There is significant disagreement on the moderating role of institutions on policy responsive- ness, yet overwhelmingly research in state politics has focused on single institutions. This project leverages a new aggregate scale of state institutions to evaluate if the collective insti- tutional context moderates the influence of public opinion on policy. I use a recently released latent scale of institutional context and find that high levels of accountability pressure strongly strengthen public opinion’s influence on policy for both economic and social policy, while the strength of a state’s checks and balance system is largely unrelated to policy responsiveness. These results demonstrate the importance of incorporating aggregate institutional design into our understanding of the role of institutions in state politics, and that collectively institutions play a large role in determining how public opinion is translated into policy.
AchenC.BartelsL.AchenC. H.BartelsL. M. (2017). Democracy for realists. In: Democracy for Realists. Princeton University Press.
2.
AmentaE.NealC.SheeraJ. O.2005. Age for leisure? Political mediation and the impact of the pension movement on US old-age policy. American Sociological Review70(3):516–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000308
3.
BafumiJ.HerronM. C. (2010). Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in congress. American Political Science Review, 104(3), 519-542. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055410000316
4.
BarberM. J. (2016). Ideological donors, contribution limits, and the polarization of amer- ican legislatures. The Journal of Politics, 78(1), 296-310. https://doi.org/10.1086/683453
5.
BartelsL. M. (1991). Constituency opinion and congressional policy making: The Reagan defense buildup. American Political Science Review, 85(2), 457-474. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963169
6.
BartelsL. M. (2018). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Prince- ton University Press.
7.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (2010). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
8.
BoehmkeF.SchillingT. E. U.SchillingE. (2015). Pivotal politics and initiative use in the American states. Political Research Quarterly, 68(4), 665-677. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915606234
9.
BousheyG. TMcGrathR. J. (2017). Experts, amateurs, and bureaucratic influence in the American states. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1), 85-103. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw038
10.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (2004). Measuring the effect of direct democracy on state policy: Not all initiatives are created equal. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4(3), 345-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000400400305
BroockmanD. E.CarnesN.Crowder-MeyerM.SkovronC. (2021). Why local party leaders don’t support nominating centrists. British Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 724-749. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123419000309
13.
BroockmanD. ESkovronC. (2018). Bias in perceptions of public opinion among political elites (pp. 1-22). American Political Science Review.
14.
BursteinP. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600103
15.
ButcherJ.KimG. (2021). Electing educators: How term limits can increase representation. Oklahoma Politics, 31, 1-32.
16.
CaugheyD.WarshawC. (2018). Policy preferences and policy change: Dy- namic responsiveness in the American states, 1936–2014. American Political Science Review, 112(2), 249-266. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055417000533
17.
ClarkJ. H.WilliamsR. L. (2014). Parties, term limits, and representation in the US states. American Politics Research, 42(1), 171-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x13492191
18.
CoppedgeM.MaldonadoA. C.MaldonadoC. (2008). Two persistent dimensions of democracy: Contestation and inclusiveness. The Journal of Politics, 70(3), 632-647. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381608080663
19.
ElkjærA. M. (2020). What drives unequal policy responsiveness? Assessing the role of informational asymmetries in economic policy-making. Comparative Political Studies, 53(14), 2213-2245.
20.
EriksonR. S.WrightG. C.McIverJ. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. Cambridge University Press.
21.
GeerJ. G. (1996). From tea leaves to opinion polls: A theory of democratic leadership. Columbia University Press.
22.
GerberE. R. (1996). Legislative response to the threat of popular initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 99-128. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111696
23.
GilensM. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in Amer- ica. Princeton University Press.
24.
GrossmannM.JordanM. P.McCrainJ. (2021). The correlates of state policy and the structure of state panel data. State Politics Policy Quarterly, 21(4), 430-450. https://doi.org/10.1017/spq.2021.17
25.
HassellH. J. G. (2018). Principled moderation: Understanding parties support of moderate can- didates. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 43(2), 343-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12197
HillK. Q.HurleyP. A. (1999). Dyadic representation reappraised. American Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 109-137. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991787
28.
KangS-G.PowellG. B.Jr. (2010). Representation and policy responsiveness: The median voter, election rules, and redistributive welfare spending. The Journal of Politics, 72(4), 1014-1028. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381610000502
29.
KingdonJ. W. (1967). Politicians’ beliefs about voters. American Political Science Review, 61(1), 137-145. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953881
30.
KoganV. (2016). When voters pull the trigger: Can direct democracy restrain legisla- tive excesses?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 41(2), 297-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12115
31.
KousserT. (2005). Term limits and the dismantling of state legislative professionalism. Cam-Bridge University Press.
32.
KrehbielK. (2010). Pivotal politics: A theory of US lawmaking. University of Chicago Press.
33.
LaCombeS.BoehmkeF. J. (2021). The initiative process and policy innovation in US states. State Politics and Policy Quarterly. Government: Faculty Publications, Smith College.
34.
LaCombeS. J. (2021). Measuring institutional design in U.S. States. Social Science Quarterly, 102(4), 1511-1533. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12986
35.
La RajaR. J.SchaffnerB. F. (2015). Campaign finance and political polarization: When purists prevail. University of Michigan Press.
LijphartA. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Governance forms and performance in 36 coun- tries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
39.
LupiaA.KrupnikovY.LevineLevineS.PistonP.Von Hagen-JamarA. (2010). Why state constitutions differ in their treatment of same-sex marriage. The Journal of Politics, 72(4), 1222-1235. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381610000642
40.
MaestasC. (2000). Professional legislatures and ambitious politicians: Policy responsiveness of state institutions. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25(4), 663-690. https://doi.org/10.2307/440439
41.
MaestasC. (2003). The incentive to listen: Progressive ambition, resources, and opinion monitoring among state legislators. The Journal of Politics, 65(2), 439-456. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-3-00008
42.
ManzaJ.CookF. L. (2002). A democratic polity? Three views of policy responsive- ness to public opinion in the United States. American Politics Research, 30(6), 630-667. https://doi.org/10.1177/153267302237231
43.
MasketS.ShorB. (2015). Polarization without parties: Term limits and legislative partisanship in Nebraska’s unicameral legislature. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 15(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440014564984
44.
MatsusakaJ. (2001). Problems with a methodology used to evaluate the voter initiative. The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1250-1256. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00109
45.
MatsusakaJ. (2010). Popular control of public policy: A quantitative approaches. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 5(2), 133-167. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00009055
46.
MatsusakaJ. (2018). Public policy and the initiative and referendum: A survey with some new evidence. Public Choice, 174(1-2), 107-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-017-0486-0
47.
MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1963). Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review, 57(1), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952717
48.
MoncriefG. F.NeimiR. G.PowellL. W. (2004). Time, term limits, and turnover: Trends in membership stability in US state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quar- Terly, 29(3), 357-381. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298004x201212
49.
OlsonM. P.RogowskiJ. C. (2020). Legislative term limits and polarization. The Journal of Politics, 82(2), 572-586. https://doi.org/10.1086/706764
50.
PachecoJ. (2013). The thermostatic model of responsiveness in the American states. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 13(3), 306-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440013487388
51.
PageB. I.GilensM. (2017). Democracy in America? What has gone wrong and what we can do about it. University of Chicago Press.
52.
PageB. I.ShapiroR. Y. (2010). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. University of Chicago Press.
53.
QuinnK. M. (2004). Bayesian factor analysis for mixed ordinal and continuous responses. Political Analysis, 12(4), 338-353. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mph022
54.
RogersS. (2017). Electoral accountability for state legislative roll calls and ideological rep- resentation. American Political Science Review, 111(3), 555-571. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055417000156
55.
SorokaS. NWlezienC. (2010). Degrees of democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
56.
SquireP. (1992). Legislative professionalization and membership diversity in state legis- latures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17(1), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.2307/440081
57.
TausanovitchC. (2019). Why are subnational governments responsive?The Journal of Politics, 81(1), 334-342. https://doi.org/10.1086/700728
TsebelisG. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton University Press.
60.
WlezienC.1996. Dynamics of representation: The case of US spending on defence. British Journal of Political Science26(1):81–103. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123400007420
WrightG. C. (2007). Do term limits affect legislative roll call voting? Representation, polar- ization, and participation. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(3), 256-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000700700302
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.
