Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T23:10:13.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the Citizen Initiative Weaken Party Government in the U.S. States?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Justin H. Phillips
Justin H. Phillips*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

By placing lawmaking power directly in the hands of citizens, Progressive movement reformers hoped to undercut the ability of political parties to pursue their policy objectives. This article tests the expectations of reformers by examining whether direct democracy alters the ability of partisan legislative majorities and governors to shape the size of the U.S. state public sector. Using a large dataset, I estimate the determinants of state tax effort and compare across jurisdictions the effects of variables that measure the partisan control of government. The results demonstrate that while the partisanship of elected officials is an important predictor of tax effort in pure representative jurisdictions, the relationship between party and policy disappears among initiative states. This analysis not only adds to our understanding of U.S. state budgeting, but also suggests the widespread adoption of direct democracy as a possible explanation for the weak party effects observed in studies of state fiscal policy.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Summer 2008 , pp. 127 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 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

Aldrich, John H. 1983. “A Downsian Spatial Model with Party Activism.” American Political Science Review 77:974–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1996. “A Theory of Divided Government.” Econometrica 64:1311–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alt, James E., and Lowry, Robert C.. 1994. “Divided Government, Fiscal Institutions, and Budget Deficits: Evidence from the States.” American Political Science Review 88:811–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alt, James E., and Lowry, Robert C.. 2000. “A Dynamic Model of State Budget Outcomes Under Divided Partisan Government.” The Journal of Politics 62:1035–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aranson, Peter H., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1972. “Spatial Strategies for Sequential Elections.” In Probability Models of Collective Decision Making, eds. Niemi, Richard G. and Weisberg, Herbert F.. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Baron, David P. 1994. “Electoral Competition with Informed and Uninformed Voters.” American Political Science Review 88:33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrilleaux, Charles, Holbrook, Thomas, and Langer, Laura. 2002. “Electoral Competition, Legislative Balance, and American State Welfare Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 46:415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2004. “Direct Democracy's Effects on Political Parties.” Paper presented at the U.C. Irvine Conference on Direct Democracy, Irvine.Google Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14:63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Robert D. 1995. “Party Cleavages and Welfare Effort in the American States.” American Political Science Review 89:23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2004. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. Congressional Elections.” British Journal of Political Science 34:211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Bruce E., and Miller, Kenneth P.. 2001. “The Populist Legacy: Initiatives and the Undermining of Representative Government.” In Dangerous Democracy: The Battle over Ballot Initiatives in America, eds. Sabato, Larry J., Ernst, Howard R., and Larson, Bruce A.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall. 1985. “Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Congruence.” American Journal of Political Science 29:69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespin, Michael H., Gold, Suzanne M.. 2006. “Ideology, Electoral Incentives, and Congressional Politics: The Republican Class of 1994.” American Politics Research 34:135–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dye, Thomas R. 1966. Politics, Economics, and the Public: Political Outcomes in the American States. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C. Jr., and McIver, John. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members in their Districts. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, Charles J., and Rohde, David W.. 2002. “War for the Floor: Agenda Control and the Relationship between Conditional Party Government and Cartel Theory.” Michigan State University. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1999. “Whatever Happened to the Median Voter?” Presented at the MIT Conference on Parties and Congress, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrahams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2005. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Garand, James C. 1988. “Explaining Government Growth in the U.S. States.” American Political Science Review 82:837–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996a. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science 40:99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996b. “Legislatures, Initiatives, and Representation: The Effects of State Legislative Institutions on Policy.” Political Research Quarterly 49:263–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1998. “Pressuring Legislatures through the Use of Initiatives: Two Forms of Indirect Influence.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline J.. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Lewis, Jeffrey B.. 2004. “Beyond the Median: Voter Preferences, District Heterogeneity, and Political Representation.” Journal of Political Economy 112:1364–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Mathew D., and Roderick Kiewiet, D.. 2001. Stealing the Initiative: How State Government Responds to Direct Democracy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Matsusaka, John G. 1995. “Deviations from Constituent Interests: The Role of Legislative Structure and Political Parties in the States.” Economic Inquiry 33:383–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Susan B. 1983. The Politics of Taxation: Revenue without Representation. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard. 1955. The Age of Reform. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M., and Dunk, Emily Van. 1993. “Electoral Competition in the American States.” American Political Science Review 87:955–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 2000. “Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 44:750–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewell, Malcolm E., and Morehouse, Sarah M.. 2001. Political Parties and Elections in American States. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Jewell, Malcolm E., and Whicker, Marcia Lynn. 1994. Legislative Leadership in American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, James J. 1976. The New Presidential Elite. New York, NY: Sage.Google Scholar
Knight, Brian G. 2002. “Endogenous Federal Grants and Crowd-Out of State Government: Theory and Evidence from the Federal Highway Aid Program.” American Economic Review 92:71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, Everett Carl, and Hadley, Charles D.. 1978. Transformations of the American Party System. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., and Horowitz, Juliana Menasce. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” American Review of Political Science 9:83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 1995. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last 30 Years.” Journal of Political Economy 103:587–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2004. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative Process, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2005. “Direct Democracy and Fiscal Gridlock: Have Voter Initiatives Paralyzed the California Budget?” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5:248–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAtee, Andrea, Yackee, Susan Webb, and Lowery, David. 2003. “Reexamining the Dynamic Model of Divided Partisan Government.” The Journal of Politics 65:477–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClosky, Herbert, and Zaller, John. 1984. The American Ethos: Public Attitudes Toward Capitalism and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Gary, and Schofield, Norman. 2003. “Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 97:245–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulton, Brent R. 1990. “An Illustration of a Pitfall in Estimating the Effects of Aggregate Variables in Micro Units.” Review of Economics and Statistics 72:334–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowry, George E. 1951. The California Progressives. Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). 2005. Ballot Measure Database. Washington, DC: NCSL.Google Scholar
Persily, Nathaniel, and Anderson, Melissa. 2005. “Regulating Democracy through Democracy: The Use of Direct Legislation in Election Reform Law.” University of Pennsylvania Law School. Working paper.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40:825–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Justin H. 2005. The Political Economy of State Tax Policy: The Effects of Electoral Outcomes, Market Competition, and Political Institutions. Ph.D. diss., University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Plotnick, Robert D., and Winters, Richard F.. 1985. “A Politico-Economic Theory of Income Redistribution.” American Political Science Review 79:458–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primo, David M., Jacobsmeier, Jacob, and Milyo, Jeffery. 2007. “Estimating the Impact of State Policies and Institutions with Mixed-Level Data.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7:446–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranney, Austin. 1972. “Turnout and Representation in Presidential Primary Elections,” American Political Science Review 66:21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranney, Austin. 1976. “Parties in State Politics.” In Politics in the American States, 3rd ed., eds. Jacob, Herbert and Vines, Kenneth. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Alan. 1990. Governors and Legislators: Contending Powers. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Alan. 1998. The Decline of Representative Democracy: Process, Participation, and Power in State Legislatures. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Tolbert, Caroline J.. 2004. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snijders, Tom A.B., and Bosker, Roel J.. 1999. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas. 1995. “Campaign Contributions and Congressional Voting: Does the Timing of Contributions Matter?” Review of Economics and Statistics 77:127–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundquist, James L. 1983. Dynamics of the American Party System. Washington DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Trilling, Richard. 1976. Party Image and Electoral Behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar