-
- Aa
- Aa
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.
vannoni, matia and dür, andreas 2016. studying preference attainment using spatial models. European Political Science,
Grover, William F. and Peschek, Joseph G. 2014. The Unsustainable Presidency.
Tampio, Nicholas 2016. Democracy, Federal Power, and Education Reform. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 14, Issue. 02, p. 461.
Enns, Peter K. 2015. Relative Policy Support and Coincidental Representation. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 13, Issue. 04, p. 1053.
Kuo, Didi and McCarty, Nolan 2015. Democracy in America, 2015. Global Policy, Vol. 6, p. 49.
Pickup, Mark 2015. Symposium introduction: The electoral mechanisms of responsiveness. Electoral Studies, Vol. 40, p. 515.
Baum, Bruce 2016. The Post-Liberal Imagination.
Sabl, Andrew 2015. The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 13, Issue. 02, p. 345.
Broockman, David E. 2016. Approaches to Studying Policy Representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, Issue. 1, p. 181.
Rizman, Rudi 2015. Kriza demokracije: posledica globalne hegemonije neoliberalizma. Javnost - The Public, Vol. 22, Issue. sup1, p. S112.
Dubrow, Joshua Kjerulf 2015. Political Inequality is International, Interdisciplinary, and Intersectional. Sociology Compass, Vol. 9, Issue. 6, p. 477.
Griffin, John and Newman, Brian 2016. The Presidency and Political Equality. Congress & the Presidency, Vol. 43, Issue. 3, p. 352.
Oklopcic, Zoran 2016. The South of Western constitutionalism: a map ahead of a journey. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 37, Issue. 11, p. 2080.
Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander 2016. How Employers Recruit Their Workers into Politics—And Why Political Scientists Should Care. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 14, Issue. 02, p. 410.
Martin, George M. 2016. Views on the ethical struggle for universal, high quality, affordable health care and its relevance for gerontology. Experimental Gerontology,
Cook, Jeffrey J. 2015. Who's Pulling the Fracking Strings? Power, collaboration and Colorado fracking policy. Environmental Policy and Governance, Vol. 25, Issue. 6, p. 373.
Fisman, R. Jakiela, P. Kariv, S. and Markovits, D. 2015. The distributional preferences of an elite. Science, Vol. 349, Issue. 6254, p. aab0096.
Gee, Quentin 2016. Corporations, Rights, and Lobbying. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 19, Issue. 2, p. 397.
Gray, Sean W.D. 2015. Mapping silent citizenship: how democratic theory hears citizens' silence and why it matters. Citizenship Studies, Vol. 19, Issue. 5, p. 474.
Heinecke, Walter F. Cole, Rose Han, Ibby and Mthethwa, Nqobile 2016. Civic Engagement and Community Service at Research Universities.
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 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 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.
