Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:25:04.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asymmetry in Party Influence: Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Keith Krehbiel
Keith Krehbiel*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5015. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Groseclose and Snyder's revised method (2003) for assessing relative party influence deserves high praise for its creativity and explicitness. Two limitations should also be noted, however. First, the method seems likely to overstate majority-party influence. Second, even if taken at face value, the finding of asymmetric party influence is weak when compared with a baseline model.

Type
Replications and Extensions
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Winter 2003 , pp. 108 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2003 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Groseclose, Tim, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2003. “Interpreting the Coefficient of Party Influence: Comment on Krehbiel.” Political Analysis 11:104–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 2002. “Partisan Roll Rates in Stochastic Legislature.” Manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar