IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v101y2007i02p289-301_07.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress

Author

Listed:
  • CARSON, JAMIE L.
  • ENGSTROM, ERIK J.
  • ROBERTS, JASON M.

Abstract

Most political observers agree that incumbent legislators have a considerable advantage over nonincumbents in modern congressional elections. Yet there is still disagreement over the exact source of this advantage and the explanation for its growth over time. To address this debate we utilize a unique set of historical elections data to test for the presence of an incumbency advantage in late-nineteenth-century House elections (1872–1900). We find a modest direct effect of incumbency and a substantial candidate quality effect. Moreover, the cartel-like control of ballot access by nineteenth century political parties created competition in races that the modern market-like system simply does not sustain. Our results suggest that candidate quality is a fundamental piece of the puzzle in understanding the historical development of the incumbency advantage in American politics.

Suggested Citation

  • Carson, Jamie L. & Engstrom, Erik J. & Roberts, Jason M., 2007. "Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(2), pages 289-301, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:101:y:2007:i:02:p:289-301_07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055407070311/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Joo, Hailey Hayeon & Lee, Jungmin, 2018. "Encountering female politicians," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 88-122.
    2. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    3. Claudio Ferraz & Federico Finan & Monica Maretinez-Bravo, 2020. "Political Power, Elite Control, and Long-Run Development: Evidence from Brazil," Working Papers wp2020_2008, CEMFI.
    4. Pastine, Ivan & Pastine, Tuvana, 2012. "Incumbency advantage and political campaign spending limits," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 20-32.
    5. Luciana Moscoso Boedo, 2010. "Who Runs Against the Incumbent? Candidate Entry Decisions," Working papers DTE 494, CIDE, División de Economía.
    6. Toke Aidt & Francisco Veiga & Linda Veiga, 2011. "Election results and opportunistic policies: A new test of the rational political business cycle model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 21-44, July.
    7. Benson Tsz Kin Leung & Pinar Yildirim, 2020. "Competition, Politics, & Social Media," Papers 2012.03327, arXiv.org.
    8. Prato, Carlo & Wolton, Stephane, 2014. "Electoral Imbalances and their Consequences," MPRA Paper 68650, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 26 Nov 2015.
    9. Richard Schmalensee & Robert N. Stavins, 2013. "The SO 2 Allowance Trading System: The Ironic History of a Grand Policy Experiment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 103-122, Winter.
    10. Fiva, Jon H. & Smith, Daniel M., 2018. "Political Dynasties and the Incumbency Advantage in Party-Centered Environments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 706-712, August.
    11. Petrova, Maria & Yildirim, Pinar & Sen, Ananya, 2017. "Social Media and Political Donations: New Technology and Incumbency Advantage in the United States," CEPR Discussion Papers 11808, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Toke S. Aidt & Francisco José Veiga & Linda Gonçalves Veiga, 2007. "Election Results and Opportunistic Policies: An Integrated Approach," NIPE Working Papers 24/2007, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    13. Ching-Hsing Wang, 2022. "The Effect of Political Donation on Election Outcomes: Evidence from Taiwan Legislative Elections," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    14. Fiva, Jon H. & Røhr, Helene Lie, 2018. "Climbing the ranks: incumbency effects in party-list systems," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 142-156.
    15. Jacob Holt, 2022. "Party does not matter: Unified government and midterm elections," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(1), pages 168-180, January.
    16. Ercio Andres Munoz, 2021. "Incumbency advantage, money, and campaigns: A note on some suggestive evidence from Chile," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 41(3), pages 1203-1211.
    17. Maria Petrova & Ananya Sen & Pinar Yildirim, 2021. "Social Media and Political Contributions: The Impact of New Technology on Political Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2997-3021, May.
    18. Berggren, Niclas & Jordahl, Henrik & Poutvaara, Panu, 2010. "The looks of a winner: Beauty and electoral success," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1-2), pages 8-15, February.
    19. Eamon McGinn & Shiko Maruyama, 2021. "Why Waste Your Vote? Informal Voting in Compulsory Elections in Australia," Working Paper Series 2021/02, Economics Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
    20. Lopes da Fonseca, Mariana, 2015. "Identifying the source of incumbency advantage through an electoral reform," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 239, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    21. Maria Petrova & Ananya Sen & Pinar Yildirim, 2020. "Social Media and Political Contributions: The Impact of New Technology on Political Competition," Papers 2011.02924, arXiv.org.
    22. Paulo Reis Mourao & Alina Irina Popescu, 2021. "Discussing the political survival of Romanian ministers since 1989—Do economic conditions matter?," Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 63-93, January.

    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:cup:apsrev:v:101:y:2007:i:02:p:289-301_07. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.