What they do does matter: Incumbent resource allocations and the individual house vote

Political Behavior

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 241-258

  Romero, David W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

Constituency service; Incumbency advantage; Incumbent vote; Personal vote; Resource allocations

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748535748     PISSN: 01909320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11109-006-9010-9     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Born, R. (1979). Generational replacement and the growth of incumbent reelection margins in the U.S. House. American Political Science Review, 73, 811-817.
2. Born, R. (1982). Perquisite employment in the U.S. House of representatives, 1960-1976: the influence of generational change. American Politics Quarterly. 10, 347-362.
3. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Kimball, D. C., Meinke, S. R., & Tate, K. (2003). The effects of political representation on the electoral advantages of House incumbents. Political Research Quarterly. 56, 259-270.
4. Burnham, W. D. (1974). Communications. American Political Science Review. 68, 207-211.
5. Cain, B., Ferejohn, J., & Fiorina, M. (1987). The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
6. Cover, A. D. (1980). Contacting congressional constituents: Some patterns of perquisite use. American Journal of Political Science, 24, 125-135.
7. Cover, A. D., & Brumberg, B. S. (1982). Baby books and ballots: The impact of congressional mail on constituent opinion. American Political Science Review, 76, 347-359.
8. Cox, G. W., & Katz, J. N. (1996). Why did the incumbency advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow? American Journal of Political Science, 40, 478-497.
9. Erikson, R. S. (1972). Malapportionment, gerrymandering, and party fortunes in congressional elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 6, 236-246.
10. Erikson, R. S., & Palfrey, T. R. (1998). Campaign spending and incumbency: An alternative simultaneous equations approach. Journal of Politics, 60, 355-373.
11. Erikson, R. S., & Palfrey, T. R. (2000). Equilibria in campaign spending games: Theory and data. American Political Science Review. 94, 595-609.
12. Eubank, R. B., & Gow, J. (1983). The pro-incumbent bias in the 1978 and 1980 national election studies. American Journal of Political Science, 27, 122-139.
13. Feldman, P., & Jondrow, J. (1984). Congressional elections and local federal spending. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 147-163.
14. Fenno, R. F. (1978). Homestyle: House members and their districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
15. Ferejohn, J. A. (1977). On the decline in competition in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 71, 166-176.
16. Fiorina, M. P. (1977). Congress: Keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.
17. Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Some problems in studying the effects of resource allocation in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 543-567.
18. Fiorina, M. P. (1989). Congress: Keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.
19. Goodman, L. A. (1976). The relationship between modified and usual multiple regression approaches to the analysis of dichotomous variables. In: D. R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 83-110). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20. Gow, D. J., & Eubank, R. B. (1984). The pro-incumbent bias in the 1982 national election study. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 224-230.
21. Green, D. P., & Krasno, J. S. (1988). Salvation for the spendthrift incumbent. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 884-907.
22. Green, D. P., & Krasno, J. S. (1990). Rebuttal to Jacobson's 'new evidence for old arguments'. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 363-372.
23. Jacobson, G. C. (1978). The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 72, 469-491.
24. Jacobson, G. C. (1980). Money in congressional elections. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
25. Jacobson, G. C. (1981). Incumbent's advantages in the 1978 U.S. congressional elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 6, 183-200.
26. Jacobson, G. C. (1985). Money and votes reconsidered: Congressional elections, 1972-1982. Public Choice, 7, 7-62.
27. Jacobson, G. C. (1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of House elections, 1946-86. American Political Science Review, 83, 773-793.
28. Jacobson, G. C. (1990a). The effects of campaign spending in House elections: New evidence for old arguments. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 334-362.
29. Jacobson, G. C. (1990b). The electoral origins of divided government: Competition in U.S. House elections, 1946-1988. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
30. Jacobson, G. C. (2004). The politics of congressional elections. New York: Longman.
31. Jacobson, G. C., & Rivers, D. (1993). Explaining the overreport of vote for incumbents in the national election studies. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Pasadena.
32. Johannes, J. R., & McAdams, J. C. (1981). The congressional incumbency effect: Is it casework, policy compatibility, or something else? American Journal of Political Science, 25, 512-538.
33. Kenny, P. J., & McBurnett, M. (1992). A dynamic model of the effect of campaign spending on congressional vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 923-938.
34. Kenny, P. J., & McBurnett, M. (1994) An individual-level multiequation model of expenditure effects in contested elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 699-707.
35. McAdams, J. C., & Johannes, J. R. (1981). Does casework matter? A reply to professor Fiorina. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 581-604.
36. McAdams, J. C., & Johannes, J. R. (1988). Congressmen, perquisites, and elections. Journal of Politics, 50, 412-439.
37. Parker, G. R. (1980). The advantage of incumbency in House elections. American Politics Quarterly, 8, 449-464.
38. Parker, G. R., & Parker, S. L. (1985). Correlates and effects of attention to districts by U.S. House Members. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 10, 223-242.
39. Payne, J. L. (1980). The Person electoral advantage of House incumbents, 1936-1976. American Politics Quarterly, 8, 465-482.
40. Ragsdale, L., & Cook, T. (1987). Representatives' actions and challengers' reactions: limits to candidate connections in the House. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 45-81.
41. Romero, D. W. (1996). The case of the missing reciprocal influence: Incumbent reputation and the vote. Journal of Politics, 58, 1198-1207.
42. Romero, D. W., & Sanders, F. (1994). Loosened partisan attachments and receptivity to incumbent behaviors. Political Research Quarterly, 47, 177-192.
43. Serra, G. (1994). 'What's in it for me?' The impact of congressional casework on incumbent evaluation. American Politics Quarterly, 22, 403-420.
44. Serra, G., & Cover, A. D. (1992). The electoral consequences of perquisite use: The casework case. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17, 233-246.
45. Serra, G., & Moon, D. (1994). Casework, issue positions, and voting in congressional elections: A district analysis. Journal of Politics, 56, 200-213.
46. Wilson, R. K., & Young, C. D. (1997). Cosponsorship in the U.S. congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22, 25-43.
47. Yiannakis, D. E. (1981). The grateful electorate: Casework and congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science. 25, 568-580.