Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:05:10.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing Interest Group Scores across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Tim Groseclose ,
Steven D. Levitt  and
James M. Snyder Jr.
Tim Groseclose
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Steven D. Levitt
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
James M. Snyder Jr.
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interest group ratings are widely used in studies of legislative behavior. Since the set of votes used is not constant over time and across chambers, the scales underlying the scores can shift and stretch. We introduce an econometric model that corrects the problem. Specifically, we derive an index, much like an inflation index for consumer prices, that allows one to make intertemporal and interchamber comparisons of interest group ratings. The adjusted scores for the ADA show a strong liberal trend in the average member of Congress during 1947–94, followed by a conservative reversal. A nonparametric test using ADA and ACU scores demonstrates the validity of adjusted scores and the invalidity of nominal scores for intertemporal and interchamber comparisons. Using two studies (Levitt 1996; Shipan and Lowry 1997) we illustrate that the choice of adjusted versus nominal scores may greatly affect substantive conclusions of researchers.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 93 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 33 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1999

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

REFERENCES

Aldrich, John, and McKelvey, Richard. 1977. “A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Elections.” American Political Science Review 71(03):111–30.Google Scholar
Asher, Herbert. 1973. “The Learning of Legislative Norms.” American Political Science Review 67(06):499–513.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1988. “Measuring Policy Change in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82(09):905–12.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, M. Daniel, and Ingberman, Daniel E.. 1985. “Candidate Reputations and the ‘Incumbency Effect.’ ” Journal of Public Economics 27(06):47–67. Google Scholar
Brady, David, and Sinclair, Barbara. 1984. “Building Majorities for Policy Changes in the House of Representatives.” Journal of Politics 46(11):1033–60.Google Scholar
Campbell, Donald T., and Fiske, Donald W.. 1959. “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix.” Psychological Bulletin 56(03):81–105.Google Scholar
Clausen, Aage. 1967. “Measurement Identity in the Longitudinal Analysis of Legislative Voting.” American Political Science Review 61(12):1020–35.Google Scholar
Clausen, Aage. 1973. How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Clausen, Aage, and Cheney, Richard. 1970. “A Comparative Analysis of Senate House Voting on Economic and Welfare Policy: 1953–1964.” American Political Science Review 64(03):138–52.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Mathew. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Hoekstra, Valerie, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1995. “Do Sincere Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” Washington University in St. Louis. Typescript.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John, and Shipan, Charles. 1990. “Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6(special issue):1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Linda L. 1982. “How Interest Groups Select Issues for Rating Voting Records of Members of the U.S. Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7(08):401–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gely, Rafael, and Spiller, Pablo. 1990. “A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court Statutory Decisions with Applications to the State Farm and Grove City Cases.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6(Fall):263–300.Google Scholar
Glazer, Amihai, and Robbins, Marc. 1985. “Congressional Responsiveness to Constituency Change.” American Journal of Political Science 29(05):259–73.Google Scholar
Grier, Kevin. 1991. “Congressional Influence on U.S. Monetary Policy: An Empirical Test.” Journal of Monetary Economics 28(10):201–20.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim. 1994. “Testing Committee Composition Hypotheses for the U.S. Congress.” Journal of Politics 56(05):440–58.Google Scholar
Heckman, James, and Snyder, James. 1997. “Linear Probability Models of the Demand for Attributes with an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences of Legislators.” Rand Journal of Economics 28(special issue):s142–89.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and McCubbins, Mathew. 1988. “Presidential Influence in the Appropriations Process.” American Journal of Political Science 32(08):713–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klepper, Steven. 1988a. “Regressor Diagnostics for the Classical Errors-in-Variables Model.” Journal of Econometrics 37(02): 225–50.Google Scholar
Klepper, Steven. 1988b. “Bounding the Effects of Measurement Error in Regressions Involving Dichotomous Variables.” Journal of Econometrics 37(03):343–59.Google Scholar
Koford, Ken. 1989. “Dimensions in Congresional Voting.” American Political Science Review 83(09):949–62.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1996. “Institutional and Partisan Sources of Gridlock: A Theory of Divided and Unified Government.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 8(01):7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladha, Krishna K. 1991. “A Spatial Model of Legislative Voting with Perceptual Error.” Public Choice 68(01):151–74.Google Scholar
Levitt, Steven D. 1996. “How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voter Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senator Ideology.” American Economic Review 86(06):425–41.Google Scholar
Londregan, John. 1996. “Estimating Preferred Points in Small Legislatures: Why We Can't Remain Agnostic.” University of California, Los Angeles. Typescript.Google Scholar
Lott, John, and Bronars, Stephen. 1993. “Time Series Evidence on Shirking in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Public Choice 76(06):125–49.Google Scholar
Mycoff, Jason. 1998. “Party Voting and ACU Scores.” Ohio State University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry. 1985. “Control and Feedback in Economic Regulation: The Case of the NLRB.” American Political Science Review 79(12):1094–116.Google Scholar
Poguntke, Thomas. 1993. Alternative Politics: The German Green Party. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith. 1996. “Recovering a Basic Space from a Set of Issue Scales.” Carnegie Mellon University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Daniels, R. Steven. 1985. “Ideology, Party, and Voting in the U.S. Congress, 1959–1980. American Political Science Review 79(06):373–99.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1984. “The Polarization of American Politics.” Journal of Politics 46(11):1061–79.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1985a. “A Spatial Model for Legislative Roll Call Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 29(05):357–84.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1985b. “The Unidimensional Congress, 1919–84.” Carnegie Mellon University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1991. “Patterns of Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 35(02): 228–78.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reed, W. Robert, and Schansberg, D. Eric. 1993. “Is There a ‘Culture of Spending’ in Congress?” University of Oklahoma. Typescript.Google Scholar
Ripley, Randall. 1969. Power in the Senate. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1979. “Risk-Bearing and Progressive Ambition: The Case of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science 23(02):1–26.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 1997. “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts.” American Political Science Review 91(03):28–44.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cover, Albert D.. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83(06):557–65.Google Scholar
Shaffer, William R. 1987. “Ideological Trends among Southern U.S. Democratic Senators: Race, Generation and Political Climate.” American Politics Quarterly 15(07):299–324.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1987. “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.” American Political Science Review 81(03):85–104.Google Scholar
Shipan, Charles, and Lowry, William. 1997. “Congress and the Environment. A Longitudinal Analysis.” University of Iowa. Typescript.Google Scholar
Snyder, James. 1992. “Committee Power, Structure-Induced Equilibrium, and Roll Call Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 36(02):1–30.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 1979. Supreme Court Policy Making: Explanations and Prediction. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Spiller, Pablo, and Gely, Rafael. 1992. “Congressional Control or Judicial Independence: The Determinants of U.S. Supreme Court Labor Decisions, 1949–1988.” Rand Journal of Economics 23(Winter):463–92.Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J. 1980. “The Dynamics of Constituency.” American Politics Quarterly 8(10):399–424.Google Scholar
Tate, C. Neal. 1981. “Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1946–1978.” American Political Science Review 75(06):355–67.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry, and Moran, Mark J.. 1983. “Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policy Making by the Federal Trade Commission.” Journal of Political Economy 91(10):765–800.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Clyde, and Clausen, Aage. 1991. “The Dimensionality of Roll-Call Voting Reconsidered.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16(08):393–406.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.