Public Choice

, Volume 156, Issue 3–4, pp 443–465 | Cite as

Ideology and the size of US state government

Article

Abstract

This paper theorizes that the impact of ideology on the size of US state governments increases with state income. This idea is tested using state-level ideology data derived from the voting behavior of state congressional representatives. Empirically the interaction of ideology and mean income is a key determinant of state government size. At 1960s levels of income the impact of ideology is negligible. At 1997 levels of income a one standard-deviation move towards the left of the ideology spectrum increases state government size by about half a standard deviation. Estimated income elasticities differentiated by state and time are found to be increasing with ideology and diminishing with income, as predicted by the theory.

Keywords

Ideology Wagner’s law Size of government 

JEL Classification

D72 H10 

References

  1. Acemoglu, D. (2005). Constitutions, politics and economics: a review essay on Persson and Tabellini’s “The economic effects of constitutions”. Journal of Economic Literature, 43, 1025–1048. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., & Angeletos, G.-M. (2005). Fairness and redistribution: US vs Europe. American Economic Review, 95, 960–980. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alesina, A., Glaeser, E., & Sacerdote, B. (2001). Why doesn’t the US have a European-style welfare state? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 187–277. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arellano, M. (2003). Panel data econometrics: advanced texts in econometrics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumol, W. J. (1967). Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: the anatomy of urban crisis. American Economic Review, 57, 415–426. Google Scholar
  6. Benabou, R. (2008). Ideology. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6, 321–352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benoit, K., & Laver, M. (2007). Estimating party policy positions: comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies, 26, 90–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berry, W. D., Ringquist, E. J., Fording, R. C., & Hanson, R. L. (1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American States 1960–1993. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 327–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berry, W. D., Fording, R. C., Ringquist, E. J., Hanson, R. L., & Klarner, C. E. (2010). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the U.S. States: a re-appraisal. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 10, 117–135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Besley, T., & Case, A. (1995). Does political accountability affect economic policy choices? Evidence from gubernatorial term limits. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 769–798. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Besley, T., & Case, A. (2003). Political institutions and policy choices: evidence from the United States. Journal of Economic Literature, 61, 7–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bjørnskov, C., Potrafke, N. (2011). The size and scope of government in the US States: does political ideology matter? Unpublished manuscript. Google Scholar
  13. Blais, A., Blake, D., & Dion, S. (1993). Do parties make a difference? Parties and the size of government in liberal democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 40–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braumoeller, B. F. (2004). Hypothesis testing and multiplicative interaction terms. International Organization, 58(4), 807–820 (Autumn). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bruno, G. S. F. (2005a). Approximating the bias of the LSDV estimator for dynamic unbalanced panel data models. Economics Letters, 87, 361–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bruno, G. S. F. (2005b). Estimation and inference in dynamic unbalanced panel-data models with a small number of individuals’. The Stata Journal, 5, 473–500. Google Scholar
  17. Budge, I., Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J., & Tanenbaum, E. (2001). Mapping policy preferences: estimates for parties, electors and governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  18. Cameron, D. R. (1978). The expansion of the public economy: a comparative analysis. American Political Science Review, 72, 1243–1261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20, 249–272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cusack, T. R. (1997). Partisan politics and public finance: changes in public spending in the industrialized democracies, 1955–1989. Public Choice, 91, 375–395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dye, T. R. (1984). Party and policy in the states. The Journal of Politics, 46, 1097–1116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C. Jr., & McIver, J. P. (1989). Political parties, public opinion and state policy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 83, 729–750. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garand, J. C. (1988). Explaining government growth in the U.S. States. American Political Science Review, 82, 837–849. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilligan, T. W., & Matsusaka, J. G. (1995). Deviations from constituent interests: the role of legislative structure and political parties in the States. Economic Inquiry, 33, 383–401. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hadri, K. (2000). Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. Econometrics Journal, 3, 148–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hansen, M. E. (2008). Back to the archives? A critique of the danish part of the manifesto dataset. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31, 201–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hlouskova, J., & Wagner, M. (2006). The performance of panel unit root and stationarity tests: results from a large scale simulation study. Econometric Reviews, 25, 85–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim, H.-M., & Fording, R. C. (1998). Voter ideology in western democracies, 1946–1989. European Journal of Political Research, 33, 73–97. Google Scholar
  30. Kim, H.-M., & Fording, R. C. (2003). Voter ideology in western democracies: an update. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 95–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, J., & Gerber, B. (2005). Bureaucratic leverage of policy choice: explaining the dynamics of state level reforms in telecommunications regulation. Policy Studies Journal, 33, 613–633. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kiviet, J. F. (1995). On bias, inconsistency, and efficiency of various estimators in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 53–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Knight, B. G. (2000). Super-majority voting requirements for tax increases: evidence from the states. Journal of Public Economics, 76, 41–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Langer, L., & Brace, P. (2005). The preemptive power of state supreme courts: adoption of abortion and death penalty legislation. Policy Studies Journal, 33, 317–340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Magalhães, L. M., & Ferrero, L. (2010). Separation of powers or ideology? What determines the tax level? Theory and evidence from the US States. Bristol Economics Discussion Papers, 10/620. Google Scholar
  36. Meltzer, A. H., & Richard, S. F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 914–927. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meltzer, A. H., & Richard, S. F. (1983). Tests of a rational theory of the size of government. Public Choice, 41, 403–418. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nickell, S. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica, 49(6), 1417–1426. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pelizzo, R. (2003). Party positions or party direction? An analysis of party manifesto data. West European Politics, 26, 67–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2003). The economic effects of constitutions. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  41. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2004). Constitutional rules and fiscal policy outcomes. American Economic Review, 94(1), 25–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pickering, A. C., & Rockey, J. (2011). Ideology and the growth of government. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3), 907–919. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Piketty, T. (1995). Social mobility and redistributive politics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 551–584. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rogers, D. L., & Rogers, J. H. (2000). Political competition and state government size: do tighter elections produce looser budgets? Public Choice, 105, 1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: an introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. The Stata Journal, 9, 86–136. Google Scholar
  46. Saunders, K. L. (2004). Ideology in American public opinion. In J. G. Geer (Ed.), Public opinion and polling around the world: a historical encyclopedia (Vol. 2). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO Publishers. Google Scholar
  47. Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2006). Bottom-up federalism: the diffusion of anti-smoking policies from US cities to states. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 825–843. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, T. W. (1990). Liberal and conservative trends in the United States since world war II. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 479–507. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Songer, D. R., & Ginn, H. M. (2002). Assessing the impact of presidential and home state influences on judicial decisionmaking in the United States courts of appeals. Political Research Quarterly, 55, 299–328. Google Scholar
  50. Soss, J., Schraum, S. F., Vartanian, T. P., & O’Brien, E. (2001). Setting the terms of relief: explaining state policy choices in the devolution revolution. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 378–395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tavits, M. (2004). The size of government in majoritarian and consensus democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 37, 340–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wagner, A. (1893). Grundlegung der politischen Oekonomie (3rd ed.). Leipzig: C. F. Winter. Google Scholar
  53. Winters, R. F. (1976). Party control and policy change. American Journal of Political Science, 20, 597–636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wood, D. B., & Theobald, N. A. (2003). Political responsiveness and equity in public education finance. The Journal of Politics, 65, 718–738. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Related StudiesUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations