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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArceneauxKevin. 2002. “Direct Democracy and the Link between Public Opinion and State Abortion Policy.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly2: 372–87.
2.
BanducciSusan A.1998. Searching for Ideological Consistency in Direct Legislation Voting. In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. BowlerShaunDonovanToddTolbertCaroline J.. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
3.
BaumgartnerFrank R.JonesBryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BerryWilliam D.RingquistEvan J.FordingRichard C.HansonRussell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-93.” American Journal of Political Science42: 327–48.
5.
BoehmkeFrederick J.2005. The Indirect Effect of Direct Legislation: How Institutions Shape Interest Group Systems. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
6.
BoehmkeFrederick J.2008. “The Initiative Process and the Dynamics of State Interest Group Populations.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly8: 362–83.
7.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 2004. “Measuring the Effect of Direct Democracy on State Policy: Not All Initiatives Are Created Equal.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly4: 345–63.
BroderDavid. 2000. Democracy Derailed. New York, NY: Harcourt.
10.
BurdenBarry C.2005. “Institutions and Policy Representation in the States.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly5: 373–93.
11.
CamobrecoJohn F.1998. “Preferences, Fiscal Policies, and the Initiative Process.” The Journal of Politics60: 819–29.
12.
CotterCorneliusGibsonJamesBibbyJohnHuckshornRobert. 1984. Party Organizations in American Politics. New York, NY: Praeger.
13.
EriksonRobert S.WrightGerald C.McIverJohn P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
14.
GerberElisabeth R.1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
GrayVirginiaLoweryDavidFellowesMatthewMcAteeAndrea. 2004. “Public Opinion, Public Policy, and Organized Interests in the United States.” Political Research Quarterly57: 411–20.
16.
HagenMichael G.LascherEdward L.Jr.CamobrecoJohn F.. 2001. “Response to Matsusaka: Estimating the Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Policy Responsiveness.” The Journal of Politics63: 1257–63.
17.
JonesBryan D.BaumgartnerFrank R.. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
LascherEdward L.Jr.HagenMichael G.RochlinSteven A.. 1996. “Gun behind the Door? Ballot Initiatives, State Policies, and Public Opinion.” The Journal of Politics58: 760–75.
19.
LoweryDavidGrayVirginia. 2004. “A Neopluralist Perspective on Research on Organized Interests.” Political Research Quarterly57: 163–75.
20.
LupiaArthurMatsusakaJohn G.. 2004. “Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions.” Annual Review of Political Science7: 463–82.
21.
MarschallMelissa J.RuhilAnirudh V. S.. 2005. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative Reconsidered: Addressing Endogeneity.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly5: 327–55.
22.
MatsusakaJohn G.1995. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last 30 Years.” The Journal of Political Economy103: 587–623.
23.
MatsusakaJohn G.2001. “Problems with a Methodology Used to Evaluate the Voter Initiative.” The Journal of Politics63: 1250–56.
24.
MatsusakaJohn G.2004. For the Many or the Few. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
MillerWarren E.Kent JenningsM.. 1986. Parties in Transition: A Longitudinal Study of Party Elites and Supporters. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
26.
PippenJohnBowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 2002. “Election Reform and Direct Democracy: Campaign Finance Regulations in the American States.” American Politics Research30: 559–82.
27.
RobinsonScott E.CaverFloun'sayMeierKenneth J.O'TooleLaurence J.Jr.2007. “Explaining Policy Punctuations: Bureaucratization and Budget Change.” American Journal of Political Science51: 140–50.
28.
SchragPeter. 1998. Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future. New York, NY: Free Press.
29.
SigelmanLeeLoweryDavidSmithRoland. 1983. “The Tax Revolt: A Comparative State Analysis.” Western Political Quarterly6: 30–51.
30.
SmithDaniel A.TolbertCaroline. 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.
31.
SmithDaniel A.TolbertCaroline. 2007. “The Instrumental and Educative Effects of Ballot Measures: Research on Direct Democracy in the American States.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly7: 417–46.
32.
SmithDaniel A.1998. Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy. New York, NY: Routledge.
33.
UslanerEric M.WeberRonald E.. 1977. Patterns of Decision Making in State Legislatures. New York, NY: Praeger.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
