Estimating incumbency effects in U.S. State legislatures: A quasi-experimental study

Economics and Politics

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 180-199

  Uppal, Yogesh ^a  

^a YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTION; ESTIMATION METHOD; LEGISLATIVE IMPLEMENTATION; POLITICAL SYSTEM; POLITICS;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 77954653754     PISSN: 09541985     EISSN: 14680343     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0343.2009.00358.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Adams J D, Kenny L W. Optimal tenure of elected public officials. Journal of Law and Economics 1986, 29:303-328.
2. Alford J R, Hibbing J R. Increased incumbency advantage in the House. Journal of Politics 1981, 43:1042-1061.
3. Ansolabehere S, Snyder J. Using term limits to estimate incumbency advantages when officeholders retire strategically. Legislative Studies Quarterly 2004, 39:487-515.
4. Berry W D, Carsey T M. 2004, Revised candidate-level state legislative returns with adjusted candidate names, 1968-1989 (ICPSR03938-v1. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University [producer]; Ann Arbor, MI; Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor])
5. Breaux D. Specifying the impact of incumbency on state legislative elections: a district-level analysis. American Politics Quarterly 1990, 18:270-286.
6. Carey J M, Neimi R G, Powell L J. Incumbency and probability of reelection in state legislative elections. Journal of Politics 2000, 62:671-700.
7. Cover A D, Mayhew D R. Congressional dynamics and the decline of competitive Congressional elections. Congress Reconsidered 1977, 54-72. Dodd L C, Oppenheimer B I. in, eds., Praeger, New York, pp
8. Cox G W, Katz J. Why did the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections grow? American Journal of Political Science 1996, 40:478-497.
9. Cox G W, Morgenstern S. The increasing advantage in the US states. Legislative Studies Quarterly 1993, 18:495-511.
10. Cox G W, Morgenstern S. The incumbency advantage in the multi-member districts: evidence from the U.S. states. Legislative Studies Quarterly 1995, 20:329-349.
11. Erikson R S. Malapportionment, gerrymandering, and part fortunes in Congressional elections. American Political Science Review 1972, 66:1234-1255.
12. Fiorina M P. The case of vanishing marginals: the bureaucracy did it. American Political Science Review 1977, 71:177-181.
13. Gelman A, Huang Z. Estimating incumbency advantage and its variation, as an example of a before-after study. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2008, 103:437-451.
14. Gelman A, King G. Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science 1990, 34:1142-1164.
15. Gilmour J B, Rothstein P. A dynamic model of loss, retirement, and tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives. Journal of Politics 1996, 58:54-68.
16. Hahn J, Todd P, Van Der Klaauw W. Identification and estimation of treatment effects with a regression-discontinuity design. Econometrica 2001, 69:201-209.
17. Holbrook T M, Tidmarch C M. Sophomore surge in state legislative elections, 1968-1986. Legislative Studies Quarterly 1991, 16:49-63.
18. Imbens G W, Lemieux T. Regression discontinuity designs: a guide to practice. Journal of Econometrics 2008, 127:615-635.
19. Jacobson G C. The effects of campaign spending in Congressional elections. American Political Science Review 1978, 72:469-491.
20. Jacobson G C. Money in Congressional Elections 1980, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
21. Jacobson G C. Money and votes reconsidered: congressional elections, 1972-1982. Public Choice 1985, 47:7-62.
22. Jacobson G C. The marginals never vanished: incumbency and competition in elections to the U.S. House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science 1987, 31:126-141.
23. Lee D. Randomized experiments from non-random selection in U.S. House elections. Journal of Econometrics 2008, 142:675-697.
24. Lee D, Moretti E, Butler M. Do voters affect or elect policies? Evidence from the U.S. House. Quarterly Journal of Economics 2004, 119:807-859.
25. Levitt S D. Using repeat challengers to estimate the effect of campaign spending on election outcomes in the United States House. Journal of Political Economy 1994, 102:777-798.
26. Levitt S D, Wolfram C D. Decomposing the sources of incumbency advantage in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 1997, 22:45-60.
27. Lott J R. Brand names and barriers to entry in political markets. Public Choice 1986, 51:87-92.
28. Lott J R. Does additional campaign spending really hurt incumbents - the theoretical importance of past investments in political brand name. Public Choice 1991, 72:87-92.
29. Mayhew D R. Congressional elections: the case of vanishing marginals. Polity 1974, 6:295-315.
30. Payne J. The Culture of Spending 1991, ICS Press, San Francisco, CA
31. Reed W R, Eric Schansberg D, Wilbanks J, Zhu Z. The relationship between Congressional spending and tenure with an application to term limits. Public Choice 1998, 94:85-104.
32. Stratmann T. The effects of logrolling on Congressional voting. American Economic Review 1992, 82:1162-1176.
33. Thistlethwaite D L, Campbell D T. Regression discontinuity analysis: an alternative to the ex post facto experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology 1960, 51:309-317.
34. Uppal Y. The disadvantaged incumbents: estimating incumbency effects in Indian state legislatures. Public Choice 2009, 138:9-27.
35. Zaller J. Politicians as prize fighters: electoral selection and incumbency advantage. Politicians and Party Politics 1998, Geer J G. in, ed., Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD