KOREAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 1992
SSD 0442
Primärforskare
The Institute for Korean Election Studies
(IKES)
© Copyright by
Svensk samhällsvetenskaplig datatjänst
Pilgatan 19A
S-411 22 Göteborg
Gå till variabelförteckningen
ANVISNINGAR FÖR ANVÄNDAREN
Oavsett publikationsform skall alla uppsatser och rapporter
som bygger på data tillgängliggjorda genom SSD tillkännage
detta förhållande, samt namnge primärforskaren. SSD ber därför
alla användare av SSD-material att, så långt detta är möjligt,
använda sig av följande uttalande. (Uttryck inom parentes
används i tillämpliga fall.):
Data (och tabeller) i denna (publikation) har delvis gjorts
tillgängliga av Svensk Samhällsvetenskaplig Datatjänst.
Materialet i KOREAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 1992 samlades
ursprungligen in av the Institute for Korean Election Studies
(IKES). Varken SSD eller IKES bär ansvar för analyser och
tolkningar som presenteras i denna (publikation).
Enligt överenskommelse mellan IKES och Svensk
Samhällsvetenskaplig Datatjänst får studien förmedlas till och
analyseras av forskare under förutsättning att användningen
sker i forskningssyfte. Härvid skall HSFR:s forskningsetiska
principer för humaniora och samhällsvetenskap, publicerade i
skriften HSFR-ETIK, följas i alla tillämpliga delar.
Data och/eller dokumentation får ej ställas till tredje
persons förfogande utan SSD:s skriftliga tillstånd.
Rapporter och publikationer baserade på dessa data skall
insändas i två exemplar till SSD, som vidarebefordrar ett
exemplar till primärforskaren.
I de fall materialet används i undervisningssyfte vid
universitet och högskolor och leder till producerandet av PM
och uppsatser behöver dessa ej insändas till SSD. I stället
skall en redovisning av kurser, antal användare och antal
producerade PM och uppsatser insändas till SSD efter avslutat
läsår.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This election survey was conducted by the Institute for Korean
Election Studies (IKES) under the auspices of the Central
Election Management Committee. The research is the second
product of the IKES survey based on national level. As a
further continuation of IKES research, surveys are planned to
be carried out at the time of the presidential and Korean
Assembly elections.
The survey was planned and conducted by the institute members,
and the administrative matters were managed by Chong-Kook Yun
(Gungmin University) and Hyun-Joo Kwon (Sungmyong Women's
University).
Sample districts and interview objects were drawn from all
over the country except the Cheju-do, and from the eligible
voters (over 20-year-old age) respectively. The sample size
was 1200.
Interviews were fully accomplished by the interviewers who
were trained in the Hyundai Research Institute, one of the
professional survey institutes in Korea. Oral interview method
was adopted by visiting every household enlisted on the
pollbook of constituency concerned. In the case that the
selected respondents might not be interviewed for the reasons
of disease, death, movement, and so on, such respondents were
replaced to the alternative ones who were prepared in advance.
SAMPLE DESIGN
The sample for the survey was drawn on the basis of the
'Multistage Probability Sample Method'. At the first stage,
the total sample size of 1200 were drawn and allocated with
probability proportionate to electorate of the 6 large cities,
small and medium-sized cities and communities (Cheju-do was
excluded).
At the second stage, the number of constituencies within which
30 eligible voters were drawn were selected by random from
'Shi' and 'Do'. For instance, 11 constituencies were selected
in Seoul, 4 in Pusan, 2 in Taegu and Inchon, and 1 in Kwangju.
Finally the individuals were drawn within each polling
district based on the pollbook of the 14th Presidential
Election.
KODBOKSINFORMATION
Exemplet nedan visar hur en variabel vanligtvis beskrivs i
denna kodbok. Siffrorna inom parentes förekommer inte i
kodboken, utan är en hänvisning till den beskrivning som
följer exemplet.
(1) VAR 5 (2)INTEREST IN ELECTION 1 (3)LOC 13 WIDTH 1
(4)MD= 9
(6) 1 How much were you interested in the election?
(7) ......................
(8) (9) (10)
584 1. Very interested
468 2. Somewhat interested
124 3. Not so much interested
22 4. Not interested at all
2 9. MD
............................................................
(1) Variabel- och referensnummer. Brukar vanligtvis vara
identiska. Om kodboken hänvisar till ett subset av en större
datamängd eller en omorganiserad datamängd anger
referensnumret den ursprungliga datamängdens variabelnummer.
(2) Variabelnamn. En förkortning eller summering av
frågeställningen (max. 24 tecken).
(3) Position. Visar variabelns läge i datamängden; i vilken
kolumn den startar och hur många positioner den upptar.
(4) Missing data. Anger vilka värden som betraktas som missing
data för den aktuella variabeln.
(5) Anger om data är numerisk eller alfabetisk.
