11
2) The Gallup Poll frequently surveys the electorate to quantify the public’s opinion of the president.
Since 1945, Gallup settled on the following wording of its presidential poll: “Do you approve or
disapprove of the way (name) is handling his job as president?” Gallup has not changed its presidential
question since then, and respondents can answer “approve,” “disapprove,” or “no opinion.”
You want to see how this approval rating is related to the Michigan index of consumer sentiment (ICS).
The monthly survey, conducted with a minimum sample of 500, asks people if they feel “better/worse off”
with regard to current and future conditions.
(a) To estimate dynamic causal effects, you collect quarterly data from 1962:I – 1998:II for the United
States. You allow a binary variable for each presidency to capture the intrinsic popularity of the
President. Furthermore, you eliminate observations that include a change in party for the presidency by
using a binary variable, which takes on the value of one during the first quarter of the year after the
election. Finally, a friendly political scientist provides you with (i) an “events” variable, (ii) a “Vietnam”
binary variable, and (iii) a “honeymoon” variable, which measures the effect of a higher popularity of a
president immediately following the election. (The coefficients of these variables will not be reported
here.)
Assuming that consumer sentiment is exogenous, you estimate the following two specifications (numbers
in parenthesis are heteroskedasticity– and autocorrelation–consistent standard errors):
t = 26.08 + 0.178 × ICSt + 0.232 × ICSt–1; R2= 0.667, SER = 7.00
(8.83) (0.120) (0.135)
t = 26.08 + 0.178 × ΔICSt + 0.411 + ICSt–1; R2 = 0.667, SER = 7.00
(8.17) (0.120 ) (0.089)
What is the difference between the two specifications? What is the advantage of estimating the second
equation, if any?
(b) Assuming that the errors follow an AR(1) process, you also estimate the following alternative:
t = –4.61 + 0.300 × ICSt – 0.070 × ICSt–1– 0.054 × ICSt–2; + 0.776 × Approvalt–1;
(5.84) (0.083) (0.099) (0.083) (0.057)
R2 = 0.868, SER = 4.45
How is this specification related to the previous ones? What implicit assumptions did you have to make
to allow for desirable properties of the OLS estimator?
(c) You finally estimate the approval equation using the quasi–difference specification and the GLS
estimator.