UNBUNDLING POLARIZATION

This paper investigates the determinants of political polarization, a phenomenon of increasing relevance in Western democracies. How much of polarization is driven by divergence in the ideologies of politicians? How much is instead the result of changes in the capacity of parties to control their me...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Econometrica 2020-05, Vol.88 (3), p.1197-1233
Hauptverfasser: Canen, Nathan, Kendall, Chad, Trebbi, Francesco
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1233
container_issue 3
container_start_page 1197
container_title Econometrica
container_volume 88
creator Canen, Nathan
Kendall, Chad
Trebbi, Francesco
description This paper investigates the determinants of political polarization, a phenomenon of increasing relevance in Western democracies. How much of polarization is driven by divergence in the ideologies of politicians? How much is instead the result of changes in the capacity of parties to control their members? We use detailed internal information on party discipline in the context of the U.S. Congress—whip count data for 1977–1986—to identify and structurally estimate an economic model of legislative activity in which agenda selection, party discipline, and member votes are endogenous. The model delivers estimates of the ideological preferences of politicians, the extent of party control, and allows us to assess the effects of polarization through agenda setting (i.e., which alternatives to a status quo are strategically pursued). We find that parties account for approximately 40% of the political polarization in legislative voting over this time period, a critical inflection point in U.S. polarization. We also show that, absent party control, historically significant economic policies would have not passed or lost substantial support. Counterfactual exercises establish that party control is highly relevant for the probability of success of a given bill and that polarization in ideological preferences is more consequential for policy selection, resulting in different bills being pursued.
doi_str_mv 10.3982/ECTA16756
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2399990303</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48584113</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48584113</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3940-fe87fa2c6de191f56da08988fc197290858afada1c936e7948ee729c7c3875413</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM9LwzAUx4MoOKcHT54EwZOH6ntJmybHWucslFakvXgpIU1gY9qZbIz990Yru_l48B6Pz_f9IuQS4Z5JQR9meZMhTxN-RCYYcxEB5fSYTACQRpILekrOvF8CQBJ8Qq7a6rGtnsqimt-81mX2VrxnTVFX5-TEqpU3F39xStrnWZO_RGU9L_KsjDSTMUTWiNQqqnlvUKJNeK9ASCGsRplSCSIRyqpeoZaMm1TGwphQ16lmIk1iZFNyO_Zdu-Fra_ymWw5b9xlGdpTJYMCABepupLQbvHfGdmu3-FBu3yF0P3d3h7sDiyO7W6zM_n_wN6PhLwkEzfWoWfrN4A6aOKwfIzL2DSfxXas</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2399990303</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>UNBUNDLING POLARIZATION</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>JSTOR Mathematics &amp; Statistics</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Canen, Nathan ; Kendall, Chad ; Trebbi, Francesco</creator><creatorcontrib>Canen, Nathan ; Kendall, Chad ; Trebbi, Francesco</creatorcontrib><description>This paper investigates the determinants of political polarization, a phenomenon of increasing relevance in Western democracies. How much of polarization is driven by divergence in the ideologies of politicians? How much is instead the result of changes in the capacity of parties to control their members? We use detailed internal information on party discipline in the context of the U.S. Congress—whip count data for 1977–1986—to identify and structurally estimate an economic model of legislative activity in which agenda selection, party discipline, and member votes are endogenous. The model delivers estimates of the ideological preferences of politicians, the extent of party control, and allows us to assess the effects of polarization through agenda setting (i.e., which alternatives to a status quo are strategically pursued). We find that parties account for approximately 40% of the political polarization in legislative voting over this time period, a critical inflection point in U.S. polarization. We also show that, absent party control, historically significant economic policies would have not passed or lost substantial support. Counterfactual exercises establish that party control is highly relevant for the probability of success of a given bill and that polarization in ideological preferences is more consequential for policy selection, resulting in different bills being pursued.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-9682</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-0262</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3982/ECTA16756</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Evanston: Wiley</publisher><subject>Agenda setting ; Discipline ; Economic policy ; Endogenous ; Ideology ; legislatures ; Polarization ; Political behavior ; Political economy ; political parties ; Political polarization ; Politicians ; U.S. Congress ; Voting</subject><ispartof>Econometrica, 2020-05, Vol.88 (3), p.1197-1233</ispartof><rights>2020 The Econometric Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3940-fe87fa2c6de191f56da08988fc197290858afada1c936e7948ee729c7c3875413</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3940-fe87fa2c6de191f56da08988fc197290858afada1c936e7948ee729c7c3875413</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48584113$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48584113$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,832,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575,58017,58021,58250,58254</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Canen, Nathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kendall, Chad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trebbi, Francesco</creatorcontrib><title>UNBUNDLING POLARIZATION</title><title>Econometrica</title><description>This paper investigates the determinants of political polarization, a phenomenon of increasing relevance in Western democracies. How much of polarization is driven by divergence in the ideologies of politicians? How much is instead the result of changes in the capacity of parties to control their members? We use detailed internal information on party discipline in the context of the U.S. Congress—whip count data for 1977–1986—to identify and structurally estimate an economic model of legislative activity in which agenda selection, party discipline, and member votes are endogenous. The model delivers estimates of the ideological preferences of politicians, the extent of party control, and allows us to assess the effects of polarization through agenda setting (i.e., which alternatives to a status quo are strategically pursued). We find that parties account for approximately 40% of the political polarization in legislative voting over this time period, a critical inflection point in U.S. polarization. We also show that, absent party control, historically significant economic policies would have not passed or lost substantial support. Counterfactual exercises establish that party control is highly relevant for the probability of success of a given bill and that polarization in ideological preferences is more consequential for policy selection, resulting in different bills being pursued.</description><subject>Agenda setting</subject><subject>Discipline</subject><subject>Economic policy</subject><subject>Endogenous</subject><subject>Ideology</subject><subject>legislatures</subject><subject>Polarization</subject><subject>Political behavior</subject><subject>Political economy</subject><subject>political parties</subject><subject>Political polarization</subject><subject>Politicians</subject><subject>U.S. Congress</subject><subject>Voting</subject><issn>0012-9682</issn><issn>1468-0262</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM9LwzAUx4MoOKcHT54EwZOH6ntJmybHWucslFakvXgpIU1gY9qZbIz990Yru_l48B6Pz_f9IuQS4Z5JQR9meZMhTxN-RCYYcxEB5fSYTACQRpILekrOvF8CQBJ8Qq7a6rGtnsqimt-81mX2VrxnTVFX5-TEqpU3F39xStrnWZO_RGU9L_KsjDSTMUTWiNQqqnlvUKJNeK9ASCGsRplSCSIRyqpeoZaMm1TGwphQ16lmIk1iZFNyO_Zdu-Fra_ymWw5b9xlGdpTJYMCABepupLQbvHfGdmu3-FBu3yF0P3d3h7sDiyO7W6zM_n_wN6PhLwkEzfWoWfrN4A6aOKwfIzL2DSfxXas</recordid><startdate>202005</startdate><enddate>202005</enddate><creator>Canen, Nathan</creator><creator>Kendall, Chad</creator><creator>Trebbi, Francesco</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202005</creationdate><title>UNBUNDLING POLARIZATION</title><author>Canen, Nathan ; Kendall, Chad ; Trebbi, Francesco</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3940-fe87fa2c6de191f56da08988fc197290858afada1c936e7948ee729c7c3875413</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Agenda setting</topic><topic>Discipline</topic><topic>Economic policy</topic><topic>Endogenous</topic><topic>Ideology</topic><topic>legislatures</topic><topic>Polarization</topic><topic>Political behavior</topic><topic>Political economy</topic><topic>political parties</topic><topic>Political polarization</topic><topic>Politicians</topic><topic>U.S. Congress</topic><topic>Voting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Canen, Nathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kendall, Chad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trebbi, Francesco</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Econometrica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Canen, Nathan</au><au>Kendall, Chad</au><au>Trebbi, Francesco</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>UNBUNDLING POLARIZATION</atitle><jtitle>Econometrica</jtitle><date>2020-05</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>88</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1197</spage><epage>1233</epage><pages>1197-1233</pages><issn>0012-9682</issn><eissn>1468-0262</eissn><abstract>This paper investigates the determinants of political polarization, a phenomenon of increasing relevance in Western democracies. How much of polarization is driven by divergence in the ideologies of politicians? How much is instead the result of changes in the capacity of parties to control their members? We use detailed internal information on party discipline in the context of the U.S. Congress—whip count data for 1977–1986—to identify and structurally estimate an economic model of legislative activity in which agenda selection, party discipline, and member votes are endogenous. The model delivers estimates of the ideological preferences of politicians, the extent of party control, and allows us to assess the effects of polarization through agenda setting (i.e., which alternatives to a status quo are strategically pursued). We find that parties account for approximately 40% of the political polarization in legislative voting over this time period, a critical inflection point in U.S. polarization. We also show that, absent party control, historically significant economic policies would have not passed or lost substantial support. Counterfactual exercises establish that party control is highly relevant for the probability of success of a given bill and that polarization in ideological preferences is more consequential for policy selection, resulting in different bills being pursued.</abstract><cop>Evanston</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><doi>10.3982/ECTA16756</doi><tpages>37</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0012-9682
ispartof Econometrica, 2020-05, Vol.88 (3), p.1197-1233
issn 0012-9682
1468-0262
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2399990303
source Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; JSTOR Mathematics & Statistics; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects Agenda setting
Discipline
Economic policy
Endogenous
Ideology
legislatures
Polarization
Political behavior
Political economy
political parties
Political polarization
Politicians
U.S. Congress
Voting
title UNBUNDLING POLARIZATION
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T13%3A53%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=UNBUNDLING%20POLARIZATION&rft.jtitle=Econometrica&rft.au=Canen,%20Nathan&rft.date=2020-05&rft.volume=88&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1197&rft.epage=1233&rft.pages=1197-1233&rft.issn=0012-9682&rft.eissn=1468-0262&rft_id=info:doi/10.3982/ECTA16756&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E48584113%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2399990303&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48584113&rfr_iscdi=true