Premium
Comparing political orientations: Grid‐group theory versus the left‐right dimension in the five Nordic countries
Author(s) -
GRENDSTAD GUNNAR
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
european journal of political research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.267
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 1475-6765
pISSN - 0304-4130
DOI - 10.1111/1475-6765.00072
Subject(s) - egalitarianism , fatalism , individualism , politics , positive economics , dimension (graph theory) , hierarchy , left and right , social psychology , epistemology , psychology , economics , mathematics , political science , law , philosophy , pure mathematics , structural engineering , engineering
. The left‐right dimension and grid‐group theory differ in their empirical track records and the complexity of their conceptual structures. As regards the former, the left‐right dimension is the clear winner. With respect to the latter, grid‐group theory comes out ahead. The parsimony of the unidimensional left‐right dimension may result in a conflation of, or failure to account for, important political distinctions which grid‐group theory accounts for through its four political biases or orientations: hierarchy, egalitarianism, individualism and fatalism. The degree to which grid‐group theory holds ‘excess empirical content’ compared to the left‐right dimension is tested by way of nine hypotheses. The analysis draws on a 1999 survey in the five Nordic countries (N=4,832) and demonstrates excess empirical content. Except in Norway, the left‐right dimension is found to be a surrogate for the conflict between egalitarianism's equality of outcome and individualism's equality of opportunity. Sweden and Denmark are prototypical cases. Conservatism conflates individualism and hierarchy, whereas radicalism conflates egalitarianism and fatalism. Confirmed excess empirical content is a necessary step. Theoretical complexity must also demonstrate enhanced causal power.