Advertisement

On the stability of U.S. politics: post-sample forecasts and refinements of the Congleton–Shughart models of Social Security and Medicare benefit levels

  • Roger D. CongletonEmail author
  • Youngshin Kim
  • Alexander Marsella
Article

Abstract

An important issue associated with empirical research is the extent to which statistical results continue to hold in the post-sample period. Although many tests of robustness within the period of a given study are routinely reported, relatively little attention is paid to model performance in the post-sample period. This paper examines the post-sample performance of the Congleton and Shughart (Econ Inq 28(1): 109–132, 1990) estimates of three public choice models of Social Security benefit levels. The Social Security program is the single largest line item in the federal budget; so, examining the post-sample performance of the Congleton–Shughart estimates also sheds light on the long-run stability of political processes in the United States. In general, we find that the three public choice models perform well in the post-sample period, although there are several caveats to that conclusion. The results of our post-sample study also suggest that the political processes of the United States with respect to major fiscal policies are more stable and robust than news reports suggest.

Keywords

Social Security Fiscal policy Post-sample forecasts Replication study Public choice models Political stability U.S. politics 

JEL Classification

H1 H55 D7 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank William Shughart II and two anonymous referees for several unusually helpful questions and suggestions.

Supplementary material

11127_2019_689_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (25 kb)
Supplementary file1 (XLSX 26 kb)

References

  1. Batinti, A., & Congleton, R. D. (2018). On the codetermination of tax-financed medical R&D and healthcare expenditures: Models and evidence. European Journal of Political Economy, 54, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergh, A., & Bjørnskov, C. (2014). Trust, welfare states and income equality: Sorting out the causality. European Journal of Political Economy, 35, 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breyer, F. (1994). The political economy of intergenerational redistribution. European Journal of Political Economy, 10(1), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breyer, F., & Craig, B. (1997). Voting on social security: Evidence from OECD countries. European Journal of Political Economy, 13(4), 705–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browning, E. K. (1975). Why the social insurance budget is too large in a democracy. Economic Inquiry, 13(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Congleton, R. D., Batinti, A., Bose, F., Kim, Y., & Pietrantonio, R. (2011). Public choice and the modern welfare state, on the growth of government in the twentieth century. In R. D. Congleton, et al. (Eds.), Elgar companion to public choice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  7. Congleton, R. D., Batinti, A., & Pietrantonio, R. (2017). The electoral politics and evolution of complex healthcare systems. Kyklos, 70(4), 483–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Congleton, R. D., & Bose, F. (2010). The rise of the modern welfare state, ideology, institutions and income security: Analysis and evidence. Public Choice, 144(3–4), 535–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Congleton, R. D., & Shughart, W. F., II. (1990). The growth of social security: Electoral push or political pull? Economic Inquiry, 28(1), 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Congleton, R. D., & Sweetser, W. (1992). Political deadlocks and distributional information: The value of the veil. Public Choice, 73(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croushore, D., & Stark, T. (2003). A real-time data set for macroeconomists: Does the data vintage matter? Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(3), 605–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1994). Protection for sale. American Economic Review, 84(4), 833–850.Google Scholar
  13. Olson, M. (1965). Logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups (Harvard economic studies. v. 124). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Pecchenino, R. A., & Utendorf, K. R. (1999). Social security, social welfare and the aging population. Journal of Population Economics, 12(4), 607–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Svahn, J. A., & Ross, M. (1983). Social Security amendments of 1983: Legislative history and summary of provisions. Social Security Bulletin, 46(7), 5–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.West Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  2. 2.Department of TradeKeimyung UniversityDeaguSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations