Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:10:06.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The polarisation of energy policy in the US Congress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2019

Gyung-Ho Jeong  and
William Lowry
Gyung-Ho Jeong*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, Canada
William Lowry
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although energy policy used to be a nonpartisan issue in Congress, partisan conflicts over energy policies are intense these days. To examine how a nonpartisan issue became a highly partisan one, we create and use a new measure of energy policy positions of members of Congress. Our analyses of member behaviour show that, in addition to partisan realignment in the South, energy policy-specific factors – rising oil prices, the climate change debate since 1988, and the salience of energy policy in Congress – are significantly related to increasing party polarisation over energy policy. We also find that the increasing convergence between energy policy and environmental policy has significantly contributed to party polarisation over energy issues. The study thus provides important understanding of this specific policy area as well as insights into the party polarisation literature by demonstrating how policy-specific events and policy convergence transform a nonpartisan issue into a highly partisan one.

Keywords

energy policyenvironmental policypolarisationUS Congress
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 17 - 41
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adler, B (2015) Fossil Fuel Extraction on Public Lands is the Next Climate Fight. High Country News. September 29, 2015 edition. pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
Aldrich, J (1995) Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F and Jones, B (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F, Jones, B and Mortensen, P. (2014) Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking. In Sabatier, P. A. and Weible, C. M. (eds.), Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 59–103.Google Scholar
Birkland, T (1997) After Disaster. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
CQ Almanac (1990) Clean Air Act Rewritten, Tightened. In CQ Almanac, 46th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 229–78.Google Scholar
Dion, D (1997) Turning the Legislative Thumbscrew: Minority Rights and Procedural Change in Legislative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, R (1997) Nuclear Politics in America. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Fiege, M (2012) The Republic of Nature. Seattle: University of Washing Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, T (2008) Hot, Flat and Crowded. New York: Farrar, Strous, and Giroux.Google Scholar
Freese, B (2003) Coal. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
Graetz, M (2011) The End of Energy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, T, Levitt, S and Snyder, J (1999) Comparing Interest Group Scores across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress. American Political Science Review 49, 107–121.Google Scholar
Grossman, P (2012) The Logic of Collective Action: U.S. Energy Shocks and the U.S. Policy Process. Journal of Public Policy 32, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunwald, M (2019) An Unexpected Current That’s Remaking American Politics. Politico. April 29, 2019 edition. pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Hamilton, L (2002) Foreword. In Bent, R., Orr, L. and Baker, R. (eds.) Energy. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, xiii–xv.Google Scholar
Jacobson, G (2000) Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection. In Bond, J. R. and Fleisher, R. (eds.), Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Jeong, G, Lowry, W, Miller, G and Sened, I (2014) How Preferences Change Institutions: The 1978 Energy Act. Journal of Politics 72, 430–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, G and Quirk, P (2019) Division at the Water’s Edge: The Polarization of Foreign Policy. American Politics Research 47, 58–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsbury, N (2010) The Government Accountability Office and Congressional Use of Federal Statistics. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 631, 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, F (2016) Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, M (2013) The Power Surge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lovins, A (1976) Energy Strategy: The Road not Taken? Energy Affairs 10/76 55, 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowry, W (2008) Disentangling Energy Policy from Environmental Policy. Social Science Quarterly 89, 1195–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowry, W and Joslyn, M (2014) The Determinants of Salience of Energy Issues. Review of Policy Research 31, 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowry, W and Shipan, C (2002) Party Differentiation in Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 27, 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A and Quinn, K (2002) Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10, 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, N, Poole, K and Rosenthal, H (2006) Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCright, A and Dunlap, R (2011) The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly 52, 155–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oleszek, W (2014) Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process, 9th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Patty, J (2008) Equilibrium Party Government. American Journal of Political Science 52, 636–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, K and Rosenthal, H (1997) Congress: A Political-Economy History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, D (1991) Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, W (2015) American Energy. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Shipan, C and Lowry, W (2001) Environmental Policy and Party Divergence in Congress. Political Research Quarterly 54, 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, J (1992) Artificial Extremism in Interest Group Ratings. Legislative Studies Quarterly 17, 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theriault, S (2010) Party Polarization in the US Congress. Party Politics 12, 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theriault, S and Rohde, D (2011) The Gingrich Senators and Party Polarization in the U.S. Senate. Journal of Politics 73, 1011–10124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titlow, B and Tinger, M (2016) Protecting the Planet. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Weber, E, Bernell, D and Boudet, H (2016) Energy Policy. In Vig, N. J. and Kraft, M. E. (eds.), Environmental Policy. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 172–193.Google Scholar
Worland, J (2017) A Fight over the Electric Grid Could Reshape America’s Green Power Boom. Time 26. June 29, 2017 edition. p. 26.Google Scholar
Yergin, D (2011) The Quest. New York: The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Jeong and Lowry Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/2BBRQ6
Link