Estimation of the Incumbency Effects in the US State Legislatures: A Quasi-Experimental Approach

Uppal, Yogesh (2008): Estimation of the Incumbency Effects in the US State Legislatures: A Quasi-Experimental Approach.

Abstract

This paper estimates the incumbency effects in the legislative elections of 45 states in the US during the period 1968-89. I improve upon the existing measures of incumbency by using a quasi-experimental research design that isolates the effect due to incumbency from other contemporaneous factors such as candidate quality. I find that incumbency bestows a significant advantage on incumbents compared with their challengers. The incumbent candidates are about 30 percentage points more likely to win the next election and win 5.3 percentage point more votes than the challengers. However, the advantage is not as large as estimated from the previous methods.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Incumbency; Elections; Regression Discontinuity
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C23 - Panel Data Models ; Spatio-temporal Models; H - Public Economics > H7 - State and Local Government ; Intergovernmental Relations; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables

References

Alford, J. R., and J. R. Hibbing (1981). ”Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House.”, Journal of Politics, 43(4), 1042-61.

Ansolabehere, S., and J. Snyder (2002). ”Using Term Limits to Estimate Incumbency Advantages When Officeholders Retire Strategically.”, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39(4),487-515.

Berry,W. J., M. B. Berkman, and S. Schniederman (2000). ”Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries.”, American Political Science Review, 82(1), 133-54.

Berry, W. D., and T. M. Carsey. (2004). Revised Candidate-Level State Legislative Returns with Adjusted Candidate Names, 1968-1989 [Computer file]. ICPSR03938-v1. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University [producer], Ann Arbor, MI; Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].

Breaux, D. (1990). ”Specifying the Impact of Incumbency on State Legislative Elections: A District-level Analysis.”, American Politics Quarterly, 18(3), 270-86.

Carey, J. M., R. G. Niemi, and L. J. Powell (2000). ”Incumbency and Probability of Reelection in State Legislative Elections.”, Journal of Politics, 62(3),671-700.

Cover, A. D. (1977). ”One Good Term Deserves Another: The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections.”, American Journal of Political Science, 21(3), 523-541.

Cover, A. D., and D. R. Mayhew (1977). ”Congressional Dynamics and the Decline of Competitive Congressional Elections”, In Congress Reconsidered, ed. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, New York, Praeger.

Cox, G. W., and S. Mogenstern (1993). ”The Increasing Advantage in the US States.”, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 18(4), 495-511. 18

Cox, G. W., and S. Mogenstern (1995). ”The Incumbency Advantage in the Multimember Districts: Evidence from the U.S. States.”, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20(3), 329-349.

Gelman, A., and G. King (1990). ”Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias.”, American Journal of Political Science, 34(4), 1142-1164.

Hahn, J., P. Todd and W. Van Der Klaauw (2001). ”Identification and Estimation of Treatment Effects with a Regression-Discontinuity Design.”, Econometrica, 69(1), 201- 209.

Holbrook, T. M., and C. M. Tidmarch (1991). ”Sophomore Surge in State Legislative Elections, 1968-1986.”, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 16(1), 49-63.

Jacobson, G. C. (1978). ”The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections.”, American Political Science Review, 72(2), 469-91.

Jacobson, G. C. (1980). Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.

Jacobson, G. C. (1985). ”Money and Votes Reconsidered: Congressional Elections, 1972-1982.”, Public Choice, 47, 7-62.

Jacobson, G. C. (1987). ”The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the U. S. House of Representatives.”, American Journal of Political Science, 31(1), 126-141.

Jewell, M., and D. Breaux (1988). ”The Effect of Incumbency on State Legislative Elections.”, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 13(4), 495-514.

Lee, D (2008). ”Randomized Experiments from Non-random Selection in U.S. House Elections.”, Journal of Econometrics, 142, 675-97.

Lee, D., E. Moretti, and M. Butler (2004). ”Do Voters Affect or Elect Policies? Evidence from the U.S. House.”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 807-59.

Levitt, S. D. (1994). ”Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the United States House.”, Journal of Political Economy, 102(4), 777-798.

Levitt, S. D., and C. D. Wolfram (1997). ”Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House.”, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22,(1), 45-60.

Thistlethwaite, D. L., and D. T. Campbell (1960). ”Regression Discontinuity Analysis: An alternative to the ex post facto experiment.”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 309-17.