Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T21:13:01.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Copula Approach to the Problem of Selection Bias in Models of Government Survival

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Daina Chiba ,
Lanny W. Martin  and
Randolph T. Stevenson
Daina Chiba
Affiliation:
Department of Government, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom, e-mail: dchiba@essex.ac.uk
Lanny W. Martin*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Rice University, 6100 Main St, MS 24, Houston TX 77005
Randolph T. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Rice University, 6100 Main St, MS 24, Houston TX 77005, e-mail: stevenso@rice.edu
*
e-mail: lmartin@rice.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Theories of coalition politics in parliamentary democracies have suggested that government formation and survival are jointly determined outcomes. An important empirical implication of these theories is that the sample of observed governments analyzed in studies of government survival may be nonrandomly selected from the population of potential governments. This can lead to serious inferential problems. Unfortunately, current empirical models of government survival are unable to account for the possible biases arising from nonrandom selection. In this study, we use a copula-based framework to assess, and correct for, the dependence between the processes of government formation and survival. Our results suggest that existing studies of government survival, by ignoring the selection problem, overstate the substantive importance of several covariates commonly included in empirical models.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , Winter 2015 , pp. 42 - 58
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.)

Footnotes

Authors' note: Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis web site. Replication files are available on the Political Analysis Dataverse at http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/26966.

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1986. The statistical analysis of quasi-experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bäck, Hanna, and Dumont, Patrick. 2007. Combining large-N and small-n strategies: The way forward in coalition research. West European Politics 30(3): 467–501.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J., Morey, Daniel S., and Shannon, Megan. 2006. Selection bias and continuous-time duration models: Consequences and a proposed solution. American Journal of Political Science 50(1): 192–207.Google Scholar
Bourguignon, François, and Fournier, Martin. 2007. Selection bias corrections based on the multinomial logit model: Monte Carlo comparisons. Journal of Economic Surveys 21(1): 174–205.Google Scholar
Browne, Eric C., Frendreis, John P., and Gleiber, Dennis W. 1984. An ‘events’ approach to the problem of cabinet stability. Comparative Political Studies 17:167–97.Google Scholar
Cann, Damon M. 2008. Modeling committee chair selection in the U.S. House of Representatives. Political Analysis 16(3): 274–89.Google Scholar
Cunningham, David E. 2011. Barriers to peace in civil war. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Swaan, Abram. 1973. Coalition theories and cabinet formations: A study of formal theories of coalition formation applied to nine European parliaments after 1918. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel. 2006. Coalition government. In The Oxford handbook of political economy, eds. Weingast, Barry R. and Wittman, A., 162–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, Eraslan, Hülya, and Merlo, Antonio. 2003. A structural model of government formation. Econometrica 71(1): 27–70.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, and Stevenson, Randolph T. 2000. Cabinet terminations and critical events. American Political Science Review 94(3): 627–40.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, and Stevenson, Randy T. 1999. Cabinet survival and competing risks. American Journal of Political Science 43(4): 1051–68.Google Scholar
Dubin, Jeffrey A., and Rivers, Douglas. 1989. Selection bias in linear regression, logit and probit models. Sociological Methods and Research 18(2): 360–90.Google Scholar
Gordon, Sanford C. 2002. Stochastic dependence in competing risks. American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 200–217.Google Scholar
Heberlig, Eric S. 2003. Congressional parties, fundraising, and committee ambition. Political Research Quarterly 56(2): 151–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1976. The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5(4): 475–92.Google Scholar
Indridason, Indridi H. 2008. Does terrorism influence domestic politics? Coalition formation and terrorist incidents. Journal of Peace Research 45(2): 241–59.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonathan N., and Sala, Brian R. 1996. Careerism, committee assignments, and the electoral connection. American Political Science Review 90(1): 21–33.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Alt, James E., Burns, Nancy E., and Laver, Michael. 1990. A unified model of cabinet dissolution in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 34(3): 846–71.Google Scholar
Laakso, Markku, and Taagepera, Rein. 1979. Effective number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12(3): 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, M. J., and Budge, Ian. 1992. Party policy and government coalitions. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1996. Making and breaking governments: Cabinets and legislatures in parliamentary democracies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Schofield, Norman. 1990. Multiparty government: The politics of coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Strom, Kaare. 1995. Coalition termination and the strategic timing of parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review 89(3): 648–65.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Stevenson, Randolph T. 2001. Government formation in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 33–50.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Stevenson, Randolph T. 2010. The conditional impact of incumbency on government formation. American Political Science Review 104(3):503–18.Google Scholar
McFadden, Daniel L. 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. Zarembka, P. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 1982. Contemporary democracies: Participation, stability, and violence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Prieger, James E. 2002. A flexible parametric selection model for non-normal data with application to health care usage. Journal of Applied Econometrics 17(4): 367–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Anne E. 2003. An estimator for some binary-outcome selection models without exclusion restrictions. Political Analysis 11(2): 111–38.Google Scholar
Sklar, A. 1959. Fonctions de Répartition à n Dimensions et Leurs Marges. Publications de l'Institut de Statistique de L’Université de Paris 8:229–31.Google Scholar
Trivedi, Pravin K., and Zimmer, David M. 2005. Copula modeling: An introduction for practitioners. Boston, MA: Now Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Warwick, Paul. 1979. The durability of coalition governments in parliamentary democracies. Comparative Political Studies 11(4): 465–98.Google Scholar
Warwick, Paul. 1992. Economic trends and government survival in West European parliamentary democracies. American Political Science Review 86(4): 875–87.Google Scholar
Warwick, Paul. 1994. Government survival in parliamentary democracies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Warwick, Paul. 2005. When far apart becomes too far apart: Evidence for a threshold effect in coalition formation. British Journal of Political Science 35(3): 383–401.Google Scholar
Warwick, Paul. 2006. Policy horizons and parliamentary government. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Chiba et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Chiba et al. supplementary material(File)
File 138.8 KB