 4040. 0 0 0 0 0 4500. 1 1 0 0 0 4510. 1 2 0 0 0 4520. 0 0 0 0 0 5000. 0 1 0 0 0 5010. 0 0 0 0 0 5020. 7 3 3 0 0 5030. 1 3 0 0 0 5040. 0 0 1 1 0 5500. 6 2 5 0 0 5510. 2 3 0 1 0 5520. 2 7 1 0 1 5530. 0 0 1 0 0 5531. 0 0 0 0 0 5532. 0 0 0 0 0 5533. 0 0 0 0 0

CodeVAR1008VAR1009VAR1010VAR1011VAR1012 5540. 14 9 7 2 1 5541. 0 0 0 0 0 5542. 0 0 0 0 0 5543. 0 0 0 0 0 5544. 0 0 0 0 0 5545. 0 0 0 0 0 5546. 0 0 0 0 0 5550. 0 0 0 0 0 5560. 0 0 0 0 0 5570. 4 1 2 1 0 5580. 1 0 1 0 0 5590. 0 0 0 0 0 6000. 1 3 2 1 0 6010. 0 1 0 0 0 6500. 0 1 0 1 0 6510. 0 0 0 1 0 6520. 0 0 0 0 0 7000. 1 0 3 0 1 7010. 0 0 0 0 0 7500. 7 14 11 5 0 7510. 3 5 6 1 1 7520. 0 0 0 0 0 7530. 1 1 0 0 0 7540. 0 0 0 0 0 7550. 0 0 0 0 0 7560. 0 0 0 0 0 7570. 0 0 0 0 0 7580. 0 0 0 0 0 8000. 0 0 1 0 0 8010. 0 0 0 0 0 8020. 0 0 0 0 0 8500. 0 0 2 0 0 8510. 0 0 0 0 0 8520. 1 0 0 0 0 8530. 1 0 0 0 1 8540. 0 0 0 0 0

153


CodeVAR1008VAR1009VAR1010VAR1011VAR1012 9000. 9 14 5 0 0 9010. 1 2 0 0 0 9020. 0 0 1 0 0 9030. 0 0 0 0 0 9500. 38 45 16 6 3 9510. 4 4 1 0 0 9520. 3 5 5 0 0 9530. 15 13 7 2 0 9540. 4 1 0 0 0 9550. 0 0 0 0 0 9560. 0 0 0 0 0 10000. 5 2 2 1 0 10010. 5 7 2 0 1 10020. 0 0 0 0 0 10030. 0 0 1 0 0 10040. 0 0 0 0 0 10500. 0 0 0 1 0 11000. 0 8 2 0 0 11010. 2 6 0 0 1 11020. 1 1 0 0 0 11030. 0 1 0 0 0 11040. 1 1 0 0 0 11500. 19 18 3 1 2 11510. 8 10 1 2 0 11511. 0 0 0 0 0 11520. 10 9 4 0 0 11530. 0 0 0 0 0 11540. 1 0 0 0 0 11550. 0 1 1 0 0 11560. 1 2 2 0 0 11570. 0 3 0 0 0 11580. 0 0 0 0 0 11581. 0 0 0 0 0 11590. 0 0 0 0 0 11600. 0 0 0 0 0 11610. 1 0 1 0 0 11620. 0 0 0 0 0 11630. 0 0 0 0 0 12000. 1 1 0 0 0 12500. 1 0 0 0 0 13000. 4 7 7 0 0 13010. 1 2 0 0 0 13020. 0 3 0 0 0 13030. 0 0 0 0 0 13040. 0 0 0 0 0 13050. 0 0 0 0 0 13500. 12 8 7 0 0 14000. 0 0 0 0 0 14010. 0 0 0 0 0 14020. 0 0 0 0 0 14030. 0 0 0 0 0 14500. 0 0 0 2 0 14510. 0 0 0 1 0

154





155



156





157


CodeVAR1008VAR1009VAR1010VAR1011VAR1012 70020. 2 3 0 0 1 70030. 0 0 0 0 0 70040. 1 2 0 0 0 70050. 0 0 0 0 0 70060. 0 0 0 0 0 70070. 0 0 0 0 0 70080. 1 0 0 0 1 70090. 0 0 0 1 0 70100. 1 0 0 0 0 70110. 1 1 2 0 0 70120. 0 1 2 0 0 70130. 0 0 0 0 0 70140. 0 1 0 0 0 70150. 0 0 0 0 0 70160. 1 4 3 1 2 70170. 0 1 1 0 0 70180. 1 0 0 0 0 70190. 0 0 0 0 0 70200. 0 1 0 0 0

CodeVAR1008VAR1009VAR1010VAR1011VAR1012 70210. 0 0 0 0 0 70220. 0 0 0 0 0 70230. 0 0 0 0 0 70240. 0 0 2 0 0 70250. 0 0 0 0 0 70260. 0 0 0 0 0 70270. 0 0 0 1 0 70280. 0 0 0 0 0 70290. 0 0 0 0 0 70300. 0 0 0 0 0 70310. 0 0 0 0 0 80000. 4 9 13 8 7 90000. 3 0 0 0 0 91000. 2 1 0 1 0 99995. 0 114 310 256 110 99997. 2 3 0 0 0 99998. 8 0 0 0 0 99999. 0 15 133 443 700

INAP codes were assigned in all cases after the respondent had indicated that there were no important problems (code 90000), if the answers were uncodable (code 91000), the respondent could not mention an important problem (code 99997), no further answers had been given (code 99995), or no answer had been ascertained (code 99998).

158

APPENDIX 3 - MOTIVATION FOR PARTY CHOICE

APPENDIX 3: Motivation for party choice This appendix is used in conjunction with VAR1017 to VAR1020 and VAR1177

The data file contains four variables with information offered by the respondents when asked to motivate their party choice. This appendix contains a description of the meaning of the codes and the frequency distributions of the four variables. The responses were coded in order of appearance as recorded by the interviewer, with the exception of the answer "best party." This answer provides only a minimum of information and for that reason has always been coded as the last response given by the respondent (i.e., second, third, or fourth reason), even if it had been provided first. The 'verbatim' answers as recorded by the interviewers have also been stored in a separate alphanumeric variable (VAR1177). This variable was cleaned and corrected for spelling errors. Users should be aware that these answers are all in Dutch, and that English translations are not available. The following remarks apply to the codes obtained by means of the new coding scheme: - The coding scheme described below differs from those used in previous Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies, in terms of both coding and content. - Each code contains three digits. Codes 100, 150, 200, etc. indicate the general motive (e.g., representation of interests, power relations), whereas the remaining codes pertain to more detailed distinctions (e.g., satisfaction with coalition, dissatisfaction with coalition). Users are recommended to collapse the codes along these categories if all they need is a crude categorization of the motives. - The interviewers were not explicitly instructed to mark separate motives. In a small number of cases, this has led to some difficulties in determining the exact number of motives that the respondent mentioned. This problem was solved by relying on the context of the complete answer given by the respondent. - Some of the codes in the coding scheme were not assigned to any of the respondents. These codes have nonetheless been included to preserve the consistency of the coding scheme and to facilitate comparisons with the 1989 study. The coding scheme is presented below. The distinction in terms of the main codes and the more detailed codes is shown graphically by the use of indents.

159


Code 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 167. 168. 169. 170. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259.

160

Description Representation of interests interests of workers, employees, working people interests of shop owners, small business interests of (free) enterprise, entrepreneurs, business (in general) recipients of (unemployment) benefits interest of economically disadvantaged groups, the financial weak, minimum incomes interests of elderly interests of youth interests of women groups (not specified) other than "people like me" respondent's own personal interests representation of other interests general interest, the national interest common man, common people social Power relations satisfaction with coalition dissatisfaction with coalition performance and policies of coalition without specification of (dis)satisfaction performance and policies of opposition without specification of (dis)satisfaction this party belongs in a government, this party should be included in a coalition purple coalition left-wing coalition change, renewal, protest doesn't vote for losers unable to form coalition more influence in Second Chamber to create a balance, stability biggest party against CDA against PvdA against Centrumdemocraten against VVD against SGP against red/left-wing parties Beliefs religious beliefs unspecified personal philosophy left ideological beliefs center ideological beliefs right ideological beliefs liberal center party Candidates party leader PvdA: Kok (positive impact on party choice) party leader PvdA: Kok (negative impact on party choice) party leader CDA: Lubbers, Brinkman (positive impact on party choice) party leader CDA: Lubbers, Brinkman (negative impact on party choice) party leader VVD: Voorhoeve, Bolkestein (positive impact on party choice) party leader VVD: Voorhoeve, Bolkestein (negative impact on party choice) party leader D66: Van Mierlo (positive impact on party choice) party leader D66: Van Mierlo (negative impact on party choice) other PvdA candidates (positive impact on party choice)


Code 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 349. 350. 351. 352. 353. 354. 355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360. 361. 362. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369. 370. 371. 372. 373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 700. 701.

