IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/mpifgw/037.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Augäpfel, Murmeltiere und Bayes: Zur Auswertung stochastischer Daten aus Vollerhebungen

Author

Listed:
  • Broscheid, Andreas
  • Gschwend, Thomas

Abstract

In diesem Papier diskutieren wir theoretisch-methodologische Grundlagen zur Analyse so genannter Vollerhebungen, also Datensätze, die Beobachtungen aller Elemente einer Population enthalten. Solche Datensätze spielen vor allem in quantitativen Makro-Analysen politischer und sozialer Systeme eine Rolle, und ihre inhärenten Probleme führen oft zu methodischer Verwirrung, die wir mit dem vorliegenden Essay verringern wollen. Da Vollerhebungen nicht das Resultat einer Zufallsstichprobe sind, ist die Anwendung frequentistischer Wahrscheinlichkeitskonzeptionen zur Begründung inferentieller statistischer Methoden nicht gegeben; außerdem kann die statistische Unabhängigkeit der Beobachtungen voneinander nicht ohne weiteres angenommen werden. Dennoch werden Vollerhebungsdaten durch stochastische Komponenten oder 'Fehler' beeinflusst. Wir argumentieren, dass die Stochastizität der Daten in die Analyse einbezogen werden muss, etwa in Form von Parameter-Varianzen, Signifikanztests, oder Konfidenzintervallen. Wir diskutieren verschiedene theoretische Strategien, mit denen Analysen der Stochastizität begründet werden können, wobei wir vor allem für die Annahme von Superpopulationen oder die Anwendung bayesianischer Ansätze plädieren.

Suggested Citation

  • Broscheid, Andreas & Gschwend, Thomas, 2003. "Augäpfel, Murmeltiere und Bayes: Zur Auswertung stochastischer Daten aus Vollerhebungen," MPIfG Working Paper 03/7, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:mpifgw:037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/44278/1/644405333.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Western, Bruce & Jackman, Simon, 1994. "Bayesian Inference for Comparative Research," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(2), pages 412-423, June.
    2. Broscheid, Andreas & Teske, Paul E, 2003. "Public Members on Medical Licensing Boards and the Choice of Entry Barriers," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 114(3-4), pages 445-459, March.
    3. Achen, Christopher H., 1975. "Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 1218-1231, December.
    4. Signorino, Curtis S., 1999. "Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(2), pages 279-297, June.
    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. Jörg Neufeld, 2016. "Determining effects of individual research grants on publication output and impact: The case of the Emmy Noether Programme (German Research Foundation)," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 50-61.
    2. Gschwend, Thomas & Pappi, Franz Urban, 2003. "Stimmensplitting und Koalitionswahl," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 03-21, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    3. Sara Bleninger & Michael Fürnrohr & Hans Kiesl & Walter Krämer & Helmut Küchenhoff & Jan Pablo Burgard & Ralf Münnich & Martin Rupp, 2020. "Kommentare und Erwiderung zu: Qualitätszielfunktionen für stark variierende Gemeindegrößen im Zensus 2021 [Comments and rejoinder: quality measures respecting highly varying community sizes within ," AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, Springer;Deutsche Statistische Gesellschaft - German Statistical Society, vol. 14(1), pages 67-98, March.

    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. John R. Freeman & Jude C. Hays & Helmut Stix, 1999. "Democracy and Markets: The Case of Exchange Rates," Working Papers 39, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank).
    2. Cavaillé, Charlotte & Chen, Daniel L. & Van Der Straeten, Karine, 2022. "Who Cares? Measuring Preference Intensity in a Polarized Environment," IAST Working Papers 22-130, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    3. Philip A. Haile & Ali Hortaçsu & Grigory Kosenok, 2008. "On the Empirical Content of Quantal Response Equilibrium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 180-200, March.
    4. Benjamin T. Skinner, 2019. "Making the Connection: Broadband Access and Online Course Enrollment at Public Open Admissions Institutions," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 60(7), pages 960-999, November.
    5. Nathan Canen & Kristopher Ramsay, 2023. "Quantifying Theory in Politics: Identification, Interpretation and the Role of Structural Methods," Papers 2302.01897, arXiv.org.
    6. Tomz, Michael & King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2003. "ReLogit: Rare Events Logistic Regression," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 8(i02).
    7. Scott R. Eliason & Robin Stryker, 2009. "Goodness-of-Fit Tests and Descriptive Measures in Fuzzy-Set Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 38(1), pages 102-146, August.
    8. Aradillas-Lopez, Andres, 2012. "Pairwise-difference estimation of incomplete information games," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 168(1), pages 120-140.
    9. Duane F. Alwin & Jon A. Krosnick, 1991. "The Reliability of Survey Attitude Measurement," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 20(1), pages 139-181, August.
    10. Pellizzari, Michele & Basso, Gaetano & Brandimarti, Eleonora & Pica, Giovanni, 2021. "Quality and selection in regulated professions," CEPR Discussion Papers 15674, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Anastasia Dimiski, 2020. "Factors that affect Students’ performance in Science: An application using Gini-BMA methodology in PISA 2015 dataset," Working Papers 2004, University of Guelph, Department of Economics and Finance.
    12. Daniel Finke, 2020. "At loggerheads over state aid: Why the Commission rejects aid and governments comply," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 474-496, September.
    13. Lesmono, Dharma & Tonkes, Elliot & Burrage, Kevin, 2009. "Opportunistic timing and manipulation in Australian Federal Elections," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(2), pages 677-691, January.
    14. Ilya Lokshin, 2015. "Whatever Explains Whatever: The Duhem-Quine Thesis And Conventional Quantitative Methods In Political Science," HSE Working papers WP BRP 23/PS/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    15. Meseguer Yebra, Covadonga, 2000. "Learning and economic policy choices with an application to IMF agreements," ISER Working Paper Series 2000-02, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    16. Laura Mayoral & Juan J. Dolado & Jesús Gonzalo, 2003. "Long-range dependence in Spanish political opinion poll series," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 137-155.
    17. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt, 2000. "An Explanation of Anomalous Behavior in Binary-Choice Games: Entry, Voting, Public Goods, and the Volunteers' Dilemma," Virginia Economics Online Papers 328, University of Virginia, Department of Economics.
    18. HeeMin Kim & Hyeyoung Yoo & Jungho Roh, 2015. "A re-examination of the effects of the economy, government spending, and incumbent ideology on national policy mood," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344, December.
    19. Håvard Mokleiv Nygård, 2017. "The role of international organizations in regime transitions: How IGOs can tie a dictator’s hands," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(4), pages 406-430, July.
    20. Martin Kroh, 2005. "Surveying the Left-Right Dimension: The Choice of a Response Format," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 491, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:mpifgw:037. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mpigfde.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.