Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T19:33:25.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interest Group Ratings and Regression Inconsistency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Michael C. Herron
Michael C. Herron*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, 601 University Place, Evanston, IL 60208-1006. e-mail: m-herron@northwestern.edu Center for Basic Research in the Social Sciences, Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article uses spatial voting theory to analyze the properties of linear regressions that employ interest group ratings as measures of legislator policy preferences. Such regressions, in general, yield inconsistent results. In particular, least-squares estimation of a bivariate regression which contains an interest group rating as a regressor produces an inflated slope estimate. Instrumenting for the rating with a second rating, as proposed by Brunell et al. (1999), does not fix this problem, and this is because errors in both sets of ratings are correlated. Finally, estimation of a trivariate regression that contains an interest group rating and a party indicator on its right-hand side yields inconsistent slope estimates and, in particular, a party coefficient estimate of unreliable sign. Hence, regressions including both ratings and party indicators are not useful tools in the debate on whether party affiliation has an independent impact on legislator behavior.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , January 2001 , pp. 260 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Binder, Sarah A., Lawrence, Eric D., and Maltzman, Forrest. 1999. “Uncovering the Hidden Effect of Party.” Journal of Politics 61(3): 815–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishin, Benjamin G. 2000. “Constituency Influence in Congress: Does Subconstituency Matter?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25(3): 389–415.Google Scholar
Brunell, Thomas L., Koetzle, William, DiNardo, John, Grofman, Bernard, and Feld, Scott L. 1999. “The R 2 = .93: Where Then Do They Differ? Comparing Liberal and Conservative Interest Group Ratings.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24(1): 87–101.Google Scholar
Dion, Douglas, and Huber, John D. 1997. “Sense and Sensibility: The Role of Rules.” American Journal of Political Science 41(3): 945–957.Google Scholar
Fowler, Linda. 1982. “How Interest Groups Select Issues for Rating Voting Records of Members of the U.S. Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7: 401–413.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. 1997. Econometric Analysis, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.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(1): 33–50.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Grofman, Bernard. 1990. “The Committee Assignment Process and the Conditional Nature of Committee Bias.” American Political Science Review 84(4): 1149–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James L., and Snyder, James M. 1997. “Linear Probability Models of the Demand for Attributes with an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences of Legislators.” RAND Journal of Economics 28: 142–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herron, Michael C. 1999. “Artificial Extremism in Interest Group Ratings and the Preferences versus Party Debate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24(4): 525–542.Google Scholar
Herron, Michael C. 2000. “Cutpoint-Adjusted Interest Group Ratings.” Political Analysis 8(4): 346–366.Google Scholar
Jackson, John E., and Kingdon, John W. 1992. “Ideology, Interest Group Scores, and Legislative Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 36(3): 805–823.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1992. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1994. “Deference, Extremism, and Interest Group Ratings.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19(1): 61–77.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1995. “Cosponsors and Wafflers from A to Z.” American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 906–923.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 2000. “Party Discipline and Measures of Partisanship.” American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 212–227.Google Scholar
Londregan, John. 1999. “Estimating Legislators’ Preferred Points.” Political Analysis 8(1): 35–57.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest. 1997. Competing Principals: Committees, Parties, and the Organization of Congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan M., Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. “The Hunt for Party Discipline in Congress,” Forthcoming, American Political Science Review.Google Scholar
Overby, L. Martin, and Cosgrove, Kenneth M. 1996. “Unintended Consequences? Racial Redistricting and the Representation of Minority Interests.” Journal of Politics 58(2): 540–550.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr., 1992. “Artificial Extremism in Interest Group Ratings.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17(3): 319–345.Google Scholar