Article contents
Interpreting the Coefficient of Party Influence: Comment on Krehbiel
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2017
Extract
Keith Krehbiel (2003) provides a thoughtful note that explains why the estimation strategy we proposed in Snyder and Groseclose (2000) cannot distinguish between majority-party influence and minority-party influence theories. We agree with Krehbiel's major points. In this note, we explain our disagreement with some of his minor points, and we suggest an additional assumption under which our method can distinguish between majority-party influence and minority-party influence.
- Type
- Replications and Extensions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2003
References
Groseclose, Tim. 1996. “An Examination of the Market for Favors and Votes in Congress.” Economic Inquiry
34:320–340.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, and Snyder, James M. Jr.
1996. “Buying Supermajorities.” American Political Science Review
90:303–315.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 2003. “The Coefficient of Party Influence.” Political Analysis
11:95–103.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1974. Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography. Lasalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr., and Groseclose, Tim. 2000. “Estimating Party Influence in Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science
44:193–211.Google Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr., and Ting, Michael. 2002. “An Informational Rationale for Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science
46:90–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8
- Cited by