Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T04:07:11.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating the Causal Effects of Social Interaction with Endogenous Networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Jon C. Rogowski  and
Betsy Sinclair
Jon C. Rogowski*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, 5828 S. University Ave., Pick Hall, 4th Floor, Chicago, IL 60637
Betsy Sinclair
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, 5828 S. University Ave., Pick Hall 415, Chicago, IL 60637. e-mail: [email protected]
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Identifying causal effects attributable to network membership is a key challenge in empirical studies of social networks. In this article, we examine the consequences of endogeneity for inferences about the effects of networks on network members' behavior. Using the House office lottery (in which newly elected members select their office spaces in a randomly chosen order) as an instrumental variable to estimate the causal impact of legislative networks on roll call behavior and cosponsorship decisions in the 105th–112th Houses, we find no evidence that office proximity affects patterns of legislative behavior. These results contrast with decades of congressional scholarship and recent empirical studies. Our analysis demonstrates the importance of accounting for selection processes and omitted variables in estimating the causal impact of networks.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , Summer 2012 , pp. 316 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2012. 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.)

Footnotes

Authors' note: We thank Sara Brady, James Fowler, Keith Poole, Keith Krehbiel, and Jonathan Woon for providing data used in this project. We thank Kevin Collins, David Darfomal, James Fowler, Rob Franzese, Donald Green, Greg Huber, Greg Koger, Seth Masket, Eric Oliver, Jennifer Victor, Nick Weller, and participants of the Fourth Annual Political Networks Conference and the Harris School Political Economy Lunch for lively discussion and helpful comments. The editors and two anonymous reviewers provided especially conscientious feedback. We are most indebted to John J. Pitney, who used his own social networks to help us locate the House lottery data. This research protocol (H10171) was approved by the University of Chicago IRB. Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

References

Angrist, Joshua D., Imbens, Guido W., and Rubin, Donald B. 1996. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91: 444–55.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede, and Beardsley, Kyle. 2006. Space is more than geography: Using spatial econometrics in the study of political economy. International Studies Quarterly 50: 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Patterson, Samuel C. 1987. Political friendship in the legislature. Journal of Politics 49: 953–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durbin, Kathie. 2010. Herrera feels like big winner for D.C. office. The Columbian, November 19. http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/nov/19/herrera-winner-office-lottery (accessed February 23, 2011).Google Scholar
Fisher, Ronald A. 1935. Design of experiments. Edinburgh, UK: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H. 2005. Legislative cosponsorship networks in the U.S. House and Senate. Social Networks 28: 454–65.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H. 2006. Connecting the Congress: A study of cosponsorship networks. Political Analysis 14: 456–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzese, Robert J., and Hays, Jude C. 2007. Spatial econometric models of cross-sectional interdependence in political science panel and time-series-cross-section data. Political Analysis 15: 140–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Ben B., and Bowers, Jake. 2009. Attributing effects to a cluster-randomized get-out-the-vote campaign. Journal of the American Statistical Association 104: 873–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John. 1989. Congressmen's voting decisions. 3rd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith, and Woon, Jonathan. 2005. Selection criteria for roll call votes. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, Charles F. 1993. Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies 60: 531–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masket, Seth. 2008. Where you sit is where you stand: The impact of seating proximity on legislative cue-taking. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3: 301–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Donald R., and Stimson, James A. 1975. Yeas and nays: Normal decision-making in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Wiley InterScience.Google Scholar
McPherson, Miller, Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Cook, James M. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Michael P. 2006. Avoiding invalid instruments and coping with weak instruments. Journal of Economic Perspectives 20: 111–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Michael M., and Yadron, Danny. 2010. Pajama party: New to Congress, many members plan to sleep over. Wall Street Journal, November 29. http://online.wsj.org/article/SB10001424052748703559504575630661395762460.html (accessed February 23, 2011).Google Scholar
Sacerdote, Bruce. 2001. Peer effects with random assignment: Results for Dartmouth roommates. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116: 681–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalizi, Cosmo Rohilla, and Thomas, Andrew C. 2011. Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociological Methods and Research 40: 211–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staiger, Douglas, and Stock, James H. 1997. Instrumental variables regressions with weak instruments. Econometrica 65: 557–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, James H., and Watson, Mark W. 2007. Introduction to econometrics. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Truman, David B. 1956. The state delegations and the structure of party voting in the United States House of Representatives. American Political Science Review 50: 1023–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, James Sterling. 1966. The Washington community, 1800-1828. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rogowski and Sinclair supplementary material

Appendix

Download Rogowski and Sinclair supplementary material(File)
File 9.6 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Rogowski and Sinclair supplementary material

Appendix

Download Rogowski and Sinclair supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 306.7 KB