(6) Den exakta frågeformuleringen som den formulerats i
frågeformuläret eller liknande.
(7) Eventuella kommentarer eller anmärkningar.
(8) Det absoluta antalet observationer för varje svarskategori
(9) Kodvärden som kan förekomma för den aktuella variabeln.
(10) Beskrivning av varje kodvärdes innehåll.
SSD DOKUMENTATION
Dokumentationsarbetet har bedrivits med hjälp av ett
datorbaserat dokumentationssystem utvecklat vid Svensk
Samhällsvetenskaplig Datatjänst. Systemet kallas A-side,
Archival System for Interoperable Data Exchange.
Variabel förteckning
1 SSD Study NR 0442
2 SSD Edition NR 1
3 SSD Part NR 001
4 ID-nummer
5 Interest in election
6 Conversation about the election
7 Election campaign: Election meeting
8 Election campaign: TV speech
9 Election campaign: Candidate TV advertisement
10 Experience of canvassing
11 Information source, 1
12 Information source, 2
13 Participation in election
14 Vote
15 Satisfaction of the candidates
16 Time of voting decision
17 Reason for voting
18 Influential factor for choice of candidate, 1
19 Influential factor for choice of candidate, 2
20 Most important issue, 1
21 Most important issue, 2
22 Reason for abstention
23 Presidential vote 1987
24 Party vote 1992
25 Difference in candidate policy and opinion
26 Candidate preference: Kim Young Sam
27 Candidate preference: Kim Dae Jung
28 Candidate preference: Jung Joo Young
29 Candidate preference: Lee Jong Chan
30 Candidate preference: Park Chan Jong
31 Candidate preference: Lee Byung Ho
32 Candidate preference: Kim Ok Sun
33 Candidate preference: Baik Ki Wan
34 Most morally clean candidate
35 Candidate with most democratic disposition
36 Most reliable candidate
37 Current economic situation
38 Party merge
39 Party identification
40 Evaluation of government role
41 Involvement in politics
42 Forecast of election result
43 Evaluation of politicians
44 Korean politics democratic
45 Household economy now
46 The state can not solve the poverty problem
47 Best political system for Korea
48 Best solution of farmers debt problem
49 Best solution of housing problem
50 Best way to unify Korea
51 Party orientation
52 Electoral fairness
53 Reason for fairness
54 Reason for unfairness
55 Consideration of fairness when voting
56 Desirable way for fair election
57 Taking money offered by candidates
58 Taking commodities offered by candidates
59 Eating lunch/dinner with candidates
60 Group-tour offered by candidates
61 Candidate promise in economic/material benefits
62 Mobilizing central or local government authorities
63 Pressure of senior staff at work
64 Reason for receiving candidate illegalities
65 Candidate illegalities impact on vote
66 Measures against illegal election campaign
67 Clean election campaign: TV
68 Clean election campaign: Radio
69 Clean election campaign: Newspaper
70 Clean election campaign: Magazine
71 Clean election campaign: Poster
72 Clean election campaign: Public information leaflet
73 Campaign effectiveness
74 Fairness of mass media
75 Fairness of the CEMC
76 Cabinet role for fair election management
77 Acceptance of election result
78 Education
79 Standard of living
80 Family income
81 Family hometown
82 Religion
83 Age
84 Occupation
85 Occupation: Head of family
86 Urban - rural
87 Sex
88 Type of respondent
89 City
90 Constituency
VAR 1 SSD STUDY NR 0442 Loc 1 width 4
Swedish Social Science Data Service study 0442
VAR 2 SSD EDITION NR 1 Loc 5 width 1
November 1993
VAR 3 SSD PART NR 001 Loc 6 width 3
Korean Presidential Election 1992
VAR 4 ID-NUMMER Loc 9 width 4
ID-nummer
VAR 5 INTEREST IN ELECTION 1 Loc 13 width 1
MD=9
1 How much were you interested in the election?
584 1. Very interested
468 2. Somewhat interested
124 3. Not so much interested
22 4. Not interested at all
2 9. MD
VAR 6 TALK ABOUT ELECTION 2 Loc 14 width 1
MD=9
2 How often during the election campaign have you talked
about the election with people surrounding you?
80 1. Very often
299 2. Often
420 3. Less often
257 4. More than never
141 5. Never
3 9. MD
VAR 7 ELECTION MEETING 3 Loc 15 width 1
3 Have you experienced the following during the election
campaign?
3(1) Election meeting
266 1. Yes
934 5. No
VAR 8 EXPOSURE TV SPEECH 3 Loc 16 width 1
3(2) TV speech
<Se F.3 för fullständig frågetext>
1084 1. Yes
116 5. No
VAR 9 CANDIDATE TV-AD 3 Loc 17 width 1
3(3) Candidate TV-advertisement
<Se F.3 för fullständig frågetext>
854 1. Yes
346 5. No
VAR 10 CANVASSING 4 Loc 18 width 1
4 During the election campaign, have you ever met someone
who resorted to vote certain party candidate?
221 1. Yes
979 5. No
VAR 11 CAND INFORMATION, 1 5 Loc 19 width 2
MD=99
5 What was the main source of your information of candidates
and parties?
5(1) Information of candidates, 1
55 01. Hanging placard
204 02. Election wall newspaper
242 03. Party handbills
112 04. Candidate speech/debate
488 05. TV
4 06. Radio
62 07. Newspaper
24 08. Public publications
5 09. Conversation with others
4 99. MD
VAR 12 CAND INFORMATION, 2 5 Loc 21 width 2
MD=99
5(2) Information source, 2
<Se F.5 för fullständig frågetext>
3 01. Hanging placard
13 02. Election wall newspaper
21 03. Party handbills
32 04. Candidate speech/debate
436 05. TV
53 06. Radio
272 07. Newspaper
97 08. Public publications
214 09. Conversation with others
59 99. MD
VAR 13 ELECTION PARTICIPATION 6 Loc 23 width 1
6 Did you participate in the election?
1121 1. Participated
79 5. Not participated
VAR 14 VOTE 7 Loc 24 width 1
MD=0 or GE 9
7 Whom did you vote for?
544 1. Kim Young Sam
327 2. Kim Dae Jung
115 3. Jung Ju Young
2 4. Lee Jong Chan
91 5. Park Chan Jong
1 7. Kim Ok Sun
11 8. Baik Ki Wan
79 0. INAP
30 9. MD
VAR 15 CAND SATISFACTION 8 Loc 25 width 1
MD=0 or GE 9
8 When you selected a candidate, was there a candidate whom
you willingly cast a ballot to?
846 1. Yes
267 5. No, but voted anyway
79 0. INAP
8 9. MD
VAR 16 TIME VOTING DECISION 9 Loc 26 width 1
MD=0 or GE 9
9 When did you make up your mind to vote a candidate?
107 1. At election day
172 2. 1-3 days before election day
149 3. 4 days-1 week before election day
141 4. 1-2 weeks before election day
125 5. 2 weeks-1 month before election day
426 6. More than 1 month before election day
79 0. INAP
1 9. MD
VAR 17 REASON FOR VOTING 10 Loc 27 width 1
MD=0 or GE 9
10 Why did you vote for the candidate? In other words, with
what criteria did you vote?
163 1. Candidates party
348 2. Election promise of the candidate
525 3. Candidates capacity/human maturity etc,
31 4. For others prompt
49 5. No special reason
79 0. INAP
5 9. MD
VAR 18 INFL FACTOR VOTING, 1 11 Loc 28 width 2
MD= 0 or GE 99
11 Which factor was the most important for your choice of
candidate?
11(1) Influential factor for choice of candidate, 1
295 01. Family
75 02. Friends
71 03. Neighbors
32 04. Work mates
147 05. Candidate speeches/debates
441 06. TV
6 07. Radio
42 08. Newspaper
3 09. Various political AD
79 00. INAP
9 99. MD
VAR 19 INFL FACTOR VOTING, 2 11 Loc 30 width 2
MD= 0 or GE 99
11(2) Influential factor for choice of candidate, 2
<Se F.11 för fullständig frågetext>
2 01. Family
15 02. Friends
20 03. Neighbors
8 04. Work mates
32 05. Candidate speeches/debates
393 06. TV
28 07. Radio
292 08. Newspaper
267 09. Various political AD
79 00. INAP
64 99. MD
VAR 20 IMPORTANT ISSUE 1 12 Loc 32 width 2
MD= 0 or GE 99
12 When you selected a candidate, which issue did you have in
mind as the most important thing?
12(1) Most important issue, 1
421 01. Price stability
171 02. Clean politics
148 03. Government change
176 04. Stability in politics
131 05. Economic development
12 06. Regional harmony
22 07. Housing problem
22 08. Agricultural problem
2 09. Heated real estate market
2 10. The rich & poor disparity
2 11. Finishing Two-Kim dominance
3 14. Other
79 00. INAP
9 99. MD
VAR 21 IMPORTANT ISSUE 2 12 Loc 34 width 2
MD= 0 or GE 99
12(2) Most important issue, 2
<Se F.12 för fullständig frågetext>
0 01. Price stability
28 02. Clean politics
68 03. Government change
149 04. Stability in politics
309 05. Economic development
61 06. Regional harmony
80 07. Housing problem
182 08. Agricultural problem
18 09. Heated real estate market
99 10. The rich & poor disparity
36 11. Finishing Two-Kim dominance
10 12. Amending constitution
43 13. National Security
14 14. Other
79 00. INAP
24 99. MD
VAR 22 REASON ABSTAIN 13 Loc 36 width 1
MD=0 or GE 9
13 (DID NOT VOTE) For what reason did you abstain from the
election?
