IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/10748.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why Do Incumbent Senators Win? Evidence from a Dynamic Selection Model

Author

Listed:
  • Gautam Gowrisankaran
  • Matthew F. Mitchell
  • Andrea Moro

Abstract

Since 1914, incumbent U.S. senators running for reelection have won almost 80% of the time. We investigate why incumbents win so often. We allow for three potential explanations for the incumbency advantage: selection, tenure, and challenger quality, which are separately identified using histories of election outcomes following an open seat election. We specify a dynamic model of voter behavior that allows for these three effects, and structurally estimate the parameters of the model using U.S. Senate data. We find that tenure effects are negative or small. We also find that incumbents face weaker challengers than candidates running for open seats. If incumbents faced challengers as strong as candidates for open seats, the incumbency advantage would be cut in half.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:10748
    Note: PE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10748.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Keane, Michael P & Wolpin, Kenneth I, 1997. "The Career Decisions of Young Men," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(3), pages 473-522, June.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Thierry Magnac & David Thesmar, 2002. "Identifying Dynamic Discrete Decision Processes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 801-816, March.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. Luciana Moscoso Boedo, 2010. "Who Runs Against the Incumbent? Candidate Entry Decisions," Working Papers DTE 494, CIDE, División de Economía.
    2. 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.
    3. Enriqueta Aragonès & Santiago Sánchez-Pagés, 2010. "The disadvantage of winning an election," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 811.10, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    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, 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.
    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. 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.
    4. Heckman, James J. & Navarro, Salvador, 2007. "Dynamic discrete choice and dynamic treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 341-396, February.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Christian Belzil, 2008. "Testing the Specification of the Mincer Wage Equation," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 91-92, pages 427-451.
    13. Peter Arcidiacono & Holger Sieg & Frank Sloan, 2007. "Living Rationally Under The Volcano? An Empirical Analysis Of Heavy Drinking And Smoking," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(1), pages 37-65, February.
    14. Kalouptsidi, Myrto & Scott, Paul & Souza-Rodrigues, Edouardo, 2015. "Identification of Counterfactuals and Payoffs in Dynamic Discrete Choice with an Application to Land Use," TSE Working Papers 15-596, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    15. Christian Belzil & Jörgen Hansen, 2004. "Earnings Dispersion, Risk Aversion And Education," Research in Labor Economics, in: Accounting for Worker Well-Being, pages 335-358, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    16. Patrick Bajari & C. Lanier Benkard & Jonathan Levin, 2007. "Estimating Dynamic Models of Imperfect Competition," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(5), pages 1331-1370, September.
    17. Belzil, Christian & Hansen, Jorgen, 2007. "A structural analysis of the correlated random coefficient wage regression model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 827-848, October.
    18. Mario Fiorini, 2012. "Fostering Educational Enrolment Through Subsidies: The Issue Of Timing," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 741-772, August.
    19. Gautam Gowrisankaran & Marc Rysman, 2012. "Dynamics of Consumer Demand for New Durable Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 120(6), pages 1173-1219.
    20. Mingliang Li, 2006. "High school completion and future youth unemployment: new evidence from High School and Beyond," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 23-53, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H1 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • J2 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor
    • C5 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling

    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:nbr:nberwo:10748. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.