The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda-setting Value
California adopted the initiative process in 1911 as a means to allow the electorate to enact laws or amend the state constitution without acting through representatives. The process was instituted in reaction to an unresponsive legislature dominated heavily by well‐financed and professional special...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Law & policy 1989-10, Vol.11 (4), p.451-469 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 469 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 451 |
container_title | Law & policy |
container_volume | 11 |
creator | BERG, LARRY L. HOLMAN, C. B. |
description | California adopted the initiative process in 1911 as a means to allow the electorate to enact laws or amend the state constitution without acting through representatives. The process was instituted in reaction to an unresponsive legislature dominated heavily by well‐financed and professional special interest groups.
Since 1978, however, there has been a clear trend toward the “professionalization” of the initiative process in California. What was once a valuable agenda‐setting mechanism for citizens has increasingly become a tool of professional special interest groups. A survey of expenditures made in solely the qualification phase of statewide initiatives over time shows a growing dichotomy between those initiatives that qualify for the ballot and those that fail to qualify. Not only are dramatically more funds spent on behalf of successful qualification efforts, but these funds also are more likely to be spent on enlisting professional signature‐gathering services. The era of the “popular initiative” is coming to a close unless steps are taken to reduce the professionalization of its agenda‐setting function. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1467-9930.1989.tb00038.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61185240</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>61185240</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4201-83710015f2c44a449ebe37d3295e6c3a76e903d05bfa7ab688101ef4554ea5613</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkctOwzAQRS0EEuXxDxFI7FLs2E5sJITKq1RUtIsCy5GTTMAlJBCn0P49jopYsEF4Y9k-c8d3LiEHjPaZX8fzPhNxEmrN_YVWut-mlFKu-ssN0vt52iQ9GsUyVJGg22THubmHmKa8R05nzxiMKtta09oPDKZNnaFzganywLYuuMSstJWtnoLBE1a5CR22bXd8MOUC98hWYUqH-9_7Lrm_vppd3ITjyXB0MRiHmYgoCxVPmG8oiygTwgihMUWe5DzSEuOMmyRG_5mcyrQwiUljpRhlWAgpBRoZM75Ljta6b039vkDXwqt1GZalqbBeOIgZU9Kb-xOUWnIlqfLg4S9wXi-aypsAxin1PRMtPHWyprKmdq7BAt4a-2qaFTAKXQAwh27K0E0ZugDgOwBY-uKzdfGnLXH1j0oYD6YTITvb4VrBuhaXPwqmeYE44YmEx7shCHnJ2O2jgnP-BXxFmhY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1300613794</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda-setting Value</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>BERG, LARRY L. ; HOLMAN, C. B.</creator><creatorcontrib>BERG, LARRY L. ; HOLMAN, C. B.</creatorcontrib><description>California adopted the initiative process in 1911 as a means to allow the electorate to enact laws or amend the state constitution without acting through representatives. The process was instituted in reaction to an unresponsive legislature dominated heavily by well‐financed and professional special interest groups.
Since 1978, however, there has been a clear trend toward the “professionalization” of the initiative process in California. What was once a valuable agenda‐setting mechanism for citizens has increasingly become a tool of professional special interest groups. A survey of expenditures made in solely the qualification phase of statewide initiatives over time shows a growing dichotomy between those initiatives that qualify for the ballot and those that fail to qualify. Not only are dramatically more funds spent on behalf of successful qualification efforts, but these funds also are more likely to be spent on enlisting professional signature‐gathering services. The era of the “popular initiative” is coming to a close unless steps are taken to reduce the professionalization of its agenda‐setting function.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0265-8240</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-9930</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9930.1989.tb00038.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>California ; Electoral Process ; Government and politics ; Initiatives ; Law ; Pressure groups ; Public Policy ; Referendum</subject><ispartof>Law & policy, 1989-10, Vol.11 (4), p.451-469</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4201-83710015f2c44a449ebe37d3295e6c3a76e903d05bfa7ab688101ef4554ea5613</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4201-83710015f2c44a449ebe37d3295e6c3a76e903d05bfa7ab688101ef4554ea5613</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27844,27848,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>BERG, LARRY L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOLMAN, C. B.</creatorcontrib><title>The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda-setting Value</title><title>Law & policy</title><description>California adopted the initiative process in 1911 as a means to allow the electorate to enact laws or amend the state constitution without acting through representatives. The process was instituted in reaction to an unresponsive legislature dominated heavily by well‐financed and professional special interest groups.
Since 1978, however, there has been a clear trend toward the “professionalization” of the initiative process in California. What was once a valuable agenda‐setting mechanism for citizens has increasingly become a tool of professional special interest groups. A survey of expenditures made in solely the qualification phase of statewide initiatives over time shows a growing dichotomy between those initiatives that qualify for the ballot and those that fail to qualify. Not only are dramatically more funds spent on behalf of successful qualification efforts, but these funds also are more likely to be spent on enlisting professional signature‐gathering services. The era of the “popular initiative” is coming to a close unless steps are taken to reduce the professionalization of its agenda‐setting function.</description><subject>California</subject><subject>Electoral Process</subject><subject>Government and politics</subject><subject>Initiatives</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Pressure groups</subject><subject>Public Policy</subject><subject>Referendum</subject><issn>0265-8240</issn><issn>1467-9930</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1989</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkctOwzAQRS0EEuXxDxFI7FLs2E5sJITKq1RUtIsCy5GTTMAlJBCn0P49jopYsEF4Y9k-c8d3LiEHjPaZX8fzPhNxEmrN_YVWut-mlFKu-ssN0vt52iQ9GsUyVJGg22THubmHmKa8R05nzxiMKtta09oPDKZNnaFzganywLYuuMSstJWtnoLBE1a5CR22bXd8MOUC98hWYUqH-9_7Lrm_vppd3ITjyXB0MRiHmYgoCxVPmG8oiygTwgihMUWe5DzSEuOMmyRG_5mcyrQwiUljpRhlWAgpBRoZM75Ljta6b039vkDXwqt1GZalqbBeOIgZU9Kb-xOUWnIlqfLg4S9wXi-aypsAxin1PRMtPHWyprKmdq7BAt4a-2qaFTAKXQAwh27K0E0ZugDgOwBY-uKzdfGnLXH1j0oYD6YTITvb4VrBuhaXPwqmeYE44YmEx7shCHnJ2O2jgnP-BXxFmhY</recordid><startdate>198910</startdate><enddate>198910</enddate><creator>BERG, LARRY L.</creator><creator>HOLMAN, C. B.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Published by B. Blackwell for the Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy, State University of New York at Buffalo</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>HFXKP</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>7UB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198910</creationdate><title>The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda-setting Value</title><author>BERG, LARRY L. ; HOLMAN, C. B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4201-83710015f2c44a449ebe37d3295e6c3a76e903d05bfa7ab688101ef4554ea5613</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1989</creationdate><topic>California</topic><topic>Electoral Process</topic><topic>Government and politics</topic><topic>Initiatives</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Pressure groups</topic><topic>Public Policy</topic><topic>Referendum</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>BERG, LARRY L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOLMAN, C. B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 17</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Law & policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>BERG, LARRY L.</au><au>HOLMAN, C. B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda-setting Value</atitle><jtitle>Law & policy</jtitle><date>1989-10</date><risdate>1989</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>451</spage><epage>469</epage><pages>451-469</pages><issn>0265-8240</issn><eissn>1467-9930</eissn><abstract>California adopted the initiative process in 1911 as a means to allow the electorate to enact laws or amend the state constitution without acting through representatives. The process was instituted in reaction to an unresponsive legislature dominated heavily by well‐financed and professional special interest groups.
Since 1978, however, there has been a clear trend toward the “professionalization” of the initiative process in California. What was once a valuable agenda‐setting mechanism for citizens has increasingly become a tool of professional special interest groups. A survey of expenditures made in solely the qualification phase of statewide initiatives over time shows a growing dichotomy between those initiatives that qualify for the ballot and those that fail to qualify. Not only are dramatically more funds spent on behalf of successful qualification efforts, but these funds also are more likely to be spent on enlisting professional signature‐gathering services. The era of the “popular initiative” is coming to a close unless steps are taken to reduce the professionalization of its agenda‐setting function.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1467-9930.1989.tb00038.x</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0265-8240 |
ispartof | Law & policy, 1989-10, Vol.11 (4), p.451-469 |
issn | 0265-8240 1467-9930 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61185240 |
source | PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Periodicals Index Online |
subjects | California Electoral Process Government and politics Initiatives Law Pressure groups Public Policy Referendum |
title | The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda-setting Value |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T05%3A23%3A58IST&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=The%20Initiative%20Process%20and%20its%20Declining%20Agenda-setting%20Value&rft.jtitle=Law%20&%20policy&rft.au=BERG,%20LARRY%20L.&rft.date=1989-10&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=451&rft.epage=469&rft.pages=451-469&rft.issn=0265-8240&rft.eissn=1467-9930&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1989.tb00038.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E61185240%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=1300613794&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |