Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Rational SouthernerBlack Mobilization, Republican Growth, and the Partisan Transformation of the American South$

M. V. Hood III, Quentin Kidd, and Irwin L. Morris

Print publication date: 2012

Print ISBN-13: 9780199873821

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2012

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199873821.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 05 December 2016

(p.207) Appendix C Ancillary Statistical Models

(p.207) Appendix C Ancillary Statistical Models

Source:
The Rational Southerner
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

Table C.5.1 Explaining State-Level GOP Party Growth in the South, 1962–2008

Model 1

Model 2

Political:

Republican Strengtht-1

.7469** (.0336)

.7628** (.0358)

Sub-State Party Competitiont-1

.1129** (.0161)

.0822** (.0182)

Presidential Vote

.0002 (.0001)

Black Electoral Strength

.1431** (.0374)

.1468** (.0353)

% Black

.2814 (.2069)

.2174 (.2082)

Goldwater 1964

–.0217 (.0145)

Nixon 1968

–.0103 (.0105)

Nixon 1972

-.0054 (.0103)

Ford 1976

-.0196* (.0087)

Reagan 1980

-.0060 (.0062)

Reagan 1984

Bush 1988

.0061 (.0065)

Bush 1992

.0001 (.0084)

Dole 1996

.0185 (.0095)

Bush 2000

.0418** (.0130)

Bush 2004

.0447** (.0159)

Bush 2008

.0370 (.0196)

Demographic:

In-Migration

-.0055 (.0450)

–.1180* (.0511)

Evangelical Protestants

.4728** (.1383)

.3565** (.1354)

Economic:

Per Capita Income ($1,000)

.0001 (.0004)

–.0012 (.0008)

Agricultural Sector Employment

–.1906 (.1128)

–.1595 (.0945)

R2

.973

.977

N

253

253

Notes: GMM-IV Coefficients with fixed effects and robust standard errors in parentheses.

In Model 2, the 1984 presidential election is used as the excluded category.

(*) p 〈 .05 (two-tailed test); ** p 〈 .01 (two-tailed test)

(p.208)

Table C.6.1 Panel Unit-Root Tests for GOP Registrants, North Carolina

Test

Test statistics

Proportion:

Levin, Lin, and Chu

–4.870***

Im, Pesaran, and Shin

.097

Logged:

Levin, Lin, and Chu

–11.086***

Im, Pesaran, and Shin

–14.809***

Notes: For both tests, a significant test statistic allows for the rejection of the null hypothesis that the series is nonstationary.

* p 〈 .10; ** p 〈 .05; *** p 〈 .01

Table C.6.2 Panel Unit-Root Tests for GOP Registrants, Louisiana

Test

Test statistics

Proportion:

Levin, Lin, and Chu

22.182

Im, Pesaran, and Shin

14.023

Logged:

Levin, Lin, and Chu

–15.451***

Im, Pesaran, and Shin

–5.405***

Notes: For both tests, a significant test statistic allows for the rejection of the null hypothesis that the series is nonstationary.

* p 〈 .10; ** p 〈 .05; *** p 〈 .01

(p.209)

Table C.6.3 TSCS Granger Tests, North Carolina

Black Mobilization Granger-causes GOP Registrants

F1

Lags (Years)

t–1

3.404**

t–2

4.013**

t–3

1.503**

Black Mobilization Granger-causes GOP Registrants

F2

Lags (Years)

t–1

3.378**

t–2

3.905**

t–3

1.510**

Notes: Critical Values: * p 〈 .05; ** p 〈. 01

GOP Registrants is logged.

A significant F1 test statistic indicates the presence of a causal relationship.

A significant F2 test statistic indicates the causal process is heterogeneous or does not occur across all counties, while an insignificant test statistic indicates the causal process is homogeneous or uniform across all counties.

Table C.6.4 TSCS Granger Tests, Louisiana

Black Mobilization Granger-causes GOP Registrants

F1

Lags (Years)

t–1

2.111**

t–2

1.254*

t–3

.910

Black Mobilization Granger-causes GOP Registrants

F2

Lags (Years)

t-1

2.109**

t-2

1.226*

t-3

.872

Notes: Critical Values: * p 〈 .05; ** p 〈 .01

GOP Registrants is logged.

A significant F1 test statistic indicates the presence of a causal relationship.

A significant F2 test statistic indicates the causal process is heterogeneous or does not occur across all parishes, while an insignificant test statistic indicates the causal process is homogeneous or uniform across all parishes.

(p.210)

Table C.6.5 Explaining County-Level GOP Registration in North Carolina, 1966–2008

Model

Log GOP Registrantst-1

.8613** (.0225)

Black Electoral Strength

.2385* (.0962)

Percent Black

–.8915** (.1454)

In-Migration

–.1426** (.0285)

Evangelical Protestants

–.0710* (.0477)

Percent Military

–.2364 (.2547)

Percent Urban

.1212** (.0252)

Median Household Income ($1,000)

.0017** (.0006)

R2

.93

N

4,100

Notes: GMM-IV Coefficients with fixed effects and robust standard errors in parentheses.

Dependent Variable (GOP Registrants) is logged.

(*) p 〈 .05 (two-tailed test); ** p 〈 .01 (two-tailed test)

Table C.6.6 Explaining Parish-Level GOP Registration in Louisiana, 1966–2008

Model 1

Model 2

Log GOP Registrantst-1

.9504** (.0045)

.9500** (.0047)

Black Electoral Strength

.3553** (.1228)

.3286** (.1267)

Percent Black

–1.2867** (.2026)

–1.2422** (.2079)

In-Migration

.5662** (.0670)

.5716** (.0721)

Evangelical Protestants

.0951 (.1273)

Catholic

–.0790 (.0552)

Percent Urban

–.0689** (.0167)

–.0707** (.0167)

Median Household Income ($1,000)

–.0050** (.0008)

–.0048** (.0008)

R2

.99

.99

N

2,624

2,624

Notes: OLS GMM-IV Coefficients with fixed effects and robust standard errors in parentheses.

Dependent Variable (GOP Registrants) is logged.

(*) p 〈 .05 (two-tailed test); ** p 〈 .01 (two-tailed test)

(p.211)

Table C.8.1 TSCS Unit-Root Tests for Black Mobilization

Panel A: Deep South

Test

Test statistics

Levin, Lin, and Chu

–6.413***

Notes: A significant test statistic allows for the rejection of the null hypothesis that the series is nonstationary.

* p 〈 .10; ** p 〈 .05; *** p 〈 .01

Panel B: Louisiana

Test

Test statistics

Levin, Lin, and Chu

–18.071***

Notes: A significant test statistic allows for the rejection of the null hypothesis that the series is nonstationary.

* p 〈 .10; ** p 〈 .05; *** p 〈 .01

Panel C: North Carolina

Test

Test statistics

Levin, Lin, and Chu

–30.052***

Notes: A significant test statistic allows for the rejection of the null hypothesis that the series is nonstationary.

* p 〈 .10; ** p 〈 .05; *** p 〈 .01

Table C.8.2 Explaining County-Level Black Mobilization in Louisiana and North Carolina, 1966–2008

Louisiana

North Carolina

Republican Strength t-1

.0474* (.0209)

.4118** (.0452)

Black Mobilization (t-1)

.8448** (.0145)

.7383** (.0293)

% Black

.2059** (.0365)

.0860** (.0726)

Jackson 1984

.0155** (.0033)

.0913** (.0075)

Presidential Election Year

.0051* (.0024)

.0493** (.0027)

Obama 2008

.0213** (.0034)

.0816** (.0063)

Constant

.0550** (.0144)

.0315 (.0227)

Estimation Procedure

FE

FE

R2

.90

.68

N

2,688

4,200

Notes: OLS coefficients with fixed effects and robust standard errors in parentheses.

(*) p 〈 .05 (two-tailed test); ** p 〈 .01 (two-tailed test)

(p.212)