Welfare, egalitarianism, and polarization: the politics of noncontributory social programs

E. Svensen
{"title":"Welfare, egalitarianism, and polarization: the politics of noncontributory social programs","authors":"E. Svensen","doi":"10.1017/s0143814x23000454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This study analyzes the link between egalitarian ideals and the rise in party polarization in Congress. To demonstrate how philosophical differences over conceptions of fairness, equality, and justice help explain the recent growth in partisanship over the past few decades, I argue one overlooked explanatory factor which assists in capturing this ideological rift is noncontributory welfare spending. Recovering annual ideal point estimates between 1947 and 2018 that are comparable with annual federal spending, I use multivariate time series models and find convincing evidence which suggests welfare outlays have a strong short- and long-run effect on polarization. Moreover, analysis of the roll call record also shows when ideal point estimates are recovered by specific policy area, lawmakers exhibit higher levels of ideological separation on welfare compared to, among others, policies such as defense and transportation. Robustness checks confirm these findings also hold even when controlling for income inequality.","PeriodicalId":506680,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Policy","volume":"4 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x23000454","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study analyzes the link between egalitarian ideals and the rise in party polarization in Congress. To demonstrate how philosophical differences over conceptions of fairness, equality, and justice help explain the recent growth in partisanship over the past few decades, I argue one overlooked explanatory factor which assists in capturing this ideological rift is noncontributory welfare spending. Recovering annual ideal point estimates between 1947 and 2018 that are comparable with annual federal spending, I use multivariate time series models and find convincing evidence which suggests welfare outlays have a strong short- and long-run effect on polarization. Moreover, analysis of the roll call record also shows when ideal point estimates are recovered by specific policy area, lawmakers exhibit higher levels of ideological separation on welfare compared to, among others, policies such as defense and transportation. Robustness checks confirm these findings also hold even when controlling for income inequality.
福利、平均主义和两极分化:非缴费型社会计划的政治学
本研究分析了平等主义理想与国会中政党两极分化加剧之间的联系。为了说明在公平、平等和正义的概念上存在的哲学分歧如何有助于解释最近几十年来党派之争的加剧,我认为一个被忽视的解释因素有助于捕捉这种意识形态裂痕,那就是非缴费型福利支出。我利用多变量时间序列模型,恢复了 1947 年至 2018 年间与年度联邦支出相当的年度理想点估计值,并发现了令人信服的证据,表明福利支出对两极分化具有强烈的短期和长期影响。此外,对点名记录的分析还表明,如果按具体政策领域恢复理想的点估计,与国防和交通等政策相比,立法者在福利问题上表现出更高的意识形态分离水平。稳健性检验证实,即使在控制收入不平等的情况下,这些发现也同样成立。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信