Estimating Incumbency Advantage: Evidence from Three Natural Experiments *

[1]  David S. Lee.  Randomized experiments from non-random selection in U.S. House elections , 2005 .

[2]  Andrew Leigh,et al.  Are Ballot Order Effects Heterogeneous , 2009 .

[3]  Joel A. Middleton,et al.  Do Community-Based Voter Mobilization Campaigns Work Even in Battleground States? Evaluating the Effectiveness of MoveOn's 2004 Outreach Campaign , 2008 .

[4]  A. Booth,et al.  Intergenerational Transmission of Fertility Patterns , 2009 .

[5]  S. Ansolabehere,et al.  Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote , 2000 .

[6]  Daniel E. Ho,et al.  Estimating Causal Effects of Ballot Order from a Randomized Natural Experiment The California Alphabet Lottery, 1978–2002 , 2008 .

[7]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the U. S. House , 1997 .

[8]  Yogesh Uppal,et al.  The disadvantaged incumbents: estimating incumbency effects in Indian state legislatures , 2005 .

[9]  I. McAllister,et al.  Ballot Paper Cues and the Vote in Australia and Britain: Alphabetic Voting, Sex, and Title , 1984 .

[10]  Ian McAllister,et al.  Ballot position effects , 1990 .

[11]  Sandra E. Black.  Do better schools matter? Parental valuation of elementary education , 1999 .

[12]  P. Rosenbaum.  The Consequences of Adjustment for a Concomitant Variable that Has Been Affected by the Treatment , 1984 .

[13]  A. Leigh,et al.  How Much Do Public Schools Really Cost? Estimating the Relationship between House Prices and School Quality , 2007 .

[14]  Guido W. Imbens,et al.  RANDOM EFFECTS ESTIMATORS WITH MANY INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLES , 2004 .

[15]  Daniel E. Ho,et al.  Randomization Inference with Natural Experiments: An Analysis of Ballot Effects in the 2003 California Recall Election , 2004 .

[16]  Brian J. Gaines.  The Impersonal Vote? Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage in British Elections, 1950-92 , 1998 .