We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Martin, George M. 2017. Views on the ethical struggle for universal, high quality, affordable health care and its relevance for gerontology. Experimental Gerontology, Vol. 87, p. 182.
Plessing, Julia 2017. Challenging Elite Understandings of Citizen Participation in South Africa. Politikon, p. 1.
Rockman, Bert A. 2017. The melting down of government: A multidecade perspective. Governance, Vol. 30, Issue. 1, p. 29.
Albertus, Michael and Menaldo, Victor 2017. Capital in the Twenty-First Century—in the Rest of the World. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 49.
Anand, Divya 2017. Ecodocumentaries.
Anderson, Bret Krueger, Brian S. and Xu, Ping 2017. Does Global Market Integration Weaken Opinion-Policy Congruence in the American States?. Politics & Policy, Vol. 44, Issue. 4, p. 677.
Baiman, Ron P. 2017. The Morality of Radical Economics.
Bainbridge, William Sims 2017. Wireless Computing in Medicine.
Baum, Bruce 2017. The Post-Liberal Imagination.
Bishop, Matthew Louis 2017. The Palgrave Handbook of International Development.
Broockman, David E. 2017. Approaches to Studying Policy Representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, Issue. 1, p. 181.
Butler, Daniel M. and Dynes, Adam M. 2017. How Politicians Discount the Opinions of Constituents with Whom They Disagree. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 60, Issue. 4, p. 975.
Catlaw, Thomas J. and Stout, Margaret 2017. Governing Small-Town America Today: The Promise and Dilemma of Dense Networks. Public Administration Review, Vol. 76, Issue. 2, p. 225.
Chaufan, Claudia 2017. What Can US Single-Payer Supporters Learn From the Swiss Rejection of Single Payer?. International Journal of Health Services, Vol. 46, Issue. 2, p. 331.
Chouinard, Hayley H. Galinato, Gregmar I. and Wandschneider, Philip R. 2017. MAKING FRIENDS TO INFLUENCE OTHERS: ENTRY AND CONTRIBUTION DECISIONS THAT AFFECT SOCIAL CAPITAL IN AN ASSOCIATION. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 54, Issue. 2, p. 819.
Elmedni, Bakry 2017. Death of Rationality: The Social Networks’ Factor in Policy Response to Ebola. International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 39, Issue. 12, p. 917.
Flavin, Patrick and Hartney, Michael T. 2017. Racial Inequality in Democratic Accountability: Evidence from Retrospective Voting in Local Elections. American Journal of Political Science,
Flavin, Patrick 2017. Labor Union Strength and the Equality of Political Representation. British Journal of Political Science, p. 1.
Flavin, Patrick and Shufeldt, Gregory 2017. Party competition and citizens' political attitudes in the American states. Electoral Studies, Vol. 44, p. 235.
Flavin, Patrick and Franko, William W. 2017. Government's Unequal Attentiveness to Citizens' Political Priorities. Policy Studies Journal,
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.
To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.
To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
| Type | Description | Title | |
|
Gilens Supplementary Material |
|||
|
Gilens Supplementary Material |
|||
|
Gilens Supplementary Material |
|||
|
Gilens Supplementary Material |
|||
|
Gilens Supplementary Material |
|||
|
Gilens Supplementary Material |
