IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v12y2004i02p105-127_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Bias and Uncertainty in Ideal Point Estimates via the Parametric Bootstrap

Author

Listed:
  • Lewis, Jeffrey B.
  • Poole, Keith T.

Abstract

Over the last 15 years a large amount of scholarship in legislative politics has used NOMINATE or other similar methods to construct measures of legislators' ideological locations. These measures are then used in subsequent analyses. Recent work in political methodology has focused on the pitfalls of using such estimates as variables in subsequent analysis without explicitly accounting for their uncertainty and possible bias (Herron and Shotts 2003, Political Analysis 11:44–64). This presents a problem for those employing NOMINATE scores because estimates of their unconditional sampling uncertainty or bias have until now been unavailable. In this paper, we present a method of forming unconditional standard error estimates and bias estimates for NOMINATE scores using the parametric bootstrap. Standard errors are estimated for the 90th U.S. Senate in two dimensions. Standard errors of first—dimension placements are in the 0.03 to 0.08 range. The results are compared with those obtained using the Markov chain Monte Carlo estimator of Clinton et al. (2002, Stanford University Working Paper). We also show how the bootstrap can be used to construct standard errors and confidence intervals for auxiliary quantities of interest such as ranks and the location of the median senator.

Suggested Citation

  • Lewis, Jeffrey B. & Poole, Keith T., 2004. "Measuring Bias and Uncertainty in Ideal Point Estimates via the Parametric Bootstrap," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 105-127, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:12:y:2004:i:02:p:105-127_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700009748/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. Anthony Bertelli & Lilliard Richardson, 2008. "Ideological extremism and electoral design. Multimember versus single member districts," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 347-368, October.
    2. Gail McElroy, 2007. "Legislative Politics as Normal?," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(3), pages 433-448, September.
    3. Jeong-Hun Han, 2007. "Analysing Roll Calls of the European Parliament," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(4), pages 479-507, December.
    4. James Lo, 2018. "Dynamic ideal point estimation for the European Parliament, 1980–2009," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 229-246, July.
    5. Richard F. Potthoff, 2018. "Estimating Ideal Points from Roll-Call Data: Explore Principal Components Analysis, Especially for More Than One Dimension?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27, January.
    6. Christopher Hare & Keith T. Poole, 2015. "Measuring ideology in Congress," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 18, pages 327-346, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Deniz Selman & Eleanor L. Harvill, 2011. "Political Knowledge and the 2004 Presidential Election," Working Papers 2011/10, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    8. Hix, Simon & Hoyland, Bjorn & Vivyan, Nick, 2007. "From doves to hawks: a spatial analysis of voting in the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, 1997-2007," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 25199, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Bjørn Høyland & Indraneel Sircar & Simon Hix, 2009. "Forum Section," European Union Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 143-152, March.
    10. Marina Dodlova & Galina Zudenkova, 2016. "Incumbents' Performance and Political Polarization," CESifo Working Paper Series 5728, CESifo.
    11. McKay Amy, 2010. "The Effects of Interest Groups' Ideology on Their PAC and Lobbying Expenditures," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, August.
    12. Jonathan B. Slapin & Sven‐Oliver Proksch, 2008. "A Scaling Model for Estimating Time‐Series Party Positions from Texts," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 705-722, July.
    13. Kaviani, Mahsa S. & Kryzanowski, Lawrence & Maleki, Hosein & Savor, Pavel, 2020. "Policy uncertainty and corporate credit spreads," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(3), pages 838-865.

    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:polals:v:12:y:2004:i:02:p:105-127_00. 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/pan .

    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.