8 1. Because there is no candidate I support
6 2. Because my vote does not play any important role
for the election result
4 3. Because of no interest
6 4. Because people like me do not make any impact on
the politics
50 5. Because of personal reason
1121 0. INAP
5 9. MD
VAR 23 1987 PRESIDENT VOTE 14 Loc 37 width 1
MD=9
14 In the 1987 presidential election, which candidate did
you vote for?
426 1. Roh Tae Woo
261 2. Kim Young Sam
257 3. Kim Dae Jung
70 4. Kim Jong Pil
7 5. Others
61 6. Did not vote
104 7. Not eligible to vote
14 9. MD
VAR 24 PARTY VOTE 1992 15 Loc 38 width 2
MD=99
15 Which party did you vote for in the 1992 National
Assembly Election?
531 01. Democratic Liberal Party
320 02. Democratic Party
103 03. Unification National Party
26 04. New Politics Reform Party
9 05. Peoples Party
3 06. Kongmin Dang
61 07. Independents
109 08. Did not vote
16 09. Not eligible to vote
22 99. MD
VAR 25 DIFF IN CAND POLICY 16 Loc 40 width 1
MD=9
16 Do you think that there were large differences between
candidate policy and opinion?
132 1. Very large
532 2. Large
488 3. Not so large
26 4. Not large at all
22 9. MD
VAR 26 PREF: KIM YOUNG SAM 17 Loc 41 width 1
MD=9
17(1) How much do you like the candidate Kim Young Sam
329 1. Very much
382 2. Much
161 3. Little
164 4. Very little
138 8. DK
26 9. MD
VAR 27 PREF: KIM DAE JUNG 17 Loc 42 width 1
MD=9
17(2) How much do you like the candidate Kim Dae Jung
235 1. Very much
278 2. Much
266 3. Little
214 4. Very little
178 8. DK
29 9. MD
VAR 28 PREF: JUNG JOO YOUNG 17 Loc 43 width 1
MD=9
17(3) How much do you like the candidate Jung Joo Young?
60 1. Very much
284 2. Much
305 3. Little
244 4. Very little
270 8. DK
37 9. MD
VAR 29 PREF: LEE JONG CHAN 17 Loc 44 width 1
MD=9
17(4) How much do you like the candidate Lee Jong Chan
54 1. Very much
216 2. Much
204 3. Little
263 4. Very little
403 8. DK
60 9. MD
VAR 30 PREF: PARK CHAN JONG 17 Loc 45 width 1
MD=9
17(5) How much do you like the candidate Park Chan Jong
243 1. Very much
411 2. Much
104 3. Little
57 4. Very little
345 8. DK
40 9. MD
VAR 31 PREF: LEE BYUNG HO 17 Loc 46 width 1
MD=9
17(6) How much do you like the candidate Lee Byung Ho
4 1. Very much
39 2. Much
129 3. Little
160 4. Very little
823 8. DK
45 9. MD
VAR 32 PREF: KIM OK SUN 17 Loc 47 width 1
MD=9
17(7) How much do you like the candidate Kim Ok Sun
15 1. Very much
57 2. Much
134 3. Little
166 4. Very little
786 8. DK
42 9. MD
VAR 33 PREF: BAIK KI VAN 17 Loc 48 width 1
MD=9
17(8) How much do you like the candidate Baik Ki Wan
32 1. Very much
125 2. Much
140 3. Little
212 4. Very little
648 8. DK
43 9. MD
VAR 34 MORALLY CLEAN CAND 18 Loc 49 width 1
MD=9
18 Which candidate do you think is most morally clean?
392 1. Kim Young Sam
310 2. Kim Dae Jung
33 3. Jung Ju Young
460 8. DK
5 9. MD
VAR 35 DEM DISP OF CAND 19 Loc 50 width 1
MD=9
19 Which candidate do you think has the most democratic
disposition?
455 1. Kim Young Sam
328 2. Kim Dae Jung
45 3. Jung Ju Young
367 8. DK
5 9. MD
VAR 36 RELIABEL CAND 20 Loc 51 width 1
MD=9
20 Which candidate do you think is most reliable?
519 1. Kim Young Sam
297 2. Kim Dae Jung
73 3. Jung Ju Young
305 8. DK
6 9. MD
VAR 37 ECONOMIC SITUATION 21 Loc 52 width 1
MD=9
21 What do you feel about the economic situation under the
recent two years?
25 1. Has been much better
91 2. Has been a little better
325 3. The same as always
363 4. Has been a little worse
391 5. Has been much worse
5 9. MD
VAR 38 PARTY MERGE 22 Loc 53 width 1
MD=9
22 How do you estimate the party fusion?
69 1. Very well done
313 2. Moderately well done
298 3. Moderately not well done
175 4. Extremely not well done
342 8. DK
3 9. MD
VAR 39 PARTY IDENTIFICATION 23 Loc 54 width 1
MD=9
23 Which party do you feel closest to?
470 1. Democratic Liberal party
324 2. Democratic Party
70 3. Unification national Party
44 4. New politics reform Party
7 5. Others
269 6. None
16 9. MD
VAR 40 GOVERNMENT ROLE 24 Loc 55 width 1
MD=9
24 How well do you think the government take care of
politics?
12 1. Very well
362 2. Moderately well
685 3. Moderately poorly
128 4. Very poorly
13 9. MD
VAR 41 INVOLVEMENT POLITICS 27 Loc 56 width 1
MD=9
27 How much do you agree to such statements as follows:
"Persons like me do not have anything to do with politics"?
107 1. Completely agree
493 2. Somewhat agree
427 3. Somewhat not agree
163 4. Completely not agree
10 9. MD
VAR 42 FORECAST OF RESULT 26 Loc 57 width 1
MD=9
26 Before the election, how did you forecast the election
result?
231 1. Victory with clear margin
585 2. Victory with small margin
374 3. Impossible to forecast
10 9. MD
VAR 43 ASSESSM POLITICIANS 27 Loc 58 width 1
MD=9
27 How well do you think the politicians take care of
politics?
9 1. Very well
282 2. Moderately well
730 3. Moderately poorly
166 4. Very poorly
13 9. MD
VAR 44 ASSESSM OF DEMOCRACY 28 Loc 59 width 1
MD=9
28 How about the politics in general? Do you think Korean
politics is democratic or undemocratic?
31 1. Very democratic
636 2. Somewhat democratic
439 3. Somewhat undemocratic
80 4. Very undemocratic
14 9. MD
VAR 45 HOUSEHOLD ECONOMY 29 Loc 60 width 1
29 How do you feel about the household economy in comparison
to that of one/two years ago?
14 1. Much better
173 2. Somewhat better
696 3. Same all the time
200 4. Somewhat worse
117 5. Much worse
VAR 46 EVALUATION REDISTRIB 30 Loc 61 width 1
MD=9
30 Do you agree to the saying that even state can not solve
the poverty problem?
152 1. Completely agree
412 2. Somewhat agree
505 3. Somewhat disagree
118 4. Completely disagree
13 9. MD
VAR 47 POLITICAL SYSTEM 31 Loc 62 width 1
MD=9
31 Which political system do you think is the most desirable
in Korea?
408 1. Presidential system
109 3. Does not matter
335 5. Parliamentary system
342 8. DK
6 9. MD
VAR 48 FARMERS DEBT 32 Loc 63 width 1
MD=9
32 Which measure is the best way to solve the farmers debt
problem?
140 1. Complete write off
885 2. More investment for agriculture
27 3. Withhold current policy
145 8. DK
3 9. MD
VAR 49 EVALUATION HOUSING 33 Loc 64 width 1
MD=9
33 What do you think is the best way to solve current housing
problem?
287 1. Supply with low price
715 2. Supply for small apt with low price
58 3. Withhold current policy
138 8. DK
2 9. MD
VAR 50 SOUTH NORTH UNIFICAT 34 Loc 65 width 1
MD=9
34 What do you think is the best way to unify two Korea?
127 1. South absorbs North
593 2. South leads process with North's acceptance
463 3. South and North compromise
17 9. MD
VAR 51 PARTY ORIENTATION 35 Loc 66 width 1
MD=9
35 Are you "Government party oriented" or "Opposition party
oriented" ?
213 1. Government party oriented
247 2. Somewhat government oriented
325 3. Middle of the road
279 4. Somewhat opposition oriented
128 5. Opposition party oriented
8 9. MD
VAR 52 ELECT FAIRNESS 35 Loc 67 width 1
MD=9
36 In comparison to the previous 14th general election, how
do you estimate this years presidential election? Was it fair
or unfair for all parties?
134 1. Very fair
792 2. Somewhat fair
243 3. Somewhat unfair
29 4. Very unfair
2 9. MD
VAR 53 REASON FOR FAIRNESS 37 Loc 68 width 1
MD=0 or GE 9
37 (ALTERNATIVE 1 OR 2 IN Q36) Why do you think the election
was fair?
96 1. Satisfied with election campaign of party,
candidates, and canvasser
449 2. Satisfied with enhanced "Fair play spirit" of the
electorate
134 3. Satisfied with lessened interference of government
authorities
59 4. Fair mass media
94 5. Vigilant and fair election management of the CEMC
28 6. Fair judiciary measures
37 7. Enforced civil and social group vigilance
274 0. INAP
29 9. MD
VAR 54 REASON FOR UNFAIRNESS 38 Loc 69 width 2
MD= 0 or GE 99
38 ( ALTERNATIVE 3 OR 4 IN Q36) Why do you think election was
unfair? Which item below could be most plausible reason for
your assessment if unfairness?
66 01. Illegality of candidate/party
72 02. Illegality of voters
8 03. Low political standards of the citizens
55 04. Electoral intervention of public administrative
bodies
30 05. Partial election campaign
6 06. Coverage of the press unfairness in election
management
18 07. Passive activity and measures of Judiciary and
Police
9 08. Unreliable election promise of the candidates and
parties
3 09. Other reasons
928 00. INAP
5 99. MD
VAR 55 FAIRNESS IN VOTING 39 Loc 71 width 1
MD=0 or GE 9
39 Did you consider fairness or unfairness of candidates
election campaign when you selected a candidate?
203 1. Yes, much
622 2. Yes, somewhat
215 3. No, not so much
77 4. No, not at all
79 0. INAP
4 9. MD
VAR 56 WAY FOR FAIR ELECTION 40 Loc 72 width 1
MD=9
40 What do you think of best way for enhancing "Fair-play
spirit" in Korean election politics is?
198 1. More active public information service of CEMC
100 2. Information and enlightenment through school
education
521 3. Active role of mass media
364 4. Social movement of citizens
17 9. MD
VAR 57 TAKING MONEY 41 Loc 73 width 1
41 Have you experienced such kinds of illegalities during the
election campaign? Please answer to all items.
41(1) Experience of taking money offered by candidates?
12 1. Yes
1188 5. No
VAR 58 TAKING COMMODITIES 41 Loc 74 width 1
41(2) Experience of taking commodities offered by candidates?
<Se F.41 för fullständig frågetext>
46 1. Yes
1154 5. No
VAR 59 EATING LUNCH/DINNER 41 Loc 75 width 1
41(3) Experience of eating lunch/dinner with candidates?
<Se F.41 för fullständig frågetext>
75 1. Yes
1125 5. No
VAR 60 GROUP-TOUR 41 Loc 76 width 1
41(4) Experience of group-tour offered by candidates?
<Se F.41 för fullständig frågetext>
7 1. Yes
1193 5. No
VAR 61 ECONOMIC BENEFITS 41 Loc 77 width 1
41(5) Experience of candidate promise in economic/material
benefits?
<Se F.41 för fullständig frågetext>
1 1. Yes
1199 5. No
VAR 62 MOBILIZING AUTHORITY 41 Loc 78 width 1
41(6) Experience of mobilizing central or local government
authorities?
<Se F.41 för fullständig frågetext>
31 1. Yes
1169 5. No
VAR 63 SENIOR STAFFS AT WORK 41 Loc 79 width 1
41(7) Pressure of senior staff at work?
<Se F.41 för fullständig frågetext>
18 1. Yes
1182 5. No
VAR 64 REASON ILLEGALITIES 42 Loc 80 width 1
MD=0 or GE 9
42 (RECEIVED ANY KIND OF CANDIDATE ILLEGALITIES) Is there any
reason why you received the illegally offered
gods/services/benefits?
2 1. For money
16 2. Because the candidate I supported offered me
27 3. Because there was no meaning as usual
6 4. Because he insisted
14 5. Because I could not know the real meaning disguised
34 6. Because I could not refuse
19 7. For others prompt
1057 0. INAP
25 9. MD
VAR 65 IMPACT ON VOTE 65 Loc 81 width 1
MD=0 or GE 9
43 (RECEIVED ANY KIND OF CANDIDATE ILLEGALITIES) How did you
vote? Choose one item below
5 1. I voted for the candidate
108 2. It did not play any important role to select a
candidate
3 3. I voted another candidate because I felt unpleasant
1 4. I felt so infringed that I gave up to vote
1056 0. INAP
27 9. MD
VAR 66 URGENT MEASURES 44 Loc 82 width 1
MD=9
44 What kind of measures should be taken against illegal
election campaign?
