Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:30:04.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Isolating Spatial Autocorrelation, Aggregation Bias, and Distributional Violations in Ecological Inference: Comment on Anselin and Cho

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Gary King*
Affiliation:
Center for Basic Research in the Social Sciences, 34 Kirkland Street, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138. e-mail: [email protected]

Extract

Few better ways of checking and improving statistical methods exist than having other researchers go over your results, and so I especially appreciate the efforts in Anselin and Cho (2002), hereinafter AC. In this note, I make two main points.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2002 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anselin, Luc, and Tam Cho, Wendy K. 2002. “Spatial Effects and Ecological Inference.” Political Analysis 10:276297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoho, D. L., and Huber, P. J. 1983. “The Notion of the Breakdown Point.” In A Feschrift for Erich L. Lehmann, eds. Bickel, Peter J., Doksum, Kjell A., and Hodges, J. L. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, and King, Galy. 2002. Did Illegally Counted Overseas Absentee Ballots Decide the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. http://gking.harvard.edu/preprints.shtml#ballots.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1997. A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 2000. “Geography, Statistics, and Ecological Inference.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90:601606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar