Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T02:26:34.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studying Dynamics in Legislator Ideal Points: Scale Matters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Michael C. Herron
Michael C. Herron*
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College and Northwestern University, HB 6108, 223 Silsby Hall, Hanover, NH 03755. e-mail: michael.c.herron@dartmouth.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research designs that call for the estimation of time trends in legislator ideal points must allow for changes in underlying policy spaces. Simply put, a set of legislator ideal points from one such space cannot necessarily be compared with a set of ideal points from another. Rothenberg and Sanders's (2000, American Journal of Political Science 44:316–325) analysis of shirking in Congress does not internalize this point insofar as it assumes that legislator ideal points from adjoining congressional sessions lie in a common space. While it may be the case that members of Congress shirk ideologically when approaching retirement, the regression estimates at the heart of Rothenberg and Sanders neither support this possibility nor constitute evidence against it.

Type
Replications and Extensions
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , Spring 2004 , pp. 182 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Political Methodology 2004 

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

Aka, Arsene, Reed, Robert, Schansberg, D. Eric, and Zhu, Zhen. 1996. “Is There a ‘Culture of Spending’ in Congress?” Economics and Politics 8: 191–209.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1988. “Measuring Policy Change in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82: 905–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry C., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Groseclose, Tim. 2000. “Measuring the Ideologies of U.S. Senators: The Song Remains the Same.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 237–258.Google Scholar
Carey, John. 1994. “Political Shirking and the Last Term Problem: Evidence for a Party-Administered Pension System.” Public Choice 81: 1–22.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, Levitt, Steven D., and Snyder, James M. Jr. 1999. “Comparing Interest Group Scores across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress.” American Political Science Review 93: 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lott, John R., and Bronars, Stephen G. 1993. “Time Series Evidence on Shirking in the House of Representatives.” Public Choice 76: 125–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10: 134–153.Google Scholar
Nokken, Timothy P. 2003. “Roll Call Behavior in the Absence of Electoral Constraints: Shirking in Lame Duck Sessions of the House of Representatives, 1879–1933.” Working paper, University of Houston.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 1998. “Recovering a Basic Space from a Set of Issue Scales.” American Journal of Political Science 42: 954–993.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2003. “Changing Minds? Not in Congress” Working paper, University of Houston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rothenberg, Lawrence S., and Sanders, Mitchell S. 2000. “Severing the Electoral Connection: Shirking in the Contemporary Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 316–325.Google Scholar