Description other PvdA candidates (negative impact on party choice) other CDA candidates (positive impact on party choice) other CDA candidates (negative impact on party choice) other VVD candidates (positive impact on party choice) other VVD candidates (negative impact on party choice) other specifically mentioned candidates (positive impact on party choice) other specifically mentioned candidates (negative impact on party choice) candidates: unspecified (positive impact on party choice) candidates: unspecified (negative impact on party choice) Party party identification, adherence, membership general positive qualification concerning the party best party party is least of all evils it is a large party it is a small party new party party manifesto, policy of party, ideas of party give party a chance give CDA a chance party should not be damaged any further no trust in bigger parties realistic (policy) Policy areas, specific platform planks abortion euthanasia foreigners, aliens crime, law and order, police defense nuclear armaments policy economic problems government budget deficits fighting (unemployment), stimulating employment part-time jobs, reduction of working hours social security: benefits, policy income policy social security: fraud decreasing income gap increasing income gap deregulation, smaller role of government in society (nuclear) energy "nuclear mess" environmental pollution, care, problems shortage of housing, cost of housing tax reforms health care education reform political system, reform administrative system protection of property, house ownership developmental aid cuts Other reasons: tradition, imitation, impact of media tradition

161


Code 702. 703. 704. 705. 706. 707. 708. 709. 910. 995. 997. 998. 999.

Description imitation impact of media other, idiosyncratic reason doesn't matter vote same way as in municipal elections polls influenced by spouse floating voter Uncodable No second, third, or fourth answer Don't know (DK) Not ascertained (NA) Inappropriate (INAP)

Frequency distributions of VAR1017 to VAR1020: Code VAR1017 VAR1018 VAR1019 VAR1020 100. 0 0 0 0 101. 6 5 0 0 102. 0 0 0 0 103. 7 2 0 0 104. 2 1 1 0 105. 9 8 0 0 106. 16 3 3 0 107. 1 0 0 0 108. 0 0 0 0 109. 5 0 0 0 110. 4 4 0 0 111. 3 1 0 0 112. 5 2 1 0 113. 4 1 0 0 114. 9 8 1 0 150. 0 0 0 0 151. 3 0 0 0 152. 6 1 0 0 153. 1 1 0 0 154. 0 0 0 0 155. 5 3 0 1 156. 3 1 1 0 157. 1 0 0 0 158. 22 8 1 1 159. 4 0 1 0 160. 0 0 0 0 161. 4 3 0 0 162. 8 8 1 1 163. 6 1 0 0 164. 4 9 0 0 165. 3 0 0 0 166. 0 0 0 0 167. 4 4 0 0 168. 1 0 0 0

162

Code VAR1017 VAR1018 VAR1019 VAR1020 169. 0 1 0 0 170. 0 0 0 0 200. 0 0 0 0 201. 53 7 1 0 202. 68 18 1 0 203. 9 6 0 0 204. 0 0 0 0 205. 1 1 0 0 206. 8 2 1 0 207. 10 1 1 0 250. 0 0 0 0 251. 14 4 1 0 252. 0 1 1 0 253. 5 3 1 0 254. 1 2 0 0 255. 4 2 0 0 256. 0 0 0 0 257. 10 3 0 0 258. 0 0 0 0 259. 0 3 1 0 260. 1 1 0 0 261. 2 1 0 1 262. 0 1 0 0 263. 2 0 0 0 264. 0 0 0 0 265. 8 3 2 0 266. 0 0 0 0 267. 3 1 1 0 268. 0 0 0 0 300. 0 0 0 0 301. 11 2 0 0 302. 66 21 1 0 303. 51 11 2 0 304. 39 5 0 0


Code VAR1017 VAR1018 VAR1019 VAR1020 305. 4 7 1 0 306. 1 2 0 0 307. 0 1 0 0 308. 51 8 0 0 309. 11 3 0 0 310. 1 0 0 0 311. 8 0 0 0 312. 5 1 0 0 349. 4 1 0 0 350. 21 10 0 0 351. 1 1 1 0 352. 2 1 1 1 353. 9 13 1 1 354. 3 3 1 0 355. 1 0 1 0 356. 0 0 0 0 357. 1 1 1 0 358. 1 2 1 0 359. 5 2 1 1 360. 0 1 0 0 361. 8 12 2 1 362. 1 0 1 2 363. 1 1 0 0 364. 0 0 0 0 365. 0 0 0 0 366. 1 0 0 0 367. 0 0 0 0 368. 0 1 0 0 369. 14 7 2 0 370. 0 1 0 0 371. 2 1 0 0 372. 2 0 0 0 373. 1 0 0 0 374. 4 1 0 0 375. 1 1 0 0 376. 0 0 0 0 377. 6 1 0 0

