Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T06:20:14.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing Group and Subgroup Cohesion Scores: A Nonparametric Method with an Application to Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Scott W. Desposato
Scott W. Desposato*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, 315 Social Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. e-mail: swd@u.arizona.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article builds a nonparametric method for inference from roll-call cohesion scores. Cohesion scores have been a staple of legislative studies since the publication of Rice's 1924 thesis. Unfortunately, little effort has been dedicated to understanding their statistical properties or relating them to existing models of legislative behavior. I show how a common use of cohesion scores, testing for distinct voting blocs, is severely biased toward Type I error, practically guaranteeing significant findings even when the null hypothesis is correct. I offer a nonparametric method—permutation analysis—that solves the bias problem and provides for simple and intuitive inference. I demonstrate with an examination of roll-call voting data from the Brazilian National Congress.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , Summer 2003, pp. 275 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2003 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ames, Barry. 2001. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John M. 2001. “Party and Coalition Unity in Legislative Voting.” Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Meetings.Google Scholar
Carey, John M., and Yannitell Reinhardt, Gina. 2001. “Coalition Brokers or Breakers: Brazilian Governors and Legislative Voting.” Unpublished.Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott W. 2001. Institutional Theories, Societal Realities, and Party Politics in Brazil. Ph.D. thesis. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott W. 2002. “Correcting for Bias in Roll-Call Cohesion Scores.” Working paper.Google Scholar
Effron, Bradley, and Tibshirani, Robert J. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap (Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, No. 57). New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara, and Benton, Allyson. 1997. “Federalism and Party Systems.” Unpublished.Google Scholar
Gile, Roxanne L., and Jones, Charles E. 1995. “Congressional Racial Solidarity: Exploring Congressional Black Caucus Voting Cohesion, 1971-1990.” Journal of Black Studies 25:622–641.Google Scholar
Haspel, Moshe, Remington, Thomas F., and Smith, Steven S. 1998. “Electoral Institutions and Party Cohesion in the Russian Duma.” Journal of Politics 60:417–439.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark P. 2000. “Explaining the High Level of Party Discipline in the Argentine Congress.” Unpublished.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. Jr. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott. 1997. “Multipartism, Robust Federalism, and Presidentialism in Brazil.” In Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, eds. Mainwaring, Scott and Soberg Shugart, Matthew. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 55–109.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott P. 1999. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Perez Liñán, Aníbal. 1997. “Party Discipline in the Brazilian Constitutional Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 12:453–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, Scott. 2000. “Explaining Voting Unity in the Legislatures of the United States and Latin America.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Rice, Stuart A. 1924. Farmers and Workers in American Politics. Ph.D. thesis. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
Rice, Stuart A. 1925. “The Behavior of Legislative Groups: A Method of Measurement.” Political Science Quarterly 40:60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Stuart A. 1928. Quantitative Methods in Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Samuels, David J. 1996. “‘Legislative Lilliputians?’ Towards a Theory of Party Cohesion in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.” Unpublished.Google Scholar
Samuels, David J. 2002. “Ambassadors of the States: Political Ambition, Federalism, and Legislative Politics in Brazil.” Unpublished.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric, and Rich, Andrew. 1997. “Controlling the Floor: Parties as Procedural Coalitions in the House.” American Journal of Political Science 41:1340–1375.Google Scholar
Selcher, Wayne. 1998. “The Politics of Decentralized Federalism, National Diversification, and Regionalism in Brazil.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 40:25–50.Google Scholar
Souza, Celina. 1998. “Intermediação de Interesses Regionais no Brasil: O Impacto do Federalismo e da Descen-tralização.” Dados 41:569–592.Google Scholar
Truman, David. 1956. “The State Delegations and the Structure of Party Voting in the United States House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 50:1023–1045.Google Scholar