Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:22:07.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revisiting Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress, 1947–2007

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Sarah Anderson  and
Philip Habel
Sarah Anderson*
Affiliation:
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management & Department of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Philip Habel
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Mailcode 4501, Carbondale, IL 62901
*
e-mail: sanderson@bren.ucsb.edu (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper replicates and extends Groseclose, Levitt, and Snyder, “Comparing Interest Group Scores Across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress,” which appeared in the American Political Science Review (1999/93:33–50). We replicate the most recent unpublished extension by Dr. Groseclose and research assistants for years 1947–1999, and then we extend the analysis to include years 2000 through 2007. We make available inflation-adjusted ADA scores from 1947 through 2007, allowing scholars to incorporate the most recent interest group scores into their analyses.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , Winter 2009 , pp. 83 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

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.)

Footnotes

Author's Note: Authors are listed alphabetically. The authors wish to thank Tim Groseclose for making available both the nominal ADA scores from 1947 to 1999 and the Matlab program files used in this analysis. SA gratefully acknowledges the support of the Hoover Institution during her time there as the 2006–07 W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow and the Robert Eckles Swain National Fellow. PH wishes to thank both the Dirksen Congressional Center and the National Science Foundation, doctoral dissertation improvement division grant 493469, for their generous support. He also wishes to acknowledge the valuable research assistance of James Lewis, Joshua Mitchell, and Matt Bergbower. Special thanks to J. Tobin Grant, Scott McClurg, and Wendy Tam Cho for their helpful feedback and assistance. All errors are the responsibility of the authors. Replication materials and programs are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

References

Ansolabehere, Stephen, Synder, James M. Jr., and Charles Stewart, III. 2001. “Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections”. American Journal of Political Science 55: 136–59.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael A. 2007. “Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the court, congress and presidency”. American Journal of Political Science 51: 433–48.Google Scholar
Bernhard, William, and Sala, Brian R. 2006. “The remaking of the American Senate: The 17th amendment and ideological responsiveness”. Journal of Politics 68: 345–57.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry, Caldiera, Gregory, and Groseclose, Timothy. 2000. “Measuring the ideologies of U.S. senators: The song remains the same”. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 237–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Butler, Matthew J. 2006. “Splitting the difference: Causal inference and theories of splitparty delegations”. Political Analysis 14: 439–55.Google Scholar
Covington, Cary R., and Bargen, Andrew A. 2004. “Comparing floor-dominated and party-dominated explanations of policy change in the house of representatives”. Journal of Politics 66: 1069–88.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Timothy, Levitt, Steven D., and Snyder, James M. 1999. “Comparing interest group scores across time and chambers: Adjusted ADA score for the U.S. congress”. American Political Science Review 93: 33–50.Google Scholar
Krause, George A. 2000. “Partisan and ideological sources of fiscal deficits in the United States”. American Journal of Political Science 44: 541–59.Google Scholar
Shaffer, William R. 1982. “Party and ideology in the U.S. house of representatives”. Western Political Quarterly 35: 92–106.Google Scholar
Shaffer, William R. 1989. “Rating the performance of the ADA in the U.S. congress”. Western Political Quarterly 42: 33–51.Google Scholar