Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:14:30.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Measure of State Government Ideology, and Evidence that Both the New Measure and an Old Measure Are Valid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

William D. Berry ,
Richard C. Fording ,
Evan J. Ringquist ,
Russell L. Hanson  and
Carl Klarner
William D. Berry*
Affiliation:
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
Richard C. Fording
Affiliation:
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
Evan J. Ringquist
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
Russell L. Hanson
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
Carl Klarner
Affiliation:
Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN, USA
*
William D. Berry, Department of Political Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2230, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We modify Berry et al.‘s congressional-delegation-based measure of state government ideology to construct a new measure—which we call the state-legislative-based state government ideology measure—by relying on Shor and McCarty's National Political Awareness Test common space estimates of the ideal points of U.S. state legislators. We conduct tests of convergent and construct validity for the two measures. We find that they correlate highly in each year for which the state-legislative-based indicator is available (1995–2008), and when observations are pooled across all years. We also replicate numerous published studies assessing the impact of state government ideology using each indicator of ideology and find that the two measures nearly always yield similar conclusions about the effect of government ideology. Because the state-legislative-based measure is based on more direct estimates of the ideal points of state legislators than is the congressional-delegation-based measure—which uses estimates of ideal points for members of Congress from the same state as a proxy—we believe the state-legislative-based measure is superior, and we recommend that scholars use it when it is available for the state-years being studied. Because our empirical evidence indicates that Berry et al.‘s congressional-delegation-based measure is also valid—and it is available for a much longer period (annually beginning in 1960)—we advise that it be used when the state-legislative-based measure is not available.

Keywords

ideologygovernment ideologystate politics
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 164 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2012

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.)

References

Achen, Christopher. 1982. Interpreting and Using Regression. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, James M., and Peffley, Mark. 2005. “Voter Registration Requirements, Voter Turnout, and Welfare Eligibility Policy: Class Bias Matters.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5:47–67.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 41:327–48.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., Hanson, Russell L., and Klarner, Carl E.. 2010. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the U.S. States: A Reappraisal.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 10:117–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Donald T., and Fiske, Donald W.. 1959. “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix.” Psychological Bulletin 56:81–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, Harris, Hedges, Larry, and Valentine, Jeffrey, eds. 2010. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew W., and Dixon, Marc. 2010. “Changing to Win? Threat, Resistance, and the Role of Unions in Strikes, 1984–2002.” American Journal of Sociology 116:93–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 1998. “Recovering an Issue Space from a Set of Issue Scales.” American Journal of Political Science 42:954–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provost, Colin. 2003. “State Attorneys General, Entrepreneurship, and Consumer Protection in the New Federalism.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 33:37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shor, Boris, Berry, Christopher, and McCarty, Nolan. 2010. “A Bridge to Somewhere: Mapping State and Congressional Ideology on a Cross-Institutional Common Space.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 35:417–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 105:530–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soss, Joe, Richard, , Fording, C., and Schram, Sanford F.. 2008. “The Color of Devolution: Race, Federalism, and the Politics of Social Control.” American Journal of Political Science 52:536–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1991. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Witko, Christopher. 2007. “Explaining Increases in the Stringency of State Campaign Finance Regulation, 1993–2002.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7:369–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witko, Christopher and Newmark, Adam J.. 2005. “Business Mobilization and Public Policy in the U.S. States.” Social Science Quarterly 86:356–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witko, Christopher and Newmark, Adam J.. 2010. “The Strange Disappearance of Investment in Human and Physical Capital in the United States.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20:215–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Berry et al. supplementary material

Unpublished Supplement

Download Berry et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 547 KB