Week 5: Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Heteroskedastic Regression

Schedule of the Week

Date
Time
Item
Place
Material
Mon, Mar 14 16:00–17:30 Office hours (Oliver) Zoom
Tue, Mar 15 13:30–14:30 Office hours (Thomas) Zoom
15:30–17:00 Office hours (Viktoriia) Zoom
Wed, Mar 16 8:30–10:00 Lecture A5,6 B244
10:00 Homework 3 is assigned Github
Thu, Mar 17 10:15–11:45 Lab (Oliver) A5,6 B317
15:30–17:00 Lab (Viktoriia) Zoom

Study Notes

Make sure you closely (re)-read the entire King’s UPM, chapter 4. For those of you who appreciate a slightly different take on MLE take a look at Eliason (1993). Please also read a short section in Long (1997) chapter 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 in order to get a sense of how to actually estimate standard errors using maximum likelihood. For an nice application on how to set-up a heteroskedastic regression model take a look at the “classic” Franklin (1991) paper (this paper will also be relevant for your third homework!). Alternatively, another interesting application of a heteroskedastic regression model is found in Golder and Lloyd (2014).

Readings

King, Gary. 1989. Unifying Political Methodology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 4. Required
Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chapter 3.6.1 - 3.6.2. Required
Eliason, Scott R. 1993. Maximum Likelihood Estimation: Logic and Practice. Newbury Park: Sage. Chapter 1-4. Required
Franklin, Charles H. 1991. “Eschewing Obfuscation? Campaigns and the Perception of Senate Incumbents”. American Political Science Review 85(4): 1193–1214.
Golder, Matt, and Gabriella Lloyd. 2014. “Re-Evaluating the Relationship between Electoral Rules and Ideological Congruence”. European Journal of Political Research 53(1): 200–212.
Previous
Next