Archive for the ‘US Politics’ Category

Crafty Mothers

Friday, January 8th, 2010

image The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that Duke University is planning to publish the PhD thesis of S. Ann Dunham, the late mother of President Obama. Titled Surviving Against the Odds: Village Industry in Indonesia, it is a study carried out in the 1980s that focused on the socioeconomics of village-based handicrafts in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

By coincidence, my mum was at about the same time writing a book titled Hands of Time: The Crafts of Aceh, which I think is still the leading tome on crafts in that part of Indonesia. (Our family lived in Jakarta and Aceh from 1978-81.)

At least now I know how to make small talk if ever invited to the White House…

Do you see Obama as Black or White?

Friday, December 11th, 2009

[Tirta Susilo is a PhD student in psychology, and a co-author of mine on a recent study, published in (appropriately enough) the Journal of Economic Psychology. Tirta has written a guest-post on some fascinating new research about skin colour and politics.]

Earlier this year Andrew Leigh and I observed that skin colour can predict vote share: in a Northern Territory election, darker-skinned candidates won more votes in predominantly darker-skinned electorates, while lighter-skinned candidates fared better in predominantly lighter-skinned electorates. Our finding argues that, in the absence of complete political information, voters might use skin colour to help them cast the ballot.

But how do voters actually perceive skin colour? Is voters’ perception of skin colour veridical? Or do political leaning biased voters’ perception of skin colour in a systematic way? This question was recently examined in a study by psychologists Eugene Caruso, Nicole Mead, and Emily Balcetis.

Two lines of research form the backdrop of the study. First is research showing how people implicitly associate white with good, and black with bad. Second is research showing how people’s social and visual judgement are often biased according to the object’s perceived group membership. For example, a previous study by psychologists Daniel Levin and Mahzarin Banaji revealed how people could perceive a racially ambiguous face as lighter or darker depending on their expectations of the group to which the face belongs.

Caruso and colleagues predicted that since political partisanship is a form of group membership, voters would associate preferred candidates with lighter skin colour, and disliked candidates with darker skinned colour. They also expected that skin colour perception would correlate with intention to vote.

To test their hypotheses, the researchers collected photographs of a hypothetical biracial candidate and Barack Obama, both in several different poses. (Subjects – mostly White students – were previously led to believe that this candidate did or did not share their political beliefs.) Three versions of each pose were created: the original one, a lightened one, and a darkened one. Subjects were given a random pick of three different poses (one for each version) and were asked to rate how representative of the candidate each photograph was. Each subject saw only one version of each pose, to ensure representativeness rating would not be confounded with photo characteristics.

As predicted, subjects were more likely to rate the lightened version as most representative when they thought the hypothetical candidate agreed with their political views, whereas those who believed the opposite were more likely to pick the darkened version as most representative. Similarly with Obama, those who identified themselves as liberal rated the lightened version of him as most representative, whereas those who identified themselves as conservative chose his darkened version as most representative.

Since it is known that some media deliberately attempted to shape public perceptions of Obama, one might wonder whether perceived skin colour has something to do with subjects’ media consumption. To check this possibility, Caruso and colleagues measured subjects’ consumption of media in general, as well as liberal (e.g. New York Times) and conservative (e.g. Fox News) media in particular. Controlling for political orientation and general media consumption, they failed to find any correlation between light-advantage score for Obama and liberal or conservative media diet, which rules out the media-bias explanation.

Caruso and colleagues then computed a light-advantage score (lightened version rating minus darkened version rating, over original version rating). This score was found to predict intention to vote for the hypothetical candidate; it also predicted both intention to and reported vote for Obama (this research was done pre- and post- 2008 US presidential election). Crucially, in the Obama case, the correlation held even when political orientation, implicit prejudice, and explicit prejudice were controlled. This allowed the researchers to conclude that the degree to which subjects perceive a photograph as most representative is systematically related to their stated and reported voting behaviour.

It remains to be shown in what direction the causal arrow points (e.g. does political leaning alter perception of skin colour, or does skin colour perception sway political leaning?). In any case, Caruso and colleagues have shown that the link between skin colour and voting behaviour is two-way: as skin colour could affect how voters cast their ballot, political partisanship could also affect how skin colour is perceived.

Tirta Susilo

(xposted @ Core Economics)

Local lads

Tuesday, June 10th, 2008

My father – presently in Malaysia – emails an observation about the US Presidential race.

This must be the very first US election where the candidates of both major political parties each spent some years living in Southeast Asia, our near neighborhood. Neither resided in really salubrious surrounds (Hanoi Hilton cf. urban Jakarta), though I suspect Obama has rather happier memories of local hospitality!

A question of Vice

Tuesday, June 10th, 2008

Who will be Obama’s running mate? According to Intrade, Clinton is the favourite, with a 24% chance. Next in line is Virginia Senator Jim Webb (19%) and Bill Richardson (8%). And reflecting the huge degree of uncertainty in such a pick, “any other” is 31%.

On the red side, Mitt Romney is 21% to be McCain’s running mate (though given how harshly McCain spoke of him, I find this hard to imagine), Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is 16%, Mike Huckabee is 13%, and “any other” is 43%.

Obama in St Paul

Sunday, June 8th, 2008

If you haven’t yet seen it, I can highly recommend watching Obama’s victory speech in St Paul, Minnesota (link above, transcript here). Behind his Philadelphia race speech, I think it’s the best of his career. (Clinton’s concession speech yesterday was also pretty good, though Obama’s writing and vocal cadences are unmatchable – if you’ve never watched a full speech, you won’t be able to understand his appeal.)

Thanks for the votes

Friday, May 2nd, 2008

At 39, Dalton Conley is the chair of the New York University department of sociology. He’s also one of my favourite sociologists, having written about race, class, health, and biology. His work ranges across lived experience (including Honky, a superbly written book about race in America). But Dalton also uses natural experiment techniques much beloved of economists. His latest paper gives a sense of how close the work of many US economists and sociologists has become.

Bribery or Just Desserts? Evidence on the Influence of Congressional Voting Patterns on PAC Contributions from Exogenous Variation in the Sex Mix of Legislator Offspring
by Dalton Conley, Brian J. McCabe
Evidence on the relationship between political contributions and legislators’ voting behavior is marred by concerns about endogeneity in the estimation process. Using a legislator’s offspring sex mix as an exogenous variable, we employ a two-stage least squares estimation procedure to predict the effect of voting behavior on political contributions. Following previous research, we find that a legislator’s proportion daughters has a significant effect on voting behavior for women’s issues, as measured by score in the “Congressional Record on Choice” issued by NARAL Pro-Choice America. In the second stage, we make a unique contribution by demonstrating a significant impact of exogenous voting behavior on PAC contributions, lending credibility to the hypothesis that Political Action Committees respond to legislators’ voting patterns by “rewarding” political candidates that vote in line with the positions of the PAC, rather than affecting or “bribing” those same votes — at least in this high profile policy domain.

Leadership by the Famous Paul ‘t Hart

Sunday, March 16th, 2008

My political science colleague Paul ‘t Hart is giving a talk on Wednesday (details here) on the topic ‘Leadership by the Famous: Celebrity as Political Capital’. Here’s the paper. For a more ascerbic perspective on the same topic, here’s Michael Fullilove.

Is Obama Still for Merit Pay?

Thursday, March 13th, 2008

There’s a piece in the New Republic attempting to work out Obama’s views on education reform, and particularly whether he’s still for merit pay. It’s an important topic, but I find it a smidgin frustrating that the author spends so much time looking at who his policy advisers are. In the case of a smart policy wonk like Obama, the assumption that advisers’ views equal candidate views doesn’t make much sense.

[HT: Rocco Weglarz]

The Politics of Hope

Tuesday, February 26th, 2008

My AFR oped today is on Barack Obama and the politics of hope. Full text over the fold.

(more…)

Backgrounder on prediction markets

Sunday, February 24th, 2008

The latest issue of Scientific American has an article on prediction markets. Those who know the literature won’t learn that much from it, but it does have a neat history on the Iowa Electronic Markets. My favourite quote:

When the three academics—George R. Neumann, Robert Forsythe and Forrest Nelson—sought support from the university, the dean of its business college, a free-market advocate, could not contain his enthusiasm. On the other hand, the dean of the college of arts and sciences, a political scientist, characterized the proposal as “the stupidest thing he had ever heard of,” Neumann recalls. “At best, it would be a shadow of the polls,” he was told.

(HT: Sacha Blumen) 

Parochial, US?

Thursday, February 7th, 2008

When I first visited the US (at age 18), I was struck by how much the mainstream media focused on domestic events. ‘How parochial’, I thought. Not like Australia, where our media covers lots of things happening outside the country.

But yesterday, I had the same reaction about my own country. Listening to ABC News Radio on my cycle home (yes Mikel, I bought that bike radio), the Super Tuesday results were item number four. IMHO, the most important day for the most exciting set of primaries in decades should have been items one, two, and three. But maybe I’m just turning into a US politics tragic…

It’s a coin toss on who’ll face McCain

Wednesday, February 6th, 2008

Hard to know whether exit polling numbers have leaked yet (it’s coming up to 4pm East Coast US time), but Intrade has McCain an 89% chance of being Republican nominee, and Clinton and Obama both on 50%. Nailbiting.

(FWIW, I’m an Obama supporter. Here’s a review of his two books that I wrote for the SMH a year ago. Funny to think that then he was just a 1/5 chance, and that in mid-2006, he was a 1/50 chance.)

Who cares about inequality?

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2008

The Maxwell School has released its latest poll on Americans’ attitudes to inequality. As Norberto Bobbio once wrote, attitudes to inequality are the best way of gauging a person’s position on the left/right spectrum, and their poll strongly reinforces that.

‘08 Odds Updated

Sunday, January 13th, 2008

The ‘08 race is changing so fast, I’m having trouble keeping up. Here’s the Iowa Electronic Markets’ estimates on the probability of various nominees on both sides.

  • Democratic: Clinton 54%, Obama 45%, Edwards 2%, Rest 1%
  • Republican: McCain 45%, Giuliani 20%, Huckabee 18%, Romney 13%, Thompson 3%, Rest 2%

Also, Intrade currently has a 59% probability on the US going into recession in 2008.

While we’re on US politics, I love the closing line of this Huckabee ad: “because Americans want the next US president to be like the guy who works with them, not the guy who laid them off”. I find Huckabee’s policies pretty awful, but if he ever ran for speechwriter-in-chief, I reckon he’d be terrific.

More Contingent Presidential Markets

Saturday, January 12th, 2008

I mentioned recently Robin Hanson’s discussion of the contingent Presidential nomination prediction markets. Now Robin draws our attention to some new markets.

Wow.  Under “politics,” next to the “US Pres. Decisions” section I announced Friday, Intrade.com now has an “Impact of next Pres.” section, with markets for conditional estimates of these four parameters:

  • eco growth to be at least 2.5% over the next three years,
  • unemployment rate to be less than 5% at end of 2011,
  • number of violent crimes in 2010 to be less than in 2007, and
  • Democrats to control House of Rep’s after 2010 mid-terms,

given each of these seven candidates: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney.  Cool!  I don’t see any orders in these markets yet though, so it is hard to tell how much liquidity they will have.

A limitation of these markets is that they’re likely to be thin. This is driven by two problems. First, they’re harder to understand than the ‘who will win?’ markets. Second, punters will be disinclined to put their money into Intrade’s bank account until 2010/2011. Hopefully someone (the Iowa Electronic Markets folk, perhaps?) will step forward to solve them.

For a really radical view on contingent markets, check out Robin’s paper Vote Values, But Bet Beliefs.

Update ‘08

Monday, January 7th, 2008

According to the Iowa Electronic Markets, Obama is now a 58% chance of winning the Democratic nomination, and Clinton a 38% chance. Between them, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and the rest of the field are a 4% chance. And if the Saturday night Democratic debate was anything to go by, Edwards is now running to be Obama’s VP, and Richardson is running to be Clinton’s VP.

Update: Robin Hanson blogs on new Intrade contingent markets, which he argues can tell us how US voters should vote.

Markets ‘08

Thursday, January 3rd, 2008

Justin Wolfers is writing a series of columns on prediction markets for WSJ Online. Here’s his first.

It’s been a good year for US political comedians

Saturday, December 22nd, 2007

In the New York Times, Daniel Kurztman catalogues 2007’s most laughable US political antics. My favourite paragraph:

Best Fodder for the Late-Night Comedians: Senator Larry Craig (R-estroom) gave “new meaning to the word caucusing” (David Letterman) when he was caught playing footsie in the men’s room with his infamous “wide stance.” Craig announced his resignation, then later reversed his decision after “talking it over with guy in stall number 3” (Conan O’Brien), angering his Republican colleagues, some of whom “stopped having sex with him” (Jimmy Kimmel). The staunchly anti-gay lawmaker denied being a hypocrite, saying, “Hey, I wasn’t trying to marry the cop in the bathroom” (O’Brien). Later, he was inducted into the Idaho Hall of Fame — not the entire hall, “just the men’s room” (Jay Leno).

Is six hours enough?

Wednesday, November 7th, 2007

In the latest Democratic Presidential candidates debate, the candidates were asked whether they supported a longer school day. Ed Sector parses their answers.

(more…)

Glaeser on Krugman

Friday, October 12th, 2007

Ed Glaeser, who is always worth reading, writes a feisty fact-filled review of Krugman’s recent pro-Democrat book. He begins:

Human knowledge is produced by intellectual combat that exposes weak premises and faulty conclusions to withering challenge. We are often improved more by our ideological enemies than by our friends, because our enemies push us hardest. In that spirit, I welcome the publication of Paul Krugman’s “The Conscience of a Liberal” (W.W. Norton, 352 pages, $25.95). The book espouses a world-view that is in many ways diametrically opposed to my own, but the process of intellectually disagreeing with Mr. Krugman fired my own passion for liberty more than the rhetoric of any current GOP presidential candidate does.

Reading it, I decided that I wanted to buy Krugman, and find a publisher to commission Ed to write the pro-Republican counter-argument.

Klanonomics

Friday, September 21st, 2007

Another terrific paper from Steven Levitt – this one coauthored with Roland Fryer, one of America’s top young economists. They’ve turned their attention to the economics of the KKK.

Hatred and Profits: Getting Under the Hood of the Ku Klux Klan
Roland G. Fryer, Jr, Steven D. Levitt 
The Ku Klux Klan reached its heyday in the mid-1920s, claiming millions of members.  In this paper, we analyze the 1920s Klan, those who joined it, and the social and political impact that it had.  We utilize a wide range of newly discovered data sources including information from Klan membership roles, applications, robe-order forms, an internal audit of the Klan by Ernst and Ernst, and a census that the Klan conducted after an internal scandal.  Combining these sources with data from the 1920 and 1930 U.S. Censuses, we find that individuals who joined the Klan were better educated and more likely to hold professional jobs than the typical American.  Surprisingly, we find few tangible social or political impacts of the Klan.  There is little evidence that the Klan had an effect on black or foreign born residential mobility, or on lynching patterns.  Historians have argued that the Klan was successful in getting candidates they favored elected.  Statistical analysis, however, suggests that any direct impact of the Klan was likely to be small.  Furthermore, those who were elected had little discernible effect on legislation passed. Rather than a terrorist organization, the 1920s Klan is best described as a social organization built through a wildly successful pyramid scheme fueled by an army of highly-incentivized sales agents selling hatred, religious intolerance, and fraternity in a time and place where there was tremendous demand.

This reminds me of my favourite KKK quote, from Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone.

When Floridians objected to plans by the Ku Klux Klan to “adopt a highway,” Jeff Coleman, grand wizard of the Royal Knights of the KKK, protested, “Really, we’re just like the Lions or the Elks. We want to be involved in the community.”

Family Ties

Wednesday, September 19th, 2007

A casual comment in an email from my coauthor Christine Neill made me realise that I’d forgotten to blog on this – very cool – paper. My favourite summary statistic is that 9% of US Congressional representatives have close relatives who also served in Congress.

Political Dynasties
Ernesto Dal Bó, Pedro Dal Bó, Jason Snyder
We study political dynasties in the United States Congress since its inception in 1789. We document historic and geographic patterns in the evolution and profile of political dynasties, study the extent of dynastic bias in legislative politics versus other occupations, and analyze the connection between political dynasties and political competition. We also study the self-perpetuation of political elites. We find that legislators who enjoy longer tenures are significantly more likely to have relatives entering Congress later. Using instrumental variables methods, we establish that this relationship is causal: a longer period in power increases the chance that a person may start (or continue) a political dynasty. Therefore, dynastic political power is self-perpetuating in that a positive exogenous shock to a person’s political power has persistent effects through posterior dynastic attainment. In politics, power begets power.

So far as I know, there’s been no work done on this in the Australian context. Which is odd, given the proliferation in federal parliament of Downers and Creans, Beazleys and Anthonies.

An aside: A commenter has given examples of other Australian political families. If anyone has the time and inclination, Wikipedia is presently asking for people to create entries in its category Political families of Australia.

Bibliopolitics

Friday, September 7th, 2007

For any political tragics who are mildly curious as to precisely what books Kevin Rudd bought George Bush yesterday, an insider tells me that they were:

Poor Policies

Wednesday, August 8th, 2007

Ed Glaeser has a fascinating op-ed that gets at the question: should government focus on helping poor people, or poor places?

(HT: Mark Thoma)

On Leadership

Sunday, August 5th, 2007

In today’s NYT mag, Michael Ignatieff has one of the nicest essays on political leadership that I’ve read in a long time.

How to turn betting odds into probabilities

Wednesday, July 25th, 2007

A colleague emailed me today, asking how to turn betting odds into probabilities, and reminded me that this is something I’ve been meaning to blog about for some time. To some readers, it will be obvious, but to non-gamblers, it won’t. Since my parents met in a Methodist church, this isn’t something that came naturally to me the first time around.

Let’s take the example of PortlandBet, which currently has Labor at $1.67, and the Coalition at $2.15.

If there was no profit margin to the bookmaker, the inverse of these odds would be the probability of winning. In other words, Labor’s chance of winning would be 1/1.67=60%, and the Coalition’s would be 1/2.15=46%.

All well and good, except that Portlandbet does have a profit margin, so these two probabilities add to 106%. That’s obviously silly, so we need to adjust both probabilties downward. We just do this by dividing by 106%, so the final probabilities are 60%/106%=56% and 46%/106%=44%. Now, the two probabilities add to 100%.

So where A and B are the dollar odds (eg. $1.67 and $2.15), the formula is:

Prob(A win)=(1/A)/(1/A+1/B)

If you have more than 2 candidates, you need to take account of them all, eg. with 3 candidates:

Prob(A win)=(1/A)/(1/A+1/B+1/C)

If there are a large number of candidates, and you’re in a hurry, you can take a guess at the denominator. For most bookies, it’s 1.06 to 1.09. 

And of course, a simple rule of thumb is that if your final probabilities don’t add to 100%, you’ve done something wrong.

Dems on YouTube

Wednesday, July 25th, 2007

The Democrats’ CNN/YouTube debate last night was one of the best political things I’ve seen on TV for a long time. If you didn’t see it and are pressed for time, all the questions are here. My favourites were gay marriage (9 & 10), healthcare (33) and other candidates (39). Special mention for the taxes song (31).

The Next Ross Perot?

Wednesday, June 20th, 2007

Last week I wrote about the congestion fee proposed by Republican mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg. Well, now it’s Independent Michael Bloomberg.

Doubtless plenty of Democrats are keen to fuel his ambitions to be President Bloomberg, though the prospect of a third-party right-wing candidate doesn’t seem to have noticeably lowered the Republicans’ Intrade odds yet.

Update, 24/6: According to Bob Herbert, my mistake was in focusing on Bloomberg’s party label:

As Chris Lehane, a Democratic political consultant, said this week in a reference to Mr. Bloomberg: “If you closed your eyes and you were told that someone was pro-public education, pro-choice, pro-immigration rights, pro-gun control, pro-civil rights, pro-gay rights and pro-women’s rights — you would be pretty happy if you were a Democrat.”

So whatever political banner he may be waving at any given time (he’s now calling himself an independent), Mr. Bloomberg is a Democrat. If he runs for president, he is far more likely to take votes from the Democratic nominee than the Republican one.

That’s why, for all the talk about the feuding between the Bloomberg and Giuliani camps, it’s the leading Democratic candidates who are the most unhappy about the possibility of a Bloomberg candidacy. A number of individuals close to Bill and Hillary Clinton said this week that a Bloomberg presidential run would have an especially harmful effect on Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which, if anything, has been strengthening of late.

It’s the genocide, stupid

Tuesday, June 19th, 2007

Aussie* Bec Hamilton has an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun, showing that young Americans regard Darfur as one of the most important foreign policy issues.

at 18 percent. Darfur had more than three times the support found for negotiating peace between Israel and Palestine (5 percent) or fighting the war on terrorism (5 percent).

She also highlights some of the ingenious tactics used in modern US politics.

And young voters translate their concern into effective action. In November 2005, established advocates found themselves unable to get the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Students took up the challenge. They went to OpenSecrets.org to find committee Chairman Sen. Richard G. Lugar’s highest campaign contributors. They split up the contact information for these contributors among groups at college campuses nationwide. Donors soon received hundreds of calls asking them to press Senator Lugar to schedule the bill for markup. Two weeks later, the bill was released from committee and passed unanimously in the Senate.

But the best thing about the op-ed is its headline, which I’ve shamelessly stolen for the title of this post. 

* Or maybe New Zealander – or maybe both – I can never remember.

College for Everyone?

Monday, June 11th, 2007

The Democratic Presidential candidates faced off in New Hampshire last week. It’s an entertaining debate if you have the time to watch it. But there were also some snippets about education that I thought neatly illustrated the differences in educational aspirations for working class Americans. Here’s Chris Dodd and John Edwards.

Chris Dodd: This young man is finishing high school. He’s presumably going to go on to higher education. I hope you are.

John Edwards: College for everyone is something we’ve actually, Elizabeth and I, put in place in eastern North Carolina, in a small community in eastern North Carolina, and the idea is really simple. The idea is, if a kid graduates from high school qualified to be in college and they commit to work when they’re there at least 10 hours a week, their tuition and books are paid for. And the idea is, we want to make it simple for kids to go to college. They have to work for it. We don’t just give it to them. And then, on top of that, so many young people are faced with this crushing burden of debt when they graduate from college. I think it’s something we shouldn’t just be doing — we’ve done this privately in this small area of eastern North Carolina…

It used to be the case that Americans were far better educated than Australians. The statistical gap has closed a lot now. But the aspiration gap still remains surprisingly large.

War Against Poverty II

Saturday, June 9th, 2007

The NYT magazine has a great profile of John Edwards, titled ‘The Poverty Platform’. A few snippets:

About a month after the 2004 election, Edwards met with his most loyal advisers at his cluttered home on P Street in Georgetown. It was assumed he might run again, and the question facing Edwards was how best to spend his time, intellectually and politically. There was talk of a foreign-policy study group, or maybe something to do with education, another huge issue for Democrats. It was Elizabeth, hearing Edwards expound yet again on poverty, who finally pushed these other suggestions aside. What Edwards clearly cared about most, she said, was poverty. She knew her husband better than anyone, and she knew that poverty was the issue that really lighted him up during the campaign, the one he had brought home with him and railed about in the privacy of their kitchen. Maybe it wasn’t the most exploitable issue in Democratic politics, but if that’s what animated Edwards, why shouldn’t he just go out and do something about it? …

Since Ronald Reagan, Democrats have largely avoided talking too much about social programs for the poor, fearing that middle-class voters would recoil at the thought of more of their hard-earned money going to welfare moms. Some progressives have tried recently to get around this problem by arguing that there really isn’t much of a distinction anymore between the poor and the middle class — that, as inequality worsens, the once-solid middle class, as the Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren has written, is “vanishing.” By this theory, average voters should now support antipoverty programs because those same programs will benefit the middle class. This is a tricky formulation, since it seems to rely on a narrow and convenient definition of “middle class” — namely, struggling households headed by two working parents with no education beyond high school. In fact, as the Washington policy group Third Way documented in a recent report, middle-class college graduates have performed remarkably well in the new economy, and while their debts have risen, their wealth and assets have accumulated even faster. It turns out that the middle class, in the sense that most Americans think of it, isn’t vanishing at all.

Edwards seems conflicted about which argument to make. He is most compelling about poverty when he’s talking about it as a national obligation — what he calls “the moral issue of our time.” But he also recognizes the need to persuasively connect it to the self-interest of middle-class voters. “For the majority of Americans, you have to convince them that it’s good for America and good for them,” he told me. “Which means it’s important to strengthening and growing the middle class. It’s important to the inequality issue. It’s important to America, and as a result important to them personally.” Edwards summarized his message to voters this way: “We’re all in this together. Do you love your country? We want everyone to have a chance.”

I saw Edwards speak in a Kennedy School debate in 2004, and was pretty underwhelmed at his lack of policy detail (a common critique at the time). So it’s impressive to now see him positioning himself as the #1 policy wonk of the Democratic field.

No HECS, thanks – we’re Americans

Saturday, June 9th, 2007

Two prominent Democrats – Evan Bayh and Rahm Emmanuel – have introduced legislation to reform higher education student subsidies. So far as I can tell, their proposal offers some administrative simplicity, but not much in the way of real reform. It’s always puzzled me as to why Americans have eschewed the HECS scheme – one of Australia’s most popular policy ideas, now adopted by the UK, Israel, Thailand, and others. In a long paper on HECS, Bruce Chapman implies that one issue may be the failure of the Yale Plan in the 1970s, which has made some American policy wonks think that income-contingent loans can never work. It would be a pity if that were the case, since HECS is both more efficient, and more equitable, than the current US system.

A stitch in time

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007

Andrew Rotherham and Richard Whitmire offer a 9-point education plan to aspiring US Presidential candidates. Here it is:

    1. Don’t just attack No Child Left Behind. It has done a lot of good. For poor and minority kids, it’s their best chance. Of course, the ultimate goal is unrealistic, but do Super Bowl-winning coaches launch their seasons by challenging players to achieve break-even records? Instead of criticizing, put forward serious ideas that will make it work.
    2. Urge better pay for better teaching. We do need to pay teachers more, but we need to pay them very differently, too. Use the more than $3 billion the federal government spends annually on teachers to catalyze a complete overhaul of teacher preparation, evaluation and compensation. 
    3. Take the New York City idea national. It took a determined capitalist such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a trust-busting lawyer such as Schools Chancellor Joel Klein to highlight the missing ingredient of education reform: It’s all about increasing the supply of schools that work, stupid. That means changing incentives, accountability and practices to focus solely on student learning. And, in some cases, that means stuffing high-flying new schools and charter schools into existing neighborhood schools. It is not perfect and not always pretty, but it is progress, and the voters rewarded Bloomberg for his tenacity. 
    4. Don’t let the “V” word pass your lips. You need to say something on school choice. Americans expect choices in all areas of their lives, including their schools. Vouchers look good on paper, but what good have they done in cities such as Cleveland, where there are no good schools on which to spend those vouchers? We can barely afford the school system we have now, so creating a second parallel one doesn’t make much sense. Instead, expand choice and customization within the public system. 
    5. Transform school transfers. It makes no sense that a student in a failing D.C. school can transfer only to another failing school in the city when there are good schools a short bus or train ride away in Maryland and Virginia. If that sounds too complicated a problem to solve, then ask yourself: Am I really commander in chief material? 
    6. Remember more time means more learning. Some students need more time to master challenging content, and some schools simply have to spend more time on teaching than they do now. Tie new money to deliberate plans to improve student performance, not just do more of the same. 
    7. Forget the “national” in national standards. Sure, national standards in math and reading make sense, but there is little appetite for federally imposed standards. Meanwhile, the national standards debate is morphing into an excuse to delay real accountability. There are backdoor ways to get to national standards, such as encouraging states to collaborate on shared standards. 
    8. Open the door to pre-kindergarten education. Academically focused pre-kindergarten programs help close the racial and economic achievement gap. Such programs are expensive, but taxpayers actually recoup the money in savings down the road because these programs help keep kids out of special education and out of trouble. 
    9. Demand that the U.S. Department of Education launch an aggressive research agenda. There is no shortage of issues teachers need help with: how to succeed with Latino students, middle-school students and boys in all grades. And will someone please help schools teach literacy in the upper grades?

Elections and the Ecological Fallacy, Part II

Thursday, April 26th, 2007

Every now and then, people try to learn something about individual voting patterns by looking at regional voting patterns. Given that we have post-election surveys, this approach has always puzzled me. More worryingly, it’s plagued by the ‘ecological fallacy’: aggregating things up doesn’t always give you the same result. I’ve blogged about this before, but here’s a great example of where the ecological fallacy can lead you astray.

Aggregation Reversals and the Social Formation of Beliefs by Edward L. Glaeser, Bruce Sacerdote
In the past two elections, richer people were more likely to vote Republican while richer states were more likely to vote Democratic. This switch is an aggregation reversal, where an individual relationship, like income and Republicanism, is reversed at some level of aggregation.  Aggregation reversals can occur when an independent variable impacts an outcome both directly and indirectly through a correlation with beliefs.  For example, income increases the desire for low taxes but decreases belief in Republican social causes.  If beliefs are learned socially, then aggregation can magnify the connection between the independent variable and beliefs, which can cause an aggregation reversal.  We estimate the model’s parameters for three examples of aggregation reversals, and show with these parameters that the model predicts the observed reversals.

Bottom line: if you want to know how old people vote, ask an old person. If you want to know how rich people vote, ask a rich person.

Mr Ed Opens the Gates

Wednesday, April 25th, 2007

Eli Broad and Bill Gates plan to spend $60 million on moving schools up the US political agenda. Here’s what the NYT has to say about it.

Under the slogan “Ed in ’08,” the project, called Strong American Schools, will include television and radio advertising in battleground states, an Internet-driven appeal for volunteers and a national network of operatives in both parties.

“I have reached the conclusion as has the Gates foundation, which has done good things also, that all we’re doing is incremental,” said Mr. Broad, the billionaire who founded SunAmerica Inc. and KB Home and who has long been a prodigious donor to Democrats. “If we really want to get the job done, we have got to wake up the American people that we have got a real problem and we need real reform.”

Mr. Gates, the chairman of Microsoft, responding to questions by e-mail, wrote, “The lack of political and public will is a significant barrier to making dramatic improvements in school and student performance.”

The project will not endorse candidates — indeed, it is illegal to do so as a charitable group — but will instead focus on three main areas: a call for stronger, more consistent curriculum standards nationwide; lengthening the school day and year; and improving teacher quality through merit pay and other measures.

While the effort is shying away from some of the most polarizing topics in education, like vouchers, charter schools and racial integration, there is still room for it to spark vigorous debate. Advocating merit pay to reward high-quality teaching could force Democratic candidates to take a stand typically opposed by the teachers unions who are their strong supporters.

I’m interested in merit pay, though more sceptical about longer school days and standardised curricula. But regardless of the particular policy proposals they choose, a serious push to improve the educational achievement of low-income Americans is long-overdue.

Can a US Prez be born in Oz?

Monday, March 19th, 2007

My mother-in-law has alerted me to the fact that if I’m feeling especially ambitious for my son, I should be campaigning for John McCain to win the presidency. There’s presently some uncertainty over whether a ‘natural born citizen’ encompasses someone born in a US territory (like McCain) or born to a US parent in another country (like our son). So if McCain can do it…

You can bet on it

Wednesday, February 14th, 2007

If you’ve been following the literature on the predictive power of election betting markets, you may have seen this graph, from  a paper based on data from the first 12 years of the Iowa Electronic Markets. The horizontal axis shows the actual election result, while the vertical axis shows the IEM prediction. A dot on the line shows an accurate prediction; a dot off the line shows an inaccurate prediction.

 

However, I just stumbled across something that looks surprisingly similar, yet is based on data on the other side of the Atlantic. In “Predictive Accuracy of Political Stock Markets – Empirical Evidence from a European Perspective“, Michael Berlemann and Carsten Schmidt look at a bunch of European election prediction markets. Here’s their key graph.

In both cases, the authors look at published opinion polls, and find that the mean absolute error of the poll predictions was higher than the mean absolute error of the betting market predictions. Neither are perfect, but it’s clear which is the superior forecasting tool.

Update: On the topic of prediction markets, my coauthor Justin Wolfers is profiled (along with his research) in today’s New York Times.

Obama’s In

Sunday, February 11th, 2007

Senator Barack Obama officially announced today that he’s running for President. My favourite paras from his speech.

It was here, in Springfield, where I saw all that is America converge – farmers and teachers, businessmen and laborers, all of them with a story to tell, all of them seeking a seat at the table, all of them clamoring to be heard. I made lasting friendships here – friends that I see in the audience today.

It was here we learned to disagree without being disagreeable – that it’s possible to compromise so long as you know those principles that can never be compromised; and that so long as we’re willing to listen to each other, we can assume the best in people instead of the worst. …

Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy to compete in the digital age. Let’s set high standards for our schools and give them the resources they need to succeed. Let’s recruit a new army of teachers, and give them better pay and more support in exchange for more accountability. Let’s make college more affordable, and let’s invest in scientific research, and let’s lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America.

And as our economy changes, let’s be the generation that ensures our nation’s workers are sharing in our prosperity. Let’s protect the hard-earned benefits their companies have promised. Let’s make it possible for hardworking Americans to save for retirement. And let’s allow our unions and their organizers to lift up this country’s middle-class again.

Let’s be the generation that ends poverty in America. Every single person willing to work should be able to get job training that leads to a job, and earn a living wage that can pay the bills, and afford child care so their kids have a safe place to go when they work. Let’s do this.

Let’s be the generation that finally tackles our health care crisis. We can control costs by focusing on prevention, by providing better treatment to the chronically ill, and using technology to cut the bureaucracy. Let’s be the generation that says right here, right now, that we will have universal health care in America by the end of the next president’s first term. …

I know there are those who don’t believe we can do all these things. I understand the skepticism. After all, every four years, candidates from both parties make similar promises, and I expect this year will be no different. All of us running for president will travel around the country offering ten-point plans and making grand speeches; all of us will trumpet those qualities we believe make us uniquely qualified to lead the country. But too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special interests move in, and people turn away, disappointed as before, left to struggle on their own.

That is why this campaign can’t only be about me. It must be about us – it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. It will take your time, your energy, and your advice – to push us forward when we’re doing right, and to let us know when we’re not. This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.

Obama’s Odds

Wednesday, January 17th, 2007

US Senator Barack Obama has created an exploratory committee for his presidential bid. While this has been billed as big news by some local journos, the betting markets seem to have regarded it as being as predictable as the next act in an Indonesian Wayang puppet show. Obama’s Tradesports odds didn’t change at all on the news (still 1 in 5 of being the Democratic nominee). It’ll be interesting to see if they shift when he launches on February 10.

The Audacity of Hope

Sunday, January 14th, 2007

In yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald, I had a review of Barack Obama’s new book, The Audacity of Hope. They cut it down a bit, so the full version is over the fold.

Shorter AL: Obama for Prez.

(more…)