Changes

{{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=}}

===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,

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 (a) through (cd)) 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.

Note Given this, I would think that he'd want to estimate the same county can be in multiple pairseffect of having (either) a poll tax or a literacy test, and therefore is in not the sample multiple times. This creates the need for multidimensional clustering as developed by Cameron et al, 2006. Standard errors are clustered for sum of both within-state over time correlations of county residuals, as well as within borer-segment. Discussion  The author does note that in an earlier version of these in first paragraph the paper he estimated the effects of Section 5 on page 22poll taxes and literacy tests separately and reached similar qualitative conclusions with slightly smaller standard errors.

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) The teacher/child ratio for blacks decreases by 50% (!). * (d) The teacher/child ratio for whites don't change (bottom of pg 27). * (e) Land values in counties increase by 7%, and the number of farms increase by 6%. * (ef)Blacks leave the counties in question.