The author develops the concepts of ‘governance policy’ and how it relates to existing public policy typologies, especially ‘constituent policy’. Although distributive, regulatory, and redistributive types of policy are well understood, scholars have long struggled with an appropriate definition to complete this four-fold typology. Lowi referred to this fourth type as ‘constituent policy’—conferring broad costs and benefits to society—as opposed to policy that affects narrow (often economic) interests. Lowi's conception of constituent policy assumed a top-down process of policymaking dominated by elected officials and administrative agencies. Governance policy represents an attempt to refine the concept of ‘constituent policy’. Governance policy has a prominent procedural component and can be initiated by a bottom-up process of policymaking, via citizen initiatives or interest groups, as well as by a top-down process through political elites. This author explores the history and social significance of governance policy. Cross-sectional data from the fifty states of the USA are used to statistically model explanations for the adoption of nine governance policies. Empirical analysis suggests that states with frequent usage of ballot initiatives are more likely to adopt governance policy, after controlling for other factors. The author also suggests that a Progressive reform tradition, measured by a moralistic political culture, may provide an important trigger for the initial adoption of state direct democracy mechanisms. This suggests that prior adoption of direct democracy mechanisms may provide a necessary intervening trigger for frequent reliance on governance policy.
BowlerSDonovanT, 1998Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting and Direct Democracy (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI)
3.
BowlerSDonovanTTolbertC (Eds), 1998Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States (Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH)
4.
BroderD, 2000Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money (Harcourt Brace, and World, New York)
5.
ButlerDRanneyA, 1994Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy (AEI Press, Washington, DC)
6.
CroninT, 1989Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
7.
DoddL, 1995, “The new American politics: Reflections on the early 1990s”, in The New American Politics Ed. JonesB (Westview Press, Boulder, CO)
8.
DonovanTSnippJ, 1994, “Support for legislative term limitations in California: Group representation, partisanship, and campaign information”Journal of Politics56492–501
9.
DonovanTBowlerSMcCuanDFernandezK, 1998, “Contending players and strategies: Opposition advantages in initiative elections”, in Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States Eds BowlerSDonovanTTolbertC (Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH) pp 80–104
10.
DrageJ, 1999, “Campaign finance reform”National Conference of State Legislatures Legi Brief7(25) June/July
11.
DyeT, 1981Politics, Economics, and the Public: Policy Outcomes in the American States (Rand McNally, Chicago, IL)
12.
ElazarD, 1966American Federalism: A View from the States3rd edition (Harper and Row, New York)
13.
EriksonRWrightGMcIverJ, 1993Statehouse Democracy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
14.
GerberE, 1996, “Legislative response to the threat of popular initiatives”American Journal of Political Science4099–128
15.
GerberE, 1999The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
16.
GrayV, 1973, “Innovation in the states: A diffusion study”American Political Science Review671174–1185
17.
HeroR, 1998Faces of Inequality: Social Diversity in American Politics (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
18.
HeroRTolbertC, 1996, “A racial/ethnic diversity interpretation of politics and policy in the States of the U.S.”American Journal of Political Science40851–871
19.
HillKLeighleyJ, 1999, “Racial diversity, voter turnout, and mobilizing institutions in the United States”American Politics Quarterly27275–295
20.
KeyV OJr, 1949Southern Politics—In State and Nation (University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN)
21.
KingGTomzMWittenbergJ, 2000, “Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation”American Journal of Political Science4347–361
22.
LangerL, 1999, “Measuring income distribution across space and time in the American States”Social Science Quarterly8055–67
23.
LasherEHagenMRochlinS, 1996, “Gun behind the door? Ballot initiatives, state policies and public opinion”Journal of Politics58760–775
24.
LowiT, 1964, “American business public policy: Case studies and political theory”World Politics16687–691
25.
LowiT, 1972, “Four systems of policy, politics and choice”Public Administration Review33298–310
26.
LowiT, 1979The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States (W W Norton, New York)
27.
MaglebyD, 1984Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the US (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
28.
MaglebyD, 1994, “Direct legislation in the American States”, in Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy Eds ButlerDRanneyA (AEI Press, Washington, DC) pp 218–257
29.
MarchJOlsenJ, 1984, “The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life”American Political Science Review78734–749
30.
MarchJOlsenJ, 1989Rediscovering Institutions (The Free Press, New York)
31.
MendelsohnMParkinA (Eds), 2001Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites, and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns (Palgrave, New York)
32.
MoncriefGThompsonJHaddonMHoyerR, 1992, “For whom the bell tolls: Term limits and state legislatures”Legislative Studies Quarterly1737–47
33.
MondakJ, 1995, “Elections as filters: Term limits and the composition of the U.S. House”Political Research Quarterly48701–727
34.
MossbergerK, 2000The Diffusion of Innovations and the Spread of Enterprise Zones (Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC)
35.
PetersB G, 1996The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models (Kansas University Press, Lawrence, KS)
36.
PetersB G, 1999Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism (Pinter, New York)
37.
PolsbyN, 1991, “Constitutional mischief: What's wrong with term limitations?”American Prospect4042–43
PriceC, 1975, “The initiative: A comparative state analysis and reassessment of a Western phenomenon”Western Political Quarterly28243–262
40.
PriceC, 1992, “The guillotine comes to California: Term-limit politics in the golden state”, in Limiting Legislative Terms Eds BenjaminGMalbinM (Congressional Quarterly Press, Washington, DC) pp 117–137
41.
RauschJ, 1994, “Anti-representative direct democracy: The politics of legislative constraint”Comparative State Politics151–16
42.
ReedRSchansbergE, 1995a, “The house under term limits: Focusing on the big picture”Social Science Quarterly76734–740
43.
ReedRSchansbergE, 1995b, “The house under term limits: What would it look like”Social Science Quarterly76699–716
44.
RosenthalA, 1997The Decline of Representative Democracy: Process, Participation and Power in State Legislatures (CQ Press, Washington, DC)
45.
SabatierP, 2000, “Fostering the development of policy theory”, in Theories of the Policy Process (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 261–275
46.
SchattschneiderE E, 1960The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America (Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL)
47.
SchmidtD, 1989Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA)
48.
SchragP, 1998Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future (The New York Press, New York)
49.
SmithA, 1998Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy (Routledge, New York)
50.
SpitzerR, 1987, “Promoting policy theory: Revising the arenas of power”Policy Studies Journal15675–689
51.
SquireP, 1992, “The theory of legislative institutionalization and the California Assembly”Journal of Politics541026–1054
52.
SteinmoS KThelenKLongstrethF (Eds), 1992Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
53.
ThelenKSteinmoS, 1992, “Historical institutionalism in comparative politics”, in Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis Eds SteinmoSThelenKLongstrethF (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 1–32
54.
ThompsonJMoncriefG, 1993, “The implications of terms limits for women and minorities: Some evidence from the States”Social Science Quarterly74300–309
55.
TolbertCLowesteinDDonovanT, 1998, “Election law and rules for using initiatives”, in Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States Eds BowlerSDonovanTTolbertC (Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH) pp 27–54
56.
TomzMWittenbergJKing, 1999CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results version 1.2.1, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, http://gking.harvard.edu/
57.
WalkerJ, 1969, “The diffusion of innovations among the American States”American Political Science Review63880–899
58.
WilsonJ, 1980The Politics of Regulation (Basic Books, New York)
