IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v185y2020i3d10.1007_s11127-019-00704-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Randomized experiments by government institutions and American political development

Author

Listed:
  • Christian R. Grose

    (University of Southern California)

  • Abby K. Wood

    (University of Southern California)

Abstract

Are the methods of causal inference and, in particular, randomized controlled trials, compatible with the study of political history? While many important questions regarding political institutions and American political development cannot be answered with randomized controlled trials, scholars can and should be using the many instances of randomized experiments conducted by and within government institutions to further our understanding of institutions and political behavior. We argue that a surprising abundance of opportunities are available for scholars to utilize methods of random audits as natural experiments. Public and administrative officials have engaged in randomized interventions or audits to test for policy effects, to encourage compliance with the law, or to distribute government resources or personal risk to citizens fairly. With rare exceptions, such audits have not been leveraged by scholars interested in American political development or political history. Examples of randomized controlled trials conducted by agencies or institutions throughout US history are offered, and a historical random audit of members of the US Congress by the Federal Election Commission is highlighted. We conclude with limitations and advice on how to analyze the effects of randomized controlled trials conducted by governments. Scholars can use historical randomization to enhance causal inference and test theoretical implications, though deep knowledge of descriptive historical data and events are required to discover historical randomizations within political and legal institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian R. Grose & Abby K. Wood, 2020. "Randomized experiments by government institutions and American political development," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 401-413, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:185:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-019-00704-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-019-00704-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-019-00704-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-019-00704-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erikson, Robert S. & Stoker, Laura, 2011. "Caught in the Draft: The Effects of Vietnam Draft Lottery Status on Political Attitudes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 221-237, May.
    2. Michal Tóth & Roman Chytilek, 2018. "Fast, frugal and correct? An experimental study on the influence of time scarcity and quantity of information on the voter decision making process," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 67-86, October.
    3. Joshua L. Kalla & David E. Broockman, 2016. "Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(3), pages 545-558, July.
    4. Titiunik, Rocío, 2016. "Drawing Your Senator from a Jar:Term Length and Legislative Behavior," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 293-316, May.
    5. Christopher F. Karpowitz & J. Quin Monson & Jessica Robinson Preece, 2017. "How to Elect More Women: Gender and Candidate Success in a Field Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(4), pages 927-943, October.
    6. White, Ariel R. & Nathan, Noah L. & Faller, Julie K., 2015. "What Do I Need to Vote? Bureaucratic Discretion and Discrimination by Local Election Officials," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(1), pages 129-142, February.
    7. Rocío Titiunik & Andrew Feher, 2018. "Legislative behaviour absent re‐election incentives: findings from a natural experiment in the Arkansas Senate," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(2), pages 351-378, February.
    8. Riker, William H. & Zavoina, William James, 1970. "Rational Behavior in Politics: Evidence from a Three Person Game," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(1), pages 48-60, March.
    9. Weingast, Barry R. & Wittman, Donald, 2008. "The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199548477.
    10. Weiman, David F., 1991. "Peopling the Land by Lottery? The Market in Public Lands and the Regional Differentiation of Territory on the Georgia Frontier," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 835-860, December.
    11. repec:cup:apsrev:v:113:y:2019:i:03:p:658-673_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Preece, Jessica Robinson & Stoddard, Olga Bogach, 2015. "Does the Message Matter? A Field Experiment on Political Party Recruitment," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 26-35, April.
    13. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P., 2000. "The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(3), pages 653-663, September.
    14. Erin Hartman & F. Daniel Hidalgo, 2018. "An Equivalence Approach to Balance and Placebo Tests," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(4), pages 1000-1013, October.
    15. Berinsky, Adam J. & Chatfield, Sara, 2015. "An Empirical Justification for the Use of Draft Lottery Numbers as a Random Treatment in Political Science Research," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 449-454, July.
    16. Christian R. Grose & Neil Malhotra & Robert Parks Van Houweling, 2015. "Explaining Explanations: How Legislators Explain their Policy Positions and How Citizens React," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 724-743, July.
    17. Gordon, Sanford C. & Huber, Gregory A., 2007. "The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Incumbent Behavior," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 107-138, May.
    18. Marilyn Young & Michael Reksulak & William F. Shughart, 2001. "The Political Economy of the IRS," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(2), pages 201-220, July.
    19. Costa, Mia, 2017. "How Responsive are Political Elites? A Meta-Analysis of Experiments on Public Officials," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 241-254, December.
    20. Thushyanthan Baskaran & Mariana Lopes da Fonseca, 2016. "Electoral thresholds and political representation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 117-136, October.
    21. Ban, Pamela & Fouirnaies, Alexander & Hall, Andrew B & Snyder, James M, 2019. "How Newspapers Reveal Political Power," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 661-678, October.
    22. Watts, Ross L & Zimmerman, Jerold L, 1983. "Agency Problems, Auditing, and the Theory of the Firm: Some Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(3), pages 613-633, October.
    23. Charles Plott, 2014. "Public choice and the development of modern laboratory experimental methods in economics and political science," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 331-353, December.
    24. David E. Broockman, 2014. "Distorted Communication, Unequal Representation: Constituents Communicate Less to Representatives Not of Their Race," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(2), pages 307-321, April.
    25. Fiorina, Morris P. & Plott, Charles R., 1978. "Committee Decisions under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 575-598, June.
    26. Hall, Andrew B. & Huff, Connor & Kuriwaki, Shiro, 2019. "Wealth, Slaveownership, and Fighting for the Confederacy: An Empirical Study of the American Civil War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(3), pages 658-673, August.
    27. Alan Gerber & Donald Green, 2000. "The effects of canvassing, direct mail, and telephone contact on voter turnout: A field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00248, The Field Experiments Website.
    28. Benston, George J, 1973. "Required Disclosure and the Stock Market: An Evaluation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(1), pages 132-155, March.
    29. Broockman, David E. & Butler, Daniel M., 2015. "Do Better Committee Assignments Meaningfully Benefit Legislators? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in the Arkansas State Legislature," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 152-163, January.
    30. Jason Poulos, 2019. "Land lotteries, long-term wealth, and political selection," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 217-230, January.
    31. Eldersveld, Samuel J., 1956. "Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 154-165, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Julia Cage & Edgard Dewitte, 2021. "It Takes Money to Make MPs: Evidence from 150 Years of British Campaign Spending," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03384143, HAL.
    2. Julia Cage & Edgard Dewitte, 2021. "It Takes Money to Make MPs: Evidence from 150 Years of British Campaign Spending," Sciences Po publications 2021-08, Sciences Po.
    3. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5868, CESifo.
    4. Donald P. Green & Alan S. Gerber, 2003. "The Underprovision of Experiments in Political Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 94-112, September.
    5. Kevin Arceneaux, 2005. "Using Cluster Randomized Field Experiments to Study Voting Behavior," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 601(1), pages 169-179, September.
    6. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/1dp7827s4n8ht8fk3qhmeuvd0o is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Fize, Etienne & Louis-Sidois, Charles, 2020. "Military service and political behavior: Evidence from France," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    8. Alan Gerber, 2004. "Does campaign spending work?," Natural Field Experiments 00246, The Field Experiments Website.
    9. Kosuke Imai, 2005. "Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? The importance of statistical methods for field experiments," Natural Field Experiments 00272, The Field Experiments Website.
    10. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CEPR Discussion Papers 11238, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Pereira dos Santos, João & Tavares, José & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Can ATMs get out the vote? Evidence from a nationwide field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    12. Benno Torgler, 2021. "The Power of Public Choice in Law and Economics," CREMA Working Paper Series 2021-04, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    13. Gerry Stoker, 2010. "Exploring the Promise of Experimentation in Political Science: Micro‐Foundational Insights and Policy Relevance," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(2), pages 300-319, March.
    14. Kevin Morris, 2021. "Welcome Home—Now Vote! Voting Rights Restoration and Postsupervision Participation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 140-153, January.
    15. Benno Torgler, 2022. "The power of public choice in law and economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 1410-1453, December.
    16. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/45gqdl5l4387f9b9l12gr2g3kt is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Olken, Benjamin A., 2010. "Direct Democracy and Local Public Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(2), pages 243-267, May.
    18. Alan Gerber & Anton Orlich & Jennifer Smith, 2003. "Self-prophecy effects and voter turnout: An experimental replication," Natural Field Experiments 00333, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/1dp7827s4n8ht8fk3qhmeuvd0o is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Elizabeth A. Bennion, 2005. "Caught in the Ground Wars: Mobilizing Voters during a Competitive Congressional Campaign," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 601(1), pages 123-141, September.
    21. Alan S. Gerber & Donald P. Green, 2005. "Do Phone Calls Increase Voter Turnout? An Update," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 601(1), pages 142-154, September.
    22. Donald P. Green & Jennifer K. Smith, 2003. "Professionalization of Campaigns and the Secret History of Collective Action Problems," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 321-339, July.
    23. Donald P. Green & Alan S. Gerber, 2005. "Recent Advances in the Science of Voter Mobilization," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 601(1), pages 6-9, September.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:185:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-019-00704-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.