Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T08:01:04.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection Bias in Comparative Research: The Case of Incomplete Data Sets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Simon Hug
Simon Hug*
Affiliation:
Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Universität St. Gallen, Dufourstrasse 45, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland. e-mail: simon.hug@unisg.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Selection bias is an important but often neglected problem in comparative research. While comparative case studies pay some attention to this problem, this is less the case in broader cross-national studies, where this problem may appear through the way the data used are generated. The article discusses three examples: studies of the success of newly formed political parties, research on protest events, and recent work on ethnic conflict. In all cases the data at hand are likely to be afflicted by selection bias. Failing to take into consideration this problem leads to serious biases in the estimation of simple relationships. Empirical examples illustrate a possible solution (a variation of a Tobit model) to the problems in these cases. The article also discusses results of Monte Carlo simulations, illustrating under what conditions the proposed estimation procedures lead to improved results.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , Summer 2003 , pp. 255 - 274
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

Achen, Christopher H. 1986. Statistical Analysis of Quasi-Experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barranco, José, and Wisler, Dominique. 1999. “Validity and Systematicity of Newspaper Data in Event Analysis.” European Sociological Review 15(3): 301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, David E., and Killingsworth, Mark R. 1985. “Correcting for Truncation Bias Caused by a Latent Truncation Variable.” Journal of Econometrics 27:131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, Richard. 1996. Regression Models: Censored, Sample Selected or Truncated Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehm, John. 1993. The Phantom Respondents. Opinion Surveys and Political Representation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Brehm, John. 2000. “Alternative Corrections for Sample Truncation: Applications to the 1988 and 1990 Senate Election Studies.” Political Analysis 8:183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Frank S. 1997. “Proportional Versus Majoritarian Ethnic Conflict Management in Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 30:607–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dion, Douglas. 1998. “Evidence and Inference in the Comparative Case Study.” Comparative Politics 30:127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1991. “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science.” World Politics 43:169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D. 2002. “Ethnic Structure and Cultural Diversity Around the World: A Cross-National Data Set on Ethnic Groups.” Paper prepared for delivery at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, August 29-September 1, 2002.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D., and Laitin, David D. 1997. A Cross-Sectional Study of Large-Scale Ethnic Violence in the Postwar Period. Paper prepared for the conference Cooperation under Difficult Conditions, La Jolla, University of California, San Diego, 1997.Google Scholar
Fillieule, Olivier. 1996. Police Records and the National Press in France: Issues in the Methodology of Data-Collections from Newspapers. Florence, European University Institute. EUI working papers of the Robert Schuman Centre; RSC 96/25.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 1991. “How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics.” In Political Analysis, Stimson, James A., ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 131–152.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary D., and Braumoeller, Bear F. 2000. “The Methodology of Necessary Conditions.” American Journal of Political Science 44:844–859.Google Scholar
Gurr, Ted Robert. 1993. Minorities at Risk. A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflict. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
Gurr Ted, Robert, and Moore, Will H. 1997. “Ethnopolitical Rebellion: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the 1980s with Risk Assessments for the 1990s.” American Journal of Political Science 41:1079–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmel, Robert, and Robertson, John D. 1985. “Formation and Success of New Parties.” International Political Science Review 6:501–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1976. “The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models.” Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5:475–492.Google Scholar
Hug, Simon. 1996. “Altering the Electoral Scene. The Emergence of New Political Parties from a Game-Theoretic Perspective.” European Journal of Political Research 29:169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2000. “Studying the Electoral Success of New Political Parties. A Methodological Note.” Party Politics 6:187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2001. Altering Party Systems. Strategic Behavior and the Emergence of New Political Parties in Western Democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, Simon, and Wisler, Dominique. 1998. “Correcting for Selection Bias in Social Movement Research.” Mobilization 3:141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary. 1989. Unifying Political Methodology: The Likelihood Theory of Statistical Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1988. “Left-Libertarian Parties. Explaining Innovation in Competitive Party Systems.” World Politics 40:194–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend, and Gibberd, Robert W. 1977. “Thresholds and Payoffs in List Systems of Proportional Representation.” European Journal of Political Research 5:219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lustick, Ian S. 1996. “History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias.” American Political Science Review 90:605–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madow, William G., Nisselson, Harold, and Ingram, eds, Olkin. 1983. Incomplete Data in Sample Surveys. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John D., McPhail, Clark, and Smith, Jackie. 1996. “Images of Protest: Dimensions of Selection Bias in Media Coverage of Washington Demonstrations, 1982 and 1991.” American Sociological Review 61:478–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Rommel, Ferdinand. 1993. Grüne Parteien in Westeuropa. Entwicklungsphasen und Erfolgsbedingungen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthen, Bengt, and Jöreskog, Karl G. 1983. “Selectivity Problems in Quasi-Experimental Studies.” Evaluation Review 7:139–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Alvarez, Michael E., Antonio Cheibub, José, and Limongi, Fernando. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rootes, Chris. 1995. “Environmental Consciousness, Institutional Structures and Political Competition in the Formation and Development of Green Parties.” In The Green Challenge. The Development of Green Parties in Europe, Richardson, Dick and Rootes, Chris, eds. London: Routledge, pp. 232–252.Google Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., Behr, Roy L., and Lazarus, Edward H. 1984. Third Parties in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sigelman, Lee, and Zeng, Langche. 2000. “Analyzing Censored and Sample-Selected Data with Tobit and Heckit.” Political Analysis 8:167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolzenberg, Ross M., and Relles, Daniel A. 1990. “Theory Testing in a World of Constrained Research Design.” Sociological Methods and Research 35:101–132.Google Scholar
Stolzenberg, Ross M., and Relles, Daniel A. 1997. “Tools for Intuition about Sample Selection Bias and Its Correction.” American Sociological Review 62:494–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E., and Berlin, eds, Aaron. 1996. Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Hug supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Hug supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 128.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hug supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Hug supplementary material(File)
File 121.7 KB