Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-28T06:18:12.632Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Measure of Policy Spending Priorities in the American States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

William G. Jacoby  and
Saundra K. Schneider
William G. Jacoby*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Michigan State University, 303 South Kedzie Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824
Saundra K. Schneider
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Michigan State University, 303 South Kedzie Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we develop and test a general measure of policy expenditures in the American states. Our approach is to construct a spatial proximity model of yearly state program spending. The empirical analysis reveals that state spending patterns vary along a clear and readily-interpretable unidimensional continuum which differentiates policies that provide particularized benefits to needy constituencies from policies that provide broader collective goods. Based upon standard evaluative criteria, the variable created from our model possesses some highly desirable characteristics. And, it compares favorably to other measures of state policy activity. The net result is a yearly score for each state which summarizes that state's spending across all major program areas. More generally, we believe that our variable can be interpreted as valid and reliable representational measurement of state policy priorities. In this capacity, it could occupy an important position within models of state politics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , Winter 2009 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Author's note: Many colleagues provided useful feedback on earlier versions of this paper. We particularly appreciate the excellent comments and suggestions from Robert Erikson, Richard Fording, Kim Hill, David Lowery, Andrea McAtee, and George Rabinowitz. We would also like to thank Daniel Lewis and William Myers for their assistance with the data collection. The yearly state policy priority scores obtained from the unfolding analysis, along with the data used to create the scores, the SAS macro to carry out the unfolding procedure, and all other supplemental materials are available on the authors' web sites: http://polisci.msu.edu/jacoby and http://polisci.msu.edu/schneider. All these materials are also available on the Political Analysis Web site.

References

Adcock, Robert, and Collier, David. 2001. Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review 95: 529–46.Google Scholar
Baron, David P., and Ferejohn, John. 1989. Bargaining in legislatures. American Political Science Review 83: 1181–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L. 1998. Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American States, 1960–93. American Journal of Political Science 42: 327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth A. 1989. Structural equation models with latent variables. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, Ingwer, and Groenen, Patrick. 2005. Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, and Hofferbert, Richard I. 1990. Mandates and policy outputs: U.S. party platforms and federal expenditures. American Political Science Review 84: 111–31.Google Scholar
Coombs, Clyde H. 1964. A theory of data. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Coombs, Clyde H., Dawes, Robyn M., and Tversky, Amos. 1970. Mathematical psychology: An elementary introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Cox, Trevor F., and Cox, Michael A. A. 2001. Multidimensional scaling. 2nd ed. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Dawes, Robyn M. 1972. Fundamentals of attitude measurement. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, Jan, and Meulman, Jacqueline. 1986. A special jackknife for multidimensional scaling. Journal of Classification 3: 97–112.Google Scholar
DiIlulio, John J. Jr., and Nathan, Richard P., eds. 1994. Making health reform work: The view from the states. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Elling, Richard C. 1983. State bureaucracies. In Politics in the American States. 4th ed. eds. Gray, Virginia, Jacob, Herbert, and Vines, K. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P. 1993. Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garand, James C. 1985. Partisan change and shifting expenditure priorities in the American States, 1945–1978. American Politics Quarterly 14: 355–91.Google Scholar
Garand, James C., and Hendrick, Rebecca M. 1991. Expenditure tradeoffs in the American states: A longitudinal test, 1948–1984. Western Political Quarterly 44: 915–40.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia. 1973. Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review 67: 1174–85.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia. 1974. Expenditures and innovation as dimensions of progressivism: A note on the American states. American Journal of Political Science 18: 693–9.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia. 2004. The socioeconomic and political context of states. In Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis. 8th ed., eds. Gray, Virginia and Jacob, Herbert. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Gupta, DipaK. K. 2001. Analyzing public policy: Concepts, tools, and techniques. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Hand, David J. 2004. Measurement: Theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Susan B. 1990. The politics of state taxing and spending. In Politics in the American states. eds. Gray, Virginia, Jacob, Herbert, and Albritton, Robert B. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Education.Google Scholar
Hill, Kim Quaile, Leighley, Jan E., and Hinton-Andersson, Angela. 1995. Lower-class mobilization and policy linkage in the U.S. states. American Journal of Political Science 39: 75–86.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard I. 1966. The relation between public policy and some structural and environmental variables in the American states. American Political Science Review 60: 73–82.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard I. 1974. The study of public policy. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Hovey, Kendra A., and Hovey, Harold A. 2007. CQ's state fact finder 2007: Rankings across America. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Huber, Evelyne, and Stephens, John D. 2001. Development and crisis of the welfare state: Parties and policies in global markets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1991. Data theory and dimensional analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1999. Levels of measurement and political research: An optimistic view. American Journal of Political Science 43: 271–301.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G., and Schneider, Saundra K. 2001. Variability in state policy priorities: An empirical analysis. Journal of Politics 63: 544–68.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Abraham. 1964. The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing.Google Scholar
Kousser, Thad. 2005. Term limits and the dismantling of state legislative professionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Klingman, David, and Lammers, William W. 1984. The ‘General Policy Liberalism’ factor in American state politics. American Journal of Political Science 28: 598–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Dan A., and Maruna, Shadd. 1999. The politics of education. In Politics in the American states. 7th ed., eds. Gray, Virginia, Hanson, Russell L., and Jacob, Herbert. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M. 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. supreme court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10: 134–53.Google Scholar
Mead, Lawrence M. 2004. Government matters: Welfare reform in Wisconsin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Neubauer, Deane. 1992. Hawaii: The health state. In Health policy reform in America: Innovations from the states. ed. Leichter, Howard M. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Google Scholar
Nunnally, Jum C., and Bernstein, Ira H. 1994. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Peterson, Paul E. 1995. The price of federalism. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 1984. Least squares, metric, unidimensional unfolding. Psychometrika 49: 311–23.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2004. Spatial models of parliamentary voting. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putt, Allen D., and Fred Springer, J. 1989. Policy research: Concepts, methods, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Raimondo, Henry J. 1996. State budgeting: Problems, choices, and money. In The state of the states. 3rd ed., ed. Van Horn, Carl E. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Ringquist, Evan J., and Garand, James C. 1999. Policy change in the American states. In American state and local politics. eds. Weber, Ronald E. and Brace, Paul. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul, and Jenkins-Smith, Hank. 1993. Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sharkansky, Ira, and Hofferbert, Richard I. 1969. Dimensions of state politics, economics, and public policy. American Political Science Review 63: 867–79.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1999. Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles, and swings. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah A. 2002. Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick, and Zinnes, J. L. 1963. Basic measurement theory. In Handbook of mathematical psychology. Vol I, eds. Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., and Galanter, E. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Government finance and employment classification manual. Available online. http://www.censys.gov/govs/www/class06.html (accessed May 9, 2007).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1983–2006. State government finances. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Information for 1993–2006 available online http://www.census.gov/govs/www/state.html (accessed May 9, 2007).Google Scholar
Van Schuur, Wijbrandt H., and Kiers, Henk L. 1994. Why factor analysis is often the incorrect model for analyzing bipolar concepts, and what model to use instead. Applied Psychological Measurement 18: 97–110.Google Scholar
Volden, Craig, and Wiseman, Alan E. 2007. Bargaining in legislatures over particularistic and collective goods. American Political Science Review 101: 79–92.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1969. The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review 63: 880–99.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 1972. Scaling models for legislative roll-call analysis. American Political Science Review 66: 1306–15.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 1974. Dimensionland: An excursion into spaces. American Journal of Political Science 18: 743–76.Google Scholar
Wong, Kenneth K. 2004. The politics of education. In Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis. 8th ed., eds. Gray, Virginia and Hanson, Russell L. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C., Erikson, Robert S., and McIver, John P. 1987. Public opinion and policy liberalism in the American states. American Journal of Political Science 31: 980–1007.Google Scholar
Zeller, Richard A., and Carmines, Edward G. 1980. Measurement in the social sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jacoby and Schneider supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Jacoby and Schneider supplementary material(File)
File 290.8 KB