The financial incumbency advantage: Causes and consequences

Journal of Politics

Volumn 76, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 711-724

  Fouirnaies, Alexander ^a   Hall, Andrew B ^b  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84903727640     PISSN: 00223816     EISSN: 14682508     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0022381614000139     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and James M. Snyder, Jr. 2000. Money and Office: The Sources of the Incumbency Advantage in Congressional Campaign Finance. In Continuity and Change in House Elections. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 65-87.
2. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and James M. Snyder, Jr. 2002. The Incumbency Advantage in US Elections: An Analysis of State and Federal Offices, 1942-2000. Election Law Journal 1 (3): 315-38.
3. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and James M. Snyder, Jr. 2004. Using Term Limits to Estimate Incumbency Advantages When Officeholders Retire Strategically. Legislative Studies Quarterly 29 (4): 487-515. (Pubitemid 41399531)
4. Baron, David P. 1989. Service-Induced Campaign Contributions and the Electoral Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics 104 (1): 45-72.
5. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. 1996. A Dynamic Analysis of the Role of War Chests in Campaign Strategy. American Journal of Political Science 40 (2): 352-71.
6. Cassie, William E., and Joel A. Thompson. 1998. Patterns of Pact Contributions to State Legislative Candidates. In Campaign Finance in State Legislative Elections, eds. Joel A. Thompson, and Gary F. Moncrief. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 158-84.
7. Caughey, Devin, and Jasjeet S. Sekhon. 2011. Elections and the Regression Discontinuity Design: Lessons from Close U.S. House Races, 19422008. Political Analysis 19: 385-408.
8. Cho, Wendy K. Tam, and James G. Gimpel. 2007. Prospecting for (Campaign) Gold. American Journal of Political Science 51 (2): 255-68.
9. Cox, Gary W., and Jonathan N Katz. 1996. Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow? American Journal of Political Science 40 (2): 478-97.
10. Eggers, Andrew, Anthony Fowler, Jens Hainmueller, Andrew B. Hall, and James M. Snyder Jr. forthcoming. On the Validity of the Regression Discontinuity Design for Estimating Electoral Effects: Evidence From Over 40, 000 Close Races. Working Paper, London School of Economics.
11. Erikson, Robert S. 1971. The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections. Polity 3 (3): 395-405.
12. Erikson, Robert S., and Rocio Titiunik. 2012. Using Regression Discontinuity to Uncover the Personal Incumbency Advantage. Working Paper.
13. Erikson, Robert S., and Thomas R. Palfrey. 2000. Equilibria in Campaign Spending Games: Theory and Data. American Political Science Review 94 (3): 595-609.
14. Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Memeber in Their Districts. New York: Longman.
15. Fowler, Anthony, and Andrew Hall. 2013. Disentangling the Personal and Partisan Incumbency Advantages: Evidence from a Structural Regression Discontinuity Design. Working Paper, University of Chicago.
16. Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King. 1990. Estimating Incumbency Advantage Without Bias. American Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 1142-64.
17. Gerber, Alan. 1998. Estimating the Effect of Campaign Spending on Senate Election Outcomes Using Instrumental Variables. American Political Science Review 92 (2): 401-11. (Pubitemid 128185173)
18. Gerber, Alan S. 2004. Does Campaign Spending Work? American Behavioral Scientist 47 (5): 541-74.
19. Goodliffe, Jay. 2005. When Do War Chests Deter? Journal of Theoretical Politics 17 (2): 249-77. (Pubitemid 40482782)
20. Green, Donald Philip, and Jonathan S. Krasno. 1988. Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effect of Campaign Spending in House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 32 (4): 469-91.
21. Grimmer, Justin, Eitan Hirsh, Brian Feinstein, and Daniel Carpenter. 2012. Are Close Elections Random? Working Paper, Stanford University.
22. Hall, Richard L., and Alan V Deardorff. 2006. Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy. American Political Science Review 100 (1): 69-84. (Pubitemid 43388708)
23. Hall, Richard L., and Frank W. Wayman. 1990. Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees. American Political Science Review 84 (3): 797-820.
24. Herrnson, Paul S. 1992. Campaign Professionalism and Fundraising in Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 54 (3): 859-70.
25. Hirano, Shigeo, and James M. Snyder, Jr. 2009. Using Multimember District Elections to Estimate the Sources of the Incumbency Advantage. American Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 292-306.
26. Hogan, Robert E. 2000. The Cost of Representation in State Legislatures: Explaining Variation in Campaign Spending. Social Science Quarterly 81 (4): 941-56. (Pubitemid 33323126)
27. Imbens, Guido W., and Thomas Lemieux. 2008. Regression Discontinuity Designs: A Guide to Practice. Journal of Econometrics 142 (2): 615-35. (Pubitemid 350236542)
28. Jacobson, Gary C. 1978. The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 72 (2): 469-91.
29. Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments. American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 334-62.
30. Jacobson, Gary C. 2009. The Politics of Congressional Elections. New York: Longman.
31. Jones, Ruth S., and Anne H. Hopkins. 1985. State Campaign Fund Raising: Targets and Response. Journal of Politics 47 (2): 427-49.
32. Joskow, Paul L. 2005. Regulation and Deregulation After 25 Years: Lessons for Research in Industrial Organization. Review of Industrial Organization 26 (2): 169-93. (Pubitemid 40815026)
33. Kearney, Joseph D., and Thomas W. Merrill. 1998. The Great Transformation of Regulated Industries Law. Columbia Law Review 98 (6): 1323-1409. (Pubitemid 128161504)
34. Klarner, Carl, William Berry, Thomas Carsey, Malcolm Jewell, Richard Niemi, Lynda Powell, and James Snyder. 2013. State Legislative Election Returns (1967-2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34297.v1 (Accessed May 1, 2013).
35. Krasno, Jonathan S., Donald Philip Green, and Jonathan A. Cowden. 1994. The Dynamics of Campaign Fundraising in House Elections. Journal of Politics 56 (2): 459-74.
36. Lee, Davis S. 2008. Randomized Experiments from Non-Random Selection in U.S. House Elections. Journal of Econometrics 142 (2): 675-97. (Pubitemid 350245707)
37. Levitt, Steven D., and Catherine D. Wolfram. 1997. Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the US House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (1): 45-60. (Pubitemid 127459073)
38. Magee, Christopher S. P. 2012. The Incumbent Spending Puzzle. Social Science Quarterly 93 (4): 932-49.
39. Moncrief, Gary. 1992. The Increase in State Legislative Campaign Expenditures: A Comparison of Four Northwestern States. Western Political Quarterly 45 (2): 549-58.
40. Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge; MA: Harvard University Press.
41. Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
42. Shaw, Aron R., and James G. Gimpel. 2012. What if We Randomize the Governor's Schedule? Evidence on Campaign Appearance Effects From a Texas Field Experiment. Political Communication 29 (2): 137-59.
43. Snyder, Jason. 2005. Detecting Manipulation in US House Elections. University of California, Berkeley. Unpublished manuscript.
44. Snyder, James M., Jr. 1990. Campaign Contributions as Investments: The U.S. House of Representatives, 1980-1986. Journal of Political Economy 98 (6): 1195-1227.
45. Snyder, James M., Jr. 1992. Long-term Investing in Politicians; or, Give Early, Give Often. Journal of Law & Economics 35 (1): 15-43.
46. Squire, Peverill, and John R. Wright. 1990. Fundraising by Nonincumbent Candidates for the U. S. House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly 15 (1): 89-98.