Publications by Year: 2007

2007
Anchors: Software for Anchoring Vignettes Data
Wand, Johnathan, Gary King, and Olivia Lau. 2007. Anchors: Software for Anchoring Vignettes Data. Publisher's Version
MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference
King, Gary, Kosuke Imai, Gary King, and Elizabeth A Stuart. 2007. MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference. Publisher's Version
Understanding the Lee-Carter Mortality Forecasting Method
Girosi, Federico, and Gary King. 2007. Understanding the Lee-Carter Mortality Forecasting Method.Abstract
We demonstrate here several previously unrecognized or insufficiently appreciated properties of the Lee-Carter mortality forecasting approach, the dominant method used in both the academic literature and practical applications. We show that this model is a special case of a considerably simpler, and less often biased, random walk with drift model, and prove that the age profile forecast from both approaches will always become less smooth and unrealistic after a point (when forecasting forward or backwards in time) and will eventually deviate from any given baseline. We use these and other properties we demonstrate to suggest when the model would be most applicable in practice.
Article
King, Gary, Emmanuela Gakidou, Nirmala Ravishankar, Ryan T Moore, Jason Lakin, Manett Vargas, Martha María Téllez-Rojo, Juan Eugenio Hernández Ávila, Mauricio Hernández Ávila, and Héctor Hernández Llamas. 2007. A "Politically Robust" Experimental Design for Public Policy Evaluation, with Application to the Mexican Universal Health Insurance Program, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26: 479-506.Abstract
We develop an approach to conducting large scale randomized public policy experiments intended to be more robust to the political interventions that have ruined some or all parts of many similar previous efforts. Our proposed design is insulated from selection bias in some circumstances even if we lose observations and our inferences can still be unbiased even if politics disrupts any two of the three steps in our analytical procedures and and other empirical checks are available to validate the overall design. We illustrate with a design and empirical validation of an evaluation of the Mexican Seguro Popular de Salud (Universal Health Insurance) program we are conducting. Seguro Popular, which is intended to grow to provide medical care, drugs, preventative services, and financial health protection to the 50 million Mexicans without health insurance, is one of the largest health reforms of any country in the last two decades. The evaluation is also large scale, constituting one of the largest policy experiments to date and what may be the largest randomized health policy experiment ever.
Article
Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference
Ho, Daniel, Kosuke Imai, Gary King, and Elizabeth Stuart. 2007. Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference, Political Analysis 15: 199–236.Abstract
Although published works rarely include causal estimates from more than a few model specifications, authors usually choose the presented estimates from numerous trial runs readers never see. Given the often large variation in estimates across choices of control variables, functional forms, and other modeling assumptions, how can researchers ensure that the few estimates presented are accurate or representative? How do readers know that publications are not merely demonstrations that it is possible to find a specification that fits the author’s favorite hypothesis? And how do we evaluate or even define statistical properties like unbiasedness or mean squared error when no unique model or estimator even exists? Matching methods, which offer the promise of causal inference with fewer assumptions, constitute one possible way forward, but crucial results in this fast-growing methodological literature are often grossly misinterpreted. We explain how to avoid these misinterpretations and propose a unified approach that makes it possible for researchers to preprocess data with matching (such as with the easy-to-use software we offer) and then to apply the best parametric techniques they would have used anyway. This procedure makes parametric models produce more accurate and considerably less model-dependent causal inferences.
Article
An Introduction to the Dataverse Network as an Infrastructure for Data Sharing
King, Gary. 2007. An Introduction to the Dataverse Network as an Infrastructure for Data Sharing, Sociological Methods and Research 36: 173–199.Abstract
We introduce a set of integrated developments in web application software, networking, data citation standards, and statistical methods designed to put some of the universe of data and data sharing practices on somewhat firmer ground. We have focused on social science data, but aspects of what we have developed may apply more widely. The idea is to facilitate the public distribution of persistent, authorized, and verifiable data, with powerful but easy-to-use technology, even when the data are confidential or proprietary. We intend to solve some of the sociological problems of data sharing via technological means, with the result intended to benefit both the scientific community and the sometimes apparently contradictory goals of individual researchers.
