R/rd-Mitchell68.R

In stevedata: Steve's Toy Data for Teaching About a Variety of Methodological, Social, and Political Topics

#' @importFrom tibble tibble
NULL

#' Inequality and Insurgency: A Statistical Study of South Vietnam (Mitchell, 1968)
#'
#' A data set on the correlates of government control in 26 provinces in South
#'  Vietnam, to replicate a study by Mitchell (1968).
#'
#' @format A data frame with 26 observations on the following 9 variables.
#' \describe{
#' \item{\code{id}}{a numeric vector (a simple identifier)}
#' \item{\code{province}}{a character vector for the name of the province}
#' \item{\code{gc}}{a numeric vector for government control in the province (as a percent)}
#' \item{\code{ool}}{a numeric vector for owner-operated land (as a percent)}
#' \item{\code{cvlhs}}{a numeric vector for the coefficient of variation of the distribution of land-holdings, by size}
#' \item{\code{vl}}{a numeric vector for Vietnamese land, subject to transfer (as a percent of all land)}
#' \item{\code{fl}}{a numeric vector for French land, subject to transfer (as a percent of all land)}
#' \item{\code{m}}{a numeric vector for area of mobility}
#' \item{\code{pd}}{a numeric vector for population density (per square kilometer)}
#' }
#'
#' @details The data are gathered from Table 1 in the document. You should also
#' read the article for more information as to what's happening and for what
#' purpose.  Mitchell (1968) is quite clear about where else he's getting these
#' data. Much of what follows can be discerned in the first few pages of Mitchell
#' (1968), which jumps right into a conversation about research design after
#' a brief introduction.
#'
#' Province names are taken "as is" from Mitchell (1968). Since South Vietnam
#' no longer exists, and these observations are about 60 years old, some of
#' these province names may no longer exist. You may have to search for some
#' old provincial maps of the former Republic of Vietnam in order to understand
#' where some of these provinces are/were (especially if you're interested in
#' the regional variation noted by Paige (1970)).
#'
#' *Los Angeles Times* maps inform the government control variable, and there
#' are assumptions that Mitchell makes about the nature of control by the
#' government (South Vietnam), the Vietcong, or the areas that are contested.
#' The "control" here ultimately refers to South Vietnam.
#'
#' The observations for government control variable are from 1965. Mitchell's
#' footnote in his Table 1 says all other variables (except for population
#' density) correspond with information from 1960. The population density
#' estimate comes from 1964.
#'
#' The coefficient of variation variable is defined as the standard deviation
#' of land-holding size divided over the mean. If every landholding is of equal
#' size, the observation is 0. Larger values suggest more variability in
#' size of land-holdings with the implication being larger land-holdings are
#' conspicuous in the province. It's a crude, but interesting, measure of
#' inequality with that in mind.
#'
#' The owner-operated land variable is another crude, but interesting/novel
#' measure. An obvious percentage, 100 implies complete land ownership. 0 implies
#' universal tenancy where peasants work on land they do not own. Some
#' familiarity with the peculiarities of South Vietnamese society at the time is
#' strongly suggested.
#'
#' The "French land" and "Vietnamese land" variables refer to a specific agrarian
#' reform measure ("Ordinance 57"). The Vietnam version includes both expropriated
#' and redistributed land. The French version includes just expropriated land,
#' per Mitchell. The logic is the Vietnamese version suggests higher values =
#' lower inequality since the measure (partly) includes redistributed land. The
#' French land, being just expropriation, has a single owner (the South
#' Vietnamese government). That suggests higher inequality for higher values.
#' This logic is interesting but questionable, and we'll just have to roll with
#' the premise for the nature of the intended use of these data (i.e.
#' replication). Paige's (1970) objection is more about regional variation in
#' South Vietnam and its varied patterns of land use, and not about the
#' particulars of these two measure (per se).
#'
#' The mobility measure is a percentage, referring to the percentage of the
#' province that is composed of plains and hills without dense forest.
#'
#' The data are faithfully (to my level best!) scraped from Table 1 of his
#' article. However, the results that come from a linear model do not perfectly
#' reproduce his results (Equation 2, p. 432). I don't know why this is the case,
#' nor is it that important. It is worth noting that this kind of "step-wise"
#' procedure he employs for selecting a linear model is 100% not how you should
#' do it, and that 33rd footnote he includes on p. 432 would be an automatic
#' rejection at any quantitatively-oriented journal today.
#'
#' It may interest the user to see re-analyses of Mitchell (1968) from around
#' this time. I include those in the references for your consideration. Briefly,
#' Paige's (1970) objection is that Mitchell (1968) includes radically different
#' land-holding types into assorted measures of inequality and that Mitchell is
#' selecting on 1965 (a watershed moment of insurgency during the war).
#' Paranzino's (1972) critique is primarily statistical, though incorporates
#' some of the issues raised by Paige (1970). Importantly, he correctly notes
#' what the results of the linear model should be (p. 567).
#'
#' @references
#'
#' Mitchell, Edward J. 1968. "Inequality and Insurgency: A Statistical Study of
#' South Vietnam." *World Politics* 20(3): 421--38.
#'
#' Paige, Jeffery M. 1970. "Inequality and Insurgency in Vietnam: A
#' Re-Analysis." *World Politics* 23(1): 24--37.
#'
#' Paranzino, Dennis. 1972. "Inequality and Insurgency in Vietnam: A Further
#' Re-Analysis." *World Politics* 24(2): 565--78.
#'
"Mitchell68"