No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Substantive Divergence: The Meaning of Public Opinion on Government Spending in Red and Blue
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 November 2020
Abstract
We examine the substantive meaning of public opinion on government spending using open-ended data from an original survey. Belying the conventional wisdom on this subject, we find that public opinion on government spending is not reducible to views on social welfare programs. While most people do have specific associations with spending, in the aggregate, public associations span a wide range of government functions. Balance does not necessarily mean harmony, however. We find strong evidence of what we call substantive divergence along party lines in this area—when they think about spending, Republicans and Democrats envision different bundles of goods and services, on average. This is true even for opposing partisans with the same overall assessment of spending (e.g., those who say government spends too much). These findings bring fiscal conflict into sharper relief and also have broader implications for the conceptualization and measurement of differences across parties, as well as other political cleavages.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association
Footnotes
A list of permanent links to Supplemental Materials provided by the authors precedes the References section.
*
Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/P8OYIZ
Many thanks to Bob Shapiro, Adam Berinsky, Pat Egan, Jacob Hacker, Greg Huber, Doug Kriner, Dino Christenson, Katie Einstein, David Glick, and Suzanne Mettler for feedback on our survey. Thank you to Sam Rhodes, John Henderson, David Bateman, and the participants of the Congress and History Conference for valuable comments on this project.
References
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L.. 1998. “Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate.” Journal of Politics 60(3): 634–52.10.2307/2647642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., and Pischke, Jorn-Steffen. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400829828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, David C. 2005. “Values, Frames, and Persuasion in Presidential Nomination Campaigns.” Political Behavior 27(4): 375–94.10.1007/s11109-005-8145-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Agnus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 10:103–26.10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citrin, Jack. 1979. “Do People Want Something for Nothing: Public Opinion on Taxes and Government Spending.” National Tax Journal 32(2): 113-29.10.1086/NTJ41863164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David E., 206–261. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
de la Garza, Rodolfo O., and Jang, Seung-Jin. 2011. “Latino Public Opinion.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Public Opinion and the Media, ed. Edwards, George III, Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul, Evans, John, and Bryson, Bethany. 1996. “Have Americans’ Social Attitudes Become More Polarized?” American Journal of Sociology 102(3): 690–755.10.1086/230995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James. 2001. “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior 23:225–56.10.1023/A:1015006907312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eismeier, Theodore J. 1982. “Public Preferences about Government Spending: Partisan, Social, and Attitudinal Sources of Policy Differences.” Political Behavior 4:133–45.10.1007/BF00987185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Christopher, and Stimson, James. 2012. Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139094009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federico, Christopher M., and de Zavala, Agnieszka Golec. 2018. “Collective Narcissism and the 2016 US Presidential Vote.” Public Opinion Quarterly 82(1): 110–21.10.1093/poq/nfx048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Stanley, and Zaller, John. 1992. “The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State.” American Journal of Political Science 36(1): 268–307.10.2307/2111433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris, and Levendusky, Matthew. 2008. “Disconnected: The Political Class versus the People.” In Red and Blue Nation? Characteristics and Causes of America’s Polarized Politics, ed. Nivola, Pietro S. and Brady, David W., 49–71. Baltimore: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Free, Lloyd A., and Cantril, Hadley. 1967. The Political Beliefs of Americans. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Gamson, William, and Modigliani, Andre. 1987. “The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action.” In Research in Political Sociology, ed. Braungart, Richard D., 137–77. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226293660.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goren, Paul. 2008. “The Two Faces of Government Spending.” Political Research Quarterly 61(1): 147–57.10.1177/1065912907311881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Matt, and Hopkins, David A.. 2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190626594.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, John Mark. 1998. “Individuals, Institutions, and Public Preferences over Public Finance.” American Political Science Review 92(3): 512–31.10.2307/2585478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. “Affect, not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3): 405–31.10.1093/poq/nfs038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 2005. “Polarized Politics and the 2004 Congressional and Presidential Elections.” Political Science Quarterly 120(2): 199–218.10.1002/j.1538-165X.2005.tb00544.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1994. “Public Attitudes toward Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 38(2): 336–61.10.2307/2111407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Christopher D., Lavine, Howard G., and Federico, Christopher M.. 2017. Open Versus Closed: Personality, Identity, and the Politics of Redistribution. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316341452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Paul, and Tversky, Amos. 1982. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511809477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Winter, Nicholas. 2001. “Exploring the Racial Divide: Blacks, Whites, and Opinion on National Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 45(2): 439–53.10.2307/2669351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimmel, Katherine, and Rader, Kelly. 2014. “Public Opinion and Fiscal Politics.” Presented at the Annual Conference on Institutions and Lawmaking, Feb 21-22, Emory University.Google Scholar
Krimmel, Katherine, and Rader, Kelly. 2017. “The Federal Spending Paradox: Economic Self-Interest and Symbolic Racism in Contemporary Fiscal Politics” American Politics Research 45(5): 727–754.10.1177/1532673X17701222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimmel, Katherine, and Rader, Kelly 2020. “Racial Unfairness and Fiscal Politics.” American Politics Research. Forthcoming.10.1177/1532673X20972102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, Everett Carll, Potter, Marilyn, Basilick, Linda, Daniels, Sally, and Suszkiw, Dana. 1979. “The Polls: Taxing and Spending.” Public Opinion Quarterly 43:126–35.10.1086/268501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Schlesinger, Mark. 2005. “Policy Frames, Metaphorical Reasoning, and Support for Public Policies.” Political Psychology 26(1):77–134.10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00410.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey, and Phillips, Justin. 2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review 103(3): 367–86.10.1017/S0003055409990050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey, and Carsey, Thomas. 2002. “Party Polarization and ‘Conflict Extension’ in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 46(4): 786–802.10.2307/3088434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey, Carsey, Thomas, and Horowitz, Juliana. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science 9:83–110.10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J. Scott, and Ervin, Laurie H.. 2000. “Using Heteroscedasticity Consistent Standard Errors in the Linear Regression Model.” American Statistician 54(3): 217–24.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88(1): 63–76.10.2307/2944882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, Michele F. 2016. “Cognitive Dissonance, Elections, and Religion: How Partisanship and the Political Landscape Shape Religious Behaviors.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80(3): 717–40.10.1093/poq/nfw023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Liliana. 2015. “‘I Disrespectfully Agree’: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59(1): 128–45.10.1111/ajps.12089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Liliana. 2018. “Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities.” Public Opinion Quarterly 82(1): 866–87.10.1093/poq/nfy005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne. 2011. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226521664.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57(1): 45–56.10.2307/1952717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mood, Carina. 2010. “Logistic regression: Why We Cannot Do What We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do about It.” European Sociological Review 26(1): 67–82.10.1093/esr/jcp006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, Eva. 1963. “Public Attitudes toward Fiscal Programs.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 77(2): 210–35.10.2307/1884400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin, and Shapiro, Robert. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226644806.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1983. “The Effects of Opinion on Policy.” American Political Science Review 77(1): 175–90.10.2307/1956018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, Samuel. 1982. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, Arthur. 1988. “Rationality, Self Interest, and Public Attitudes on Public Spending.” Social Science Quarterly 69(2): 311–24.Google Scholar
Sears, David O., and Citrin, Jack. 1982. Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Robert. 2014. “Public Opinion.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Political Development, ed. Valelly, Richard, Mettler, Suzanne and Lieberman, Robert, 1–23. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul, Brody, Richard, and Tetlock, Philip. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511720468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., and Theriault, Sean M.. 2004. “The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing. In Studies in Public Opinion, ed. Saris, Willem E. and Sniderman, Paul M., 133–65. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691188386-007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A, Mackuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89(3): 543–65.10.2307/2082973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, Susan. 1985. “The ’More for Less’ Paradox: Public Attitudes on Taxing and Spending.” Public Opinion Quarterly 49(3): 310–16.10.1086/268929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimmel and Rader supplementary material
Krimmel and Rader supplementary material
PDF
365.2 KB