Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:09:16.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Thermostatic Model of Responsiveness in the American States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Julianna Pacheco
Julianna Pacheco*
Affiliation:
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
*
Julianna Pacheco, The University of Iowa, 342 Schaffer Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Does the thermostatic model exist in the states? Using a unique data set on state spending preferences on education and welfare, I find evidence of dynamic policy representation and dynamic public responsiveness, but with important qualifications. As state support for spending on education or welfare increases, state expenditures increase, but only for states that are highly professional and, presumably, able to accurately gauge the preferences of residents. In other states, legislators are responding to national policy sentiment instead of specific state opinion. I find no evidence that initiative states are more responsive to state opinion. Empirical evidence for dynamic public responsiveness is more consistent across model specifications. As state expenditures on education or welfare increase, state preferences for additional spending decrease, even after controlling for federal expenditures. Finally, I find that policy representation and public responsiveness in the states are conditional on issue saliency. The results provide a more nuanced understanding about the degree of dynamic representation and responsiveness in the states and the thermostatic model more generally.

Keywords

public opinionrepresentationvoting behaviorpolitical behaviorissue preferencesdirect democracy
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 306 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2013

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

Achen, Christopher H. 2005. “Let's Put Garbage-Can Regressions and Garbage-Can Probits Where They Belong.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 22 (4): 327–39..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkeson, Lonna Rae, and Partin, Randall W.. 1995. “Economic and Referendum Voting: A Comparison of Gubernatorial and Senatorial Elections.” American Political Science Review 89:99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A., and Rom, Mark Carl. 2004. “A Wider Race? Interstate Competition across Health and Welfare Programs.” Journal of Politics 66 (2): 326–47..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1995. “What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data.” American Political Science Review 89 (3): 634–47..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 2001. “Throwing Out the Baby with the Bath Water: A Comment on Green, Kim, and Yoon.” International Organization 55:487–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 2011. “Modeling Dynamics in Time-Series-Cross-Sectional Political Economy Data.” Annual Review of Political Science 14:331–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkman, Michael. 1994. “State Legislators in Congress: Strategic Politicians, Professional Legislatures, and the Party Nexus.” American Journal of Political Science 38:1025–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkman, Michael, and Plutzer, Eric. 2005. Ten Thousand Democracies: Politics and Public Opinion in America's School Districts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2004. “Measuring the Effects of Direct Democracy on State Policy: Not All Initiatives Are Created Equal.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4:345–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, Butler, Kellie Sims, Arceneaux, Kevin, and Johnson, Martin. 2002. “Public Opinion in the American States: New Perspectives Using National Survey Data.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 173–89..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Richard A. 1991. Assessing the President: The Media, Elite Opinion, and Public Support. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 2003. “The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (1): 29–40..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camobreco, John F. 1998. “Preferences, Fiscal Policies, and the Initiative Process.” The Journal of Politics 60 (3): 819–29..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camobreco, John F., and Barnello, Michelle A.. 2008. “Democratic Responsiveness and Policy Shock: The Case of State Abortion Policy.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 8 (1): 48–65..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, In. 2001. “Unit Root Tests for Panel Data.” Journal of International Money and Finance 20:249–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Fred. 2004. “Government Responsibility and Electoral Accountability in Federations.” Publius 34 (2): 19–38..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boef, Suzanna, and Keele, Luke. 2008. “Taking Time Seriously.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 184–200..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John A., and Kuklinski, James H.. 1990. Information and Democratic Processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science 40:99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, E. R. and Hug, Simon. 2002. “Minority Rights and Direct Legislation. Theory, Methods, and Evidence.” Working paper.Google Scholar
Graber, Doris A. 1989. Mass Media and American Politics. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., Kim, Soo Yeon H., and Yoon, David. 2001. “Dirty Pool.” International Organization 55:441–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Kim Quaile, and Hurley, Patricia A.. 1999. “Dyadic Representation Reappraised.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (1): 109–37..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 2000. Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jennings, Will, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2011. “Distinguishing between Most Important Problems and Issues?” Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (3): 545–55..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Martin, Brace, Paul, and Arceneaux, Kevin. 2005. “Public Opinion and Dynamic Representation in the American States: The Case of Environmental Attitude.” Social Science Quarterly 86 (1): 87–108..CrossRefGoogle 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 (3): 760–75..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2009. “How Should We Estimate Public Opinion in the States?” American Journal of Political Science 53 (1): 107–21..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maestas, Cherie. 2000. “Professional Legislatures and Ambitious Politicians: Policy Responsiveness of State Institutions.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25 (4): 663–90..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maestas, Cherie. 2003. “The Incentive to Listen: Progressive Ambition, Resources, and Opinion Monitoring among State Legislators.” Journal of Politics 65:439–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 1995. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiatives: Evidence from the Last 30 Years.” Journal of Political Economy 103:587–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2004. The Initiative Process, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, David E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57 (1): 45–56..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickell, Stephen. 1981. “Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 48:1417–26.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard G., Stanley, Harold W., and Vogel, Ronald J.. 1995. “State Economies and State Taxes: Do Voters Hold Governors Accountable?” American Journal of Political Science 39:936–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrander, Barbara, and Wilcox, Clyde. 1999. “Public Opinion and Policymaking in the States: The Case of Post-Roe Abortion Policy.” Policy Studies Journal 27 (4): 707–22..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pacheco, Julianna. 2011. “Using National Surveys to Measure Dynamic State Public Opinion: A Guideline for Scholars and an Application.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11 (4): 415–39..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacheco, Julianna. 2012. “The Social Contagion Model: Exploring the Role of Public Opinion on the Diffusion of Anti-Smoking Legislation across the American States.” The Journal of Politics 74:187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, David K., Gelman, Andrew, and Bafumi, Joseph. 2005. “Bayesian Multilevel Estimation with Poststratification: State Level Estimates from National Polls.” Political Analysis 12 (4): 375–85..Google Scholar
Peterson, Paul E. 1981. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Saundra. 2008. “Who's to Blame? (Mis) Perceptions of the Intergovernmental Response to Disasters.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 38:715–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1992. “Legislative Professionalization and Membership Diversity in State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (1): 69–79..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1991. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Vol. 12. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. Kent, Shapiro, Robert Y., and Jacobs, Lawrence R.. 1995. “Trends: Welfare.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 59:606–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Sven E., and Butler, Daniel M.. 2007. “A Lot More to Do: The Sensitivity of Time-Series Cross-Section Analyses to Simple Alternative Specifications.” Political Analysis 15:101–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public As Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 981–1000..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 2004. “Patterns of Representation: Dynamics of Public Preferences and Policy.” Journal of Politics 66 (1): 1–24..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 2005. “On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with ‘Most Important Problem.‘” Electoral Studies 24:555–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher, and Soroka, Stuart N.. 2010. “Federalism and Public Responsiveness to Policy.” Publius 41 (1): 31–52..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar