Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-55wx7 Total loading time: 0.277 Render date: 2021-03-06T06:22:45.643Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

How Much of the Incumbency Advantage is Due to Scare-Off?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2015

Abstract

This paper uses a regression discontinuity design to estimate the degree to which incumbents scare off challengers with previous officeholder experience. The estimates indicate a surprisingly small amount of scare-off, at least in cases where the previous election was nearly tied. As Lee and others have shown (and as we confirm for our samples) the estimated party incumbency advantage in these same cases is quite large—in fact, it is about as large as the average incumbency advantage for all races found using other approaches. Drawing from previous estimates of the electoral value of officeholder experience, we thus calculate that scare-off in these cases accounts for only about 5–7 percent of the party incumbency advantage. We show that these patterns are similar in elections for US House seats, statewide offices and US senate seats, and state legislative seats.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

Andrew B. Hall is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Government at Harvard University, as well as an affiliate of the Institute for Quantitative Social Sciences, 1737 Cambridge St CGIS-Knafel Building, Room 453 Cambridge, MA 02138 (hall@fas.harvard.edu, http://www.andrewbenjaminhall.com). James M. Snyder, Jr. is the Leroy B. Williams Professor of History and Political Science at Harvard University and NBER, 1737 Cambridge St CGIS-Knafel Building, Room 413, Cambridge, MA 02138 (jsnyder@gov.harvard.edu, http://scholar.harvard.edu/jsnyder/home).

References

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 1992. Senate Elections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Angrist, Josuha D., and Pischke, Jorn-Steffen. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricists Companion . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400829828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2002. ‘The Incumbency Advantage in US Elections: An Analysis of State and Federal Offces, 1942–2000’. Election Law Journal 1(3):315338.10.1089/153312902760137578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, Scott, and Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2008. ‘Electoral Selection, Strategic Challenger Entry, and the Incumbency Advantage’. The Journal of Politics 70(4):10061025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey S., and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1989. ‘Explaining Patterns of Candidate Competition in Congressional Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 33(4):9971015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Jody C., and Francia, Peter L.. 2010. Conventional Wisdom and American Elections: Exploding Myths, Exploring Misconceptions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bianco, William T. 1984. ‘Strategic Decisions on Candidacy in U.S. Congressional Districts’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 9(2):351364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, Jon R, Covington, Cary, and Fleisher, Richard. 1985. ‘Explaining Challenger Quality in Congressional Elections’. The Journal of Politics 47(2):510529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W., and Cogan, John F.. 2002. ‘Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting’. American Political Science Review 96(01):127140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canon, David T. 1990. Actors, Athletes, and Astronauts: Political Amateurs in the United States Congress. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie, and Roberts, Jason. 2011. ‘House and Senate Elections’. In Francis Lee and Eric Schickler (eds), Oxford Handbook of Congress, 141168. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., Engstrom, Erik J., and Roberts, Jason M.. 2007. ‘Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress’. American Political Science Review 101(2):289301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., and Roberts, Jason M.. 2013. Ambition, Competition, and Electoral Reform: The Politics of Congressional Elections Across Time. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughey, Devin M., and Sekhon, Jasjeet S.. 2011. ‘Elections and the Regression Discontinuity Design: Lessons from Close US House Races, 1942–2008’. Political Analysis 19(4):385408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1996. ‘Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections Grow?American Journal of Political Science 40(2):478497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Katz, Jonathan N.. 2002. Elbridge Gerrys Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubin, Michael J. 1998. United States Congressional Elections, 1788–1997: The Official Results of the Elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.Google Scholar
Eggers, Andrew, Fowler, Anthony, Hainmueller, Jens, Hall, Andrew B., Snyder, James M. Jr. N.d.On the Validity of the Regression Discontinuity Design for Estimating Electoral Effects: Evidence From Over 40,000 Close Races’. American Journal of Political Science, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Epstein, David, and Zemsky, Peter. 1995. ‘Money Talks: Deterring Quality Challengers in Congressional Elections’. The American Political Science Review 89(2):295308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1971. ‘The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections’. Polity 3(3):395405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Titiunik, Rocío. 2015. ‘Using Regression Discontinuity to Uncover the Personal Incumbency Advantage’. forthcoming, Quarterly Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Fowler, Anthony, and Hall, Andrew B.. 2015. ‘Disentangling the Personal and Partisan Incumbency Advantages: Evidence from Close Elections and Term Limits’. forthcoming, Quarterly Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Gordon, Sanford C., Huber, Gregory A., and Landa, Dimitri. 2007. ‘Challenger Entry and Voter Learning’. American Political Science Review 101(2):303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, Hirsh, Eitan, Feinstein, Brian, and Carpenter, Daniel. 2012. ‘Are Close Elections Random?’ Working Paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J., and Pinto, Rodrigo. 2013. ‘Econometric Mediation Analyses: Identifying the Sources of Treatment Effects from Experimentally Estimated Production Technologies with Unmeasured and Mismeasured Inputs’. NBER Working Paper 19314, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Hirano, Shigeo, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2009. ‘Using Multimember District Elections to Estimate the Sources of the Incumbency Advantage’. American Journal of Political Science 53(2):292306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2011. ‘Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning About Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies’. American Political Science Review 105(04):765789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1989. ‘Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of US House elections, 1946–86’. The American Political Science Review 83(3):773793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2009. The Politics of Congressional Elections. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C., and Kernell, Samuel. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and Zeng, Langche. 1993. ‘An Analysis of Congressional Career Decisions, 1947–1986’. The American Political Science Review 87(4):928941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasno, Jonathan S., and Green, Donald Philip. 1988. ‘Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections’. The Journal of Politics 50(4):920936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, David S. 2008. ‘Randomized Experiments From Non-Random Selection in U.S. House Elections’. Journal of Econometrics 142(2):675697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, Steven D., and Wolfram, Catherine D.. 1997. ‘Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the US House’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22(1):4560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lublin, David Ian. 1994. ‘Quality, not Quantity: Strategic Politicians in US Senate Elections, 1952–1990’. Journal of Politics 56(1):228241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidman, Andrew H. 2008. ‘Challengers to Incumbents’. In Kenneth F. Warren (ed.), Encyclopedia of US Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior. 117119. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Snyder, Jason. 2005. ‘Detecting Manipulation in U.S. House Elections’. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1992. ‘Legislative Professionalization and Membership Diversity in State Legislatures’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 17(1):6979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Walter J., Maisel, L. Sandy, and Maestas, Cherie D.. 2004. ‘Quality Counts: Extending the Strategic Politician Model of Incumbent Deterrence’. American Journal of Political Science 48(3):479495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Walter J., Fulton, Sarah A., Maestas, Cherie D., and Sandy Maisel, L.. 2010. ‘Incumbency Reconsidered: Prospects, Strategic Retirement, and Incumbent Quality in Us House Elections’. Journal of Politics 72(1):178190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall and Synder Datasets

Link

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 24
Total number of PDF views: 239 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 6th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

How Much of the Incumbency Advantage is Due to Scare-Off?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

How Much of the Incumbency Advantage is Due to Scare-Off?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

How Much of the Incumbency Advantage is Due to Scare-Off?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *