IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/2011s-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Euclidean Revealed Preferences: Testing the Spatial Voting Model

Author

Listed:
  • Marc Henry
  • Ismael Mourifié

Abstract

In 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Henry & Ismael Mourifié, 2011. "Euclidean Revealed Preferences: Testing the Spatial Voting Model," CIRANO Working Papers 2011s-49, CIRANO.
  • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2011s-49
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2011s-49.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arie Beresteanu & Ilya Molchanov & Francesca Molinari, 2009. "Sharp identification regions in models with convex predictions: games, individual choice, and incomplete data," CeMMAP working papers CWP27/09, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Ruud H. Koning & Geert Ridder, 2003. "Discrete choice and stochastic utility maximization," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 6(1), pages 1-27, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Richard Blundell & Martin Browning & Ian Crawford, 2008. "Best Nonparametric Bounds on Demand Responses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(6), pages 1227-1262, November.
    5. Jeong, Gyung-Ho, 2008. "Testing the Predictions of the Multidimensional Spatial Voting Model with Roll Call Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(02), pages 179-196, March.
    6. Heckman, James J, 1978. "Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 931-959, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Degan, Arianna & Merlo, Antonio, 2009. "Do voters vote ideologically?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 1868-1894, September.
    9. Nicholas Christakis & James Fowler & Guido Imbens & Karthik Kalyanaraman, 2010. "An empirical model for strategic network formation," CeMMAP working papers CWP16/10, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    10. Kalandrakis, Tasos, 2010. "Rationalizable voting," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5(1), January.
    11. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135-135.
    12. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Laslier, Jean-Francois, 2007. "Euclidean preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 87-98, February.
    13. Chesher, Andrew D, 1984. "Testing for Neglected Heterogeneity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 865-872, July.
    14. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Eijffinger, Sylvester & Mahieu, Ronald & Raes, Louis, 2018. "Inferring hawks and doves from voting records," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 107-120.
    2. Florenz Plassmann & T. Tideman, 2014. "How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 31-75, January.
    3. Menezes, Mozart B.C. & da Silveira, Giovani J.C. & Drezner, Zvi, 2016. "Democratic elections and centralized decisions: Condorcet and Approval Voting compared with Median and Coverage locations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 195-203.
    4. Laurens Cherchye & Sam Cosaert & Bram De Rock & Pieter Jan Kerstens & Frederic Vermeulen, 2017. "Individual Welfare Analysis for Collective Households," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2017-44, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    revealed preference; partial identification; elliptic preferences; voting behaviour;

    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:cir:cirwor:2011s-49. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Webmaster). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.