How you measure something determines what you find — and often determines what you can find. The gender wage gap looks different depending on whether you control for occupation. Segregation looks different depending on whether you measure it relatively or absolutely. Ideology looks different depending on whether you use roll calls or surveys. Posts here take the act of measurement seriously as a theoretical and political problem, not just a technical one.
You know where you are? You’re down in the jungle baby, you’re gonna die… In the jungle…welcome to the jungle…. Watch it bring you to your knees, knees… – Guns N’ Roses, “Welcome to the Jungle” It’s a jungle out there, and … Read more
This great post by Nate Silver on fivethirtyeight.com prodded me to think again about how we measure residential segregation. As I am moving from St. Louis to Chicago,[1] this topic is of great personal interest to me. Silver’s post names Chicago as the most segregated major city in the United States, according to what one might call a “relative” measure. … Read more
We now live in a world of seemingly never-ending “data” and, relatedly, one of ever-cheaper computational resources. This has led to lots of really cool topics being (re)discovered. Text analysis, genetics, fMRI brain scans, (social and anti-social) networks, campaign finance data… these are all areas of analysis that, practically speaking were “doubly impossible” ten years ago: neither … Read more
In this post on Mischiefs of Faction, Seth Masket discusses the recent debate about whether (super-)rich are overly influential in American politics. I’ve already said a bit about the recent Gilens and Page piece that provides evidence that rich interests might have more pull than those of the average American. In a nutshell, I don’t believe that … Read more
For whatever reason, I’m on a “data is complicated kick.” So, this story is one of many today discussing the gender gap in wages in ‘Merica. In a nutshell, President Obama pointed out “that women make, on average, only 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns.” Critics (most notably the American Enterprise Institute) … Read more
In this post, Larry Bartels provocatively claims that Rich People Rule! In a nutshell, Bartels argues (correctly) that more and more political scientists are producing multiple and smart independent analyses of the determinants of public policy, one of which, by Kalla and Broockman, I have already opined on (“Donation Discrimination Denotes Deliverance of Democracy“). Bartel’s motivation … Read more
It’s been too long since I prattled into cyberspace. This Monkey Cage post by Kyle Dropp Joshua D. Kertzer & Thomas Zeitzoff caught my contrarian attention. In a nutshell, it says that those who are less informed about the location of Ukraine are more likely to support US military intervention. This is an intriguing and policy-relevant finding … Read more
President Obama’s SOTU speech has revived interest in Presidential power. Erik Voeten (here) and Andrew Rudalevige (here) argue that Presidential unilateral action has declined in recent years, while Eric Posner argues here that “executive power has increased dramatically since World War II.” The question of presidential power is a classic one in political science. The recent debates illustrate three important … Read more
This Op-Ed in Forbes, “Almost Everything You Have Been Told About The Minimum Wage Is False,” by Jeffrey Dorfman, argues that increasing the federal minimum wage (1) would not affect as many people as you might think and (2) would not help the working poor as much as (say) teenagers. The first half of Dorfman’s Op-Ed … Read more
A fundamental consideration in decision- and policy-making is aggregation of competing/complementary goals. For example, consider the current debate about how to measure when the “border is secure” with respect to US immigration reform. (A nice, though short, piece alluding to these issues is here.) A recent GAO report discusses the state of border security, the variety … Read more