IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2107.01095.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who Votes for Library Bonds? A Principal Component Exploration

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Jacobson

Abstract

Previous research has shown a relationship between voter characteristics and voter support for tax bonds. These findings, however, are difficult to interpret because of the high degree of collinearity across the measures. From 13 demographic measures of voters in a library bond election, seven independent principal components were extracted which accounted for 95 percent of the variance. Whereas the direct demographic measures showed inconsistent relationships with voting, the principal components of low SES, college experience, female and service job were related to affirmative voting, while high home value was related to negative voting.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Jacobson, 2021. "Who Votes for Library Bonds? A Principal Component Exploration," Papers 2107.01095, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2107.01095
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.01095
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, 2007. "Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 27-52, Spring.
    2. Ian T. Jolliffe, 1982. "A Note on the Use of Principal Components in Regression," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 31(3), pages 300-303, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Daniel I. Tannenbaum, 2020. "The Effect of Child Support on Selection into Marriage and Fertility," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 611-652.
    2. DAVID M. BLAU & WILBERT van der KLAAUW, 2013. "What Determines Family Structure?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 579-604, January.
    3. Guven, Cahit & Senik, Claudia & Stichnoth, Holger, 2012. "You can’t be happier than your wife. Happiness gaps and divorce," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 110-130.
    4. Rania Gihleb & Osnat Lifshitz, 2022. "Dynamic Effects of Educational Assortative Mating on Labor Supply," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 46, pages 302-327, October.
    5. Anne Rathbone Bradley, 2024. "Can Familial Protectionism Save Families from Too Much Economic Freedom?," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 39(Winter 20), pages 43-65.
    6. Miriam Marcén & Marina Morales, 2019. "Live together: does culture matter?," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 671-713, June.
    7. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/38n7438p68vmqd9om4bjj6l4c is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Li, Li & Mak, Eric, 2016. "Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage: The Catalyst Effect of Unilateral Divorce," MPRA Paper 83330, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Ganghua Mei & Lei Yue, 2022. "Labor supply and time use: evidence from cohabiting women in the United States," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(44), pages 5133-5158, September.
    10. Bertocchi, Graziella & Brunetti, Marianna & Torricelli, Costanza, 2011. "Marriage and other risky assets: A portfolio approach," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 2902-2915, November.
    11. Hippolyte d'Albis & Karina Doorley & Elena Stancanelli, 2021. "Older mothers' employment and marriage stability when the nest is empty," PSE Working Papers halshs-03203063, HAL.
    12. Sansone, Dario, 2019. "Pink work: Same-sex marriage, employment and discrimination," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    13. Dennis Shen & Peng Ding & Jasjeet Sekhon & Bin Yu, 2022. "Same Root Different Leaves: Time Series and Cross-Sectional Methods in Panel Data," Papers 2207.14481, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    14. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner & Guillaume Vandenbroucke, 2017. "Family Economics Writ Large," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1346-1434, December.
    15. Greenwood, Jeremy & Guner, Nezih & Santos, Cezar & Kocharakov, Georgi, 2015. "Technology and the Changing Family: A Unified Model of Marriage, Divorce, Educational Attainment and Married Female Labor-Force," CEPR Discussion Papers 10434, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Alena Bicakova & Stepan Jurajda, 2014. "The Quiet Revolution and the Family: Gender Composition of Tertiary Education and Early Fertility Patterns," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp504, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    17. Hero Ashman & Seth Neumuller, 2020. "Can Income Differences Explain the Racial Wealth Gap: A Quantitative Analysis," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 35, pages 220-239, January.
    18. Domenico Tabasso, 2011. "With or Without You: Hazard of Divorce and Intra-household Allocation of Time," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2011n07, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    19. Cavapozzi, Danilo & Francesconi, Marco & Nicoletti, Cheti, 2024. "Dividing Housework between Partners: Individual Preferences and Social Norms," IZA Discussion Papers 17370, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Carlos Moreno-Miranda & Hipatia Palacios & Daniele Rama, 2019. "Small-holders perception of sustainability and chain coordination: evidence from Arriba PDO Cocoa in Western Ecuador," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 8(3), December.
    21. Julen Esteban‐Pretel & Junichi Fujimoto, 2022. "How do marital formation and dissolution differ across employment statuses? Analysis of Japanese non‐regular employees," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(5), pages 425-461, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2107.01095. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.