Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T13:30:18.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defining and Modeling State-Dependent Dynamic Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Justin Esarey  and
Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt
Justin Esarey*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Rice University, 105 Herzstein Hall, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005
Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305340, Denton, TX 76203
*
e-mail: justin@justinesarey.com (corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

A state-dependent dynamic system is one in which (1) the marginal effect of x on y at time t () depends on the prior value of the dependent variable , and (2) the persistence of the dependent variable () depends on xt . We present a methodological strategy for dealing with state-dependent dynamic systems and demonstrate the consequences of ignoring state-dependence. As an applied example, we find evidence of state-dependence in the relationship between presidential approval and economic performance: high unemployment rates are most damaging to presidential approval among presidents with the highest initial approval ratings.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , Winter 2014 , pp. 61 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

Authors' note: The authors thank Matt Lebo, Ashley Leeds, Ric Stoll, Cliff Morgan, Randy Stevenson, two anonymous reviewers, and participants at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology for helpful comments and suggestions about our paper. Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

References

Abrams, Burton A., and Lewis, Kenneth A. 1993. Human rights and the distribution of U.S. foreign aid. Public Choice 77(4): 815–21.Google Scholar
Ai, Chunrong, and Norton, Edward C. 2003. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters 80: 123–9.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Weder, Beatrice. 2002. Do corrupt governments receive less foreign aid? American Economic Review 92(4): 1126–37.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Dollar, David. 2000. Who gives foreign aid to whom and why? Journal of Economic Growth 5(1): 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apodaca, Clair, and Stohl, Michael. 1999. United States human rights policy and foreign assistance. International Studies Quarterly 43(1): 185–98.Google Scholar
Berlemann, Michael, and Enkelmann, Soren. 2012. The economics determinants of U.S. presidential aproval: A survey. CESIFO Working paper no. 3761. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2029449 (accessed October 22, 2013).Google Scholar
Blais, Andre, Blake, Donald, and Dion, Stephane. 1993. Do parties make a difference? Parties and the size of government in liberal democracies. American Journal of Political Science 37(1): 40–62.Google Scholar
Blais, Andre, Blake, Donald, and Dion, Stephane. 1996. Do parties make a difference? A reappraisal. American Journal of Political Science 40(2): 514–20.Google Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William, and Golder, Matt. 2006. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis 14: 63–82.Google Scholar
Braumoeller, Bear. 2004. Hypothesis testing and multiplicative interaction terms. International Organization 58: 807–20.Google Scholar
Cameron, David R. 1978. The expansion of the public economy: A comparative analysis. American Political Science Review 72(4): 1243–61.Google Scholar
Carleton, David, and Stohl, Michael. 1987. The role of human rights in US foreign assistance policy: A critique and reappraisal. American Journal of Political Science 31(4): 1002–18.Google Scholar
Chatfield, Chris. 2004. The analysis of time series: An introduction. 6th ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Cingranelli, David L., and Pasquarello, Thomas E. 1985. Human rights practices and the distribution of U.S. foreign aid to Latin American countries. American Journal of Political Science 29(3): 539–63.Google Scholar
Cusack, Thomas R. 1997. Partisan politics and public finance: Changes in public spending in the industrialized democracies, 1955–1989. Public Choice 91: 375–95.Google Scholar
De Boef, Suzanna, and Keele, Luke. 2008. Taking time seriously. American Journal of Political Science 52: 184–200.Google Scholar
Esarey, Justin, and DeMeritt, Jacqueline H. R. 2013. Political context and the effectiveness of “naming and shaming” for human rights abuses. Working paper. http://jee3.web.rice.edu/state-dep-2.pdf (accessed October 22, 2013).Google Scholar
Franzese, Robert J. 2002. Macroeconomic policies of developed democracies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geys, Benny. 2010. Wars, presidents, and popularity: The political cost(s) of war re-examined. Public Opinion Quarterly 74: 357–74.Google Scholar
Judson, Ruth A., and Owen, Ann L. 1999. Estimating dynamic panel data models: A guide for macroeconomists. Economics Letters 65: 9–15.Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Franzese, Robert J. 2007. Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Keele, Luke, and Kelly, Nathan J. 2006. Dynamic models for dynamic theories: The ins and outs of lagged dependent variables. Political Analysis 14: 186–205.Google Scholar
Kucik, Jeffrey, and Reinhardt, Eric. 2008. Does flexibility promote cooperation? An application to the global trade regime. International Organization 62: 477–505.Google Scholar
Lebovic, James H. 1988. National interests and US foreign aid: The Carter and Reagan years. Journal of Peace Research 25(2): 115–35.Google Scholar
Lebovic, James H. 2005. Donor positioning: Development assistance from the U.S., Japan, France, Germany, and Britain. Political Research Quarterly 58(1): 119–26.Google Scholar
MacKuen, Michael. 1983. Political drama, economic conditions, and the dynamics of presidential popularity. American Journal of Political Science 27: 165–92.Google Scholar
Meernik, James, Kreuger, Eric L., and Poe, Steven C. 1998. Testing models of U.S. foreign policy: Foreign aid during and after the Cold War. Journal of Politics 60(1): 63–85.Google Scholar
Neumayer, Eric. 2003a. Do human rights matter in bilateral aid allocation? A quantitative analysis of 21 donor countries. Social Science Quarterly 84(3): 650–66.Google Scholar
Neumayer, Eric. 2003b. Is respect for human rights rewarded? An analysis of total bilateral and multilateral aid flows. Human Rights Quarterly 25(2): 510–27.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Richard. 2013. Rewarding human rights? Selective aid sanctions against repressive states. International Studies Quarterly http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/isqu.12049/full (accessed October 22, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poe, Steven C. 1992. Human rights and economic aid allocation under Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. American Journal of Political Science 36(1): 147–67.Google Scholar
Powell, Emilia Justyna, and Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin. 2007. The International Court of Justice and the world's three legal systems. Journal of Politics 69: 397–415.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Alvarez, Michael E., Cheibub, Jose Antonio, and Limongi, Fernando. 2002. Democracy and development: Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950–1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schraeder, Peter J., Hook, Steven W., and Taylor, Bruce. 1998. Clarifying the foreign aid puzzle: A comparison of American, Japanese, French, and Swedish aid flows. World Politics 50(2): 294–323.Google Scholar
Sing, Ming. 2010. Explaining democratic survival globally (1946–2002). Journal of Politics 72: 438–55.Google Scholar
Wilson, Sven E., and Butler, Daniel M. 2007. A lot more to do: The sensitivity of time-series cross-section analyses to simple alternative specifications. Political Analysis 15: 101–23.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Esarey and DeMeritt supplementary material

Appendix

Download Esarey and DeMeritt supplementary material(File)
File 28.7 KB