Response to Martin and Vanberg

Evaluating a stochastic model of government formation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In a 2012 Journal of Politics article, we presented a zero-intelligence model of government formation. Our intent was to provide a "null" model of government formation, a baseline upon which other models could build. We made two claims regarding aggregate government formation outcomes: first, that our model produces aggregate results on the distributions of government types, cabinet portfolios, and bargaining delays in government formation that compare favorably to those in the real world; and second, that these aggregate distributions vary in theoretically intuitive ways as the model parameters change. In this issue, Martin and Vanberg (MV) criticize our model on theoretical and empirical grounds. Here we not only show how MV's evaluation of our model is flawed, but we also illustrate, using an analogy to common statistical practice, how one might properly attempt to falsify stochastic models such as ours at both the individual and the aggregate level.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)880-886
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Politics
Volume76
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

formation of a government
type of government
intelligence
politics
evaluation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

@article{81d6c6ca5203453a897ac883db64772b,
title = "Response to Martin and Vanberg: Evaluating a stochastic model of government formation",
abstract = "In a 2012 Journal of Politics article, we presented a zero-intelligence model of government formation. Our intent was to provide a {"}null{"} model of government formation, a baseline upon which other models could build. We made two claims regarding aggregate government formation outcomes: first, that our model produces aggregate results on the distributions of government types, cabinet portfolios, and bargaining delays in government formation that compare favorably to those in the real world; and second, that these aggregate distributions vary in theoretically intuitive ways as the model parameters change. In this issue, Martin and Vanberg (MV) criticize our model on theoretical and empirical grounds. Here we not only show how MV's evaluation of our model is flawed, but we also illustrate, using an analogy to common statistical practice, how one might properly attempt to falsify stochastic models such as ours at both the individual and the aggregate level.",
author = "Golder, {Matthew Richard} and Golder, {Sona Nadenichek} and Siegel, {David A.}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S002238161400053X",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "76",
pages = "880--886",
journal = "Journal of Politics",
issn = "0022-3816",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "4",

}

Response to Martin and Vanberg : Evaluating a stochastic model of government formation. / Golder, Matthew Richard; Golder, Sona Nadenichek; Siegel, David A.

In: Journal of Politics, Vol. 76, No. 4, 01.01.2014, p. 880-886.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to Martin and Vanberg

T2 - Evaluating a stochastic model of government formation

AU - Golder, Matthew Richard

AU - Golder, Sona Nadenichek

AU - Siegel, David A.

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - In a 2012 Journal of Politics article, we presented a zero-intelligence model of government formation. Our intent was to provide a "null" model of government formation, a baseline upon which other models could build. We made two claims regarding aggregate government formation outcomes: first, that our model produces aggregate results on the distributions of government types, cabinet portfolios, and bargaining delays in government formation that compare favorably to those in the real world; and second, that these aggregate distributions vary in theoretically intuitive ways as the model parameters change. In this issue, Martin and Vanberg (MV) criticize our model on theoretical and empirical grounds. Here we not only show how MV's evaluation of our model is flawed, but we also illustrate, using an analogy to common statistical practice, how one might properly attempt to falsify stochastic models such as ours at both the individual and the aggregate level.

AB - In a 2012 Journal of Politics article, we presented a zero-intelligence model of government formation. Our intent was to provide a "null" model of government formation, a baseline upon which other models could build. We made two claims regarding aggregate government formation outcomes: first, that our model produces aggregate results on the distributions of government types, cabinet portfolios, and bargaining delays in government formation that compare favorably to those in the real world; and second, that these aggregate distributions vary in theoretically intuitive ways as the model parameters change. In this issue, Martin and Vanberg (MV) criticize our model on theoretical and empirical grounds. Here we not only show how MV's evaluation of our model is flawed, but we also illustrate, using an analogy to common statistical practice, how one might properly attempt to falsify stochastic models such as ours at both the individual and the aggregate level.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84910636144&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84910636144&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S002238161400053X

DO - 10.1017/S002238161400053X

M3 - Article

VL - 76

SP - 880

EP - 886

JO - Journal of Politics

JF - Journal of Politics

SN - 0022-3816

IS - 4

ER -