Code VAR1017 VAR1018 VAR1019 VAR1020 700. 0 0 0 0 701. 84 13 1 0 702. 0 0 0 0 703. 8 2 1 0 704. 0 0 0 0 705. 3 0 0 0 706. 2 0 0 0 707. 1 0 0 0 708. 9 0 0 0 709. 3 0 0 0 910. 6 0 0 0 995. 0 519 229 34 997. 5 0 0 0 998. 0 0 0 0 999. 72 83 602 831

))

875

))

875

))

875

))

875

INAP codes

were assigned if the respondent had not cast a vote (VAR1015, code 2), could not name the party he or she had voted for (VAR1016, codes 97 and 98), after the respondent did not know what answer to give (code 997), no answer had been ascertained (code 998), or no further answers had been given (code 995).

163

APPENDIX 4 - MOTIVATION FOR NOT VOTING

APPENDIX 4: Motivation for not voting This appendix is used in conjunction with VAR1029 and VAR1178

The data file contains one variable with information on respondents' motivations for not casting a vote. This appendix provides a description of the codes and the associated frequency distribution. The 'verbatim' answers as recorded by the interviewers have also been stored in a separate alphanumeric variable (VAR1178). This variable was cleaned and corrected for spelling errors. Users should be aware that these answers are all in Dutch, and that English translations are not available. The following remarks apply to the codes obtained by means of the coding scheme described below: - The coding scheme is somewhat more detailed than those used in previous Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies, but is still compatible with them. - Each code contains two digits. The first digit indicates the general motive for not voting (e.g., physical and personal circumstances, absence), whereas the second digit pertains to more detailed distinctions (e.g., too late, had to work). Users are recommended to collapse the codes along the first digit if all they need is a crude categorization of the motives. - Some of the codes in the coding scheme were not assigned to any of the respondents. These codes have nonetheless been included to preserve the consistency of the coding scheme and to facilitate comparisons with the 1989 study. The coding scheme is presented below. The distinction in terms of the main codes and the more detailed codes is shown graphically by the use of indents. Code 10. 11. 12. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 30. 31. 32. 33. 40. 41.

164

Motivation Physical and personal circumstances respondent is handicapped or ill family matters (relatives ill, funeral, etc.) Absence (not in town, abroad) no time too late had to work vacation No interest doesn't care forgot to vote voting is not compulsory Beliefs religious beliefs

VAR1029 0 3 0 6 9 2 3 2 6 0 5 0 0 0

APPENDIX 4 - MOTIVATION FOR NOT VOTING

Code 42. 50. 60. 61. 62. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 80. 81. 90. 91. 92. 910. 997. 999.

Motivation does not vote on principle Could not make a choice Protest disagree with the parties (or government) rejects the party system Cynicism no party has anything good to offer parties (politicians) do not keep their promises does not trust the parties (politicians) it is no use to vote it does not yield anything to vote politics is a mess Feelings of incompetence does not know much about politics No summons did not receive summons lost summons Uncodable DK INAP

(VAR1015, code 1)

VAR1029 3 8 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 5 1 0 1 2 1 1 809

))

875

165

APPENDIX 5 - DUTCH POLITICIANS

APPENDIX 5: Dutch politicians This appendix is used in conjunction with VAR1075 to VAR1104

The data file contains several variables that are based on references to one or more Dutch politicians. This appendix provides a brief description of these politicians in terms of their function and their partisan affiliation. Name Bolkestein Brinkman Kok Lubbers Van Mierlo

166

Description of politician - Frits Bolkestein, floor leader in the Second Chamber, and first candidate on the list of the 'conservative liberal' party VVD. Generally considered to be the party leader of the VVD. - Elco Brinkman, floor leader in the Second Chamber, and first candidate on the list of the Christian Democratic party CDA. At the time of the elections generally expected to be the next party leader of the CDA. - Wim Kok, floor leader in the Second Chamber, and first candidate on the list of the Labor party (PvdA). Generally considered to be the party leader of the PvdA. - Ruud Lubbers, (outgoing) prime minister, took office in 1982. Member of CDA. - Hans van Mierlo, floor leader in the Second Chamber, and first candidate on the list of the progressive liberal party D66. Generally considered to be the party leader of D66.

APPENDIX 6 - COMPARABILITY OF QUESTIONS

APPENDIX 6: Comparability of questions within the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd wave

This appendix contains an overview of the questions asked in the third wave of interviews that are comparable to the questions asked in the first and second wave of interviews. A complete review of questions that are more or less comparable to those in earlier studies can only be obtained through a detailed inspection of all relevant questionnaires, and with a clearly defined research objective in mind. For this reason, a general purpose codebook can only present a description on the basis of approximate nominal comparability. This means that only those questions will be listed that are (almost) identical to those in other studies in terms of question wording, without any claims as to whether or not this is a necessary or sufficient condition for substantive comparability. The first column of the list contains the numbers of the questions in the first wave of interviews (identical to the first wave of the 1989 study), the second column contains the numbers of the second wave (identical to the second wave of the 1989 study), and the third column contains the numbers of the questions in the third wave. 1989 WAVE

2 3 4 5 6 7 8a-c 9a-e 10a-c 11 12a 12b 12c 13a-e 14a-e 15 16a-e 17a-b 18a-b 19 20 21 22a-c 23a 23b

1989 1

WAVE

-

2

1994

1989

WAVE 3

WAVE

2 3 4 5 6 8 23 22a 22b 22c 25a-e 31a 31d

23c 23d 24a-d 25a-d 26a-g 27 67 68 69 70 71 72a-b -

1989 1

WAVE

42 43 44 45 46 47a-b 1 2 3 4 5a-b 6 7a-b 8 9 10 11 12a-b 13

1994 2

WAVE 3

31b 31c 50 51 52 53 54 55a-b 9 10 11 12 13 14 15a-b 16 17a-b 18 167

APPENDIX 6 - COMPARABILITY OF QUESTIONS

1989 WAVE

-

168

1989 1

WAVE

14 15 16 17a-e 18a-e 19a-d 20 21a-b 22a-c 23 24a-c 25 26a-l 27a-d 28a-c 29 30a-m 31 32a-c 33 34 35a-l 36a-d 37

2

1994

1989

WAVE 3

WAVE

19 20 21 24a-e 30 28a-b 29a-c 26 27a-i 41a-d 42a-c 47 48 38a-i -

-

1989 1

WAVE

38a-c 39a-b 40a-k 41a-b -

1994 2

WAVE 3

39a-c 40a-b 7 22d 22e 29d 29e 29f 31e 31f 31g 32a-f 33a-f 34a-f 35a-f 36a-f 37a-f 43a-d 44a-b 45a-b 46a-b 49a-b

APPENDIX 7 - Outcome OF THE 1989 AND 1994 ELECTIONS

APPENDIX 7: Outcome of the 1989 and 1994 parliamentary elections

This appendix contains a brief description of the outcomes of both the 1989 and 1994 parliamentary elections. These results were taken from CBS (1990) and STAATSCOURANT (1994). The outcome of the 1989 parliamentary elections The result of the 1989 election showed that the VVD lost five seats compared to the elections of 1986. The CDA retained the 54 seats that the party had won in 1986. The PvdA lost three seats and went down to 49 seats, whereas D66 gained three seats and arrived at a total of twelve. Green Left also gained three seats, much to the party's disappointment as the polls had promised larger gains. On the right end of the political spectrum, the orthodox Protestant party GPV captured its second seat; the remaining orthodox Protestant parties remained steady at the level of 1986. Finally, the ethnocentric Center-Democrats recaptured the single seat they had lost in the election of 1986. The outcome of the 1994 parliamentary elections The 1994 elections showed historic changes, the size of which had never been witnessed before in Dutch politics. As such, the 1994 elections truly can be characterized as a landslide. The outcome of the elections showed dramatic losses for the two government parties CDA and PvdA. The CDA lost twenty seats compared to the 1989 elections (from 54 to 34), while the PvdA lost twelve seats (from 49 to 37). Despite this gigantic loss, the PvdA did manage to become the biggest party in parliament. The big winners were D66, the VVD, and the elderly parties. D66 doubled its number of seats and went from 12 to 24 seats. The VVD gained nine seats to arrive at a total of 31. The elderly parties, founded a few weeks before election day after strong local showings in the municipal elections of March 2, entered parliament with seven seats (six for AOV and one for UNIE 55+). GroenLinks lost one seat and arrived at a total of five. At the far left, the SP after years of fruitless attempts finally gained representation: they now have two seats in parliament. The orthodox-protestant parties showed a blurry image with the RPF gaining two seats and the more conservative SGP losing one of their three seats. The GPV remained constant. Finally, the ethnocentric Centerdemocraten gained two seats and are now represented with three seats in the Second Chamber. The outcome of the 1989 and 1994 Second Chamber elections in terms of the numbers of valid votes, invalid votes, and abstentions is as follows: 1989

Number of valid votes Number of invalid votes Number of abstentions Total number of eligible citizens

)))))))))

1994

)))))))))

8,893,302 26,485 2,192,402

80.0% 0.3% 18.7%

8,974,813 46,331 2,434,780

78.3% 0.4% 21.3%

11,112,189

100.0%

11,455,924

100.0%

))))

)))

))))

)))

169

APPENDIX 7 - OUTCOME OF THE 1989 AND 1994 ELECTIONS

In 1989 and 1994, the valid votes were distributed over the contending parties as follows (the acronyms of the parties are explained after the listing of the election outcome): 1989

)))))))))))))

Party CDA PvdA VVD D66

GroenLinks SGP GPV RPF CD/Centrumpartij CD SP

De Groenen BC VP VCN RN SAP AWP PPvO VMF HP SMP PDS MDP GAP SF

Rebel

De Nieuwe Partij PSP'92

Natuurwetpartij PMR UNIE 55+ SBP AOV CP'86

Libertarische Partij VIP NCPN ADP

Solidair '93 PDA

absolute percentage of number of votes popular vote 3,140,502 35.3% 2,835,251 31.9% 1,295,402 14.6% 701,934 7.9% 362,304 4.1% 166,082 1.9% 109,637 1.2% 85,231 1.0% 81,427 0.9% 38,870 0.4% 31,312 0.4% 12,129 0.1% 7,884 0.1% 7,380 0.1% 6,047 0.1% 4,297 0.0% 2,171 0.0% 2,160 0.0% 1,942 0.0% 326 0.0% 329 0.0% 452 0.0% 148 0.0% 54 0.0% 31 0.0% -

))))

8,893,302

170

1994

)))))))))))))

absolute number of votes 1,995,155 2,151,394 1,790,952 1,390,047 311,033 155,230 119,108 158,627 220,621 118,738 13,887 4,345 -

percentage of popular vote 22.2% 24.0% 20.0% 15.5% 3.5% 1.7% 1.3% 1.8% 2.5% 1.3% 0.2% 0.0% -

-

6,822 7,378 27,646 8,705 78,079 9,088 326,129 32,311 2,754 17,202 11,619 5,196 7,915 4,832

0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.9% 0.1% 0.1% 3.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

100.0%

8,974,813

100%

)))

))))

)))

APPENDIX 7 - Outcome OF THE 1989 AND 1994 ELECTIONS

Note: In the 1989 study (that is, the first and the second wave) Centrumdemocraten (CD) and Centrumpartij (or its successor, CP'86) were treated as one single party; in the 1994 study, both parties are treated separately. Explanation of acronyms:

GroenLinks SGP GPV RPF CD SP De Groenen BC WP VCN RN SAP AWP PPvO VMF HP SMP PDS MDP GAP SF De Nieuwe Partij PSP'92 SP SAP - Rebel Natuurwetpartij PMR UNIE 55+ SBP AOV CP'86 Libertarische Partij De Groenen VIP NCPN ADP Solidair '93 PDA CDA PvdA VVD D66

Christian Democratic Appeal Labor party People's party for Freedom and Democracy Democrats 1966 GreenLeft Political Reformed Party Reformed Political Association Reformed Political Federation Center Democrats Socialist Party The Greens Elderly People's Party ('Bejaarden Centraal') Women's Party United Communists in the Netherlands Realists, the Netherlands Socialist Workers Party Anti Unemployment Party Political Party for the Elderly Progressive Minorities Party Humanistic Party Socialist Minorities Party Democratic Socialist Party Environmental Defense Party Great Alliance Party Political Federation ('Staatkundige Federatie') The New Party Pacifistic Socialist Party 1992 Socialist Party Socialist Workers Party - Rebel Natural Law Party Party for the Environment and Justice Union 55 plus (55 refers to age) Solidarity Farmers Party General Seniors Union Center Party 1986 Libertarian Party The Greens Free Indian Party New Communist Party General Democratic Party Solidarity 1993 Patriotic Democratic Appeal

171

APPENDIX 7 - OUTCOME OF THE 1989 AND 1994 ELECTIONS

The distribution of seats in the Second Chamber in 1989 and 1994 is as follows (old number of seats in parentheses): CDA PvdA VVD D66

GroenLinks SGP GPV RPF CD SP UNIE AOV

55+

1989 1994 54 34 49 37 22 31 12 24 6 5 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 0 2 0 1 0 6

More extensive overviews of (recent) election results and compositions of the Second Chamber have been reported by, amongst others, Van Holsteyn (1994) and Anker (1992). The twelve parties that achieved representation in the Second Chamber after the 1989 or 1994 elections can be briefly described as follows: - Christian democratic party, founded in 1980. The CDA is a merger of the Catholic People's Party (KVP), Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP) and Christian Historical Union (CHU). Both the ARP and CHU are Protestant Christian parties. The Christian Democratic party - or its most important predecessor KVP - has been the spill around which government coalitions have been formed since 1917. PvdA - Labor party, successor of the Social Democratic Workers Party (SDAP) VVD - Conservative liberal party. D66 - Progressive liberal party, founded in 1966. GroenLinks - Previously referred to as 'small left'. Founded in 1989. Green Left is a merger of the Pacifist Socialist Party (PSP), the Communist Party of the Netherlands (CPN), the Political Party of Radicals (PPR), and the Evangelical People's Party (EVP). SGP - Orthodox Protestant party, based on a specific Calvinist denomination. GPV - Orthodox Protestant party, based on a specific Calvinist denomination (but a different one from the SGP). RPF - Orthodox Protestant party, draws its support from various Calvinist denominations. CD - Extreme right party, successor of the Center party (Centrumpartij). SP - Socialist Party. Has electoral strongholds in a number of different municipalities. Was close to gaining representation in Parliament in previous elections. Finally successful in 1994. UNIE 55+ - Elderly party, founded in 1992. AOV - Elderly party, founded in 1993. Went national after strong local showing in municipality of Eindhoven. CDA

Refer to Daalder (1987) and Irwin (1989) for a more detailed description of the parties and the Dutch party system. Refer to Lucardie (1991) for a discussion of the origins and development of the small parties in the Netherlands.

172

APPENDEX 8- INFORMAmON ABOUT OTHER CODEBOOKS

8: Information about other Dutch Parliamentary Eleetion Studies

APPENDIX

This appendix gives an overview of all election studies that have been conducted as part of the Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies in the Netherlands. The following figure contains all relevant information.

Year

Study (N)

1971

Election date

1971 WAVE 1 (2.495) 1971 WAVE 2 (1.980)

28 Apr. 1971

1972 1973

1974

~.i Chamber

1975 1976

1972 PANEL (1,324) 1973 PANEL (887)

Dm!m!!l

m

I

~People’s ;. Both the ~its most ~i have been !,

1972

25 May

1977

26 May

1981

I

I

I

1977

/39 or 1994

“NOv”

n

1977PANEL

(509)

Bmz!l!l

1978

1’7’ I.wwuHd 1980

1981WAVE

1 (2.305) 1981 WAVE 2 (1.812) 1981 WAVE 3 (1.620)

1981 1982

8 Sep. 1982 1982 PANEL (1.206)

1983

1982 FRESH

(1.541)

m,

1984 1985

; the Pacifist ;,Party of i ent one from

rp!mrl

1988

lENudp=’q

1989

;’

1990

j Nas close to i 04.

1991

; .micipality of :

1993

21 May “8’ 6 Sep.1989

1992 I

I

I

1994

I

1994WAVE 1994WAVE

1 (1,812) 2 (1.527)

It

I I

I

1994 WAVE 3 (875)

I

3 May 1994

J

~tiesand the ~cvelopment !

173

[

t

APPENDIX 8 - INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER CODEBOOKS

The references of the associated codebooks are as follows: Mokken, R.J., and F.M. Roschar. 1975. Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1971. Ann Arbor: ICPSR. De Bruyn, L.P.J., and J.W. Foppen. 1974. Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 1972-'73. Nijmegen: Institute for Political Science. 2 volumes. De Bruyn, L.P.J., and J.W. Foppen. 1974. The Dutch Voter 1972-'73. Nijmegen: Institute for Political Science. 2 volumes. Irwin, G.A., J. Verhoef and C.J. Wiebrens. 1978. Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 1977. Leiden: Dept. of Political Science. 2 volumes. Van der Eijk, C., M.J. Koopman, and B. Niemöller. 1981. Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1981. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Department of Political Science. Van der Eijk, C., B. Niemöller, and A.Th.J. Eggen. 1983. Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1982. Amsterdam: CT Press. Van der Eijk, C., G.A. Irwin, and B. Niemöller. 1988. Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1986. Amsterdam: Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC. Van der Eijk, C., G.A. Irwin, and B. Niemöller. 1988. Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel-Study 1981-1986. Amsterdam: Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC. Van der Eijk, C., G.A. Irwin, and B. Niemöller. 1989. Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1986: Stratified Sample. Amsterdam: Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC. Van Deth, J.W., and A.R. Horstman. 1993. Dutch Parliamentary Election Studies Data Source Book 19711989. Amsterdam: Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC. Anker, H., and E.V. Oppenhuis. 1993. Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1989. Amsterdam: Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC. Van der Eijk, C., G.A. Irwin, and B. Niemöller. 1993. Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel-Study 1986-1989. Amsterdam: Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC. Anker, H., and E.V. Oppenhuis. 1995. Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1994. Amsterdam: Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC. Anker, H., and E.V. Oppenhuis. 1995. Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel-Study 1989-1994. Amsterdam: Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC.

174

References

REFERENCES Anker, H. 1992. Normal Vote Analysis. Amsterdam: Spinhuis. Anker, H., and E.V. Oppenhuis. 1993. Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1989. Amsterdam: Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC. Anker, H., and E.V. Oppenhuis. 1995. Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1994. Amsterdam: Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC. 1990. Statistiek der Verkiezingen 1989, Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 6 september 1989. Voorburg: CBS. CBS

Daalder, H. 1987. 'The Dutch Party System: From Segmentation to Polarization - and Then?' In Party Systems in Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Belgium, ed. H. Daalder. London: Francis Pinter. Debets, P., and E. Brouwer. 1989. MSP. A Program for Mokken Scale Analysis for Polychotomous Items. Groningen: IEC ProGAMMA. Van der Eijk, C., B. Niemöller, and A.Th.J.Eggen, 1981. Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1981. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Dept. of Political Science. Van der Eijk, C., and G.A. Irwin, 1988. 'Survey: het Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek.' In De Praktijk van Onderzoek, ed. W. Derksen, A.F.A. Korsten, and A.F.M. Bertrand. Groningen: WoltersNoordhof. Van der Eijk, C., P. Pennings, and A.C. Wille. 1992. 'Politieke Betrokkenheid - Is de Burger Afgehaakt?' In De Nederlandse Kiezer 1989, ed. J.J.M. van Holsteyn and G.A. Irwin. Amsterdam: Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC. Van Holsteyn, 1994. Het Woord is aan de Kiezer. Een Beschouwing over Verkiezingen en Stemgedrag aan de Hand van Open Vragen. Leiden: DSWO-Press. Irwin, G.A. 1989. 'Appendix 1: Parties Having Achieved Representation in Parliament Since 1946.' West European Politics 12:154-158.

175

References

Lucardie, A.P.M. 1991. 'Fragments from the Pillars: Small Parties in the Netherlands.' In Small Parties in Western Europe. Comparative and National Perspectives, ed. F. Müller-Rommel and G. Pridham. London: Sage. Mokken, R.J. 1971. A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis. The Hague: Mouton. Niemöller, B., and W.H. van Schuur. 1983. 'Stochastic Models for Unidimensional Scaling: Mokken and Rasch.' In Data Analysis and the Social Sciences, ed. D. McKay, N. Schofield and P. Whiteley. London: Frances Pinter. Sijtsma, K. 1988. Contributions to Mokken's Nonparametric Item Response Theory. Amsterdam: Free University Press. Sijtsma, K., P. Debets, and I.W. Molenaar, 1990. 'Mokken Scale Analysis for Polychotomous Items: Theory, a Computer Program and an Empirical Application.' Quality and Quantity 24:173-188. Staatscourant. 1994. Supplement 11 Mei 1994, nr. 89. Uitslag Verkiezing Tweede Kamer. Proces-verbaal van de zitting van het centraal stembureau tot het vaststellen van de uitslag van de verkiezing van de leden van de Tweede Kamer.

176

NOTES

NOTES

Dutch Parliamentary Election Panel Study,

Recommend Documents