Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-54jdg Total loading time: 0.706 Render date: 2022-08-10T22:44:00.435Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2017

DEVIN CAUGHEY*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
CHRISTOPHER WARSHAW*
Affiliation:
George Washington University
*
Devin Caughey is an Associate Professor (without tenure), Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room E53-463, Cambridge, MA 02139-4301 (devin.caughey@gmail.com).
Christopher Warshaw is an Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, George Washington University, 2115 G Street NW, Monroe Hall 440, Washington, DC 20052 (cwarshaw@gmail.com).

Abstract

Using eight decades of data, we examine the magnitude, mechanisms, and moderators of dynamic responsiveness in the American states. We show that on both economic and (especially) social issues, the liberalism of state publics predicts future change in state policy liberalism. Dynamic responsiveness is gradual, however; large policy shifts are the result of the cumulation of incremental responsiveness over many years. Partisan control of government appears to mediate only a fraction of responsiveness, suggesting that, contrary to conventional wisdom, responsiveness occurs in large part through the adaptation of incumbent officials. Dynamic responsiveness has increased over time but does not seem to be influenced by institutions such as direct democracy or campaign finance regulations. We conclude that our findings, though in some respects normatively ambiguous, on the whole paint a reassuring portrait of statehouse democracy.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Replication files for this article can be downloaded from Caughey, Devin, Warshaw, Christopher. 2017. Replication data for “Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014,” doi:10.7910/DVN/K3QWZW, Harvard Dataverse. We thank Bob Erikson, Martin Gilens, Seth Hill, Luke Keele, Thad Kousser, Jeffrey Lax, Justin Phillips, Jim Stimson, Yiqing Xu; seminar participants at Columbia University, Washington University–St. Louis, Texas A&M, Georgetown University, George Washington University, and Princeton University; and panelists at the 2014 American Political Science Association Conference and 2016 State Politics Conference for feedback on previous versions of this manuscript. We appreciate the excellent research assistance of Melissa Meek, James Dunham, Robert Pressel, Meg Goldberg, Kelly Alexander, Aneesh Anand, Tiffany Chung, Emma Frank, Joseff Kolman, Mathew Peterson, Steve Powell, Charlotte Swasey, Lauren Ullmann, and Amy Wickett. We also appreciate the willingness of Carl Klarner to generously share data. We are grateful for research support from the dean of the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences at MIT. All mistakes, however, are our own.

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1978. “Measuring Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 22 (3): 475510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, Alberto. 1988. “Credibility and Policy Convergence in a Two-Party System with Rational Voters.” American Economic Review 78 (4): 796805.Google Scholar
Alexander, Herbert E., and Denny, Laura L.. 1966. Regulation of Political Finance. Berkeley, CA and Princeton, NJ: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley and Citizens’ Research Foundation.Google Scholar
Angrist, Joshua David, and Pischke, Jörn-Steffen. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2001. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 136–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2002. “Direct Democracy and the Link between Public Opinion and State Abortion Policy.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 2 (4): 372–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C.. 2010. “Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress.” American Political Science Review 104 (3): 519–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A. 2007. “Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 433–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A., and Rom, Mark Carl. 2004. “A Wider Race? Interstate Competition across Health and Welfare Programs.” Journal of Politics 66 (2): 326–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Michael J. 2016. “Ideological Donors, Contribution Limits, and the Polarization of American Legislatures.” Journal of Politics 78 (1): 296310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 2011. “Modeling Dynamics in Time-Series–Cross-Section Political Economy Data.” Annual Review of Political Science 14: 331–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960–93.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Case, Anne. 2003. “Political Institutions and Policy Choices: Evidence from the United States.” Journal of Economic Literature 41 (1): 773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Coate, Stephen. 1997. “An Economic Model of Representative Democracy.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (1): 85114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Robert D. 1995. “Party Cleavages and Welfare Effort in the American States.” American Political Science Review 89 (1): 2333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 74 (1): 7891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughey, Devin. Forthcoming. The Unsolid South: Mass Politics and National Representation in an Exclusionary One-Party Enclave. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Caughey, Devin, Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2017. “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Political Process: Effects on Roll-Call Voting and State Policies.” Election Law Journal. (Symposium on Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap). Prepublished. doi:10.1089/elj.2017.0452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughey, Devin, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2015. “Dynamic Estimation of Latent Opinion Using a Hierarchical Group-Level IRT Model.” Political Analysis 23 (2): 197211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughey, Devin, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2016. “The Dynamics of State Policy Liberalism, 1936–2014.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (4): 899913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughey, Devin, Warshaw, Christopher, and Xu, Yiqing. 2017. “Incremental Democracy: The Policy Effects of Partisan Control of State Government.” Journal of Politics 79 (4): 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Jennifer Hayes, and Williams, R. Lucas. 2014. “Parties, Term Limits, and Representation in the U.S. States.” American Politics Research 42 (1): 171–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
De Boef, Suzanna, and Keele, Luke. 2008. “Taking Time Seriously.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 184200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dunham, James, Caughey, Devin, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2016. dgo: Dynamic Estimation of Group-Level Opinion. R package version 0.2.3.https://jamesdunham.github.io/dgo/.Google Scholar
Dye, Thomas R. 1966. Politics, Economics, and the Public: Political Outcomes in the American States. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Enns, Peter K., and Koch, Julianna. 2013. “Public Opinion in the U.S. States: 1956 to 2010.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 13 (3): 349–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 2006. “Public Opinion in the States: A Quarter Century of Change and Stability.” In Public Opinion in State Politics, ed. Cohen, Jeffrey E., 229–53. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1999. “Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance.” In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, eds. Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan Carol, and Manin, Bernard, 5597 New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigenbaum, James J., Fouirnaies, Alexander, and Hall, Andrew B.. 2017The Majority Party Disadvantage: Revising Theories of Legislative Organization.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 12 (3): 269300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, Olle, and Snyder, James M. 2012. “Gubernatorial Midterm Slumps.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (4): 931–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Pamela S. 1955. Regulation of Campaign Finance. Bureau of Public Administration, University of California.Google Scholar
Fowler, Anthony, and Hall, Andrew B.. 2016. “The Elusive Quest for Convergence.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 11 (1): 131–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Anthony, and Hall, Andrew B.. 2017. “Long-Term Consequences of Election Results.” British Journal of Political Science 47 (2): 351–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 99128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia, Lowery, David, Fellowes, Matthew, and McAtee, Andrea. 2004. “Public Opinion, Public Policy, and Organized Interests in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (3): 411–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honaker, James, King, Gary, and Blackwell, Matthew. 2011. “Amelia II: A Program for Missing Data.” Journal of Statistical Software 45 (7): 147. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v45/i07/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, Daniel J. Forthcoming. The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2009. “Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election.” American Political Science Review 103 (1): 5981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan P., Lax, Jeffrey R., Malecki, Michael, and Phillips, Justin H.. 2015. “Polarizing the Electoral Connection: Partisan Representation in Supreme Court Confirmation Politics.” Journal of Politics 77 (3): 787804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O. Jr. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1989. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Klarner, Carl. 2013. State Partisan Balance Data, 1937–2011. http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/20403.Google Scholar
Kousser, J. Morgan. 1974. The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kousser, Thad. 2005. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kousser, Thad, Lewis, Jeffrey B., and Masket, Seth E.. 2007. “Ideological Adaptation? The Survival Instinct of Threatened Legislators.” Journal of Politics 69 (3): 828–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Raja, Raymond J., and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2014. “The Effects of Campaign Finance Spending Bans on Electoral Outcomes: Evidence from the States about the Potential Impact of Citizens United v. FEC.” Electoral Studies 33 (March): 102–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Raja, Raymond J., and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2015. Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lascher, Edward L., Hagen, Michael G., and Rochlin, Steven A.. 1996. “Gun Behind the Door? Ballot Initiatives, State Policies and Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics 58 (3): 760–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review 103 (3): 367–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2012. “The Democratic Deficit in the States.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 148–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, David S., Moretti, Enrico, and Butler, Matthew J.. 2004. “Do Voters Affect or Elect Policies? Evidence from the U.S. House.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (3): 807–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, Steven D. 1996. “How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voter Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senator Ideology.” American Economic Review 86 (3): 425–41.Google Scholar
Maestas, Cherie. 2000. “Professional Legislatures and Ambitious Politicians: Policy Responsiveness of State Institutions.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25 (4):663–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2001. “Problems with a Methodology Used to Evaluate the Voter Initiative.” Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1250–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2008. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2010. “Popular Control of Public Policy: A Quantitative Approach.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5 (2): 133–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale UP.Google Scholar
McGann, Anthony J. 2014. “Estimating the Political Center from Aggregate Data: An Item Response Theory Alternative to the Stimson Dyad Ratios Algorithm.” Political Analysis 22 (1): 115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mickey, Robert W. 2015. Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America’s Deep South. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57 (1): 4556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monogan, James, Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 2009. “Public Opinion, Organized Interests, and Policy Congruence in Initiative and Noninitiative U.S. States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 9 (3): 304–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickell, Stephen. 1981. “Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects.” Econometrica 49 (1): 1417–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oates, Wallace E. 1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Pacheco, Julianna. 2011. “Using National Surveys to Measure Dynamic U.S. State Public Opinion: A Guideline for Scholars and an Application.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11 (4): 415–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacheco, Julianna. 2013. “The Thermostatic Model of Responsiveness in the American States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 13 (3): 306–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin, and Shapiro, Robert. 1983. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.” American Political Science Review 77 (1): 175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin, and Shapiro, Robert. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Charitable Trusts. 2016. Fact Sheet: Share of States’ Budgets From Federal Grants Stabilizes. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2016/08/share-of-states-budgets-from-federal-grants-stabilizes.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2007. “Changing Minds? Not in Congress!Public Choice 131 (3): 435–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1984. “The Polarization of American Politics.” Journal of Politics 46 (4): 1061–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology & Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan Carol, and Manin, Bernard, eds,. 1999. Introduction to Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Kevin M. 2004. “Bayesian Factor Analysis for Mixed Ordinal and Continuous Responses.” Political Analysis 12 (4): 338–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringquist, Evan J., and Garand, James C.. 1999. Policy Change in the American States. In American State and Local Politics: Directions for the 21st Century, eds. Weber, Ronald E. and Brace, Paul. New York: pn, 268–99.Google Scholar
Rogers, Steven. 2016. “National Forces in State Legislative Elections.” ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667 (September): 207–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggles, Steven, Alexander, J. Trent, Genadek, Katie, Goeken, Ronald, Schroeder, Matthew B., and Sobek, Matthew. 2010. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 530–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr., and Ting, Michael M.. 2003. “Roll Calls, Party Labels, and Elections.” Political Analysis 11 (4): 419–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Springer, Melanie Jean. 2014. How the States Shaped the Nation: American Electoral Institutions and Voter Turnout, 1920–2000. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1992. “Legislative Professionalization and Membership Diversity in State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (1): 6979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2007. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7 (2): 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1991. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 2009. “Perspectives on Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age.” Perspectives on Politics 7 (1): 151–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A., MacKuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89 (3): 543–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A., Thiébaut, Cyrille, and Tiberj, Vincent. 2012. “The Evolution of Policy Attitudes in France.” European Union Politics 13 (2): 293316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas, and Aparicio-Castillo, Francisco J.. 2006. “Competition Policy for Elections: Do Campaign Contribution Limits Matter?Public Choice 127 (1): 177206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, Martin A. 1996. Tools for Statistical Inference Methods for the Exploration of Posterior Distributions and Likelihood Functions. 3rd ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2013. “Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures and Cities.” Journal of Politics 75 (2): 330–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2014. “Representation in Municipal Government.” American Political Science Review 108 (3): 605–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treier, Shawn, and Hillygus, D. Sunshine. 2009. “The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (4): 679703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treier, Shawn, and Jackman, Simon. 2008. “Democracy as a Latent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 201–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissberg, Robert. 1978. “Collective vs. Dyadic Representation in Congress.” American Political Science Review 72 (2): 535–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, Timothy, and Coleman, John J.. 2013. “Assessing the Potential Effects of Citizens United: Policy and Corporate Governance in the States.” Paper prepared for the Meeting of the Public Choice Society, New Orleans, LA. http://users.polisci.wisc.edu/coleman/wernercolemanpcs2013.pdf.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Caughey and Warshaw Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Caughey and Warshaw supplementary material

Caughey and Warshaw supplementary material 1

Download Caughey and Warshaw supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 536 KB
73
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *