Skip to main content
Accessibility help
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Only search content I have access to
>Political Analysis
>Volume 2
>What Does “Explained Variance“ Explain?: Reply
What Does “Explained Variance“ Explain?: Reply
Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017
Christopher H. Achen
Article contents
Get access
Rights & Permissions
Two quite different statistical specifications lead to conventional regression computations. Under the first, usually called unconditional regression, the independent variables are assigned a distribution, and the sampling distributions of parameters are computed over it, not just over the variation in the disturbance. Then the multiple squared coefficient of correlation, R 2, is a substantively meaningful quantity with a population value. In such cases, it is certainly meaningful to estimate R 2 and to use the resulting estimate for the usual descriptive and inferential purposes.
The nature of most social scientific work, however, generates data poorly described by the first specification. The second specification, conditional regression, is usually more helpful, and for that reason, it overwhelmingly predominates in econometric textbooks. Under it, sampling distributions are conditioned on the observed values of the independent variables. Then, R 2 is a purely descriptive quantity with little substantive content. It is not a parameter, and it will vary meaninglessly across samples even when the underlying statistical law is unchanged. By contrast, the standard error of estimate (SEE) lacks these difficulties, and is a far better statistic for assessing goodness of fit.
Lewis-Beck and Skalaban are persuasive where unconditional regression is concerned. But their argument encounters serious difficulties in the far more common situation in which conditional regression applies. Their blurring of the distinction between the two situations explains why their seemingly persuasive logic leads them astray.
Political Analysis , Volume 2 , 1990 , pp. 173 - 184
Copyright © by the University of Michigan 1991 
Access options
Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
Buy article
Check access
Institutional login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Log in
Personal login
Log in with your Cambridge Core account or society details.
Log in
Maddala, G. S. 1988. Introduction to Econometrics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sampson, Allan R. 1974. “A Tale of Two Regressions.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 69 (347): 682–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spanos, Aris. 1986. Statistical Foundations of Econometric Modeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Publishing partners
Additional Information
Legal Information
© Cambridge University Press 2021
Back to top
Log inRegisterBrowse subjectsWhat we publishServicesAbout Cambridge Core Cart ( 0 ) Cart ( 0 ) Institution loginRegisterLog in Cart ( 0 )