30 Apr
2007
30 Apr
'07
10:43 p.m.
Thanks in advance!
Best,
Miya and Porsha
----------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Does Descriptive Representation Alienate Black Conservatives? The
Differential Effect of Ideology on Black Turnout
Abstract: In response to inconclusive research on descriptive representation
and African American turnout, Griffen and Keane (2006) examine how
ideological orientation conditions the effect of descriptive representation
on turnout. They find that while descriptive representation mobilizes
liberal African Americans it depresses turnout among conservative blacks. A
replication of Griffen's and Keane's analysis and simulations reflecting
uncertainty about African American liberal and conservative voting
propensities reveals that ideology *does not* condition the effect of
descriptive representation on conservative black turnout. Conservative
blacks are *no less likely* to participate when represented by African
American members of congress. These findings counter Griffen's and Keane's
claim that descriptive representation increases the political alienation of
conservative blacks.
--
K. Miya Woolfalk
Graduate Student
Harvard University
Government and Social Policy
1 May
1 May
1:31 a.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] Coe/Garrett abstract
Is Civil War Really Contagious?
Salehyan and Gleditsch?s recent article ?Refugees and the Spread of Civil
War?
(2006) provides empirical evidence for two claims. First, the presence of
refugees from neighboring countries increases the host country?s likelihood
of
civil war. Second, the presence of civil war in any of a country?s
neighbors
increases its own likelihood of civil war. The authors? analysis is based
on a
partial subset of their data, with many cases dropped due to missing values.
This data also draws from an expanded dataset of income and population
figures,
derived from a single-imputation technique described in Gleditsch?s
?Expanded
Trade and GDP Data, 1946-1992? (2002). We replicate this analysis using
multiple-imputation to eliminate bias and better reflect the uncertainty in
the
missing values. We find that, at conventional levels of statistical
significance, neither of the original article?s claims is supported by the
data.
10:15 a.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] Coe/Garrett abstract
nicely done. the only thing i'd do is to get you to focus on whether you
have a different _substantive_ finding. i.e., do you want people in this
substantive literature to think about civil war differently? or are you
(merely) saying that there isn't enough evidence to support S&G's claims?
the latter may be all you can do, but the former is what its all about.
Gary
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Andrew Coe wrote:
Is Civil War Really Contagious?
Salehyan and Gleditsch?s recent article ?Refugees and the Spread of Civil
War?
(2006) provides empirical evidence for two claims. First, the presence of
refugees from neighboring countries increases the host country?s likelihood
of
civil war. Second, the presence of civil war in any of a country?s
neighbors
increases its own likelihood of civil war. The authors? analysis is based
on a
partial subset of their data, with many cases dropped due to missing values.
This data also draws from an expanded dataset of income and population
figures,
derived from a single-imputation technique described in Gleditsch?s
?Expanded
Trade and GDP Data, 1946-1992? (2002). We replicate this analysis using
multiple-imputation to eliminate bias and better reflect the uncertainty in
the
missing values. We find that, at conventional levels of statistical
significance, neither of the original article?s claims is supported by the
data.
8:08 p.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] Boysielal/ Harris/ Mastrangelo Abstract
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/private/gov2001-l/attachments/20070501…
2 May
2 May
7:37 a.m.
New subject: [gov2001-l] Boysielal/ Harris/ Mastrangelo Abstract
makes a very clear claim. very nice.
also comment, if you have evidence, on the actual effect you're
studying or what evidence would be necessary to study it if you don't have
it in the data.
slight comment below..
Gary
On Tue, 1 May 2007, mastrangelo, paolo wrote:
Thank you all in advance for comments and suggestions!
~~
Do constitutions /really/ cause large governments?: ``quasi-experimental"
evidence using reasonable counterfactuals.
We show that the estimated effects of proportional elections and
presidential regimes on size of government presented in Persson and
Tabellini (2002) result from model dependence. In addition, we highlight
i think you mean 'are model dependent' or are dependent on assumptions
that are not justifiable or equally valid assumptions lead to different
results
the problem of post-treatment bias in their analysis.
We document the
fragility of their matching estimates by estimating a range of propensity
scores, and improve their empirical strategy in three ways, using only
the data in their original analysis. First, we reduce post-treatment bias
by analyzing the data only using covariates plausibly unaffected by the
treatment. Second, we employ alternative matching algorithms to achieve
balance. Third, we estimate treatment effects only for those
counterfactuals that can be addressed given the data. Our estimates of
the effects of individual constitutional rules on the size of government
are substantially different than those in the original paper. Moreover,
we find no evidence of any joint additive effect of electoral and
political systems on size of government.
1 May
1 May
10:13 a.m.
ok, so you have a clear result here, which is great.
but how is it that you come to this result? you imply that all you did
was to replicate G&K and got the opposite results. but maybe you did
more. you should clarify. otherwise people will think that you're making
an accusation of fraud or mistakes or something else you may not mean.
also, you can probably shorten the abstract by cutting much of the throat
clearing at the start.
Gary
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Miya Woolfalk wrote:
Thanks in advance!
Best,
Miya and Porsha
----------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Does Descriptive Representation Alienate Black Conservatives? The
Differential Effect of Ideology on Black Turnout
Abstract: In response to inconclusive research on descriptive representation
and African American turnout, Griffen and Keane (2006) examine how
ideological orientation conditions the effect of descriptive representation
on turnout. They find that while descriptive representation mobilizes
liberal African Americans it depresses turnout among conservative blacks. A
replication of Griffen's and Keane's analysis and simulations reflecting
uncertainty about African American liberal and conservative voting
propensities reveals that ideology *does not* condition the effect of
descriptive representation on conservative black turnout. Conservative
blacks are *no less likely* to participate when represented by African
American members of congress. These findings counter Griffen's and Keane's
claim that descriptive representation increases the political alienation of
conservative blacks.
6226
days inactive
6227
days old
gov2001@lists.gking.harvard.edu
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
acoe＠fas.harvard.edu -
king＠harvard.edu -
paolo.mastrangelo＠ncf.edu -
woolfalk＠fas.harvard.edu