Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
1,127 bytes added ,  19:15, 29 September 2020
no edit summary
{{Article|Has page=Naidu (2010)|Has bibtex key=Theory Questions=|Has article title====What is the |Has author's hypothesis? =Naidu|Has year=2010|In journal====How does the author test the hypothesis? ==|In volume====How does the author rule out alternative hypotheses? ==|In number====How might these tests be run if one had quantitative evidence? ==|Has pages====What problems might arise in this quantitative analysis?==|Has publisher=}}
==Empirical Questions==
===What's the author's research question and hypothesis?===
The null hypothesis of the empirical section author is that studying the effect of disenfranchisement of Southern blacks (through poll taxes and literacy tests) had no effect on :*(a) Voter turnout,
* (b) The Democratic party vote share,
* (c) The teacher/child ratio for blacks,
* (d) The teacher/child ratio for whites.
* (e) Land values in counties with the poll taxes and literacy tests.
* (f) Migration of blacks.
The author does not give a sense of his priors, but he does say that his findings (null hypotheses rejected for (a) through (c)) are "[C]onsistent with historical evidence that these ... in the counties/states where this disenfranchisement laws independently lowered black political participationwas implemented."
For the statistical tests, the null hypothesis is that the effects were zero. The author does not give a sense of his priors, but he does say that his findings (all null hypotheses rejected except for (d)) are "[C]onsistent with historical evidence that these disenfranchisement laws independently lowered black political participation."  In particular, the author notes that the fall in black educational inputs (ie, the teacher/student ratio) is consistent with theoretical political economy models including the one developed late later in this paper.
All of this is on page 2 and 3 of the paper.
===What do the tests achieve?===
The tests reject the all null hypotheses listed above except for (d). With additional disenfranchisement laws: * (a)Voter turnout in all elections decreases. Presidential turnout decreases by 8%-11% and gubernatorial turnout decreases by 23%. ~10%-12% decrease in Congressional election turnout, less precisely estimated. * (b) The Democratic party vote share increases. 5.8% increase in Democratic presidential share, and 10% increase in congressional Democratic share. Positive but insignificant effects on gubernatorial Dem voteshare. Discussion, pg 26. * (c) and The teacher/child ratio for blacks decreases by 50% (!). * (d) The teacher/child ratio for whites don't change (bottom of pg 27). * (e) listed aboveLand values in counties increase by 7%, showing .and the number of farms increase by 6%.* (f) Blacks leave the counties in question.
===How could the tests be improved?===
===Can you think of any alternative empirical tests?===
 
Note a few tweaks above to this analysis involving a different type of matching. Similarly, one could use p-score matching to match counties.
 
Is there randomness in the timing of compliance with the state-level disenfranchisement law?
 
One could also do a similar analysis around the times that the disenfranchisement was rolled back.

Navigation menu