Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:02:04.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Strategic Interaction and Candidate Competition in U.S. House Elections: Empirical Applications of Probit and Strategic Probit Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Jamie L. Carson*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Florida International University, DM-480, Miami, FL 33199. e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

In recent work, Signorino (American Political Science Review 93:279–297, 1999; International Interactions 28:93–115, 2002) has sought to test statistical models derived from extensive-form games in the context of international relations research focusing on conflict and interstate bargaining. When two or more actors interact with one another under conditions of uncertainty, Signorino demonstrates that it is necessary to incorporate such strategic interaction into the underlying model to avoid potential threats to statistical inference. Outside the realm of international relations research, however, there have been limited applications of Signorino's strategic probit model in understanding strategic interaction. In this article, I present an empirical comparison of probit and strategic probit models in the context of candidate competition in House elections during the 1990s. I show that incumbent spending deters challenger entry and factors such as minority party affiliation and redistricting significantly affect incumbent career decisions, findings that run counter to those reported in the nonstrategic model. Overall, the results illustrate that failing to account for strategic interaction can lead to biased and inaccurate estimates related to challenger and incumbent entry decisions.

Type
Research Article
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

Banks, Jeffrey S., and Roderick Kiewiet, D. 1989. “Explaining Patterns of Candidate Competition in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 33:9971015.Google Scholar
Bianco, William T. 1984. “Strategic Decisions on Candidacy in U.S. Congressional Districts.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 9:351364.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. 1996. “A Dynamic Analysis of the Role of War Chests in Campaign Strategy.” American Journal of Political Science 40:352371.Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie L. 2003. “A Unified Model of Candidate Competition in House and Senate Elections.” Typescript. Florida International University.Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., and Marshall, Bryan W. 2003. “Checking Power with Power: A Strategic Choice Analysis of Presidential Vetoes and Congressional Overrides.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Katz, Jonathan N. 2002. Elbridge Gerry's Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, David, and Zemsky, Peter. 1995. “Money Talks: Deterring Quality Challengers in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 89:295308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaddie Ronald, Keith, and Bullock, Charles S. III. 2000. Elections to Open Seats in the U.S. House: Where the Action Is. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Gates, Scott, and Humes, Brian D. 1997. Games, Information, and Politics: Applying Game Theoretic Models to Political Science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Edie N., Traugott, Michael W., and Baumgartner, Frank R. 1986. “Preemptive and Reactive Spending in U.S. House Races.” Political Behavior 8:320.Google Scholar
Goodliffe, Jay. 2001. “The Effect of War Chests on Challenger Entry in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45:830844.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Van Houweling, Robert P. 1995. “Avarice and Ambition in Congress: Representatives' Decisions to Run or Retire from the U.S. House.” American Political Science Review 89:121136.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica 47:153162.Google Scholar
Hersch, Philip L., and McDougall, Gerald S. 1994. “Campaign War Chests as a Barrier to Entry in Congressional Races.” Economic Inquiry 32:630641.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R. 1991. Congressional Careers: Contours of Life in the U.S. House of Representatives. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1989. “Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946-1986.” American Political Science Review 83:773793.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C., and Kernell, Samuel. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections, 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and Zeng, Langche. 1993. “An Analysis of Congressional Career Decisions, 1947-1986.” American Political Science Review 87:928941.Google Scholar
Krasno, Jonathan S., and Philip Green, Donald. 1988. “Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections.” Journal of Politics 50:920936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarus, Jeff. 2002. “Can a Challenger Push an Incumbent Around (Or Out)?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Leblang, David A. Forthcoming. “To Devalue or to Defend? The Political Economy of Exchange Rate Policy.” International Studies Quarterly.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Palfrey, Thomas R. 1995. “Quantal Response Equilibria in Games.” Games and Economic Behavior 10:638.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Palfrey, Thomas R. 1996. “A Statistical Theory of Equilibrium in Games.” Japanese Economic Review 47:186209.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Palfrey, Thomas R. 1998. “Quantal Response Equilibria for Extensive Form Games.” Experimental Economics 1:941.Google Scholar
Peters, John G., and Welch, Susan. 1980. “The Effects of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 74:697708.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Randazzo, Kirk. 2002. “The Resolution of Foreign Affairs Litigation in the U.S. Federal Courts.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Savannah, GA.Google Scholar
Ragsdale, Lyn, and Cook, Timothy E. 1987. “Representatives' Actions and Challengers' Reactions: Limits to Candidate Connections in the House.” American Journal of Political Science 31:4581.Google Scholar
Reed, William L. 2000. “A Unified Statistical Model of Conflict Onset and Escalation.” American Journal of Political Science 44:8493.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S. 1999. “Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict.” American Political Science Review 93:279297.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S. 2002. “Strategy and Selection in International Relations.” International Interactions 28:93115.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S. 2003a. “Structure and Uncertainty in Discrete Choice Models.” Political Analysis 11:316344.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curtis S. 2003b. STRAT: A Program for Analyzing Statistical Strategic Models, Version 1.3. Department of Political Science, University of Rochester. (Available from http://www.rochester.edu/College/PSC/signorino/programs/strat.zip) Google Scholar
Welch, Susan, and Hibbing, John R. 1997. “The Effects of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections, 1982-1990.” The Journal of Politics 59:226239.Google Scholar
Wrighton, J. Mark, and Squire, Peverill. 1997. “Uncontested Seats and Electoral Competition for the U.S. House of Representatives Over Time.” The Journal of Politics 59:452468.Google Scholar