What do Candidates Maximize (and Why Should Anyone Care)?
- Jeffrey Milyo
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Much empirical work on Congressional elections implicitly assumesthat candidates are vote-maximizers; this may be a fairassumption for challengers, but it is not a good description ofincumbent behavior. I present a general intertemporal utilitymaximizing model of candidate behavior, which includes vote-maximization as a special case. I then demonstrate that thesemodels have important consequences for both the design andinterpretation of empirical work.
- Ansolabehere, S. and Snyder, J. (1996a). The interelection dynamics of campaign finance: U.S. House elections, 1980 to 1994. Presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association in San Francisco, CA, September 1996.
- Ansolabehere, S. and Snyder, J. (1996b). Money, elections, and candidate quality. Presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association in Chicago, IL, April 1996.
- Banks, J. and Kiewiet, D.R. (1989). Explaining patterns of candidate competition in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science 33: 997-1015.
- Bender, B. and Lott, J. (1996). Legislator voting and shirking: A critical review of the literature. Public Choice 87: 67-100.
- Box-Steffensmeier, J. (1996). A dynamic analysis of the role of war chests in campaign strategy. American Journal of Political Science 40: 352-371.
- Bullock, C. (1972). Freshman committee assignments and re-election in the United States House of Representatives. American Political Science Review 66: 996-1008.
- Crain, M. and Sullivan, J. (1997). Committee characteristics and re-election margins: An empirical investigation of the U.S. House. Public Choice 93: 271-285.
- Epstein, D. and Zemsky, P. (1995). Deterring quality challengers in congressional elections. American Political Science Review 89: 295-308.
- Fenno, R. (1978). Home style: House members and their districts. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
- Figlio, D. (1995). The effect of retirement on political shirking: Evidence from congressional voting. Public Finance Quarterly 23: 226-241.
- Fleck, R. and Milyo, J. (2000). Why do incumbents build up campaign war chests: Deterrence v. effort-smoothing. Manuscript. Tufts University.
- Fowler, L., Douglass, S. and Clark, W. (1980). The electoral effects of House committee assignments. Journal of Politics 42: 307-319.
- Gerber, A. (1998). Campaign spending and election outcomes: Re-estimating the effects of campaign spending. American Journal of Political Science 42: 401-411.
- Goodliffe, J. (1999). War chests do not deter challengers. Manuscript. Brigham Young University.
- Green, D. and Krasno, J. (1988). Salvation for the spendthrift incumbent: Reestimating effects of campaign spending in House elections. American Journal of Political Science 23: 884-907.
- Grier, K. and Munger, M. (1991a). Committee assignments, constituent preferences, and campaign contributions to House incumbents. Economic Inquiry 29: 24-43.
- Grier, K. and Munger, M. (1991b). The impact of legislator attributes on interest group campaign contributions. Journal of Labor Research 7: 349-361.
- Groseclose, T. and Krehbiel, K. (1994). Golden parachutes, rubber checks and strategic retirements from the 102nd House. American Journal of Political Science 38: 75-99.
- Hall, R. and Van Houwelling, R. (1995). Avarice and ambition in Congress: Representative decisions to run or retire from the U.S. House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science 89: 121-136.
- Hersch, P. and McDougall, G. (1994). Campaign war chests as a barrier to entry in congressional races. Economic Inquiry 32: 630-641.
- Jacobson, G. (1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of House elections, 1946-1986. American Political Science Review 83: 773-793.
- Jacobson, G. and Dimock, M. (1994). Checking out: The effect of bank overdrafts on the 1992 House elections. American Journal of Political Science 38: 601-624.
- Levitt, S. (1994). Using repeat challengers to estimate the effects of campaign spending on election outcomes in the U.S. House. Journal of Political Economy 102: 777-798.
- Levitt, S. and Wolfram, C. (1997). Decomposing the sources of incumbency advantage in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22: 45-60.
- Mayhew, D. (1974). The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Milyo, J. (1997a). The economics of political campaign finance: FECA and the puzzle of the not very greedy grandfathers. Public Choice 93: 245-270.
- Milyo, J. (1997b). The electoral and financial effects of changes in committee power: GRH, TRA86 and the money committees in the U.S. House. Journal of Law and Economics 40: 93-112.
- Milyo, J. (1998). The electoral effects of campaign spending in House elections. Los Angeles, CA: Citizens' Research Foundation.
- Milyo, J. and Groseclose, T. (1999). The electoral effects of incumbent wealth. Journal of Law and Economics 42: 699-722.
- Romer, T. and Snyder, J. (1994). An empirical investigation into the dynamics of PAC contributions. American Journal of Political Science 38: 745-769.
- Snyder, J. (1990). Campaign contributions as investments: The U.S. House of Representatives 1980-1986. Journal of Political Economy 98: 1195-1227.
- Snyder, J. (1992). Long-term investing in politicians; or, give early, give often. Journal of Law and Economics 35: 15-43.
- What do Candidates Maximize (and Why Should Anyone Care)?
Volume 109, Issue 1-2 , pp 119-139
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors
- Jeffrey Milyo (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Harris School, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637, U.S.A