Euclidean Revealed Preferences: Testing the Spatial Voting Model
AbstractIn the spatial model of voting, voters choose the candidate closest to them in the ideological space. Recent work by (Degan and Merlo 2009) shows that it is falsifiable on the basis of individual voting data in multiple elections. We show how to tackle the fact that the model only partially identifies the distribution of voting profiles and we give a formal revealed preference test of the spatial voting model in 3 national elections in the US, and strongly reject the spatial model in all cases. We also construct confidence regions for partially identified voter characteristics in an augmented model with unobserved valence dimension, and identify the amount of voter heterogeneity necessary to reconcile the data with spatial preferences.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo in its series CIRJE F-Series with number CIRJE-F-822.
Length: 32 pages
Date of creation: Oct 2011
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Hongo 7-3-1, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033
Web page: http://www.cirje.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/index.html
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Marc Henry & Ismael Mourifié, 2013. "Euclidean Revealed Preferences: Testing The Spatial Voting Model," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 650-666, 06.
- Marc Henry & Ismael Mourifié, 2011. "Euclidean Revealed Preferences: Testing the Spatial Voting Model," CIRANO Working Papers 2011s-49, CIRANO.
- NEP-ALL-2011-11-21 (All new papers)
- NEP-CDM-2011-11-21 (Collective Decision-Making)
- NEP-GEO-2011-11-21 (Economic Geography)
- NEP-POL-2011-11-21 (Positive Political Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Anna Bogomolnaïa & Jean-François Laslier, 2004.
- Li, Qi & Racine, Jeffrey S, 2008. "Nonparametric Estimation of Conditional CDF and Quantile Functions With Mixed Categorical and Continuous Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 26, pages 423-434.
- Richard Blundell & Martin Browning & Ian Crawford, 2008.
"Best Nonparametric Bounds on Demand Responses,"
Econometric Society, vol. 76(6), pages 1227-1262, November.
- Richard Blundell & Martin Browning & Ian Crawford, 2005. "Best Nonparametric Bounds on Demand Responses," CAM Working Papers 2005-16, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Applied Microeconometrics.
- Richard Blundell & Martin Browning & Ian Crawford, 2005. "Best nonparametric bounds on demand responses," CeMMAP working papers CWP12/05, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Richard Blundell & Martin Browning & Ian Crawford, 2005. "Best nonparametric bounds on demand responses," IFS Working Papers W05/20, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Borsch-Supan, Axel, 1990. "On the compatibility of nested logit models with utility maximization," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 373-388, March.
- Kalandrakis, Tasos, 2010.
Econometric Society, vol. 5(1), January.
- Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135.
- Heckman, James J, 1978.
"Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System,"
Econometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 931-59, July.
- James J. Heckman, 1977. "Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System," NBER Working Papers 0177, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Chesher, Andrew D, 1984. "Testing for Neglected Heterogeneity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 865-72, July.
- Ruud H Koning & Geert Ridder, 1999.
"Discrete Choice and Stochastic Utility Maximization,"
Economics Working Paper Archive
413, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics.
- Ruud H. Koning & Geert Ridder, 2003. "Discrete choice and stochastic utility maximization," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 6(1), pages 1-27, 06.
- Norman Schofield, 2007. "The Mean Voter Theorem: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Convergent Equilibrium," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(3), pages 965-980.
- Degan, Arianna & Merlo, Antonio, 2009. "Do voters vote ideologically?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 1868-1894, September.
- Nicholas A. Christakis & James H. Fowler & Guido W. Imbens & Karthik Kalyanaraman, 2010. "An Empirical Model for Strategic Network Formation," NBER Working Papers 16039, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Eijffinger, Sylvester C W & Mahieu, Ronald J & Raes, Louis, 2013.
"Inferring hawks and doves from voting records,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
9418, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Florenz Plassmann & T. Tideman, 2014. "How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 31-75, January.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CIRJE administrative office).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.