Zhamilya Mukasheva, Sofia Collignon, Ursula Hackett
{"title":"Electoral Accountability for Rising Tuition in the US: Evidence from a Survey Experiment and Observational Data","authors":"Zhamilya Mukasheva, Sofia Collignon, Ursula Hackett","doi":"10.1080/00221546.2023.2266354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tuition levels in the US have been rising at an above-the-inflation pace, leading to spiraling student debt levels and negative effects on students’ well-being. While student outcomes of rising tuition are well known, the political reasons behind the decisions of policy makers to contain tuition increases or not remain poorly understood. In this article, we focus on electoral accountability that policy makers face for rising tuition by examining voters’ reactions. Using a survey experiment with a sample of US adults (N = 1040), we show that clarity of responsibility is an important factor affecting reactions to rising tuition levels. When voters are informed about the role of the government in tuition setting, they are more likely to vote out policy makers responsible for cuts in funding. We show a similar relationship in observational data using a nationally representative survey from Cooperative Congressional Election Study. State governors’ approval is lower in states where tuition levels increased recently, and the relationship is moderated by the visibility of government in tuition-setting. By demonstrating that policy makers face repercussions for rising tuition but are able to avoid blame in certain conditions, we contribute to scholarly understanding of preferences of policy makers in higher education.","PeriodicalId":54209,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Higher Education","volume":"54 14","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2023.2266354","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Tuition levels in the US have been rising at an above-the-inflation pace, leading to spiraling student debt levels and negative effects on students’ well-being. While student outcomes of rising tuition are well known, the political reasons behind the decisions of policy makers to contain tuition increases or not remain poorly understood. In this article, we focus on electoral accountability that policy makers face for rising tuition by examining voters’ reactions. Using a survey experiment with a sample of US adults (N = 1040), we show that clarity of responsibility is an important factor affecting reactions to rising tuition levels. When voters are informed about the role of the government in tuition setting, they are more likely to vote out policy makers responsible for cuts in funding. We show a similar relationship in observational data using a nationally representative survey from Cooperative Congressional Election Study. State governors’ approval is lower in states where tuition levels increased recently, and the relationship is moderated by the visibility of government in tuition-setting. By demonstrating that policy makers face repercussions for rising tuition but are able to avoid blame in certain conditions, we contribute to scholarly understanding of preferences of policy makers in higher education.
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1930, The Journal of Higher Education publishes original research reporting on the academic study of higher education as a broad enterprise. We publish the highest quality empirical, theoretically grounded work addressing the main functions of higher education and the dynamic role of the university in society. We seek to publish scholarship from a wide variety of theoretical perspectives and disciplinary orientations. Articles appearing in the Journal employ an array of methodological approaches, and we welcome work from scholars across a range of career stages. Comparative and international scholarship should make clear connections to the U.S. context. Manuscripts not appropriate for submission to the Journal include purely theoretical papers, methodological treatises, unsolicited essays and reviews, and non-academic, institutional, and program evaluations or reports.