Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T11:09:55.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Policy Feedback and the Polarization of Interest Groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2021

Leslie K. Finger
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
Sarah Reckhow*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
*
Corresponding author: Sarah Reckhow, email: reckhow@msu.edu

Abstract

We use the case of education interest groups to examine how and when policy changes lead interest groups to polarize in their support for political parties. Using over 145,000 campaign contributions from all 50 states from 2000 to 2017, we test whether the passage of private school choice, charter laws, and labor retrenchment policies led to the polarization of education interest groups over time. In 2000, teachers unions were the dominant group and mostly aligned with Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans lacked support from any education groups. This pattern was consistent across states. Over time, coalitions in some states became polarized, meaning unions grew even more aligned with Democrats and reform groups with Republicans, while other states did not experience such polarization. We show that private school choice programs, but not labor retrenchment or charter laws, contributed to this changing partisan alignment. Our findings demonstrate that policy feedback can shape both the electoral mobilization and party alignments of interest groups.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

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.)

References

Aleem, Zeeshan. 2020. Democrats are Grappling with Calls to “Defund the Police.” 4Vox.Google Scholar
Bali, Valentina. 2008. “The Passage of Education Citizen Initiatives: Evidence from California.” Educational Policy 22: 422–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Michael J. 2016. “Ideological Donors, Contribution Limits, and Polarization of American Legislatures.” Journal of Politics 78 (1): 296310.10.1086/683453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baylor, Christopher A. 2013. “First to the Party: The Group Origins of the Partisan Transformation on Civil Rights, 1940–1960.” Studies in American Political Development 27 (2): 111–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beland, Daniel, and Schlager, Edella. 2019. “Varieties of Policy Feedback Research: Looking Backward, Moving Forward.” Policy Studies Journal 47 (2): 184205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Fording, Richard C., Ringquist, Evan J., Hanson, Russell L., and Klarner, Carl. 2010. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States: A Re-appraisal.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 10: 117–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2013. “Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 294311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucci, Laura C., and Reuning, Kevin. 2020. “The State of Labor in the Democratic Party Coalition.” Party Politics: 111.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce E., and Kousser, Thad. 2004. Adapting to Term Limits: Recent Experiences and New Directions. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.Google Scholar
Campbell, Andrea. 2012. “Policy Makes Mass Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 15: 333–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagan, David, and Teles, Steven Michael. 2016. Prison Break: Why Conservatives Turned Against Mass Incarceration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Engel, Steven T., and Jackson, David J.. 1998. “Wielding the Stick Instead of the Carrot: Labor PAC Punishment of Pro-NAFTA Democrats.” Political Research Quarterly 51 (3): 813–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finger, Leslie K., and Hartney, Michael T.. 2021. “Financial Solidarity: The Future of Unions in the Post-Janus Era.” Perspectives on Politics 19 (1): 1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finger, Leslie, and Reckhow, Sarah. 2021. “Replication Data for: Policy Feedback and the Polarization of Interest Groups.” UNC Dataverse. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/ZAMRST.Google Scholar
Flavin, Patrick, and Hartney, Michael. 2015. “When Government Subsidizes Its Own: Collective Bargaining Laws as Agents of Political Mobilization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 896911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouirnaies, Alexander, and Hall, Andrew. 2014. “The Financial Incumbency Advantage: Causes and Consequences.” Journal of Politics 76 (3): 711–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Megan Ming. 2014. Civil Rights and the Making of the Moden American State. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Richard B., and Han, Eunice. 2012. “The War Against Public Sector Collective Bargaining in the US.” Journal of Industrial Relations 54 (3): 386408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goss, Kristin A. 2010. “Civil Society and Civic Engagement: Towards a Multi-Level Theory of Policy Feedbacks.” Journal of Civil Society 6 (2): 119–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goss, Kristin A., Barnes, Carolyn, and Rose, Deondra. 2019. “Bringing Organizations Back In: Multilevel Feedback Effects on Individual Civic Inclusion.” Policy Studies Journal 47 (2): 451–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, Matt, and Casey, B. K. Dominguez. 2009. “Party Coalitions and Interest Group Networks.” American Politics Research 37 (5): 767800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grumbach, Jacob M. 2018. “From Backwaters to Major Policymakers: Policy Polarization in the States, 1970–2014.” Perspectives on Politics 16 (2): 416–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. 2019. “Policy Feedback in an Age of Polarization.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 685 (1): 828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackett, Ursula, and King, Desmond. 2019. “The Reinvention of Vouchers for a Color-Blind Era: A Racial Orders Account.” Studies in American Political Development 33 (2): 124.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Wayman, Frank W.. 1990. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interest and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Subcommittees.” American Political Science Review 84: 797920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henig, Jeffrey R., Jacobsen, Rebecca and Reckhow, Sarah. 2019. Outside Money in School Board Elections: The Nationalization of Education Politics. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander. 2018. “Policy Feedback as Political Weapon: Conservative Advocacy and the Demobilization of the Public Sector Labor Movement.” Perspectives on Politics 16 (2): 364–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaminski, Michelle. 2015. “How Michigan Became a Right to Work State.” Labor Studies Journal 40 (4): 362–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karol, David. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511812620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimmel, Katherine. 2017. “The Efficiencies and Pathologies of Special Interest Partisanship.” Studies in American Political Development 31: 149–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masket, Seth, and Schor, Boris. 2015. “Polarization without Parties: Term Limits and Legislative Partisanship in Nebraskas Unicameral Legislature.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 15 (1): 6790.10.1177/1532440014564984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne. 2002. “Bringing the State Back In To Civic Engagement: Policy Feedback Effects of the G.I. Bill for World War II Veterans.” American Political Science Review 96 (2): 351–65.10.1017/S0003055402000217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, Michael. 1997. “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 738770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 2001. Schools, Vouchers, and the American Public. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 2002. “The Structure of School Choice.” In Choice with Equity, ed. Hill, Paul T., 179212. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 2011. Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Patashnik, Eric M. 2008. Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes Are Enacted. Princeton, Chicago: Princeton University Press, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 1993. “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change.” World Politics 45 (4): 595628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renzulli, Linda A., and Roscigno, Vincent J.. 2005. “Charter School Policy, Implementation,and Diffusion Across the United States.” Sociology of Education 78: 344–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuning, Kevin. 2019. “Mapping Influence: Partisan Networks Across the United States, 2000 to 2016.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 20 (3): 267–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1935. Politics, Pressure, and the Tariff. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric, Pearson, Kathryn, and Feinstein, Brian D.. 2010. “Congressional Parties and Civil Rights Politics from 1933 to 1972.” Journal of Politics 72 (3): 672–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Jon. 2004. Ripples of Innovation: Charter Schooling in Minnesota, the Nations First Charter School State. Technical Report. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topping, Simon. 2004. ““Supporting Our Friends and Defeating Our Enemies”: Militancy and Nonpartisanship in the NAACP, 1936–1948.” Journal of African American History 89 (1): 1735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, Magic M. 2018. “Targeting Teachers While Shielding Cops? The Politics of Punishing Enemies and Rewarding Friends in American State Collective Bargaining Reform Agendas.” Journal of Labor and Society 21: 137–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolbrecht, Christina and Hartney, Michael. 2014. “Ideas About Interests: Explaining the Changing Partisan Politics of Education.” Perspectives on Politics 12 (3): 128.10.1017/S1537592714001613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Finger and Reckhow supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Finger and Reckhow supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 306 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Finger and Reckhow Dataset

Link