Suchergebnisse

Does politics impact happiness? This paper evaluates how being a political "winner" or "loser" – whether one's preferred party controls government or not – is linked to multiple measures of life satisfaction. Using Gallup survey data on self-reported well-being for Democrats and for Republicans within the U.S. states for 2008–2016 (a time period when party control of government changed in several states) and a difference-in-difference model with two-way fixed effects, I find consistent evidence that citizens report lower levels of well-being when the opposing party controls state government. The substantive effect is particularly large for Democrats living in Republican controlled states. Conversely, there is little evidence that citizens' well-being is boosted when their own party controls state government. These findings have important implications for our understanding about how partisan competition and election outcomes can impact subjective well-being and further highlight the significance of negative partisanship for American public opinion.

Citizens in a democracy expect elected officials will be responsive to their political opinions and govern in an effective way that improves their quality of life. However, a government that is too responsive to public sentiments may, in practice, be unable to govern effectively and promote societal well-being. This study is the first attempt to date to empirically evaluate this important potential tradeoff. Using newly developed measures of public opinion and public policy liberalism in the American states over time and a diverse battery of societal outcomes as well as multiple estimation strategies and timeframes, I find a weak and directionally inconsistent statistical relationship between policy responsiveness and government effectiveness. These findings have significant normative and theoretical implications because they suggest there is not a tradeoff between a government responding to its citizens' opinions and it governing effectively by promoting citizens' well-being.

ObjectivesThe U.S. Supreme Court's 2012 ruling on the Affordable Care Act was a federal exogenous shock that presented all states with the decision to continue their Medicaid program in its current form or expand it to include thousands of newly eligible recipients. This article takes advantage of this exogenous shock to evaluate the impact of Medicaid expansion on citizens' quality of life.MethodsI evaluate changes from 2010 to 2014 in low‐income citizens' subjective well‐being (SWB) using Gallup‐Healthways survey data and a difference‐in‐differences estimation strategy.ResultsAverage levels of SWB increased among low‐income citizens in states that expanded Medicaid eligibility compared to states that did not. In a series of placebo tests, I also demonstrate that the expansion had no effect on the SWB of middle‐ or high‐income citizens who are unlikely to directly benefit from more generous Medicaid eligibility requirements.ConclusionsThe empirical findings suggest that the expansion of Medicaid has important implications for the well‐being of low‐income Americans and, more broadly, contribute to the growing literature on how government policy choices can concretely impact the quality of life that citizens experience.

This review essay illustrates the importance and utility of studying political equality among rich and poor citizens at the state level, reviews what is known in three key areas of political equality research in the states (unequal rates of political participation, unequal government responsiveness to citizens' political opinions, and public policy and inequality), and suggests possible future avenues of inquiry. The ultimate aim is to organize and integrate existing knowledge about political equality in the American states and spur future investigations that will further extend understanding among researchers and practitioners of state politics.

Amid growing evidence of 'unequal democracy' in the United States, labor unions can play a potentially important role by ensuring that low-income citizens' opinions receive more equal consideration when elected officials make policy decisions. To investigate this possibility, this article evaluates the relationship between labor union strength and representational equality across states and finds evidence that states with higher levels of union membership weigh citizens' opinions more equally in the policy-making process. In contrast, there is no relationship between the volume of labor union contributions to political campaigns in a state and the equality of its political representation. These findings suggest that labor unions promote greater political equality primarily by mobilizing their working-class members to political action and, more broadly, underscore the important role that organized labor continues to play in shaping the distribution of political power across American society.

Objectives This study investigates the relationship between direct democracy and the equality of opinion-policy representation in the American states. Methods Using public opinion measures from the National Annenberg Election Surveys and data on state policy outputs, I generate an index of the equality of political representation (based on citizens' incomes) that is comparable across the states. I then evaluate the relationship between different measures of direct democracy and political equality. Results States with the ballot initiative process are no more politically equal than states without the process. However, among those that have the ballot initiative process, states where it is easier to place a measure on the ballot for popular vote and states where the ballot initiative is more frequently used tend to weigh citizens' opinions more equally in the policy-making process. Conclusion These findings suggest that having and frequently using direct democracy leads to more egalitarian policy outcomes. More generally, this study underscores the importance of laws and institutional design in promoting political equality in the United States. Adapted from the source document.

Laws that regulate the financing of campaigns are one attempt to attenuate the role of money in politics and promote more egalitarian policy outcomes. Do states with stricter campaign finance regulations represent citizens' interests more equally? Using data on state spending priorities from 1977 to 2008, this article finds that states with stricter campaign finance laws devote a larger proportion of their annual budget to public welfare spending in general and to cash assistance programs in particular. In contrast, there is no relationship between the strictness of campaign finance laws and spending decisions for non-redistributive policy areas. I also investigate possible causal mechanisms and uncover evidence that stricter campaign finance laws alter incentives for candidates to respond to wealthy constituents by lessening the proportion of contributions that originate from business interests. These results suggest that laws that regulate the financing of political campaigns can play an important role in promoting the interests of disadvantaged citizens and enhancing political equality.

Laws that regulate the conduct of professional lobbyists in statehouses across the nation are one attempt to ensure that citizens' opinions receive more equal consideration when elected officials make policy decisions. Do states with stricter lobbying regulations actually display more egalitarian patterns of political representation? Using public opinion measures from the National Annenberg Election Surveys and data on state policies, this article first demonstrates that state policy decisions are consistently more proximate to the opinions of affluent citizens. I then evaluate the relationship between the stringency of state lobbying regulations and representational equality across the states and find evidence that states with stricter regulations weigh citizens' opinions more equally in the policymaking process. These findings suggest that lobbying regulations can play an important role in promoting greater political equality.

ObjectivesThis study investigates the relationship between direct democracy and the equality of opinion‐policy representation in the American states.MethodsUsing public opinion measures from the National Annenberg Election Surveys and data on state policy outputs, I generate an index of the equality of political representation (based on citizens' incomes) that is comparable across the states. I then evaluate the relationship between different measures of direct democracy and political equality.ResultsStates with the ballot initiative process are no more politically equal than states without the process. However, among those that have the ballot initiative process, states where it is easier to place a measure on the ballot for popular vote and states where the ballot initiative is more frequently used tend to weigh citizens' opinions more equally in the policy‐making process.ConclusionThese findings suggest that having and frequently using direct democracy leads to more egalitarian policy outcomes. More generally, this study underscores the importance of laws and institutional design in promoting political equality in the United States.