Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:03:25.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Off-the-Books Politics: Conducting Inference on the Determinants of Sensitive Behavior with Randomized Response Surveys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Daniel W. Gingerich
Daniel W. Gingerich*
Affiliation:
Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics, University of Virginia, PO Box 400787, Charlottesville VA 22904-4787. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study presents a survey-based method for conducting inference into the determinants of sensitive political behavior. The approach combines two well-established literatures in statistical methods in the social sciences: the randomized response (RR) methodology utilized to reduce evasive answer bias and the generalized propensity score methodology utilized to draw inferences about causal effects in observational studies. The approach permits one to estimate the causal impact of a multivalued predictor variable of interest on a given sensitive behavior in the face of unknown interaction effects between the predictor and the confounders as well as nonlinearities in the relationship between the confounders and the sensitive behavior. Simulation results point to the superior performance of the RR relative to direct survey questioning using this method for samples of moderate to large size. The utility of the approach is illustrated through an application to corruption in the public bureaucracy in three countries in South America.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , Summer 2010 , pp. 349 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

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

Auyero, J., and Moran, T. P. 2007. The dynamics of collective violence: Dissecting food riots in contemporary Argentina. Social Forces 85(3): 1341–67.Google Scholar
Brinks, D. 2003. Informal institutions and the rule of law: The judicial response to state killings in Buenos Aires and São Paulo in the 1990s. Comparative Politics 36(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Carroll, R. J., Ruppert, D., Stefanski, L. A., and Crainceanu, C. M. 2006. Measurement error in nonlinear models. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Cattaneo, M. 2010. Efficient semiparametric estimation of multi-valued treatment effects under ignorability. Journal of Econometrics. 155(2): 138–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhuri, A., and Mukerjee, R. 1985. Optionally randomized response techniques. Calcutta Statistical Association Bulletin 34: 225–9.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, A., and Saha, A. 2005. Optional versus compulsory randomized response techniques in complex surveys. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 135: 516–27.Google Scholar
Copas, J. B. 1988. Binary regression models for contaminated data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 50: 225–65.Google Scholar
Corstange, D. 2009. Sensitive questions, truthful answers? Modeling the list experiment with LISTIT. Political Analysis 17: 54–63.Google Scholar
Dalenius, T., and Vitale, R. A. 1974. A new randomized response design for estimating the mean of a distribution. Report no. 78 of the research project Errors in Surveys, Institute of Statistics, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Dehejia, R. H., and Wahba, S. 1999. Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association 94: 1053–62.Google Scholar
Diaz, J. J., and Handa, S. 2006. An assessment of propensity score matching as a nonexperimental impact estimator. Journal of Human Resources XLI: 319–45.Google Scholar
Drake, C. 1993. Effects of misspecification of the propensity score on estimators of treatment effect. Biometrics 49: 1231–6.Google Scholar
Duffy, J. C., and Waterton, J. J. 1984. Randomized response models for estimating the distribution function of a quantitative character. International Statistical Review 52: 165–71.Google Scholar
Dustmann, C., and van Soest, A. 2000. Parametric and semiparametric estimation in models with misclassified categorical dependent variables IZA Discussion Paper No. 218.Google Scholar
Eichhorn, B. H., and Hayre, L. S. 1983. Scrambled randomized response methods for obtaining sensitive quantitative data. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 7: 307–16.Google Scholar
Geddes, B. 1994. Politician's dilemma: Building state capacity in Latin America‥ Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Golden, M. A., and Chang, E. C. C. 2001. Competitive corruption: Factional conflict and political malfeasance in postwar Italian Christian Democracy. World Politics 53: 588–622.Google Scholar
Greenberg, B. G., Abul-Ela, A. A., Simmons, W. R., and Horvitz, D. G. 1969. The unrelated question model: Theoretical framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association 64: 520–39.Google Scholar
Greenberg, B. G., Kuebler, R. R., Abernathy, J. B., and Horvitz, D. G. 1971. Application of the randomized response technique in obtaining quantitative data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 66: 243–50.Google Scholar
Hausman, J., Abrevaya, J., and Scott-Morton, F. M. 1998. Misclassification of the dependent variable in a discrete-response setting. Journal of Econometrics 87: 239–69.Google Scholar
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., and Todd, P. 1997. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies 64: 605–54.Google Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen, and Levitsky, Steven, eds. 2006. Informal institutions and democracy: Lessons from Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W., and Ridder, G. 2003. Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica 71(4): 1161–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Paul. 1986. Statistics and causal inference (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association 81: 945–70.Google Scholar
Imai, K., and van Dyk, David A. 2004. Causal inference with general treatment regimes: Generalizing the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99: 854–66.Google Scholar
