Fifty shades of deservingness: an analysis of state-level variation and effect of social constructions on policy outcomes

IF 1.9 2区社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Journal of Public Policy Pub Date : 2022-01-28 DOI:10.1017/S0143814X21000222

Rebecca J. Kreitzer, Elizabeth Maltby, C. Smith

{"title":"Fifty shades of deservingness: an analysis of state-level variation and effect of social constructions on policy outcomes","authors":"Rebecca J. Kreitzer, Elizabeth Maltby, C. Smith","doi":"10.1017/S0143814X21000222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A patchwork of policies exists across the United States. While citizens’ policy preferences in domains such as the criminal legal system, gun regulations/rights, immigration, and welfare are informed by their political predispositions, they are also shaped by the extent to which policy targets are viewed as deserving. This article centres the idea that collective evaluations matter in policymaking, and it ascertains whether subnational levels of deservingness evaluations of several target groups differ across space to illuminate the link between these judgements and state policy design. We leverage original survey data and multilevel regression and poststratification to create state-level estimates of deservingness evaluations. The analyses elucidate the heterogeneity in state-level deservingness evaluations of several politically relevant groups, and they pinpoint a link between these social reputations and policy design. The article also delivers a useful methodological tool and measures for scholars of state policy design to employ in future research.","PeriodicalId":47578,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"436 - 464"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X21000222","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract A patchwork of policies exists across the United States. While citizens’ policy preferences in domains such as the criminal legal system, gun regulations/rights, immigration, and welfare are informed by their political predispositions, they are also shaped by the extent to which policy targets are viewed as deserving. This article centres the idea that collective evaluations matter in policymaking, and it ascertains whether subnational levels of deservingness evaluations of several target groups differ across space to illuminate the link between these judgements and state policy design. We leverage original survey data and multilevel regression and poststratification to create state-level estimates of deservingness evaluations. The analyses elucidate the heterogeneity in state-level deservingness evaluations of several politically relevant groups, and they pinpoint a link between these social reputations and policy design. The article also delivers a useful methodological tool and measures for scholars of state policy design to employ in future research.

查看原文本刊更多论文

体面的五十种阴影：国家层面差异及社会建设对政策结果的影响分析

美国各地存在着五花八门的政策。虽然公民在刑事法律体系、枪支管制/权利、移民和福利等领域的政策偏好受到他们的政治倾向的影响，但他们也受到政策目标被视为应得的程度的影响。本文以集体评价在政策制定中很重要这一观点为中心，并确定了几个目标群体的次国家水平的值得性评价是否在空间上存在差异，以阐明这些判断与国家政策设计之间的联系。我们利用原始调查数据、多层次回归和后分层来创建州一级的价值评估估计。这些分析阐明了几个政治相关群体在州级应得性评估中的异质性，并指出了这些社会声誉与政策设计之间的联系。本文也为研究国家政策设计的学者在今后的研究中提供了有用的方法工具和措施。

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

Journal of Public Policy Multiple-

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Public Policy applies social science theories and concepts to significant political, economic and social issues and to the ways in which public policies are made. Its articles deal with topics of concern to public policy scholars in America, Europe, Japan and other advanced industrial nations. The journal often publishes articles that cut across disciplines, such as environmental issues, international political economy, regulatory policy and European Union processes. Its peer reviewers come from up to a dozen social science disciplines and countries across three continents, thus ensuring both analytic rigour and accuracy in reference to national and policy context.