467 1. Respect for law of canvassers
352 2. Refusal to illegal campaigning of the voters
93 3. Taking preventive measures and punishing severely
illegal activities
85 4. More active role of the CEMC
180 5. Vigilant surveillance of society
23 9. MD
VAR 67 CEMC COVER: TV 45 Loc 83 width 1
45 Have you ever read/listened to any kind of public campaign
program, article, publication on TV/radio or in newspapers,
magazine, poster, public information leaflet for clear
election run by the central election management committee
(CEMC)? Please answer to all items below
45(1) TV
1077 1. Yes
123 5. No
VAR 68 CEMC COVER: RADIO 45 Loc 84 width 1
45(2) Radio
<Se F.45 för fullständig frågetext>
414 1. Yes
786 5. No
VAR 69 CEMC COVER: NEWSPAPER 45 Loc 85 width 1
45(3) Newspaper
<Se F.45 för fullständig frågetext>
765 1. Yes
435 5. No
VAR 70 CEMC COVER: MAGAZINE 45 Loc 86 width 1
45(4) Magazine
<Se F.45 för fullständig frågetext>
182 1. Yes
1018 5. No
VAR 71 CEMC COVER: POSTER 45 Loc 87 width 1
45(5) Poster
<Se F.45 för fullständig frågetext>
625 1. Yes
575 5. No
VAR 72 CEMC COVER: LEAFLET 45 Loc 88 width 1
45(6) Public information leaflet
<Se F.45 för fullständig frågetext>
458 1. Yes
742 5. No
VAR 73 CAMPAIGN EFFECTIVE 46 Loc 89 width 1
MD=9
46 How do you estimate the role of CEMC for fostering
fairness of election campaign? Do you think it was effective,
moderately effective, moderately ineffective, or very
ineffective?
156 1. Very effective
713 2. Moderately effective
277 3. Moderately ineffective
29 4. Very ineffective
25 9. MD
VAR 74 FAIRNESS OF MASSM 47 Loc 90 width 1
MD=9
47 How do you evaluate campaign coverage of the mass media?
48 1. Extremely fair
712 2. Somewhat fair
372 3. Somewhat unfair
53 4. Extremely unfair
15 9. MD
VAR 75 FAIRNESS CEMC 48 Loc 91 width 1
MD=9
48 How fairly do you think CEMC executed its role during
election campaign?
104 1. Very fairly
834 2. Moderately fairly
230 3. Moderately unfairly
18 4. Very unfairly
14 9. MD
VAR 76 CABINET ROLE 49 Loc 92 width 1
MD=9
49 What do you think of the cabinets role for fair election
management?
86 1. Extremely satisfied
706 2. Somewhat satisfied
349 3. Somewhat unsatisfied
34 4. Extremely unsatisfied
25 9. MD
VAR 77 RESULT ACCEPTANCE 50 Loc 93 width 1
MD=9
50 Election was over and a new president was elected. At this
point, how did you feel about the result of the election?
758 1. Absolutely accepted
389 2. Unsatisfied, but accepted
26 3. Difficult to accept
18 4. Never accepted
9 9. MD
VAR 78 EDUCATION 51 Loc 94 width 1
MD=9
51 What is your level of education?
236 1. Under elementary school
205 2. Middle school
439 3. High school
320 4. Over university
0 9. MD
VAR 79 STANDARD OF LIVING 52 Loc 95 width 1
52 What do you think of your standard of living?
6 1. Well off
67 2. Somewhat well off
836 3. Neither well off nor poor
241 4. Somewhat poor
50 5. Poor
VAR 80 FAMILY INCOME 53 Loc 96 width 1
53 How much is your family income? (in 1000 WON)
137 1. Under 400
116 2. 400-590
206 3. 600-790
205 4. 800-890
281 5. 1000-1290
117 6. 1300-1590
56 7. 1600-1890
35 8. 1900-2190
47 9. over 2200
VAR 81 HOMETOWN OF FAMILY 54 Loc 97 width 2
54 What is your grandfathers hometown?(Where is your family
originally from?)
129 01. Seoul
131 02. Kyonki
63 03. Kangwon
127 04. Choongnam
77 05. Choonkgbuk
144 06. Chonnam
94 07. Conbuk
232 08. Kyongnam
187 09. Kyongbuk
1 10. Cheju
15 11. Northern provinces
VAR 82 RELIGION 55 Loc 99 width 1
MD=9
55 What is your religion?
364 1. Buddhism
268 2. Christian
108 3. Catholic
16 4. Confucianism
4 5. Chondo Kyo (Korean traditional religion)
1 6. Wonbul Kyo (Korean traditional religion)
434 7. None
5 9. MD
VAR 83 AGE 56 Loc 100 width 2
56 Age
20. 20 years
.
.