Imbens, Guido W. 2000. The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika 87: 706–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbens, Guido W. 2004. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Review of Economics and Statistics 86: 4–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerkvliet, J. 1994. Estimating a logit model with randomized data: The case of cocaine use. Australian Journal of Statistics 36: 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuk, A. Y. C. 1990. Asking sensitive questions indirectly. Biometrika 77: 436–8.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, J. H., Sniderman, P. M., Knight, K., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P. E., Lawrence, G. R., and Mellers, B. 1997. Racial prejudice and attitudes toward affirmative action. American Journal of Political Science 41: 402–19.Google Scholar
Landsheer, J. A., van der Heijden, P., and van Gils, G. 1999. Trust and understanding, two psychological aspects of randomized response. Quality & Quantity 33: 1–12.Google Scholar
Lara, D., García, S. G., Ellertson, C., Camlin, C., and Suarez, J. 2006. The measure of induced abortion levels in Mexico using randomized response technique. Sociological Methods and Research 35: 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lara, D., Strickler, J., Díaz Olavarrieta, C., and Ellertson, C. 2004. Measuring induced abortion in Mexico: A comparison of four methodologies. Sociological Methods and Research 32: 529–58.Google Scholar
Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L., Hox, J. J., van der Heijden, P. G. M., and Maas, C. J. M. 2005. Meta-analysis of randomized response research: Thirty years of validation. Sociological Methods and Research 33: 319–48.Google Scholar
Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L., van der Heijden, P. G. M., Laudy, O., and van Gils, G. 2006. A validation of a computer-assisted randomized response survey to estimate the prevalence of fraud in social security. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 169:part 2:305–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J. D. 1984. A new survey technique for studying deviant behavior, PhD thesis, George Washington University, Department of Sociology.Google Scholar
Murillo, V. M., and Calvo, E. 2004. Who delivers? Partisan clients in the Argentine electoral market. American Journal of Political Science 48: 742–57.Google Scholar
Olken, B. A. 2007. Corruption perceptions vs. corruption reality. NBER Working Paper. http://www.nber.org/∼bolken/corruptionperceptions.pdf.Google Scholar
Pinto-Duchinsky, M. 2002. Financing politics: A global view. Journal of Democracy 13(4): 69–86.Google Scholar
Ramalho, E. A. 2002. Regression models for choice-based samples with misclassification in the response variable. Journal of Econometrics 106: 171–201.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. R. 1989. The role of known effects in observational studies. Biometrics 45: 557–69.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. R., and Rubin, D. B. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70: 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D. 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 66: 688–701.Google Scholar
Scheers, N. J., and Dayton, C. M. 1987. Improved estimation of academic cheating behavior using the randomized response technique. Research in Higher Education 26: 61–9.Google Scholar
Scheers, N. J., and Dayton, C. M. 1988. Covariate randomized response models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83: 969–74.Google Scholar
Seligson, M. 2002. The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: A comparative study of four latin American countries. Journal of Politics 64: 408–33.Google Scholar
Shao, Jun, and Tu, Dongsheng. 1995. The jackknife and bootstrap. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Stokes, S. C. 2005. Perverse accountability: A formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review 99: 315–25.Google Scholar
Strachan, R., King, M., and Singh, S. 1998. Likelihood-based estimation of the regression model with scrambled responses. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics 40: 279–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, P. E., and Fox, J. A. 1981. The validity of randomized response for sensitive measurements. American Sociological Review 46: 187–200.Google Scholar
Treisman, D. 2007. What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research? Annual Review of Political Science 10: 211–44.Google Scholar
van der Heijden, P. G. M., and van Gils, G. 1996. Some logistic regression models for randomized response data. In Statistical modelling: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Statistical Modelling, eds. Forcina, A., Marchetti, G. M., Hatzinger, R., and Galmatti, G. Perugia, Italy: University of Perugia.Google Scholar
van der Heijden, P. G. M., van Gils, G., Bouts, J., and Hox, J. J. 2000. A comparison of randomized response, computer assisted self interview and face-to-face direct questioning: Eliciting sensitive information in the context of welfare and unemployment benefit fraud. Sociological Methods & Research 28: 505–37.Google Scholar
van den Hout, A., and van der Heijden, P. G. M. 2004. The analysis of multivariate misclassified data with special attention to randomized response data. Sociological Methods & Research 32: 384–410.Google Scholar
Wantchekon, L. 2003. Clientelism and voting behavior: Evidence from a field experiment in Benin. World Politics 55: 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, S. L. 1965. Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association 60: 63–9.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, S. I. 2006. Votes and violence: Electoral competition and ethnic riots in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2000. Cambodia governance and corruption diagnostic: Evidence from citizen, enterprise and public official surveys. http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/capacitybuild/d-surveys.html#reports.Google Scholar