This article explores the private/public sector cleavage in voting and political attitudes in Canada and the United States. The authors use public choice theory to hypothesize that the interest of public sector employees in the growth of the state inclines them to vote for parties of the left, to support increased state spending, and to place themselves on the left ideologically in both countries. However, given differences between Canadian and U.S. party systems as well as differences over time in the prominence of issues related to state size and growth, the sectoral cleavage should be more prominent in the United States than in Canada but of greater significance in recent elections than in earlier ones in both countries. The authors proceed by adding a sectoral-cleavage variable to multivariate models of party support and attitudinal position. On the whole the effect is greater in the United States, and mainly for presidential voting, and seems to have been particularly significant in the 1984 election. In Canada, sector is related mainly to the choice of the New Democratic Party over the two larger parties. In Canada, but not the United States, an ideological difference between sectors may have emerged that could strengthen sectoral differences based on self-interest.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aberbach, J. D. , Putnam, R. A., & Rockman, B. A. (1981). Bureaucrats and politicians in Western democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
Alt, J. , & Turner, J. (1982). The case of the silk-stocking socialists and the calculating children of the middle class. British Journal of Political Science, 12, 239-248.
3.
Andersen, J. G. (1984). Decline of class voting in class voting? Social classes and party choice in Denmark in the 1970's. European Journal of Political Research, 12, 243-259.
4.
Bercuson, D. J. , Granatstein, L., & Young, W. R. (1986). Sacred trust? Brian Mulroney and the Conservative party in power. Toronto: Doubleday.
5.
Berry, W. D. , & Lowery, D. (1987). Explaining the size of the public sector: Responsive and excessive government interpretations. Journal of Politics, 49, 401-441.
6.
Blais, A. , & Dion, S. (1987). Les employés du secteur public sont-ils différents?Revue française de science politique, 37, 76-97.
7.
Blais, A. , & Nadeau, R. (1984). L'appui au parti québécois: évolution de la clientèle de 1970 à 1981. In J. Crête (Ed.), Comportement éléctoral au Québec (pp. 321-334). Chicoutimi: Gaëtan Morin.
8.
Blake, D. E. (1985). Two political worlds: Parties and voting in British Columbia. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
9.
Borcherding, T. E. (Ed.). (1977). Budgets and bureaucrats: The source of government growth. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
10.
Borre, O. (1987). Some results from the Danish 1987 election. Scandinavian Political Studies, 10, 345-357.
11.
Brint, S. (1984). “New class” and cumulative trend explanations of the liberal political attitudes of professionals. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 30-71.
12.
Buchanan, J. M. (1975). The limits of liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Buchanan, J. M. , & Tullock, G. (1977). The expanding public sector: Wagner squared. Public Choice, 31, 147-150.
14.
Budge, I. , & Fairlie, D. J. (1983). Explaining and predicting elections: Issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.
15.
Bush, W. C. , & Denzau, A. T. (1977). The voting behavior of bureaucrats and public sector growth. In T. E. Borcherding (Ed.), Budgets and bureaucrats: The source of government growth (pp. 90-99). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
16.
Cameron, D. (1986). The growth of government spending: The Canadian experience in comparative perspective. In K. Banting (Ed.), State and society: Canada in comparative perspective (pp. 21-51). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
17.
Castles, F. G. (1982). Introduction: Politics and public policy. In F. G. Castles (Ed.), The impact of parties: Politics and public policy in democratic capitalist states (pp. 1-18). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18.
Chevalier, J. J. (1953). Histoire des institutions politiques de la France moderne (1789-1945). Paris: Dallez.
19.
Citrin, J. , & Green, D. P. (1985). Policy and opinion in California after Proposition 13. National Tax Journal, 38, 15-25.
20.
Clark, J. S. (1967). Teachers and politics in France: A pressure group study of the Fédération de l'Education Nationale. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
21.
Dunleavy, P. (1980). The political implications of sectoral cleavages and the growth of state employment: 2. Cleavage structure and political alignment. Political Studies, 28, 527-549.
22.
Goodsell, C. T. (1985). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
23.
Gramlich, E. M. , & Rubinfeld, D. C. (1982). Voting on public spending: Differences between public employees, transfer recipients, and private workers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1, 516-533.
24.
Hardouin, P. (1983). Le PS: Un parti d'intellectuels?Intervention, 5-6, 66-76.
25.
Heath, A. , Jowell, R., & Curtice, J. (1985). How Britain votes. Oxford: Pergamon.
26.
Islam, N. , & Paquet, M. (1975). Les étudiants et la fonction publique: une étude des perceptions, des valeurs professionelles et de l'attrait comparatif. Administration publique du Canada, 18, 38-54.
27.
Jaffre, J. (1986). Front national: la relève protestataire. In E. Dupoirier & G. Grundberg (Eds.), Mars 1986: la drôle de defaite de la gauche (pp. 211-229). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
28.
Johnston, R. (1979). Bureaucrats and elections. In M. W. Bucovetsky (Ed.), Studies in public employment and compensation in Canada (pp. 161-177). Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
29.
Kesler, J.-F. (1980). Sociologie des fonctionnaires. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
30.
Kiewiet, D. R. , & McCubbins, M. D. (1985). Congressional appropriations and the electoral connection. Journal of Politics, 47, 2-31.
31.
Laad, H. F. , & Wilson, J. B. (1982). Why voters support tax limitations: Evidence from Massachusetts Proposition 2. National Tax Journal, 35, 121-148.
32.
Lafferty, W. M. , & Knutsen, O. (1984). Leftist and rightist ideology in social democratic states: An analysis of Norway in the midst of the conservative resurgence. British Journal of Political Science, 14, 345-367.
33.
Lamont, M. (1986). New middle class liberalism and autonomy from profit-making: The case of Quebec. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York.
34.
Lavau, G. , Grundberg, G., & Mayer, N. (1983). L'univers politique des classes moyennes. Paris: Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques.
35.
LeDuc, L. (1984). Canada: The politics of stable dealignment. In R. J. Dalton, S. C. Flanagan, & P. A. Beck (Eds.), Electoral change in advanced industrial democracies (pp. 402-424). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
Levy, M. (1975). Voting in California's tax and expenditure limitation initiative. National Tax Journal, 28, 426-437.
37.
Lewis, A. , & Jackson, D. (1985). Voting preferences and attitudes on public expenditures. Political Studies, 33, 457-466.
38.
Lewis-Beck, M. S. , & Rice, T. W. (1985). Government growth in the United States. Journal of Politics, 47, 2-31.
39.
Lipset, S. M. (1983). Political man: The social basis of politics. London: Heinemann.
40.
Michelat, G. , & Simon, M. (1977). Classes, religion et comportement politique. Paris: Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques.
41.
Meier, K. J. (1975). Representative bureaucracy: An empirical analysis. American Political Science Review, 69, 526-546.
42.
Nie, N. H. , Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1979). The changing American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine Atherton.
44.
Plotkin, H. A. (1985). Issues in the campaign. In M. M. Pomper (Ed.), The election of 1984: Reports and interpretations (pp. 35-59). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
45.
Ponzer, B. A. , & Schmidt, W. W. (1982). Determining managerial strategies in the public sector: What kind of people enter the public and private sector?Human Resources Management, 18, 35-43.
46.
Rawls, J. R. , Ullrich, R. A., & Nelson, O. T. (1975). A comparison of managers entering or re-entering the profit and nonprofit sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 616-623.
47.
Sarlvik, B. , & Holmberg, S. (1985). Social determinants of party choice in Swedish elections, 1956-1982. Paper presented at the Congrès de l'Association internationale de science politique, Paris.
48.
Simeon, R. , & Miller, R. (1980). Regional variations in public policy. In D. J. Elkins & R. Simeon, Small worlds: Provinces and parties in Canadian political life. Toronto: Methuen.
49.
Stanley, H. W. , Bianco, W. T., & Niemi, R. G. (1986). Partisanship and group support over time: A multivariate analysis. American Political Science Review, 80, 969-976.
50.
Tullock, G. (1965). The politics of bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.
51.
Tullock, G. (1974). Dynamic hypotheses on bureaucracy. Public Choice, 19, 127-131.
52.
Whiteley, P. (1986). Predicting the Labour vote in 1986: Social backgrounds versus subjective evaluations. Political Studies, 34, 82-98.
53.
Wirthlin, R. B. (1981). The Republican strategy and its electoral consequences. In S. M. Lipset (Ed.), Party coalitions in the 1980s (pp. 235-264). San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
54.
Wuthnow, R. , & Shrum, W. (1983). Knowledge workers as a “new class.”Work and Occupations, 10, 471-487.
