IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/red/issued/06-91.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Electoral Design and Voter Welfare from the U.S. Senate: Evidence from a Dynamic Selection Model

Author

Listed:
  • Gautam Gowrisankaran

    (University of Arizona)

  • Matthew F. Mitchell

    (University of Toronto)

  • Andrea Moro

    (Federal Reserve Bank of New York)

Abstract

Since 1914, the U.S. Senate has been elected and incumbent senators allowed to run for reelection without limit. This differs from several other elected offices in the U.S., which impose term limits on incumbents. Term limits may harm the electorate if tenure is beneficial or if they force high quality candidates to retire but may also benefit the electorate if they cause higher quality candidates to run. We investigate how changes in electoral design affect voter utility by specifying and structurally estimating a dynamic model of voter decisions. We find that tenure effects for the U.S. Senate are negative or small and that incumbents face weaker challengers than candidates running for open seats. Because of this, term limits can significantly increase voter welfare. (Copyright: Elsevier)

Suggested Citation

  • Gautam Gowrisankaran & Matthew F. Mitchell & Andrea Moro, 2008. "Electoral Design and Voter Welfare from the U.S. Senate: Evidence from a Dynamic Selection Model," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:red:issued:06-91
    DOI: 10.1016/j.red.2007.04.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.red.2007.04.005
    Download Restriction: Access to full texts is restricted to ScienceDirect subscribers and institutional members. See http://www.sciencedirect.com/ for details.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.red.2007.04.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rust, John, 1987. "Optimal Replacement of GMC Bus Engines: An Empirical Model of Harold Zurcher," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(5), pages 999-1033, September.
    2. Daniel Diermeier & Michael Keane & Antonio Merlo, 2005. "A Political Economy Model of Congressional Careers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 347-373, March.
    3. Thierry Magnac & David Thesmar, 2002. "Identifying Dynamic Discrete Decision Processes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 801-816, March.
    4. Smart, Michael & Sturm, Daniel M., 2013. "Term limits and electoral accountability," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 93-102.
    5. Matthew F. Mitchell, 2000. "The Scope and Organization of Production: Firm Dynamics Over the Learning Curve," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(1), pages 180-205, Spring.
    6. Heckman, James & Singer, Burton, 1984. "A Method for Minimizing the Impact of Distributional Assumptions in Econometric Models for Duration Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(2), pages 271-320, March.
    7. Gautam Gowrisankaran & Matthew F. Mitchell & Andrea Moro, 2004. "Why Do Incumbent Senators Win? Evidence from a Dynamic Selection Model," NBER Working Papers 10748, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Goffe, William L & Ferrier, Gary D & Rogers, John, 1992. "Simulated Annealing: An Initial Application in Econometrics," Computer Science in Economics & Management, Kluwer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 5(2), pages 133-146, May.
    9. David S. Lee, 2001. "The Electoral Advantage to Incumbency and Voters' Valuation of Politicians' Experience: A Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Elections to the U.S..," NBER Working Papers 8441, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Larry Samuelson, 1987. "A test of the revealed-preference phenomenon in congressional elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 141-169, January.
    11. Berry, William D. & Berkman, Michael B. & Schneiderman, Stuart, 2000. "Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(4), pages 859-874, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel J. Smith & George R. Crowley & J. Sebastian Leguizamon, 2021. "Long live the doge? Death as a term limit on Venetian chief executives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 188(3), pages 333-359, September.
    2. Jason Matthew DeBacker, 2015. "Flip‐Flopping: Ideological Adjustment Costs In The United States Senate," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(1), pages 108-128, January.
    3. Enriqueta Aragonès & Santiago Sánchez-Pagés, 2014. "Incumbency (dis)advantage when citizens can propose Abstract:This paper analyses the problem that an incumbent faces during the legislature when deciding how to react to citizen proposals such as the ," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2014/314, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
    4. Dylan Brewer & Alyssa Carlson, 2024. "Addressing sample selection bias for machine learning methods," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 383-400, April.
    5. DeBacker, Jason, 2011. "The price of pork: The seniority trap in the U.S. House," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(1-2), pages 63-78, February.
    6. Ivan Pastine & Tuvana Pastine & Paul Redmond, 2012. "Incumbent-Quality Advantage and Counterfactual Electoral Stagnation in the U.S. Senate," Working Papers 201218, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    7. Bombardini, Matilde & Trebbi, Francesco, 2011. "Votes or money? Theory and evidence from the US Congress," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 587-611, August.
    8. S. Borağan Aruoba & Allan Drazen & Razvan Vlaicu, 2019. "A Structural Model Of Electoral Accountability," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 60(2), pages 517-545, May.
    9. Jason DeBacker, 2012. "Political parties and political shirking," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 651-670, March.
    10. Edward Wesep, 2012. "Defensive Politics," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 425-444, June.
    11. Holger Sieg & Chamna Yoon, 2017. "Estimating Dynamic Games of Electoral Competition to Evaluate Term Limits in US Gubernatorial Elections," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(7), pages 1824-1857, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gautam Gowrisankaran & Matthew F. Mitchell & Andrea Moro, 2004. "Why Do Incumbent Senators Win? Evidence from a Dynamic Selection Model," NBER Working Papers 10748, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Aguirregabiria, Victor & Mira, Pedro, 2010. "Dynamic discrete choice structural models: A survey," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(1), pages 38-67, May.
    3. Hiroyuki Kasahara & Katsumi Shimotsu, 2006. "Nonparametric Identification And Estimation Of Finite Mixture Models Of Dynamic Discrete Choices," Working Paper 1092, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    4. Kemptner, Daniel & Tolan, Songül, 2018. "The role of time preferences in educational decision making," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 25-39.
    5. Heckman, James J. & Navarro, Salvador, 2007. "Dynamic discrete choice and dynamic treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 341-396, February.
    6. Patrick Bajari & Chenghuan Sean Chu & Denis Nekipelov & Minjung Park, 2013. "A Dynamic Model of Subprime Mortgage Default: Estimation and Policy Implications," NBER Working Papers 18850, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Marc K. Chan, 2017. "Welfare Dependence and Self-Control: An Empirical Analysis," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(4), pages 1379-1423.
    8. DeBacker, Jason, 2011. "The price of pork: The seniority trap in the U.S. House," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(1-2), pages 63-78, February.
    9. Yu Zheng & Juan Pantano, 2012. "Using Subjective Expectations Data to Allow for Unobserved Heterogeneity in Hotz-Miller Estimation Strategies," 2012 Meeting Papers 940, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    10. Steven T Berry & Giovanni Compiani, 2023. "An Instrumental Variable Approach to Dynamic Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(4), pages 1724-1758.
    11. Shunyuan Zhang & Param Vir Singh & Anindya Ghose, 2019. "A Structural Analysis of the Role of Superstars in Crowdsourcing Contests," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 15-33, March.
    12. Michelle Sheran Sylvester, 2007. "The Career and Family Choices of Women: A Dynamic Analysis of Labor Force Participation, Schooling, Marriage and Fertility Decisions," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 10(3), pages 367-399, July.
    13. Jeremy T. Fox, 2010. "Estimating the Employer Switching Costs and Wage Responses of Forward-Looking Engineers," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(2), pages 357-412, April.
    14. Joao Macieira, 2010. "Oblivious Equilibrium in Dynamic Discrete Games," 2010 Meeting Papers 680, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    15. Yingyao Hu & Yi Xin, 2019. "Identi?cation and estimation of dynamic structural models with unobserved choices," CeMMAP working papers CWP35/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    16. John Patty & Roberto Weber, 2007. "Letting the good times roll: A theory of voter inference and experimental evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 293-310, March.
    17. Chul Kim & P. K. Kannan & Michael Trusov & Andrea Ordanini, 2020. "Modeling Dynamics in Crowdfunding," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 339-365, March.
    18. Aguirregabiria, Victor & Gu, Jiaying & Luo, Yao, 2021. "Sufficient statistics for unobserved heterogeneity in structural dynamic logit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 280-311.
    19. Daniel Diermeier & Michael Keane & Antonio Merlo, 2005. "A Political Economy Model of Congressional Careers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 347-373, March.
    20. Andrew Ching & Susumu Imai & Masakazu Ishihara & Neelam Jain, 2012. "A practitioner’s guide to Bayesian estimation of discrete choice dynamic programming models," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 151-196, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Term limits; Incumbency advantage; Elections; Selection; Tenure; Senate;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:red:issued:06-91. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christian Zimmermann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sedddea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.