Advertisement

How do different sources of policy analysis affect policy preferences? Experimental evidence from the United States

  • Grant D. JacobsenEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Analysis of policy options is often unavailable or only available from non-governmental research organizations (“think tanks”) that may have explicit or implicit political biases. This paper experimentally examines how voters respond to policy analysis and how the response varies when the analysis is produced by a nonpartisan organization versus a liberal or conservative organization. The key result is that individuals, on average, are responsive to all types of analysis, but most strongly responsive to analysis produced by nonpartisan organizations. Analysis from an ideologically slanted organization is less effective because individuals tend to ignore analysis that is produced by a partisan organization that does not share their own ideology. The results suggest that increasing the amount of information that the public receives based on nonpartisan analysis may increase the diffusion of information on policy features into the public and reduce polarization in public opinion.

Keywords

Policy advisory systems Policy analysis Think tanks Voter behavior 

Notes

References

  1. Ainsley, J. E. (2017). Exclusive-Trump border ‘wall’ to cost $21.6 billion, take 3.5 years to build: Internal report. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-wall-exclusive-idUSKBN15O2ZN. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
  2. Amir, O., Rand, D. G., & Gal, Y. K. (2012). Economic games on the Internet: The effect of $1 stakes. PLoS ONE, 7(2), e31461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arceneauz, K., & Johnson, M. (2013). Changing minds or changing channels? Partisan news in an age of choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avdeenko, A. (2018). Long-term evidence of retrospective voting: A natural experiment from the German Democratic Republic. European Economic Review, 103, 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, A. (2017). Republicans in House push for Congressional Budget Office cuts. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-cbo/republicans-in-house-push-for-congressional-budget-office-cuts-idUSKBN1A92KN. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
  6. Becker, G. S. (1958). Competition and democracy. Journal of Law and Economics, 1, 105–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bender, B. (2013). Many D.C. think tanks now players in partisan wars. Boston Globe. Retrieved from https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/08/10/brain-trust-for-sale-the-growing-footprint-washington-think-tank-industrial-complex/7ZifHfrLPlbz0bSeVOZHdI/story.html. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
  8. Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 56(1), 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2017). Is the internet causing political polarization? Evidence from demographics. NBER working paper no. 23258.Google Scholar
  10. Campante, F. R., & Hojman, D. A. (2013). Media and polarization: Evidence from the introduction of broadcast TV in the United States. Journal of Public Economics, 100, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caplan, B. (2007). The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chiang, C., & Knight, B. (2011). Media bias and influence: Evidence from newspaper endorsements. Review of Economic Studies, 78, 795–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craft, J., & Halligan, J. (2017). Assessing 30 years of Westminster policy advisory system experience. Policy Sciences, 50, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: Location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32(2), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2013). The dual dynamics of policy advisory systems: The impact of externalization and politicization of policy advice. Policy and Society, 32, 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DellaVigna, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2010). Persuasion: Empirical evidence. Annual Review of Economics, 2, 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DellaVigna, S., & Kaplan, E. (2007). The fox news effect: Media bias and voting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1187–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DellaVigna, S., & Pope, D. (2018). Predicting experimental results: Who knows what? Journal of Political Economy, 126(1), 2410–2456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2016). Preference change in competitive political environments. Annual Review of Political Science, 19, 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferraz, C., & Finan, F. (2008). Exposing corrupt politicians: The effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2), 703–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gentzkow, M. (2006). Television and voter turnout. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(3), 931–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2006). Media bias and reputation. Journal of Political Economy, 114(2), 280–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J. M., & Sinkinson, M. (2011). The effect of newspaper entry and exit on electoral politics. American Economic Review, 101(7), 2980–3018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gerber, A. S., Karlan, D., & Bergan, D. (2009). Does the media matter? A field experiment measuring the effect of newspapers on voting behavior and political opinions. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(2), 35–52.Google Scholar
  27. Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of mechanical turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1191–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Halligan, J. (1995). Policy advice and the public sector. In B. G. Peters & D. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a changing environment. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hitlin, P. (2016). Research in the crowdsourcing age: A case study. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/11/research-in-the-crowdsourcing-age-a-case-study/. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
  31. Hopland, A. O. (2014). Voter information and electoral outcomes: The Norwegian list of shame. Public Choice, 161, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14, 399–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Howlett, M., & Wellstead, A. M. (2009). Re-visiting meltsner: Policy advice systems and the multi-dimensional nature of professional policy analysis. National University of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Research Paper No. LKYSPP10-001.Google Scholar
  34. Islam, R. (2008). Information and public choice: From media markets to policy making. Washington, DC: The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kahn, M. E. (1997). Demand for environmental goods: Evidence from voting patterns on california initiatives. Journal of Law and Economics, 40(1), 137–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kelstrup, J. D. (2017). Quantitative differences in think tank dissemination activities in Germany, Denmark, and the UK. Policy Sciences, 50, 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kessler, G. (2016). Trump’s dubious claim that his border wall would cost $8 billion. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/11/trumps-dubious-claim-that-his-border-wall-would-cost-8-billion. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
  38. Klar, S., & Krupnikov, Y. (2016). Independent politics: How American disdain for parties leads to political inaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schweider, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kuziemko, I., Norton, M. I., Saez, E., & Stantcheva, S. (2015). How elastic are preferences for redistribution? Evidence from randomized survey experiments. American Economic Review, 105(4), 1478–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lefgren, L., Sims, D. P., & Stoddard, O. B. (2016). Effort, luck, and voting for redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 143, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lipton, E., & Williams, B. (2016). How think tanks amplify corporate America’s influence (p. A1). New York: New York Times.Google Scholar
  43. Lopez de Leon, F. L., & Rizzi, R. (2014). A test of the rational ignorance hypothesis. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(4), 380–398.Google Scholar
  44. McGann, J. G. (2016). 2015 Global Go to Think Tank Index Report. Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, Paper 10, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  45. Perl, A., Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2018). Policy-making and truthiness: Can existing policy models cope with politicized evidence and willful ignorance in a “post-fact” world? Policy Sciences, 51, 581–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Persily, N. (2015). Solutions to political polarization in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rasmussen Reports. (2016). Voters don’t trust media fact-checking. Rasmussen Reports. Retrieved from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2016/voters_don_t_trust_media_fact_checking.
  48. Repetto, L. (2018). Political budget cycles with informed voters: Evidence from Italy. Economic Journal (in press).Google Scholar
  49. Sakurai, S. N., & Menezes, N. A. (2008). Fiscal policy and reelection in Brazilian municipalities. Public Choice, 137, 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schill, M. H. (1993). Public housing: Where do we go from here? The University of Chicago Law Review, 60(2), 497–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schroeder, E., & Stone, D. F. (2015). Fox news and political knowledge. Journal of Public Economics, 126, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Settle, R. F., & Abrams, B. A. (1976). The determinants of voter participation: A more general model. Public Choice, 27, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shepherd, A. C. (2011). What to think about think tanks? NPR Ombudsman web site. Posted 12 April 2011. Retrieved March 24, 2017 from www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2011/04/22/134229266/what-to-think-about-think-tanks. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
  54. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thompson, P. N., & Whitley, J. (2017). The effect of school district and municipal government financial health on local tax election outcomes: Evidence from fiscal stress labels in Ohio. Public Choice, 170, 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2016). Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request. U.S. Government Accountability Office. GAO-16-409T.Google Scholar
  57. Wasson, E. (2017). Fine print in the GOP’s budget would help rush a tax cut through congress. Bloomberg Politics. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/budget-fine-print-would-help-rush-tax-cut-through-u-s-congress.
  58. Whaples, R. (2006). Do economists agree on anything? Yes!. Economist’s Voice, 3(9), 1–6.Google Scholar
  59. Whaples, R. (2009). The policy views of american economic association members: The results of a new survey. Econ Journal Watch, 6(3), 337–348.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Planning, Public Policy, and ManagementUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations