Concentrated Burdens: How Self-Interest and Partisanship Shape Opinion on Opioid Treatment Policy
When does self-interest influence public opinion on contentious public policies? The bulk of theory in political science suggests that self-interest is only a minor force in public opinion. Using nationally representative survey data, we show how financial and spatial self-interest and partisanship...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American political science review 2019-11, Vol.113 (4), p.1078-1084 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1084 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 1078 |
container_title | The American political science review |
container_volume | 113 |
creator | DE BENEDICTIS-KESSNER, JUSTIN HANKINSON, MICHAEL |
description | When does self-interest influence public opinion on contentious public policies? The bulk of theory in political science suggests that self-interest is only a minor force in public opinion. Using nationally representative survey data, we show how financial and spatial self-interest and partisanship all shape public opinion on opioid treatment policy. We find that a majority of respondents support a redistributive funding model for treatment programs, while treatment funded by taxation based on a community’s overdose rate is less popular. Moreover, financial self-interest cross-pressures lower-income Republicans, closing the partisan gap in support by more than half. We also experimentally test how the spatial burden of siting treatment clinics alters policy preferences. People across the political spectrum are less supportive when construction of a clinic is proposed closer to their home. These results highlight how partisanship and self-interest interact in shaping preferences on public policy with concentrated burdens. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0003055419000443 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2307351178</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0003055419000443</cupid><sourcerecordid>2307351178</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-56589553b6df80702250ae500b7e14b47bb32b2dad34f78456fac1f50ec523a73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UE1LAzEQDaJgrf4AbwHPq5NNptl602JtodBC63nJbrI2pU3WZIv035vSggcRBmaG9zHDI-SewSMDJp-WAMABUbBhmoTgF6THkMsMh4Jfkt4Rzo74NbmJcZNWYFD0iBp5VxvXBdUZTV_3QRsXn-nEf9Ol2TbZ1HUmmNhR5TRdqNDZqFxc25Yu16o1dN5aZ72jqdLoraarYFS3S5Z04be2PtySq0Zto7k79z75GL-tRpNsNn-fjl5mWc0RugwHWAwReTXQTQES8hxBGQSopGGiErKqeF7lWmkuGlkIHDSqZg2CqTHnSvI-eTj5tsF_7dPL5cbvg0sny5yD5MiYLBKLnVh18DEG05RtsDsVDiWD8phk-SfJpOFnjdpVwepP82v9v-oHFzd0Zg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2307351178</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Concentrated Burdens: How Self-Interest and Partisanship Shape Opinion on Opioid Treatment Policy</title><source>Cambridge Journals Online</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>DE BENEDICTIS-KESSNER, JUSTIN ; HANKINSON, MICHAEL</creator><creatorcontrib>DE BENEDICTIS-KESSNER, JUSTIN ; HANKINSON, MICHAEL</creatorcontrib><description>When does self-interest influence public opinion on contentious public policies? The bulk of theory in political science suggests that self-interest is only a minor force in public opinion. Using nationally representative survey data, we show how financial and spatial self-interest and partisanship all shape public opinion on opioid treatment policy. We find that a majority of respondents support a redistributive funding model for treatment programs, while treatment funded by taxation based on a community’s overdose rate is less popular. Moreover, financial self-interest cross-pressures lower-income Republicans, closing the partisan gap in support by more than half. We also experimentally test how the spatial burden of siting treatment clinics alters policy preferences. People across the political spectrum are less supportive when construction of a clinic is proposed closer to their home. These results highlight how partisanship and self-interest interact in shaping preferences on public policy with concentrated burdens.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-0554</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-5943</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0003055419000443</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Addictions ; Costs ; Death ; Drug overdose ; Drug Therapy ; Family income ; Funding ; Geography ; Human Geography ; Infrastructure ; Narcotics ; Opioids ; Partisanship ; Political parties ; Political science ; Polls & surveys ; Preferences ; Public opinion ; Public policy ; Research Design ; Self interest ; Siting ; Substance Abuse ; Substance abuse treatment ; Taxation ; Treatment preferences ; Treatment programs ; Urban Areas ; Voters</subject><ispartof>The American political science review, 2019-11, Vol.113 (4), p.1078-1084</ispartof><rights>Copyright © American Political Science Association 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-56589553b6df80702250ae500b7e14b47bb32b2dad34f78456fac1f50ec523a73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-56589553b6df80702250ae500b7e14b47bb32b2dad34f78456fac1f50ec523a73</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2751-379X ; 0000-0003-4099-2633</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055419000443/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,12845,27924,27925,55628</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>DE BENEDICTIS-KESSNER, JUSTIN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HANKINSON, MICHAEL</creatorcontrib><title>Concentrated Burdens: How Self-Interest and Partisanship Shape Opinion on Opioid Treatment Policy</title><title>The American political science review</title><addtitle>Am Polit Sci Rev</addtitle><description>When does self-interest influence public opinion on contentious public policies? The bulk of theory in political science suggests that self-interest is only a minor force in public opinion. Using nationally representative survey data, we show how financial and spatial self-interest and partisanship all shape public opinion on opioid treatment policy. We find that a majority of respondents support a redistributive funding model for treatment programs, while treatment funded by taxation based on a community’s overdose rate is less popular. Moreover, financial self-interest cross-pressures lower-income Republicans, closing the partisan gap in support by more than half. We also experimentally test how the spatial burden of siting treatment clinics alters policy preferences. People across the political spectrum are less supportive when construction of a clinic is proposed closer to their home. These results highlight how partisanship and self-interest interact in shaping preferences on public policy with concentrated burdens.</description><subject>Addictions</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Death</subject><subject>Drug overdose</subject><subject>Drug Therapy</subject><subject>Family income</subject><subject>Funding</subject><subject>Geography</subject><subject>Human Geography</subject><subject>Infrastructure</subject><subject>Narcotics</subject><subject>Opioids</subject><subject>Partisanship</subject><subject>Political parties</subject><subject>Political science</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Public opinion</subject><subject>Public policy</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Self interest</subject><subject>Siting</subject><subject>Substance Abuse</subject><subject>Substance abuse treatment</subject><subject>Taxation</subject><subject>Treatment preferences</subject><subject>Treatment programs</subject><subject>Urban Areas</subject><subject>Voters</subject><issn>0003-0554</issn><issn>1537-5943</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UE1LAzEQDaJgrf4AbwHPq5NNptl602JtodBC63nJbrI2pU3WZIv035vSggcRBmaG9zHDI-SewSMDJp-WAMABUbBhmoTgF6THkMsMh4Jfkt4Rzo74NbmJcZNWYFD0iBp5VxvXBdUZTV_3QRsXn-nEf9Ol2TbZ1HUmmNhR5TRdqNDZqFxc25Yu16o1dN5aZ72jqdLoraarYFS3S5Z04be2PtySq0Zto7k79z75GL-tRpNsNn-fjl5mWc0RugwHWAwReTXQTQES8hxBGQSopGGiErKqeF7lWmkuGlkIHDSqZg2CqTHnSvI-eTj5tsF_7dPL5cbvg0sny5yD5MiYLBKLnVh18DEG05RtsDsVDiWD8phk-SfJpOFnjdpVwepP82v9v-oHFzd0Zg</recordid><startdate>201911</startdate><enddate>201911</enddate><creator>DE BENEDICTIS-KESSNER, JUSTIN</creator><creator>HANKINSON, MICHAEL</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2751-379X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4099-2633</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201911</creationdate><title>Concentrated Burdens: How Self-Interest and Partisanship Shape Opinion on Opioid Treatment Policy</title><author>DE BENEDICTIS-KESSNER, JUSTIN ; HANKINSON, MICHAEL</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-56589553b6df80702250ae500b7e14b47bb32b2dad34f78456fac1f50ec523a73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Addictions</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Death</topic><topic>Drug overdose</topic><topic>Drug Therapy</topic><topic>Family income</topic><topic>Funding</topic><topic>Geography</topic><topic>Human Geography</topic><topic>Infrastructure</topic><topic>Narcotics</topic><topic>Opioids</topic><topic>Partisanship</topic><topic>Political parties</topic><topic>Political science</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Public opinion</topic><topic>Public policy</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Self interest</topic><topic>Siting</topic><topic>Substance Abuse</topic><topic>Substance abuse treatment</topic><topic>Taxation</topic><topic>Treatment preferences</topic><topic>Treatment programs</topic><topic>Urban Areas</topic><topic>Voters</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>DE BENEDICTIS-KESSNER, JUSTIN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HANKINSON, MICHAEL</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>ProQuest Education Journals</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>The American political science review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>DE BENEDICTIS-KESSNER, JUSTIN</au><au>HANKINSON, MICHAEL</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Concentrated Burdens: How Self-Interest and Partisanship Shape Opinion on Opioid Treatment Policy</atitle><jtitle>The American political science review</jtitle><addtitle>Am Polit Sci Rev</addtitle><date>2019-11</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>113</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1078</spage><epage>1084</epage><pages>1078-1084</pages><issn>0003-0554</issn><eissn>1537-5943</eissn><abstract>When does self-interest influence public opinion on contentious public policies? The bulk of theory in political science suggests that self-interest is only a minor force in public opinion. Using nationally representative survey data, we show how financial and spatial self-interest and partisanship all shape public opinion on opioid treatment policy. We find that a majority of respondents support a redistributive funding model for treatment programs, while treatment funded by taxation based on a community’s overdose rate is less popular. Moreover, financial self-interest cross-pressures lower-income Republicans, closing the partisan gap in support by more than half. We also experimentally test how the spatial burden of siting treatment clinics alters policy preferences. People across the political spectrum are less supportive when construction of a clinic is proposed closer to their home. These results highlight how partisanship and self-interest interact in shaping preferences on public policy with concentrated burdens.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0003055419000443</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2751-379X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4099-2633</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-0554 |
ispartof | The American political science review, 2019-11, Vol.113 (4), p.1078-1084 |
issn | 0003-0554 1537-5943 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2307351178 |
source | Cambridge Journals Online; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; JSTOR |
subjects | Addictions Costs Death Drug overdose Drug Therapy Family income Funding Geography Human Geography Infrastructure Narcotics Opioids Partisanship Political parties Political science Polls & surveys Preferences Public opinion Public policy Research Design Self interest Siting Substance Abuse Substance abuse treatment Taxation Treatment preferences Treatment programs Urban Areas Voters |
title | Concentrated Burdens: How Self-Interest and Partisanship Shape Opinion on Opioid Treatment Policy |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T06%3A31%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Concentrated%20Burdens:%20How%20Self-Interest%20and%20Partisanship%20Shape%20Opinion%20on%20Opioid%20Treatment%20Policy&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20political%20science%20review&rft.au=DE%20BENEDICTIS-KESSNER,%20JUSTIN&rft.date=2019-11&rft.volume=113&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1078&rft.epage=1084&rft.pages=1078-1084&rft.issn=0003-0554&rft.eissn=1537-5943&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0003055419000443&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2307351178%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2307351178&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0003055419000443&rfr_iscdi=true |