IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/thk/wpaper/inetwp138.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Predicting United States Policy Outcomes with Random Forests

Author

Listed:
  • Shawn K. McGuire
  • Charles B. Delahunt

    (University of Washington, Seattle, WA)

Abstract

Two decades of U.S. government legislative outcomes, as well as the policy preferences of rich people, the general population, and diverse interest groups, were captured in a detailed dataset curated and analyzed by Gilens, Page et al. (2014). They found that the preferences of the rich correlated strongly with policy outcomes, while the preferences of the general population did not, except via a linkage with rich people`s preferences. Their analysis applied the tools of classical statistical inference, in particular logistic regression. In this paper we analyze the Gilens dataset using the complementary tools of Random Forest classifiers (RFs), from Machine Learning. We present two primary findings, concerning respectively prediction and inference: (i) Holdout test sets can be predicted with approximately 70% balanced accuracy by models that consult only the preferences of rich people and a small number of powerful interest groups, as well as policy area labels. These results include retrodiction, where models trained on pre-1997 cases predicted ``future`` (post-1997) cases. The 20% gain in accuracy over baseline (chance), in this detailed but noisy dataset, indicates the high importance of a few wealthy players in U.S. policy outcomes, and aligns with a body of research indicating that the U.S. government has significant plutocratic tendencies. (ii) The feature selection methods of RF models identify especially salient subsets of interest groups (economic players). These can be used to further investigate the dynamics of governmental policy making, and also offer an example of the potential value of RF feature selection methods for inference on datasets such as this one.

Suggested Citation

  • Shawn K. McGuire & Charles B. Delahunt, 2020. "Predicting United States Policy Outcomes with Random Forests," Working Papers Series inetwp138, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
  • Handle: RePEc:thk:wpaper:inetwp138
    DOI: 10.36687/inetwp138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.36687/inetwp138
    File Function: First version, 2020
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.36687/inetwp138?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Ferguson & Paul Jorgensen & Jie Chen, 2021. "The Knife Edge Election of 2020: American Politics Between Washington, Kabul, and Weimar," Working Papers Series inetwp169, Institute for New Economic Thinking.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    political economy; financial crisis; political parties; political money.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G20 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - General
    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy
    • N22 - Economic History - - Financial Markets and Institutions - - - U.S.; Canada: 1913-
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • G38 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State
    • K22 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Business and Securities Law

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:thk:wpaper:inetwp138. 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: Pia Malaney (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inetnus.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.