Policy Positions and Policy Choice in U.S. Legislatures

美国立法机构的政策立场和政策选择

• 批准号: 0453561
• 负责人: Evan Ringquist
• 金额: $ 28.42万
• 依托单位: Indiana University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2005
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2005-02-01 至 2008-05-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0453561&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Policy; Positions; Choice; U.S.; Legislatures

A central issue for evaluating the quality of democratic governance is the extent to which the policy choices of public officials reflect the wishes of citizens. Elections are viewed as the most common institution through which citizens affect these policy choices, and four conditions must be met if elections are to facilitate public influence over policy making: Opposing candidates for office must offer voters differing issue positionsVoters must perceive the issue positions of candidatesVoters must cast their ballots on the basis of these perceived issue positionsWinning candidates must vote in accordance with their pre-election issue positions A fair summarization of the research on this topic would conclude that there is a great deal of support for the first condition within the United States, and that there is at least qualified support for the second and third conditions. Comparatively little attention has been paid to the fourth condition. We know very little about the extent to which the policy decisions of elected officials are related to or governed by their pre-election policy statements as candidates. This investigation answers three questions about the relationship between the pre-election policy positions of legislative candidates and their post-election policy choices, focusing on the U.S. Congress and legislatures in twelve selected states. 1. How often are the pre-election policy positions of candidates consistent with their post-election policy choices?2. How useful are policy positions for predicting the policy choices of legislators?3. How consistent is the policy position - policy choice connection, and can we explain any systematic variation in this relationship? The policy positions of candidates are taken from two sources: the National Political Awareness Test (a pre-election survey of candidate issue positions) and policy statements made on candidate campaign websites. The policy choices made by legislators are taken from roll call votes on bills that are directly related to candidate policy positions taken on the NPAT or candidate websites. For each vote on each bill, then, the researchers can assess whether the vote was consistent or inconsistent with a legislator's pre-election policy position. Using these measures, the first question can be answered by calculating the proportion of the time roll call votes are consistent with policy positions. The second question can be answered by placing the measures of policy positions within well-respected multi-equation, multivariate models of roll call voting behavior. If the measures of policy positions are significant in these models, policy positions provide useful information to voters. Finally, the proposal offers a theoretical framework for explaining the conditions under which legislators will be more likely to make policy choices consistent with their policy positions. The utility of this framework will be evaluated using multi-equation, multivariate models that employ the framework to predict a binary variable identifying roll call votes that are consistent and inconsistent with policy positions. Broader Value: Evaluating the strength of the connection between the policy positions and policy choices of legislators has obvious implications for democratic theory and the quality of democratic governance in the United States. In addition, the connection between policy positions and policy choice is relevant to general issues of trust in government in the United States. A lack of scholarly attention has not deterred citizens from drawing their own conclusions on this topic: many citizens believe that the policy choices of legislators are not guided by their statements as candidates. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that public skepticism regarding candidates' policy statements affects overall levels of trust and cynicism among citizens. If efforts at civic education are to counteract this cynicism, we need to know more about the relationship between the policy positions of candidates and the policy choices they make as legislators.

评价民主治理质量的一个核心问题是公职人员的政策选择在多大程度上反映了公民的意愿。 选举被视为公民影响这些政策选择的最常见的机构，如果选举要促进公众对政策制定的影响，必须满足四个条件：104.竞选公职的反对派候选人必须向选民提供不同的问题立场选民必须感知候选人的问题立场选民必须根据这些感知的问题立场投票获胜的候选人必须根据他们的预先决定投票。对这一主题的研究进行公正的总结可以得出这样的结论：在美国，第一个条件得到了大量的支持，第二个和第三个条件至少得到了有限的支持。 第四种情况则很少有人注意。 我们对当选官员的政策决定在多大程度上与他们作为候选人的选举前政策声明有关或受其制约知之甚少。 本调查回答了关于立法候选人选举前的政策立场与选举后的政策选择之间关系的三个问题，重点关注美国国会和12个选定州的立法机构。1.候选人选举前的政策立场与选举后的政策选择是否一致？2.政策立场对预测立法者的政策选择有多大作用？3.政策立场与政策选择之间的联系有多一致？我们能否解释这种关系中的任何系统性变化？候选人的政策立场来自两个来源：国家政治意识测试（对候选人问题立场的选举前调查）和候选人竞选网站上的政策声明。 立法者作出的政策选择来自对与NPAT或候选人网站上采取的候选人政策立场直接相关的法案的唱名表决。 对于每一项法案的每一次投票，研究人员可以评估投票是否与立法者在选举前的政策立场一致或不一致。 利用这些措施，可以回答第一个问题，通过计算的比例的时间点名投票是一致的政策立场。 第二个问题可以通过把政策立场的措施在备受推崇的多方程，唱名投票行为的多变量模型。 如果政策立场的措施是显着的，在这些模型中，政策立场提供了有用的信息给选民。 最后，该建议提供了一个理论框架，解释在何种条件下，立法者更有可能做出与其政策立场相一致的政策选择。 该框架的效用将使用多方程，多变量模型，采用该框架来预测一个二进制变量识别唱名表决，是一致的，不一致的政策立场进行评估。 更广泛的价值：评估立法者的政策立场和政策选择之间的联系强度对民主理论和美国民主治理的质量具有明显的影响。 此外，政策立场和政策选择之间的联系与美国政府信任的一般问题有关。 缺乏学术关注并没有阻止公民对这一主题得出自己的结论：许多公民认为，立法者的政策选择并不受他们作为候选人的陈述的指导。 此外，有大量证据表明，公众对候选人政策声明的怀疑会影响公民的信任和愤世嫉俗的总体水平。 如果公民教育的努力要抵消这种愤世嫉俗，我们需要更多地了解候选人的政策立场与他们作为立法者所做的政策选择之间的关系。