Article
When Can History Be Our Guide? The Pitfalls of Counterfactual Inference
King, Gary, and Langche Zeng. 2007. When Can History Be Our Guide? The Pitfalls of Counterfactual Inference, International Studies Quarterly: 183-210.Abstract
Inferences about counterfactuals are essential for prediction, answering "what if" questions, and estimating causal effects. However, when the counterfactuals posed are too far from the data at hand, conclusions drawn from well-specified statistical analyses become based on speculation and convenient but indefensible model assumptions rather than empirical evidence. Unfortunately, standard statistical approaches assume the veracity of the model rather than revealing the degree of model-dependence, and so this problem can be hard to detect. We develop easy-to-apply methods to evaluate counterfactuals that do not require sensitivity testing over specified classes of models. If an analysis fails the tests we offer, then we know that substantive results are sensitive to at least some modeling choices that are not based on empirical evidence. We use these methods to evaluate the extensive scholarly literatures on the effects of changes in the degree of democracy in a country (on any dependent variable) and separate analyses of the effects of UN peacebuilding efforts. We find evidence that many scholars are inadvertently drawing conclusions based more on modeling hypotheses than on their data. For some research questions, history contains insufficient information to be our guide.
Article
Comparing Incomparable Survey Responses: New Tools for Anchoring Vignettes
King, Gary, and Jonathan Wand. 2007. Comparing Incomparable Survey Responses: New Tools for Anchoring Vignettes, Political Analysis 15: 46-66.Abstract
When respondents use the ordinal response categories of standard survey questions in different ways, the validity of analyses based on the resulting data can be biased. Anchoring vignettes is a survey design technique, introduced by King, Murray, Salomon, and Tandon (2004), intended to correct for some of these problems. We develop new methods both for evaluating and choosing anchoring vignettes, and for analyzing the resulting data. With surveys on a diverse range of topics in a range of countries, we illustrate how our proposed methods can improve the ability of anchoring vignettes to extract information from survey data, as well as saving in survey administration costs.
Article
King, Gary, and Langche Zeng. 2007. Detecting Model Dependence in Statistical Inference: A Response, International Studies Quarterly 51: 231-241. Publisher's VersionAbstract
Inferences about counterfactuals are essential for prediction, answering "what if" questions, and estimating causal effects. However, when the counterfactuals posed are too far from the data at hand, conclusions drawn from well-specified statistical analyses become based on speculation and convenient but indefensible model assumptions rather than empirical evidence. Unfortunately, standard statistical approaches assume the veracity of the model rather than revealing the degree of model-dependence, and so this problem can be hard to detect. We develop easy-to-apply methods to evaluate counterfactuals that do not require sensitivity testing over specified classes of models. If an analysis fails the tests we offer, then we know that substantive results are sensitive to at least some modeling choices that are not based on empirical evidence. We use these methods to evaluate the extensive scholarly literatures on the effects of changes in the degree of democracy in a country (on any dependent variable) and separate analyses of the effects of UN peacebuilding efforts. We find evidence that many scholars are inadvertently drawing conclusions based more on modeling hypotheses than on their data. For some research questions, history contains insufficient information to be our guide.
<p>A Proposed Standard for the Scholarly Citation of Quantitative Data</p>
Altman, Micah, and Gary King. 2007.

A Proposed Standard for the Scholarly Citation of Quantitative Data

, D-Lib Magazine 13. Publisher's VersionAbstract
An essential aspect of science is a community of scholars cooperating and competing in the pursuit of common goals. A critical component of this community is the common language of and the universal standards for scholarly citation, credit attribution, and the location and retrieval of articles and books. We propose a similar universal standard for citing quantitative data that retains the advantages of print citations, adds other components made possible by, and needed due to, the digital form and systematic nature of quantitative data sets, and is consistent with most existing subfield-specific approaches. Although the digital library field includes numerous creative ideas, we limit ourselves to only those elements that appear ready for easy practical use by scientists, journal editors, publishers, librarians, and archivists.
Article