Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T22:23:37.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incumbency Effects in a Comparative Perspective: Evidence from Brazilian Mayoral Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Leandro De Magalhaes
Leandro De Magalhaes*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TN, UK, e-mail: leandro.demagalhaes@bristol.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

High rerunning rates among incumbents and among the two major parties allow studies of U.S. incumbency advantage to bypass the selection problem of who chooses to rerun. In countries where rerunning is not widespread among individuals or parties, estimation using methods developed for the United States may result in a sample selection bias. In countries with party switching, there may be a disconnect between party and individual estimates. This article proposes a definition of incumbency advantage that is valid for countries that present any of these characteristics and that is valid for cross-country comparison: the effect of incumbency for an individual politician on the unconditional probability of winning. I illustrate the issues raised in this article with evidence from Brazilian mayoral elections.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , Winter 2015 , pp. 113 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2014. 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.)

References

Angrist, J. D., and Pischke, J.-S. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J., and Stewart, C. 2000. Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: Using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage. American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 17–34.Google Scholar
Brambor, T., and Ceneviva, R. 2011. Incumbency advantage in Brazilian mayoral elections. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Brollo, F., and Troiano, U. 2012. What happens when a woman wins a close election? Evidence from Brazil. Working Paper, University of Alicante.Google Scholar
Caughey, D. M., and Sekhon, J. S. 2011. Elections and the regression-discontinuity design: Lessons from U.S. House races, 1942–2008. Political Analysis 19(4): 385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G. W., and Katz, J. N. 1996. Why did the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections grow? American Journal of Political Science 40(2): 478–497.Google Scholar
De Magalhaes, L. 2014. Replication data for: Incumbency effects in a comparative perspective: Evidence from Brazilian mayoral elections. IQSS Dataverse Network: http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/25719 (accessed September 12, 2014).Google Scholar
De Magalhaes, L., and Hirvonen, S. 2014. Incumbency effects on political careers: Evidence from Brazil. Mimeo, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Desposato, S. W. 2006. Parties for rent? Ambition, ideology, and party switching in Brazil's chamber of deputies. American Journal of Political Science 50(1): 62–80.Google Scholar
Diermeier, D., Keane, M., and Merlo, A. 2005. A political model of congressional careers. American Economic Review 95(1): 347–373.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., 1971. The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity 3(3): 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., and Gyourko, J. 2009. Do political parties matter? Evidence from U.S. cities. Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(1): 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, A., and Hall, A. B. 2012. The incumbency advantage is personal: Evidence from regression discontinuity and term limits in state legislatures. Working Paper, Harvard.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., and King, G. 1990. Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science 34(4): 1142–1164.Google Scholar
Gordon, S. C., Huber, G. A., and Landa, D. 2007. Challenger entry and voter learning. American Political Science Review 101(2): 303–320.Google Scholar
Jacobson, G. C. 1987. The marginals never vanished: Incumbency and competition in elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952–82. American Journal of Political Science 31(1): 126–141.Google Scholar
Lee, D. S. 2008. Randomized experiments from non-random selection in U.S. House elections. Journal of Econometrics 142:675–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leoni, E., Pereira, C., and Rennó, L. 2004. Political survival strategies: Political career decisions in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. Journal of Latin America Studies 36:109–130.Google Scholar
Levitt, S. D., and Wolfram, C. D. 1997. Decomposing the sources of incumbency advantage in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22(1): 45–60.Google Scholar
Linden, L. L. 2004. Are incumbents advantaged? The preference for non-incumbents in Indian national elections. MIT Working Paper.Google Scholar
Mayhew, D. R. 1974. Congresssional elections: The case of the vanishing marginals. Polity 6(3): 295–317.Google Scholar
Morgan, S. L., and Winship, C. 2007. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rubin, D. B. 2005. Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 100(469): 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, D. J. 2003. Ambition, Federalism, and Legislative Politics in Brazil. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sekhon, J. S., and Titiunik, R. 2012. When natural experiments are neither natural nor experiments. American Political Science Review 106(1): 35–57.Google Scholar
Titiunik, R. 2009. Incumbency advantage in Brazil: Evidence from municipal mayor elections. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Uppal, Y. 2008. The disadvantaged incumbents: estimating incumbency effects in Indian state legislatures. Public Choice 138(1–2): 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar