In Defense of Comparative Statics: Specifying Empirical Tests of Models of Strategic Interaction

Christopher ZornDepartment of Political Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 e-mail: zorn{at}sc.edu e-mail: ccarrub{at}emory.edu (corresponding author) Beginning in 1999, Curtis Signorino challenged the use of traditionallogits and probits analysis for testing discrete-choice, strategicmodels. Signorino argues that the complex parametric relationshipsgenerated by even the simplest strategic models can lead towildly inaccurate inferences if one applies these traditionalapproaches. In their stead, Signorino proposes generating stochasticformal models, from which one can directly derive a maximumlikelihood estimator. We propose a simpler, alternative methodologyfor theoretically and empirically accounting for strategic behavior.In particular, we propose carefully and correctly deriving one'scomparative statics from one's formal model, whether it is stochasticor deterministic does not particularly matter, and using standardlogit or probit estimation techniques to test the predictions.We demonstrate that this approach performs almost identicallyto Signorino's more complex suggestion. Authors' note: We would like to thank Randy Calvert, Mark Hallerberg,Andrew Martin, Eric Reinhardt, Chris Stanton, and Craig Voldenfor their valuable feedback on this project. All remaining errorsare our own. Replication materials are available at the PoliticalAnalysis Web site.