Skip to main content Accessibility help

Using Auxiliary Data to Estimate Selection Bias Models, with an Application to Interest Group Use of the Direct Initiative Process

  • Frederick J. Boehmke (a1)


Recent work in survey research has made progress in estimating models involving selection bias in a particularly difficult circumstance—all nonrespondents are unit nonresponders, meaning that no data are available for them. These models are reasonably successful in circumstances where the dependent variable of interest is continuous, but they are less practical empirically when it is latent and only discrete outcomes or choices are observed. I develop a method in this article to estimate these models that is much more practical in terms of estimation. The model uses a small amount of auxiliary information to estimate the selection equation parameters, which are then held fixed while estimating the equation of interest parameters in a maximum-likelihood setting. After presenting Monte Carlo analyses to support the model, I apply the technique to a substantive problem: Which interest groups are likely to to be involved in support of potential initiatives to achieve their policy goals?



Hide All
Achen, Christopher H. 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Quasi-Experiments. Berkeley, The University of California Press.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Leech, Beth. 1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and Political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bishop, Yvonne M.M., Fienberg, Stephen E., and Holland, Paul W. 1975. Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bloom, David E., and Killingsworth, Mark R. 1985. “Correcting for Truncation Bias Caused by a Latent Truncation Variable.” Journal of Econometrics 27:131135.
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2000. Beyond the Ballot: The Effect of Direct Democracy on Interest Group Behavior. Ph.D. dissertation. California Institute of Technology.
Boehmke, Frederick J., and Patty, John W. 2002. “Voter Cues and Information in Direct Legislation Settings.” University of Iowa. Working Paper.
Brehm, John. 1993. The Phantom Respondents: Opinion Surveys and Political Representation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Brehm, John. 1999. “Alternative Corrections for Sample Truncation: Applications to the 1988, 1990, and 1992 Senate Election Studies.” Political Analysis 8:147165.
Broder, David S. 2000. Democracy Derailed. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
Donovan, Todd, Bowler, Shaun, McCuan, David, and Fernandez, Ken. 1998. “Contending Players and Strategies: Opposition Advantages in Initiative Campaigns.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline J. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Dubin, Jeffrey A., and Rivers, Douglas. 1989. “Selection Bias in Linear Regression, Logit and Probit Models.” Sociological Methods and Research 18:360390.
Ernst, Howard R. 2001. “The Historical Role of Narrow-Minded Interests.” In Dangerous Democracy: The Battle Over Ballot Initiative in America, eds. Sabato, Larry J., Ernst, Howard R., and Larson, Bruce A. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Franklin, Charles H. 1989. “Estimation Across Data Sets: Two-Stage Auxiliary Instrumental Variables Estimation (2SAIV).” Political Analysis 1:123.
Gerber, Elizabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Greene, William H. 1993. Econometric Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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 5:475492.
Heckman, James J. 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica 47:153161.
Honaker, James, Joseph, Anne, King, Gary, and Scheve, Kenneth. 1999. Amelia: A Program for Missing Data (Windows Version). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. (Available from
King, Gary. 1989. Unifying Political Methodology: The Likelihood Theory of Statistical Inference. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press.
King, Gary, Honaker, Anne, Joseph, James, and Scheve, Kenneth. 2001. “Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation.” American Political Science Review 95:4969.
Kmenta, Jan. 2000. Elements of Econometrics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Maddala, G. G. 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meng, Xiao-Li, and Rubin, Donald B. 1992. “Performing Likelihood Ratio Tests with Multiply-Imputed Data.” Biometrika 79:103111.
Murphy, Kevin M., and Topel, Robert H. 1985. “Estimation and Inference in Two-Step Econometric Models.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 3:370379.
Sartori, Anne E. 2003. “An Estimator for Some Binary-Outcome Selection Models Without Exclusion Restrictions.” Political Analysis 11:111138.
Sherman, Robert. 2000. “Tests of Certain Types of Nonresponse in Surveys Subject to Item Nonresponse or Attrition.” American Journal of Political Science 44:362374.
Smith, Daniel. 1998. Tax Crusaders. New York: Routledge.
Winship, Christopher, and Mare, Robert D. 1992. “Models for Sample Selection Bias.” Annual Review of Sociology 18:327350.
MathJax is a JavaScript display engine for mathematics. For more information see
Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Boehmke supplementary material

 Unknown (528 KB)
528 KB


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed