Government Partisanship and Suicide

  • Yasuyuki Sawada
  • Michiko Ueda
  • Tetsuya Matsubayashi
Chapter
Part of the Economy and Social Inclusion book series (ESI)

Abstract

Since the rise of the welfare state, the government has expanded its influence to many facets of our life. The functions of the government range from the provision of public goods to the redistribution of income, all of which can influence the quality of life. The extent to which government actions affect the life of citizens, however, depends on the ideology of government. Some parties believe in small government and try to minimize the influence of their actions on citizens’ lives. At the opposite side of the ideological spectrum lie parties that support a large government role and active intervention into the lives of its citizens. Thus, for better or worse, government ideology should affect the lives of citizens.

References

  1. Alesina, A., Roubini, N., & Cohen, G. D. (1997). Political cycles and the macroeconomy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2004). Inequality and happiness: Are Europeans and Americans different? Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 2009–2042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan, J. P., & Scruggs, L. (2004). Political partisanship and welfare state reform in advanced industrial societies. American Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2001). Do people mean what they say? implications for subjective survey data. American Economic Review, 91(2), 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley, D., Huber, E., Moller, S., Nielsen, F., & Stephens, J. D. (2003). Distribution and redistribution in postindustrial democracies. World Politics, 55(1), 193–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castles, F., & Mair, P. (1984). Left-right political scales: some ‘expert’ judgements. European Journal of Political Research, 12, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chung, H., & Muntaner, C. (2006). Political and welfare state determinants of infant and child health. Indicators: An analysis of wealthy countries. Social Science & Medicine, 63(3), 829–842.Google Scholar
  8. Conley, D., & Springer, K. W. (2001). Welfare state and infant mortality. American Journal of Sociology, 107(3), 768–807.Google Scholar
  9. Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2002). The determination of unemployment benefits. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(2), 404–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2005). Partisan social happiness. Review of Economic Studies, 72(2), 367–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, R. J., & Oswald, A. J. (2003). The macroeconomics of happiness. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 809–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flavin, P., & Radcliff, B. (2009). Public policies and suicide rates in the American States. Social Indicators Research, 2(1), 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 402–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hicks, A. M., & Swank, D. H. (1992). Politics, institutions, and welfare spending in industrialized democracies, 1960–1982.” American Political Science Review, 86(3), 658–674.Google Scholar
  15. Huber, E., & Stephens, J. D. (2001). Development and crisis of the welfare state: parties and policies in global markets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huber, E., Ragin, C., & Stephens, J. D. (1993). Social democracy, Christian democracy, constitutional structure, and the welfare state. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 711–749.Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24.Google Scholar
  18. Krueger, A. B., & Schkade, D. A. (2008). The reliability of subjective well-being measures. Journal of Public Economics, 92(8–9), 1833–1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loewenstein, G., & Ubel, P. A. (2008). Hedonic adaptation and the role of decision and experience utility in public policy. Journal of Public Economics, 92(8–9), 1795–1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Minoiu, C., & Andres, A. R. (2008). The effect of public spending on suicide: evidence from US State data. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(1), 237–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oswald, A. J. (1997). Happiness and economic performance. Economic Journal, 107(445), 1815–1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pacek, A., & Radcliff, B. (2008). Assessing the welfare state: The politics of happiness. Perspectives on Politics, 6(02), 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Radcliff, B. (2001). Politics, markets, and life satisfaction: The political economy of human happiness. American Political Science Review, 95(4), 939–952.Google Scholar
  24. Solt, F. (2009). Standardizing the world income inequality database. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2)–242.Google Scholar
  25. Swank, D. (2002). Global capital, political institutions, and policy change in developed welfare states. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yasuyuki Sawada
    • 1
  • Michiko Ueda
    • 2
  • Tetsuya Matsubayashi
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsThe University of TokyoBunkyō, TokyoJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of Political Science and EconomicsWaseda UniversityShinjukuJapan
  3. 3.Osaka School of International Public PolicyOsaka UniversityToyonakaJapan

Personalised recommendations