Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T02:48:44.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Opinion, Organized Interests, and Policy Congruence in Initiative and Noninitiative U.S. States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

James Monogan ,
Virginia Gray  and
David Lowery
James Monogan
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Virginia Gray
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
David Lowery
Affiliation:
University of Leiden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We consider the impact of direct democracy on state public policy by examining whether initiatives alter the effects of predictors in models of general state policy liberalism. These analyses are couched in Erikson, Wright, and McIver's (1993) opinion liberalism model of state public policy, as augmented by Gray et al.'s (2004) inclusion of measures of organized interests. After presenting our theoretical expectations, we test the different ways that public opinion, organized interests, and initiatives can interact in the determination of public policy with a variety of models. We find little evidence that initiatives alter the congruence between opinion and policy.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , Fall 2009 , pp. 304 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 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

Arceneaux, Kevin. 2002. “Direct Democracy and the Link between Public Opinion and State Abortion Policy.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2:372–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banducci, Susan A. 1998. “Searching for Ideological Consistency in Direct Legislation Voting.” 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
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google 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 42:327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2005. The Indirect Effect of Direct Legislation: How Institutions Shape Interest Group Systems. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2008. “The Initiative Process and the Dynamics of State Interest Group Populations.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 8:362–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2004. “Measuring the Effect of Direct Democracy on State Policy: Not All Initiatives Are Created Equal.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4:345–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14:63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broder, David. 2000. Democracy Derailed. New York, NY: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2005. “Institutions and Policy Representation in the States.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5:373–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camobreco, John F. 1998. “Preferences, Fiscal Policies, and the Initiative Process.” The Journal of Politics 60:819–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotter, Cornelius, Gibson, James, Bibby, John, and Huckshorn, Robert. 1984. Party Organizations in American Politics. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge 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
Gray, Virginia, Lowery, David, Fellowes, Matthew, and McAtee, Andrea. 2004. “Public Opinion, Public Policy, and Organized Interests in the United States.” Political Research Quarterly 57:411–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, Michael G., Lascher, Edward L. Jr., and Camobreco, John F.. 2001. “Response to Matsusaka: Estimating the Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Policy Responsiveness.” The Journal of Politics 63:1257–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lascher, Edward L. Jr., Hagen, Michael G., and Rochlin, Steven A.. 1996. “Gun behind the Door? Ballot Initiatives, State Policies, and Public Opinion.” The Journal of Politics 58:760–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, David, and Gray, Virginia. 2004. “A Neopluralist Perspective on Research on Organized Interests.” Political Research Quarterly 57:163–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Matsusaka, John G.. 2004. “Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions.” Annual Review of Political Science 7:463–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marschall, Melissa J., and Ruhil, Anirudh V. S.. 2005. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative Reconsidered: Addressing Endogeneity.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5:327–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 1995. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last 30 Years.” The Journal of Political Economy 103:587–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2001. “Problems with a Methodology Used to Evaluate the Voter Initiative.” The Journal of Politics 63:1250–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2004. For the Many or the Few. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Kent Jennings, M.. 1986. Parties in Transition: A Longitudinal Study of Party Elites and Supporters. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Pippen, John, Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2002. “Election Reform and Direct Democracy: Campaign Finance Regulations in the American States.” American Politics Research 30:559–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Scott E., Caver, Floun'say, Meier, Kenneth J., and O'Toole, Laurence J. Jr. 2007. “Explaining Policy Punctuations: Bureaucratization and Budget Change.” American Journal of Political Science 51:140–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrag, Peter. 1998. Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sigelman, Lee, Lowery, David, and Smith, Roland. 1983. “The Tax Revolt: A Comparative State Analysis.” Western Political Quarterly 6:30–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Tolbert, Caroline. 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
Smith, Daniel A., and Tolbert, Caroline. 2007. “The Instrumental and Educative Effects of Ballot Measures: Research on Direct Democracy in the American States.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7:417–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel A. 1998. Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Uslaner, Eric M., and Weber, Ronald E.. 1977. Patterns of Decision Making in State Legislatures. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Monogan et al. supplementary material

Monoga

Download Monogan et al. supplementary material(File)
File 67.6 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Monogan et al. supplementary material

Replication_Information

Download Monogan et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 134.4 KB