Testing Schattschneider’s theory of how party competition affects policy: A state level analysis
نویسنده
چکیده
This paper analyzes the impact of party competition on policy decisions in the United States. Each state is evaluated for the level of party competition within that state. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in policy outcome as a result of party competition. The alternative hypothesis suggests that different policies will result in a competitive two-party system compared to a one-party dominant system. The results of this paper show that states with high levels of party competition do have different policy outcomes. However, the difference seems to be the result of Democratic Party involvement rather than the environment created by competition.
منابع مشابه
Obama’s Counterterrorism Policy and the Washington Post’s Editorials: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Media-State Interaction
American mass media’s relation with the US government in foreign policy decision-making has been the subject of numerous studies in the interdisciplinary field of political communication. This paper reexamines the interaction between the media and the government in the US foreign policy decision-making process, analyzing the possible congruity and/or incongruity between The Washington Post...
متن کاملA New Approach to Public Policy Studies Relying on the Theory of Critical Discourse Analysis Studies the State as a Discourse
Understanding the policy cycle, as well as scrutinizing the text of hidden and obvious policies and rules, requires a model of discourse analysis based on which discursive ap-proaches of policy makers are understood and estimated. However, when it comes to presenting a policy model, we have to use the views of policy theorists to see how a problem as a "public goods" can be found in the policy ...
متن کاملFrom Mid-Level Policy Analysis to Macro-Level Political Economy; Comment on “Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia”
This latest contribution by the evaluation research team at Flinders University/Southgate Institute on their multiyear study of South Australia’s Health in All Policies (HiAP) initiative is simultaneously frustrating, exemplary, and partial. It is frustrating because it does not yet reveal the extent to which the initiative achieved its stated outcomes; that awaits further papers. It is exempla...
متن کاملDiscipline, Electoral Rules and Defection in the Bundestag, 1983–94
This article examines how party discipline and legislators’ individual policy goals induced by electoral rules influence the likelihood of defections from the party line in the Bundestag. Using a new indicator based on legislators’ explanations of their voting behaviour we find strong evidence that discipline, not policy cohesiveness alone, drives party unity. In particular, the allocation of o...
متن کاملSenate Elections with Independent Candidates
Assuming strict two-party competition, policy balancing models of the US senate imply that senators from the same state will often be from opposite parties and have great ideological divergence. We analyze the effect of independent candidates on these implications. Our theoretical model implies the two state senators will generally not be from opposite parties and will be closer in ideological ...
متن کامل