Theories of political culture have traditionally been based on how the mass public views the role of government, yet scholars have rarely studied this issue. Using American National Election Studies(ANES) data from 1952 to 2008, I track cultural changes in external efficacy, a measure of the public’s beliefs about government responsiveness. The aggregate- and individual-level results indicate that external efficacy varied across political cultures until around 1980, when the differences dissipated. These findings should cause scholars to question some of the underlying theoretical basis of political culture, as well as the measurement of external efficacy.
AbramowitzA.SaundersK. L. (2005). Why can’t we all just get along? The reality of a polarized America. The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, 3(2), Article #1.
2.
AldrichJ. H. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
The American National Election Studies (www.electionstudies.org). (2010). TIME SERIES CUMULATIVE DATA FILE [Dataset]. Stanford University and the University of Michigan [producers and distributors].
4.
AlmondG. (1956). Comparative political systems. Journal of Politics, 18, 391-409.
5.
BalchG. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept of ‘sense of political efficacy.’Political Methodology, 1(1), 1-43.
6.
BoeckelmanK. (1991). Political culture and state development policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 21(2), 49-62.
CampbellA.GurinG.MillerW. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
9.
ChamberlainA. (2012). A time series analysis of external efficacy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(1), 117-130.
10.
ConverseP. E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In CampbellA.ConverseP. E. (Eds.), The human meaning of social change (pp. 263-337). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
11.
CraigS. C.NiemiR. G.SilverG. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289-314.
12.
DarmofalD. (2006). The political geography of macro-level turnout in American political development. Political Geography, 25(2), 123-150.
13.
ElazarD. J. (1966). American federalism: A view from the states (1st ed.). New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell.
14.
ElazarD. J. (1970). Cities of the prairie: The metropolitan frontier and American politics. New York, NY: Basic Books.
15.
ElazarD. J. (1972). American federalism: A view from the states (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
16.
ElazarD. J. (1994). The American mosaic: The impact of space, time, and culture on American politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
17.
FischerD. H. (1989). Albion’s seed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
GarreauJ. (1981). The nine nations of North America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
19.
GastilR. D. (1975). Cultural regions of the United States. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
20.
HansonR. (1980). Political culture, interparty competition and political efficacy in the American states. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 10(2), 17-36.
21.
HendersonA. (2010). “Small worlds” as predictors of general political attitudes. Regional & Federal Studies, 20, 469-485.
22.
HeroR. E. (1998). Faces of inequality: Social diversity in American politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
HeroR. E.TolbertC. J. (1996). A racial/ethnic diversity interpretation of the politics and policy of the states of the US. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 851-871.
24.
HetheringtonM. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95, 619-631.
25.
JohnsonC. A. (1976). Political culture in American states: Elazar’s formulation reexamined. American Journal of Political Science, 20, 491-509.
26.
KingG.TomzM.WittenbergJ. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 347-361.
27.
KovenS. G.MausolffC. (2002). The influence of political culture on state budgets: Another look at Elazar’s formulation. American Review of Public Administration, 31(1), 66-77.
28.
LieskeJ. (1993). Regional subcultures of the United States. The Journal of Politics, 55, 888-913.
29.
LieskeJ. (2010). The changing regional subcultures of the American states and the utility of a new cultural measure. Political Research Quarterly, 63, 538-552.
30.
LieskeJ. (2012). American state cultures: Testing a new measure and theory. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 42(1), 108-133.
31.
LoweryD.SigelmanL. (1982). Political culture and state public policy: The missing link. The Western Political Quarterly, 35, 376-384.
32.
LutzB. J.LutzJ. M. (2011). Interest groups and pro-animal rights legislation. Society and Animals, 19, 261-277.
33.
MadsenD. (1987). Political self-efficacy tested. American Political Science Review, 81, 571-582.
34.
MeadL. M. (2004). State political culture and welfare reform. Policy Studies Journal, 32, 271-296.
35.
MillerD. Y. (1991). The impact of political culture on patterns of state and local government expenditures. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 21(2), 83-100.
36.
MorrellM. E. (2003). Survey and experimental evidence for a reliable and valid measure of internal political efficacy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 589-602.
37.
NardulliP. F. (1990). Political subcultures in the American states: An empirical examination of Elazar’s formulation. American Politics Quarterly, 18, 287-315.
38.
NiemiR. G.CraigS. C.MatteiF. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85, 1407-1413.
39.
PutnamR. (2000). Bowling alone. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
40.
PutnamR. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137-174.
41.
RohdeD. W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the post-reform House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42.
SharkanskyI. (1969). The utility of Elazar’s political culture: A research note. Polity, 2(1), 66-83.
43.
TomzM.WittenbergJ.KingG. (2003, January5). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Version 2.1. Stanford University, University of Wisconsin, and Harvard University. Retrieved from http://gking.harvard.edu/
