Suchergebnisse

Although the policy diffusion literature comprises a large number of methodologically sophisticated papers, very little is known about basic issues such as how often states actually look at others' policies, whose policies they look at, and when they look. We study policy research briefs prepared for legislators to focus on policy knowledge diffusion. We find that policy researchers frequently reported on others' policies. We also find that factors such as innovativeness and proximity affect how often a state's policies are studied. More generally, we find evidence of fairly sophisticated learning as policy makers looked at others' policies in nuanced and varied ways. Our findings suggests that information about policies diffuses through systematic and targeted research during the policy-making process. This policy research disproportionately focuses on neighbors and states likely to have good policies, but it also uncovers ideas from less obvious states.

While the Supreme Court's legitimacy is generally considered essential to its influence, scholars continue to debate whether the Court's decisions affect individuals' assessments of it. The last week of the 2013 term provides an unusual opportunity to evaluate these issues because the Court made a conservative decision concerning the Voting Rights Act (VRA) only one day before it made a liberal one about same-sex marriage. We use original panel data of individuals' views throughout this period, including a wave collected on the day between the two decisions, to investigate the links among decisions and legitimacy. We find that diffuse support for the Court is sensitive to decisions in these two salient cases conditional on individuals' ideological distance to the Court and their policy support. Moreover, the negative effects of an unfavorable decision are stronger than the positive effects of a favorable one.

Policymakers and scholars are increasingly looking to cities to address challenges including income inequality. No existing research, however, directly and systematically measures local political elites' preferences for redistribution. We interview and survey 72 American mayors—including many from the nation's largest cities—and collect public statements and policy programs to measure when and why mayors prioritize redistribution. While many of the mayors' responses are consistent with being constrained by economic imperatives, a sizable minority prioritize redistributive programs. Moving beyond the question of whether mayors support redistribution, we find that partisanship explains much of the variation in a mayor's propensity for redistribution. Moreover, the impact of partisanship very rarely varies with institutional and economic contexts. These findings suggest that national political debates may be shaping local priorities in ways contrary to conventional views, and that they may matter even more than other recent findings conclude.

While experimental studies of local election officials have found evidence of racial discrimination, we know little about whether these biases manifest in bureaucracies that provide access to valuable government programs and are less tied to politics. We address these issues in the context of affordable housing programs using a randomized field experiment. We explore responsiveness to putative white, black, and Hispanic requests for aid in the housing application process. In contrast to prior findings, public housing officials respond at equal rates to black and white email requests. We do, however, find limited evidence of responsiveness discrimination toward Hispanics. Moreover, we observe substantial differences in email tone. Hispanic housing applicants were 20 percentage points less likely to be greeted by name than were their black and white counterparts. This disparity in tone is somewhat more muted in more diverse locations, but it does not depend on whether a housing official is Hispanic.

The 2012 challenge to the Affordable Care Act was an unusual opportunity for people to form or reassess opinions about the Supreme Court. We utilize panel data coupled with as-if random assignment to reports that Chief Justice Roberts's decision was politically motivated to investigate the microfoundations of the Court's legitimacy. Specifically, we test the effects of changes in individuals' ideological congruence with the Court and exposure to the nonlegalistic account of the decision. We find that both affect perceptions of the Court's legitimacy. Moreover, we show that these mechanisms interact in important ways and that prior beliefs that the Court is a legalistic institution magnify the effect of updating one's ideological proximity to the Court. While we demonstrate that individuals can and did update their views for multiple reasons, we also highlight constraints that allow for aggregate stability in spite of individual-level change. Adapted from the source document.

Neighborhood Defenders and The Power of Delay -- Land Use Regulations and Multifamily Housing Development -- Land Use Regulations and Public Input -- Who are the Neighborhood Defenders? -- Neighborhood Defense Tactics -- Gentrification, Affordable Housing, and Housing Reform.