Abstract
In this article I reinterpret Ng, Rangel, Vaithilingam, and Pillay's analysis in this issue of pro-BN voting in Peninsular Malaysia in Malaysia's 2013 general election. I show that the authors' statistical methods are inappropriate for testing whether district ethnicity predicts district-level BN vote share, and that their modeling choices result in tests of hypotheses that do not exist and cannot be derived from standard theoretical approaches to ethnic voting in Malaysia. I then provide a range of statistical evidence that supports three main conclusions: (1) ethnicity and district area (a proxy for urbanization) both predict BN vote shares at the district level, (2) neither the effect of ethnicity nor of district area can be reduced to the other, and (3) there is no interactive effect between ethnicity and urbanization. These results are in direct contradiction with the authors' results, and apply equally in Peninsular Malaysia and the entire country. I also discuss the broader issues that emerge when testing competing theories of BN vote share.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Economics and Econometrics,Sociology and Political Science,Development
Reference31 articles.
1. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses
2. Results for mixture models and likelihood ratio tests are available upon request from the author.
3. This section draws on an earlier post on my blog, http://tompepinsky.com/2013/05/18/rural-or-malay-contending-perspectives-on-ge13-2/.
4. Eric Thompson (2013) uses the term “urban chauvinism” to describe some of the interpretations of the results of GE13 that emphasize an urban-rural divide. I highlight this here as a reminder that nonethnic explanations for GE13 results are no less subject to normative biases than are explanations that highlight patterns in district ethnicity and BN vote share.
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献