IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v16y2008i01p70-92_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ignoramus, Ignorabimus? On Uncertainty in Ecological Inference

Author

Listed:
  • Elff, Martin
  • Gschwend, Thomas
  • Johnston, Ron J.

Abstract

Models of ecological inference (EI) have to rely on crucial assumptions about the individual-level data-generating process, which cannot be tested because of the unavailability of these data. However, these assumptions may be violated by the unknown data and this may lead to serious bias of estimates and predictions. The amount of bias, however, cannot be assessed without information that is unavailable in typical applications of EI. We therefore construct a model that at least approximately accounts for the additional, nonsampling error that may result from possible bias incurred by an EI procedure, a model that builds on the Principle of Maximum Entropy. By means of a systematic simulation experiment, we examine the performance of prediction intervals based on this second-stage Maximum Entropy model. The results of this simulation study suggest that these prediction intervals are at least approximately correct if all possible configurations of the unknown data are taken into account. Finally, we apply our method to a real-world example, where we actually know the true values and are able to assess the performance of our method: the prediction of district-level percentages of split-ticket voting in the 1996 General Election of New Zealand. It turns out that in 95.5% of the New Zealand voting districts, the actual percentage of split-ticket votes lies inside the 95% prediction intervals constructed by our method.

Suggested Citation

  • Elff, Martin & Gschwend, Thomas & Johnston, Ron J., 2008. "Ignoramus, Ignorabimus? On Uncertainty in Ecological Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 70-92, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:16:y:2008:i:01:p:70-92_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700006690/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. Carolina Plescia & Lorenzo De Sio, 2018. "An evaluation of the performance and suitability of R × C methods for ecological inference with known true values," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 669-683, March.
    2. André Klima & Thomas Schlesinger & Paul W. Thurner & Helmut Küchenhoff, 2019. "Combining Aggregate Data and Exit Polls for the Estimation of Voter Transitions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 48(2), pages 296-325, May.

    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:16:y:2008:i:01:p:70-92_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.