Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:33:43.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Measurement and Stability of State Citizen Ideology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

William D. Berry ,
Evan J. Ringquist ,
Richard C. Fording  and
Russell L. Hanson
William D. Berry
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Evan J. Ringquist
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Richard C. Fording
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Russell L. Hanson
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Does state political ideology change over time? Brace et al. (2004, 537) say no, based on their analysis of three longitudinal measures of state citizen ideology: Berry et al.‘s (1998) indicator that relies on election results and congressional roll call votes, and two indicators that Brace et al. construct from ideological self-placement items, one using GSS and ANES survey results, and the other employing surveys conducted by CBS/New York Times. The authors imply that the ideological stability they detect precludes the possibility that state citizen ideology influences state policy. However, this implication stems from Brace et al.‘s definition of meaningful ideological change as differences in the relative ideology of states over time rather than absolute changes in ideology within states. We contend that this argument is both logically and methodologically flawed. Brace et al. maintain that their CBS/New York Times and GSS/ANES indicators are valid measures of state citizen ideology, but that the Berry et al. indicator is not. To assess this claim, it is crucial to distinguish between ideological self-identification (or symbolic ideology) and policy mood (or operational ideology). We find that the Berry et al. measure is a valid indicator of policy mood, but that it is invalid as a measure of self-identification. In contrast, the CBS/New York Times and GSS/ANES measures are invalid as indicators of policy mood, and while they are valid indicators of self-identified ideology, they are highly unreliable. Although a measure of self-identified ideology can be useful for answering some research questions, we contend that an indicator of policy mood is more appropriate when studying the impact of public opinion on public policy, and we reiterate our confidence in using the Berry et al. (1998) measure for that purpose.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Summer 2007 , pp. 111 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

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

Basinger, Scott J., and Lavine, Howard. 2005. “Ambivalence, Information and Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 99:169–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960–93.” American Journal of Political Science 41:327–48.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 2006. “A Comment on ‘Correction: Does State Political Ideology Change Over Time?‘” Political Research Quarterly 59:495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, Arceneaux, Kevin, Johnson, Martin, and Ulbig, Stacy G.. 2004. “Does State Political Ideology Change Over Time?” Political Research Quarterly 57:529–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, Arceneaux, Kevin, Johnson, Martin, and Ulbig, Stacy G.. 2006. “Reprint of Correction: Does State Political Ideology Change Over Time?” Political Research Quarterly 59:493–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, Sims-Butler, Kellie, Arceneaux, Kevin, and Johnson, Martin. 2002. “Public Opinion in the American States: New Perspectives Using National Survey Data.” American Journal of Political Science 46:173–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, John C., and Mark Crain, W.. 2002. “Bicameral Legislatures and Fiscal Policy.” Southern Economic Journal 68:646–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiou, Fang-Yi, and Rothenberg, Lawrence. 2003. “When Pivotal Politics Meets Partisan Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 47:503–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durr, Robert, Martin, Andrew, and Wolbrecht, Christina. 2000. “Ideological Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 44:768–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 2007. “Public Opinion in the States: A Quarter Century of Change and Stability.” In Public Opinion in State Politics, ed. Cohen, Jeffrey E.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1999. “Further Evidence of the Partisan Consequences of Legislative Professionalism.” American Journal of Political Science 43:974–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, John D., and Robinson, John P.. 1978. “Ideological Identification and the American Voter.” Public Opinion Quarterly 42:235–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, David, and Carmichael, Jason T.. 2001. “The Politics of Punishment across Time and Space.” Social Forces 80:61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Martin, Brace, Paul, and Arceneaux, Kevin. 2005. “Public Opinion and Dynamic Representation in the American States: The Case of Environmental Attitudes.” Social Science Quarterly 86:87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V.O Jr. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
Levitin, Teresa E., and Miller, Warren E.. 1979. “Ideological Interpretations of Presidential Elections.” American Political Science Review 73:751–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinke, Scott R., and Hasecke, Edward B.. 2003. “Term Limits, Professionalization, and Partisan Control in U.S. State Legislatures.” Journal of Politics 65:898–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson-Crotty, Sean. 2004. “Goal Conflict and Fund Diversion in Federal Grants to the States.” American Journal of Political Science 48:110–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, Richard G., and Kent Jennings, M.. 1991. “Issues and Inheritance in the Formation of Party Identification.” American Journal of Political Science 35:970–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, David K., Gelman, Andrew, and Bafumi, Joseph. 2004. “Bayesian Multilevel Estimation with Poststratification: State-Level Estimates from National Polls.” Political Analysis 12:375–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Kevin B. 2004. “The Politics of Punishment: Evaluating Political Explanations of Incarceration Rates.” Journal of Politics 66:925–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, Randolph T. 2001. “The Economy and the Policy Mood: A Fundamental Dynamic of Democratic Politics?” American Journal of Political Science 45:620–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1991. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Ronald E., and Shaffer, William R.. 1972. “Public Opinion and American State Policy Making.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 16:633–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2006. Introductory Econometrics. 3rd ed. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C., Erikson, Robert S., and McIver, John P.. 1985. “Measuring State Partisanship and Ideology with Survey Data.” Journal of Politics 47:469–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar