Communicative responsiveness in the Mexican Senate: a field experiment

Bibliography

• Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Philip E. Jones. “Constituents’ Responses to Congressional Roll Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 54, no. 3 (2010): 583–597.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Béjar, Luisa. Los partidos en el Congreso de la Unión. La representación parlamentaria después de la alternancia. México: UNAM, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Borghetto, Enrico, José Santana-Pereira, and André Freire. “Parliamentary Questions as an Instrument for Geographic Representation: The Hard Case of Portugal.” Swiss Political Science Review 26, no. 1 (2020): 10–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs, Derek C. “Causal Inference and the Heckman Model.” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 29, no. 4 (2004): 397–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broockman, David E. “Black Politicians are More Intrinsically Motivated to Advance Blacks’ Interests: A Field Experiment Manipulating Political Incentives.” American Journal of Political Science 57, no. 3 (2013): 521–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, Daniel M., and David E. Broockman. “Do Politicians Racially Discriminate Against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators.” American Journal of Political Science 55, no. 3 (2011): 463–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, Bruce, John A. Ferejohn, and Morris P. Fiorina. “The Constituency Service Basis of the Personal Vote for US Representatives and British Members of Parliament.” American Political Science Review 78 (1984): 110–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calvo, Ernesto, and Iñaki Sagarzazu. “Presidential Agenda Authority in Plurality-Led Congresses. Agenda Setting Prerogatives Without Majority Support.” In Legislative Institutions and Lawmaking in Latin America, edited by Eduardo Alemán, and George Tsebelis, 32–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, John. “Parties, Incentives, and Term Limits in Costa Rica.” In Term Limits: Public Choice Perspectives, edited by Bernard Grofman, 321–346. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Cayton, Adam. “Consistency Versus Responsiveness: Do Members of Congress Change Positions on Specific Issues in Response to Their Districts?” Political Research Quarterly 70, no. 1 (2017): 3–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. “Measuring Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science 44, no. 1 (2000): 66–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esaiasson, Peter, Mikael Gilljam, and Mikael Persson. “Responsiveness Beyond Policy Satisfaction: Does It Matter to Citizens?” Comparative Political Studies 50, no. 6 (2017): 739–765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esaiasson, Peter, and Christopher Wlezien. “Advances in the Study of Democratic Responsiveness: An Introduction.” Comparative Political Studies 50, no. 6 (2017): 699–710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• François, Abel, and Julien Navarro. “Voters’ Knowledge of Their Representatives: The Direct and Conditioned Effects of Parliamentary Work.” Swiss Political Science Review 26, no. 1 (2020): 96–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaines, Brian J. “The Impersonal Vote? Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage in British Elections, 1950–1992.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (1998): 167–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giger, Natalie, Simon Lanz, and Catherine De Vries. “The Motivational Basis of Constituency Work: How Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations Interact.” Political Science Research and Methods 8, no. 3 (2020): 493–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grose, Christian, Neil Malhotra, and Robert Parks Van Houweling. “Explaining Explanations: How Legislators Explain Their Policy Positions and How Citizens React.” American Journal of Political Science 59, no. 3 (2015): 724–743.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habel, Philip, and Sarah Birch. “A Field Experiment on the Effects of Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status on the Quality of Representation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 44, no. 3 (2019): 389–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harden, Jeffrey J. “Multidimensional Responsiveness: The Determinants of Legislators' Representational Priorities.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 38, no. 2 (2013): 155–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman, James. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica 47, no. 1 (1979): 153–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Instituto Belisario Domínguez. “Encuesta Nacional sobre el Senado de la República, 2018.” Mexican Senate (2019) Available at http://ibd.senado.gob.mx/sites/default/files/encuesta_senado_2018.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, Lawrence, and Robert Shapiro. Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, Mark P., Sebastian Saiegh, Pablo T. Spiller, and Mariano Tommasi. “Amateur Legislators - Professional Politicians: The Consequences of Party-Centered Electoral Rules in a Federal System.” American Journal of Political Science 46, no. 3 (2002): 656–669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerevel, Yann. “A 'Snakes and Ladders' Theory of Political Ambition: The Implications of Pursuing a Political Career Without Reelection.” Paper presented at the APSA Annual Meeting, Chicago, August 29-September 1, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Kerevel, Yann P. “(Sub)National Principals, Legislative Agents: Patronage and Political Careers in Mexico.” Comparative Political Studies 48, no. 8 (2015): 1020–1050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerevel, Yann P., Austin S. Matthews, and Katsunori Seki. “Mixed-member Electoral Systems, Best Loser Rules, and the Descriptive Representation of Women.” Electoral Studies 57 (2019): 153–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehoucq, Fabrice, Gabriel L. Negretto, Francisco Javier Aparicio, Benito Nacif, and Allyson Benton. “Political Institutions, Policymaking Processes, and Policy Outcomes in Mexico.” IADB Working Paper 207 (2005): 1–68.
   Google Scholar
• Leung, Siu Fai, and Shihti Yu. “On the Choice Between Sample Selection and Two-Part Models.” Journal of Econometrics 72, no. 1-2 (1996): 197–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloren, Anouk. “Does Direct Democracy Increase Communicative Responsiveness? A Field Experiment with Swiss Politicians.” Research & Politics 4, no. 1 (2017): 1-8.
   Google Scholar
• Mayhew, David. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations 1946-1990. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• McClendon, Gwyneth H. “Race and Responsiveness: An Experiment with South African Politicians.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 3, no. 1 (2016): 60–74.
   Google Scholar
• Morales, Laura. “A Conceptual and Theoretical Approach to Governmental Policy Responsiveness Between Elections.” Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, Glasgow, September 4-6, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Motolinia, Lucia. “Electoral Accountability and Particularistic Legislation: Evidence from an Electoral Reform in Mexico.” American Political Science Review (2021): 97–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Öhberg, Patrick, and Elin Naurin. “Party-constrained Policy Responsiveness: A Survey Experiment on Politicians’ Response to Citizen-Initiated Contacts.” British Journal of Political Science 46, no. 1 (2016): 785–797.
   Google Scholar
• Pitkin, Hanna F. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, Christopher, and Sergio A. Bárcena (2019). “Constituency Preferences and Committee Selection in the Mexican Cámara de Diputados.” Latin American Politics and Society 61, no. 4 (2019): 95–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuels, David. Ambition, Federalism, and Legislative Politics in Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Soares de Faria, Cristiano F. The Open Parliament in the Age of the Internet: Can the People now Collaborate with Legislatures in Lawmaking? Brasilia: Brazilian Chamber of Deputies, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, Michelle M. “Formal Versus Informal Incentive Structures and Legislator Behavior: Evidence from Costa Rica.” The Journal of Politics 54, no. 4 (1992): 1055–1073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaccari, Cristian. “You’ve Got (No) Mail: How Parties and Candidates Respond to E-Mail Inquiries in Western Democracies.” Journal of Information, Technology and Politics 11, no. 1 (2014): 245–258.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Ven, Wynand, and Bernard Van Praag. “The Demand for Deductibles in Private Health Insurance: A Probit Model with Sample Selection.” Journal of Econometrics 17, no. 2 (1981): 229–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Voorde, Nicolas, and Benjamin de Vet. “Is All Politics Indeed Local? A Comparative Study of Dual Mandate-Holders’ Role Attitudes and Behaviours in Parliament.” Swiss Political Science Review 26, no. 1 (2020): 51–72. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar