No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Implicit Substantive Assumptions Underlying the Generalized Event Count Estimator
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2017
Abstract
The Generalized Event Count (GEC) estimator (King 1989a) is a statistical model for event counts. Its great attraction is that it provides a general likelihood function for count data, regardless of whether the data come from a Poisson, binomial, or negative binomial distribution. In consequence, it has been used in several recent statistical studies of event counts in the social sciences.
Underlying the GEC, however, are unorthodox substantive assumptions about how the event counts have been generated (Amato, this volume). This paper gives some simple examples in which the GEC logic is clearly visible, and it shows how failures of the implicit assumptions can lead to erroneous GEC coefficient estimates and standard errors.
Information
- Type
- Symposium on the Generalized Event Count Estimator
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society for Political Methodology
References
Amato, Timothy W.
1996. On Difference Equations, Probability Models and the “Generalized Event Count” Distribution: Foundations and Interpretations. This volume.Google Scholar
Boswell, M. T., and Patil, G. P.
1970. Chance Mechanisms Generating the Negative Binomial Distributions. In Random Counts in Scientific Work I: Random Counts in Models and Structures, edited by Patil, G. P.
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 3–22.Google Scholar
Canon, David T.
1993. Sacrificial Lambs or Strategic Politicians: Political Amateurs in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science
37: 1119–41.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A.
1941-42. The Negative Binomial Distribution. Annals of Eugenics
11: 182–87.Google Scholar
Johnson, Norman L., Kotz, Samuel, and Kemp, Adrienne W.
1992. Univariate Discrete Distributions, 2nd ed.
New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Katz, Leo. 1945. Characteristics of Frequency Functions Defined by First Order Difference Equations. Ph.D. diss., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Katz, Leo. 1965. Unified Treatment of a Broad Class of Discrete Probability Distributions. In Classical and Contagious Discrete Distributions, edited by Patil, Ganapati P.
Calcutta: Statistical Publishing Society.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1989a. Variance Specification in Event Count Models: From Restrictive Assumptions to a Generalized Estimator. American Journal of Political Science
33: 762–84.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1989b. Unifying Political Methodology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krause, George A.
1994. Federal Reserve Policy Decision Making. American Journal of Political Science
38: 124–44.Google Scholar
McCullagh, P., and Nelder, J. A.
1989. Generalized Linear Models, 2d ed.
London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lisa L.
1992. Coercive Cooperation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon, David. 1991. Event Count Models for Supreme Court Dissents. The Political Methodologist
4: 11–14.Google Scholar
Olkin, I., Petkau, A. J., and Zidek, J. D.
1981. A Comparison of n Estimators for the Binomial Distribution. Journal of the American Statistical Association
76: 637–42.Google Scholar
Wang, T. Y., Dixon, William J., Muller, Edward N., and Seligson, Mitchell A.
1993. Inequality and Political Violence Revisited. American Political Science Review
87: 979–93.Google Scholar
Winkelmann, Rainier, Signorino, Curtis, and King, Gary. 1996. A Correction for an Underdispersed Event Count Probability Distribution. In Political Analysis, vol. 5, edited by Freeman, John R.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 215–28.Google Scholar