Advertisement

The Effect of Distributive Politics on Electoral Participation: Evidence from 70 Million Agricultural Payments

  • Gabor Simonovits
  • Neil MalhotraEmail author
  • Raymond Ye Lee
  • Andrew Healy
Original Paper

Abstract

Policy feedbacks take place when public policies change mass participation and mobilize key constituencies. This can influence future rounds of policymaking and solidify government programs. We explore policy feedback in the context of a particularistic policy targeted to a specific electoral constituency: agricultural producers receiving payments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). We exploit a novel dataset of: (1) payments distributed to producers by the USDA; and (2) participation in elections for the Farm Service Agency county committees that help administer these payments. The data are novel in that we rely on individual-level administrative histories of actual payments made by the USDA as well as documented forms of participation such as voting in elections and running for office. We find that receiving agricultural payments is associated with a 20% increase in the probability of voting in county elections, a 34% increase in the probability of running for office, and a 25% increase in the probability of winning office.

Keywords

Participation Policy feedback Agricultural policy Panel data 

Notes

Supplementary material

11109_2019_9572_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (137 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 137 kb)

References

  1. Anzia, S. F., & Moe, T. M. (2016). Do politicians use policy to make politics? The case of public-sector labor laws. American Political Science Review, 110(4), 763–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anzia, S. F., & Moe, T. M. (In press). Interest groups on the inside: The governance of public pension funds. Perspectives on Politics.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, N. (2018). Estimating grouped data models with a binary dependent variable and fixed effects: What are the issues? arXiv:1809.06505.
  4. Burden, B. C. (2000). Voter turnout and the national election studies. Political Analysis, 8(4), 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, A. L. (2003). How policies make citizens: Senior political activism and the American welfare state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, A. L. (2012). Policy makes mass politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chamberlain, G. (1980). Analysis of covariance with qualitative data. Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clinton, J. D., & Sances, M. W. (2018). The politics of policy: The initial mass political effects of medicaid expansion in the states. American Political Science Review, 112(1), 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feigenbaum, J., Hertel-Fernandez, A., & Williamson, V. (2018). From the bar- gaining table to the ballot box: Political effects of right to work laws. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  10. Hastie, T. J., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1990). Generalized additive models. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (1993). Constructing citizenship: The subtle messages of policy design. In H. Ingram & S. Rathgeb (Eds.), Public policy for democracy (pp. 68–94). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lerman, A. E., & McCabe, K. T. (2017). Personal experience and public opinion: A theory and test of conditional policy feedback. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 624–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lowi, T. J. (1964). American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16(4), 677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lowi, T. J. (1969). The end of liberalism: Ideology, policy, and the crisis of public authority. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  15. Mettler, S. (2005). Soldiers to citizens: The G.I. Bill and the making of the greatest generation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4), 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schattschneider, E. E. (1935). Politics, pressures, and the tariff. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Soss, J. (1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. American Political Science Review, 93(2), 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weaver, V. M., & Lerman, A. E. (2010). Political consequences of the carceral state. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 817–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. White, A. (2019). Misdemeanor disenfranchisement? The demobilizing effects of brief jail spells on potential voters. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wilson, J. Q. (1973). Political organizations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabor Simonovits
    • 1
  • Neil Malhotra
    • 2
    Email author
  • Raymond Ye Lee
    • 3
  • Andrew Healy
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceCentral European UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Graduate School of BusinessStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of Management Science and EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Cleveland BrownsClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations