Publications by Year: Working Paper

Working Paper
Do Nonpartisan Programmatic Policies Have Partisan Electoral Effects? Evidence from Two Large Scale Randomized Experiments
Kosuke Imai, Gary King, and Carlos Velasco Rivera. Working Paper. “Do Nonpartisan Programmatic Policies Have Partisan Electoral Effects? Evidence from Two Large Scale Randomized Experiments”.Abstract

A vast literature demonstrates that voters around the world who benefit from their governments' discretionary spending cast more ballots for the incumbent party than those who do not benefit. But contrary to most theories of political accountability, some evidence suggests that voters also reward incumbent parties for implementing "programmatic" spending legislation, over which incumbents have no discretion, and even when passed with support from all major parties. Why voters would attribute responsibility when none exists is unclear, as is why minority party legislators would approve of legislation that will cost them votes. We study the electoral effects of two prominent programmatic policies that fit the ideal type unusually well. For the first, we implement one of the largest randomized social experiments ever, and find that its programmatic policies do not increase voter support for incumbents. For the second, we reanalyze the study cited as claiming the strongest support for the electoral effects of programmatic policies, which is also a very large randomized experiment. We show that its key results vanish after correcting either a simple coding error affecting only two observations or highly unconventional data analysis procedures (or both). Our results may differ from those of prior research because we were able to marshal large scale experiments rather than observational studies or because we analyze relatively pure forms of programmatic policies rather than mixtures of programmatic and clientelistic policies. However, we conjecture that the primary explanation is the differing nature of the politics for which these policies are passed and implemented.

Paper Supplementary Appendix
How Human Subjects Research Rules Mislead You and Your University, and What to Do About it
Gary King and Melissa Sands. Working Paper. “How Human Subjects Research Rules Mislead You and Your University, and What to Do About it”.Abstract

Universities require faculty and students planning research involving human subjects to pass formal certification tests and then submit research plans for prior approval. Those who diligently take the tests may better understand certain important legal requirements but, at the same time, are often misled into thinking they can apply these rules to their own work which, in fact, they are not permitted to do. They will also be missing many other legal requirements not mentioned in their training but which govern their behaviors. Finally, the training leaves them likely to completely misunderstand the essentially political situation they find themselves in. The resulting risks to their universities, collaborators, and careers may be catastrophic, in addition to contributing to the more common ordinary frustrations of researchers with the system. To avoid these problems, faculty and students conducting research about and for the public need to understand that they are public figures, to whom different rules apply, ones that political scientists have long studied. University administrators (and faculty in their part-time roles as administrators) need to reorient their perspectives as well. University research compliance bureaucracies have grown, in well-meaning but sometimes unproductive ways that are not required by federal laws or guidelines. We offer advice to faculty and students for how to deal with the system as it exists now, and suggestions for changes in university research compliance bureaucracies, that should benefit faculty, students, staff, university budgets, and our research subjects.

Paper
How to Measure Legislative District Compactness If You Only Know it When You See it
Aaron Kaufman, Gary King, and Mayya Komisarchik. Working Paper. “How to Measure Legislative District Compactness If You Only Know it When You See it”.Abstract
The US Supreme Court, many state constitutions, and numerous judicial opinions require that legislative districts be "compact," a concept assumed so simple that the only definition given in the law is "you know it when you see it." Academics, in contrast, have concluded that the concept is so complex that it has multiple theoretical dimensions requiring large numbers of conflicting empirical measures. We hypothesize that both are correct -- that the concept is complex and multidimensional, but one particular unidimensional ordering represents a common understanding of compactness in the law and across people. We develop a survey method designed to elicit this understanding with high levels of intracoder and intercoder reliability (even though the standard paired comparison approach fails). We then create a statistical model that predicts, with high accuracy and solely from the geometric features of the district, compactness evaluations by judges and other public officials from many jurisdictions, as well as redistricting consultants and expert witnesses, law professors, law students, graduate students, undergraduates, ordinary citizens, and Mechanical Turk workers. As a companion to this paper, we offer data on compactness from our validated measure for 18,215 US state legislative and congressional districts, as well as software to compute this measure from any district shape. We also discuss what may be the wider applicability of our general methodological approach to measuring important concepts that you only know when you see.
Paper
PSI (Ψ): a Private data Sharing Interface
Marco Gaboardi, James Honaker, Gary King, Kobbi Nissim, Jonathan Ullman, and Salil Vadhan. Working Paper. “PSI (Ψ): a Private data Sharing Interface”. Publisher's VersionAbstract

We provide an overview of PSI ("a Private data Sharing Interface"), a system we are developing to enable researchers in the social sciences and other fields to share and explore privacy-sensitive datasets with the strong privacy protections of differential privacy.

Paper
Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching
Gary King and Richard Nielsen. Working Paper. “Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching”.Abstract

We show that propensity score matching (PSM), an enormously popular method of preprocessing data for causal inference, often accomplishes the opposite of its intended goal -- increasing imbalance, inefficiency, model dependence, and bias. PSM supposedly makes it easier to find matches by projecting a large number of covariates to a scalar propensity score and applying a single model to produce an unbiased estimate. However, in observational analysis the data generation process is rarely known and so users typically try many models before choosing one to present. The weakness of PSM comes from its attempts to approximate a completely randomized experiment, rather than, as with other matching methods, a more efficient fully blocked randomized experiment. PSM is thus uniquely blind to the often large portion of imbalance that can be eliminated by approximating full blocking with other matching methods. Moreover, in data balanced enough to approximate complete randomization, either to begin with or after pruning some observations, PSM approximates random matching which, we show, increases imbalance even relative to the original data. Although these results suggest that researchers replace PSM with one of the other available methods when performing matching, propensity scores have many other productive uses.

Paper Supplementary Appendix