In this paper, we demonstrate the econometric consequences of different specification and estimation choices in the analysis of spatially interdependent data and show how to calculate and present spatial effect estimates substantively. We consider four common estimators—nonspatial OLS, spatial OLS, spatial 2SLS, and spatial ML. We examine analytically the respective omitted-variable and simultaneity biases of nonspatial OLS and spatial OLS in the simplest case and then evaluate the performance of all four estimators in bias, efficiency, and SE accuracy terms under more realistic conditions using Monte Carlo experiments. We provide empirical illustration, showing how to calculate and present spatial effect estimates effectively, using data on European governments' active labor market expenditures. Our main conclusions are that spatial OLS, despite its simultaneity, performs acceptably under low-to-moderate interdependence strength and reasonable sample dimensions. Spatial 2SLS or spatial ML may be advised for other conditions, but, unless interdependence is truly absent or minuscule, any of the spatial estimators unambiguously, and often dramatically, dominates on all three criteria the nonspatial OLS commonly used currently in empirical work in political science.

According to the embedded liberalism thesis, governments committed to free trade provide insurance and other transfers to compensate those who lose economically from expanded trade. The goal of this spending is to maintain public support for trade liberalization. We provide a micro-level test of the critical assumption behind the embedded liberalism thesis that government programs designed to protect individuals harmed by imports reduce opposition to free trade. Our micro results have important implications for the macro relationship between trade and government spending, which we also test. We find empirical support for the embedded liberalism thesis in both our micro- and macro-level analyses.Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Midwest Political Science Association's 2002 Meeting and at the University of Illinois during summer 2003. We thank the respective panel and seminar participants for their feedback. In addition, we want to acknowledge valuable comments from William Bernhard, Rebecca Blank, Kerwin Charles, Alan Deardorff, John DiNardo, John Freeman, Brian Gaines, Jim Granato, Nathan Jensen, William Keech, Layna Mosley, Robert Pahre, Ken Scheve, Marina Whitman, two anonymous reviewers, and Lisa Martin. They, of course, are not responsible for any errors.

No abstract

No abstract

This article contributes to the growing literature on the role that domestic political institutions play in mediating globalization pressures by arguing that the capital tax constraints arising from international economic integration are the most severe for countries with majoritarian political institutions. In doing so, the author solves a tax puzzle that challenges conventional thinking about how institutions condition the relationship between economic globalization and domestic politics. He presents a formal, game-theoretic model to sharpen the basic logic of his argument and then tests some of the model's predictions empirically using both quantitative and qualitative evidence.