Empirical Methods in Political Economy

Instructor: F. Daniel Hidalgo
Email:
Office: E53-402
Office Hours: Friday, 2-4pm (Sign Up)

Logistics

Time: Tuesday 11:00am–1:00pm
Location: E53-485
Course Website: https://canvas.mit.edu/courses/21349

Course Description

This course surveys recent methodological approaches to the study of political economy. Unlike a typical graduate-level course in political science, we will focus on a limited number of readings each week, with the goal of understanding and evaluating in detail the analytical decisions made by the authors of each study. In addition to learning about advanced methods being used in the social sciences today, the goal of the class is for students to develop an appreciation for how publishable quantitative papers are constructed, from the questions they ask to how they defend and justify the methodological choices they make.

Substantive topics range from the link between institutions and political development in poor societies to the operation of legislatures in rich democracies. Methodological topics that will be covered include text analysis, statistical learning models, measurement models, innovations in panel designs, and the interplay between formal theory and empirics.

The bulk of each class will be devoted to discussion of the assigned reading, though some class time will be dedicated to student-led presentations on the week’s readings. I assume a working knowledge of the materials covered in the first two courses of the methods sequence in the MIT Political Science Department. For those of you without this background, I suggest that you either wait to take the class or take a substantial amount of time to familiarize yourself with that material.

Expectations

  • Class Discussions: Because I assign 2–3 papers each week, I expect students to be prepared to discuss each paper in detail. To be prepared for class discussion, students should seek to understand every important analytical choice made in each paper to the best of their ability. This may mean reading the paper multiple times or consulting methodological references on the techniques used in the papers. I also expect you to read any supplementary appendices. I am happy to provide references for related material if students would like to better undersand the approaches used in the assigned reading. (30% of the class grade)

  • Weekly Reading Responses: To facilitate discussion, students will write a short memo based on the assigned reading for 5 out of the 10 weeks. You will be randomly assigned to the 5 weeks.

    This memo should be at least two paragraphs, and it should focus on either the substantive or methodological claims of the papers. You are welcome to critically respond to the argument and evidence presented in the papers, but you can also use this space to discuss which aspects of the methodology are unclear or confusing. Given that many of the methodological approaches used in the papers are not standard in the discipline, it is perfectly reasonable to not fully understand the logic of their use or the details of their implementation. These memos are a good space to highlight the most challenging aspects of the papers so that we can focus class discussion on these points. If you are presenting in a given week, you do not need to submit a reading response. (20% of the class grade)

    • Please post the memos on to the appropriate week in the “Discussion” section of the Canvass class website under the appropriate discussion thread by 11:59pm Monday. The Discussion section can be found here

  • In addition to weekly reading responses and class participation, students will have the following options to complete the course requirements (50% of the class grade):

    1. Methods Tutorials: Students can elect to do 2 20-30 minute presentations (including Q&A) during the semester. These presentations can be done with a partner. The presentation is not meant to address the particular papers on the syllabus, but rather present an overview of the most important methodological topic covered in the readings for that week. The goal of the presentation is to summarise recent methodological research on the topic, provide intuition for the main results, discuss strengths and weaknesses of particular techniques, and present some simulation or replication results that illustrate your these points. The presentation should be pitched as if you were teaching applied researchers about new methodological developments in the discipline.
      • These presentations require substantial preparation and you should start early. Please meet with the instructor prior to your presentation to dicusss your plans. Moreover, you must send a draft of your slides the Friday morning before your presentation. I will comment on the slides and return them to you before the weekend.
      • I will solicit preferences for presentation dates in the first week of class. I will then assign presentation dates and post them on the class website.
    2. Research Design or Paper: The second option is a traditional research design or class paper. The paper should use quantitative tools, but they need not be ones covered during the course. If you elect to submit a research design, I expect that the design be accompanied by an extensive set of simulations to illustrate the properties of the design. Co-authoring is permitted, but not required.
      • You must submit a 2 page proposal by October 17. For research designs, the proposal should include a description of the research question and a discussion of the analytical methods you plan to use. For papers, the proposal should also include a discussion of data availability.
      • You must submit a 1 page update on your progress by November 17.
      • You will present your research design or paper in the final week of the class with a 12-15 minute presentation.
      • The paper will be due on the final day of the semester, but extension requests of up to 1 week be granted.

Course Schedule

September 12

Course Introduction

  • James M. Snyder and David Strömberg, “Press Coverage and Political Accountability,” Journal of Political Economy 118, no. 2 (April 2010): 355–408, https://doi.org/10.1086/652903.
  • Dominik Hangartner et al., “Does Exposure to the Refugee Crisis Make Natives More Hostile?” American Political Science Review 113, no. 2 (May 2019): 442–55, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000813.

Observational Studies

September 19

Justifying Selection on Observables

  • Bocar A. Ba et al., “The Role of Officer Race and Gender in Police-Civilian Interactions in Chicago,” Science 371, no. 6530 (February 12, 2021): 696–702, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd8694.
  • Michael Hankinson and Asya Magazinnik, “The Supply-Equity Trade-Off: The Effect of Spatial Representation on the Local Housing Supply,” The Journal of Politics 85, no. 3 (July 2023): 1033–47, https://doi.org/10.1086/723818.
  • Jonathan Homola, Miguel M. Pereira, and Margit Tavits, “Legacies of the Third Reich: Concentration Camps and Out-group Intolerance,” American Political Science Review 114, no. 2 (May 2020): 573–90, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000832.
  • Thomas B. Pepinsky, Sara Wallace Goodman, and Conrad Ziller, “Modeling Spatial Heterogeneity and Historical Persistence: Nazi Concentration Camps and Contemporary Intolerance,” American Political Science Review, March 2, 2023, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423000072.

September 26

Leniency Designs

  • Ariel White, “Misdemeanor Disenfranchisement? The Demobilizing Effects of Brief Jail Spells on Potential Voters,” American Political Science Review 113, no. 2 (May 2019): 311–24, https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305541800093X.
  • Amanda Agan, Jennifer L Doleac, and Anna Harvey, “Misdemeanor Prosecution*,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 138, no. 3 (August 1, 2023): 1453–1505, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjad005.

Panel Designs

October 3

Difference-in-Differences

  • Agustina S. Paglayan, “Education or Indoctrination? The Violent Origins of Public School Systems in an Era of State-Building,” American Political Science Review 116, no. 4 (November 2022): 1242–57, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000247.
  • Alexander Fouirnaies and Andrew B. Hall, “How Do Electoral Incentives Affect Legislator Behavior? Evidence from U.S. State Legislatures,” American Political Science Review 116, no. 2 (May 2022): 662–76, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421001064.

October 17

Shift-Share Designs

  • Italo Colantone and Piero Stanig, “The Trade Origins of Economic Nationalism: Import Competition and Voting Behavior in Western Europe,” American Journal of Political Science 62, no. 4 (2018): 936–53, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12358.
  • Alvaro Calderon, Vasiliki Fouka, and Marco Tabellini, “Racial Diversity and Racial Policy Preferences: The Great Migration and Civil Rights,” The Review of Economic Studies 90, no. 1 (January 1, 2023): 165–200, https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdac026.

October 24

Mover Designs / Value Added Models

  • Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons, “Does Context Outweigh Individual Characteristics in Driving Voting Behavior? Evidence from Relocations Within the United States,” American Economic Review 112, no. 4 (April 2022): 1226–72, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20201660.
  • Michael Carlos Best, Jonas Hjort, and David Szakonyi, “Individuals and Organizations as Sources of State Effectiveness,” American Economic Review 113, no. 8 (August 2023): 2121–67, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191598.

Measurement

October 31

Ideal Point Models

  • David A. Bateman, Joshua D. Clinton, and John S. Lapinski, “A House Divided? Roll Calls, Polarization, and Policy Differences in the U.S. House, 1877–2011,” American Journal of Political Science 61, no. 3 (2017): 698–714, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12281.
  • Adam Bonica, “Inferring Roll-Call Scores from Campaign Contributions Using Supervised Machine Learning,” American Journal of Political Science 62, no. 4 (2018): 830–48, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12376.

November 7

Measurement with Text

  • Elliott Ash, Daniel L. Chen, and Suresh Naidu, “Ideas Have Consequences: The Impact of Law and Economics on American Justice,” Working Paper, Working Paper Series, February 2022, https://doi.org/10.3386/w29788.
  • Pamela Ban et al., “How Does the Rising Number of Women in the U.S. Congress Change Deliberation? Evidence from House Committee Hearings,” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 17, no. 3 (July 19, 2022): 355–87, https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00020112.

November 14

Measurement with Images

  • Francisco Cantú, “The Fingerprints of Fraud: Evidence from Mexico’s 1988 Presidential Election,” American Political Science Review 113, no. 3 (August 2019): 710–26, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000285.
  • Anjali Adukia et al., “What We Teach About Race and Gender: Representation in Images and Text of Children’s Books*,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 31, 2023, qjad028, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjad028.

Theory and Generalization

November 21

Meta-Analysis

  • Marshall Burke, Solomon M. Hsiang, and Edward Miguel, “Climate and Conflict,” Annual Review of Economics 7, no. 1 (2015): 577–617, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115430.
  • Trevor Incerti, “Corruption Information and Vote Share: A Meta-Analysis and Lessons for Experimental Design,” American Political Science Review 114, no. 3 (August 2020): 761–74, https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305542000012X.
  • Graeme Blair, Alexander Coppock, and Margaret Moor, “When to Worry about Sensitivity Bias: A Social Reference Theory and Evidence from 30 Years of List Experiments,” American Political Science Review 114, no. 4 (November 2020): 1297–1315, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000374.

November 28

Structural Estimation

December 5

Presentations