92. 92 years
Kod: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Frek: 17 36 23 20 36 33 31 32 40 35 32 30 34 33 41 39 46 28
Kod: 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
Frek: 29 25 33 25 27 18 22 32 19 21 16 17 19 16 17 22 20 12
Kod: 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73
Frek: 20 16 14 16 14 13 7 6 6 12 6 9 9 10 9 4 8 3
Kod: 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 92
Frek: 4 3 5 8 6 1 3 5 2 2 2 1
VAR 84 OCCUPATION 57 Loc 102 width 2
57 What is your occupation? (In such a case that respondent
does not work, please give the same name as the head of
family's occupation)
57(1) Respondent
2 01. Doctor
5 02. Pharmacist/nurse
1 04. Professor/researcher
29 05. Teacher/private school teacher
2 06. Employee in mass media
10 07. Engineer
2 08. Clergyman
2 09. Artist
28 12. Middle-ranked public official (grade 5 and below)
1 13. Career mil. officer (HT Major)
1 14. Career mil. officer (LT Major)
8 15. Lowly ranked public official temporarily employed
public
5 16. Official
4 21. Employer (high-ranked manager)
30 22. Middle-ranked manager
115 23. Clerical workers
13 24. Small/medium-sized firm owner
108 31. Small shop owner
35 32. Restaurant/Motel/Laundry owner
4 33. House, building broker
23 34. Shop clerk
10 35. Cook/barber/cosmetician
11 36. Peddler/street seller
3 37. Maid/dairy product deliver
10 41. Supervisor
13 42. Skilled worker
28 43. Industry worker
23 44. Driver/heavy equipment operator
23 45. Simple laborer/odd-jobber
7 46. Home worker
8 51. Rich farmer (over 6000 pyong)
41 52. Upper middle farmer (3000-5999 pyong)
43 53. Lower middle farmer (1500-2999 pyong)
33 54. Poor farmer (under 1500 pyong)
1 55. Crewman/fisherman
8 56. Dairy worker/dairy producer
75 61. Student
279 62. Housewife
137 63. Jobless
5 64. Veteran/pensioner
8 65. Military service in duty
6 66. Other
VAR 85 OCCUPATION: HEAD FAM 57 Loc 104 width 2
MD=99
57(1) Head of family
<Se F.57 för fullständig frågetext>
SEE VARIABLE 84 FOR COMPLETE CODE SCHEME
01. Doctor
.
.
66. Other
26 99. MD
Kod: 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15
Frek: 5 5 3 38 4 16 2 3 2 59 2 2 12
Kod: 16 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 41
Frek: 7 9 75 139 27 170 48 9 17 10 16 2 13
Kod: 42 43 44 45 46 51 52 53 54 55 56 61 62
Frek: 17 24 43 49 6 9 72 95 54 2 8 2 8
Kod: 63 64 65 66 99
Frek: 65 15 1 9 26
VAR 86 URBAN - RURAL 3 Loc 106 width 1
3 City scale
594 1. Metropolitan
322 2. Small/medium city
284 3. Community
VAR 87 SEX 4 Loc 107 width 1
4 Sex
582 1. Man
618 2. Woman
VAR 88 TYPE OF RESPONDENT 5 Loc 108 width 1
5 Type of respondent
735 1. Respondent drawn by scheme
382 2. First alternative respondent
83 3. Second alternative respondent
VAR 89 CITY 1 Loc 109 width 2
1 City
308 01. Seoul
106 02. Busan
64 03. Taegu
54 04. Inchon
33 05. Kwangju
29 06. Taejon
174 07. Kyongkido
43 08. Kangwondo
38 09. Choongbuk
53 10. Choongnam
57 11. Chonbuk
58 12. Chonnam
81 13. Kyongbuk
102 14. Kyongnam
VAR 90 CONSTITUENCY 2 Loc 111 width 2
2 Constituency
28 01. Yongsan-Ku
28 02. Tongdaemun-Ku
28 03. Seongbuk-Ku
28 04. Nowon-Ku
28 05. Seodaemun-Ku
28 06. Yangchun-Ku
28 07. Kuro-Ku
28 08. Tongjak-Ku
28 09. Seocho-ku
28 10. Songpa-Ku
28 11. Kangdong-Ku
27 12. Busan Jin-Ku
27 13. Busan Dongrae-Ku
26 14. Busan Buk-Ku
26 15. Busan Kangseo-Ku
32 16. Taegu Nam-Ku
32 17. Taegu Dalseo-Ku
27 18. Inchon Namdong-Ku
27 19. Inchon Seo-Ku
33 20. Kwangju Kwangsan-Kun
29 21. Daejon Daedeok-Ku
31 22. Kyongki Suwon-Shi
31 23. Kyongki Anyang-Shi
31 24. Kyongki Kwangmyong-Shi
31 25. Kyongki Shiheung-Shi
25 26. Kyongki Paju-Kun
25 27. Kyongki Yangpyong-Kun
23 28. Kangwon Chunchun-Shi
20 29. Kangwon Yanggu-Kun
19 30. Choongbuk Chonju-Shi
19 31. Choongbuk Yongdong-Kun
14 32. Chongnan-Shi
39 33. Chongnam Buyeo-Kun
30 34. Chongbun Jeonju-Shi
27 35. Chonnam Jinan-Kun
21 36. Chonnam Mokpo-Shi
37 37. Chonnam Koheung-Kun
30 38. Kyongbuk Pohang-Shi
25 39. Kyongbuk Sangju-Kun
26 40. Kyongnam Bongwha-Kun
30 41. Kyongnam Jinju-Shi
31 42. Kyongnam Changwon-Shi
21 43. Kyongnam Eolsan-Kun
20 44. Kyongnam Eoryung-Kun