IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajecsc/v53y1994i4p455-474.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Voting in the U.S. House on Abortion Funding Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Stephan F. Gohmann
  • Robert L. Ohsfeldt

Abstract

. The Supreme Court's ruling in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services increased the political saliency of the abortion issue. Since pro‐choice and pro‐life groups within the constituencies of U.S. legislators paid closer attention to abortion‐related roll call votes after Webster, the legislators’voting behavior on such issues might have changed as a result of the decision. Accordingly, voting model estimates for abortion funding issues before and after Webster are used to examine changes in the role of legislators’ personal policy preferences and the role of policy preferences among their constituency on voting on this issue. The results show that legislators, to some extent, vote according to their personal preferences on abortion funding issues. Moreover, the influence of personal preferences on voting behavior did not change substantially after Webster, despite the change in the outcome of the vote.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephan F. Gohmann & Robert L. Ohsfeldt, 1994. "Voting in the U.S. House on Abortion Funding Issues," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 455-474, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajecsc:v:53:y:1994:i:4:p:455-474
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1536-7150.1994.tb02618.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1994.tb02618.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1994.tb02618.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amihai Glazer & Bernard Grofman, 1989. "Why representatives are ideologists though voters are not," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 29-39, April.
    2. Fort, Rodney & Hallagan, William & Morong, Cyril & Stegner, Tesa, 1993. "The Ideological Component of Senate Voting: Different Principles or Different Principals?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 76(1-2), pages 39-57, June.
    3. Kalt, Joseph P & Zupan, Mark A, 1990. "The Apparent Ideological Behavior of Legislators: Testing for Principal-Agent Slack in Political Institutions," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(1), pages 103-131, April.
    4. Goff, Brian L & Grier, Kevin B, 1993. "On the (Mis)measurement of Legislator Ideology and Shirking," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 76(1-2), pages 5-20, June.
    5. Alberto Alesina & Morris Fiorina & Howard Rosenthal, 1991. "Why Are There So Many Divided Senate Delegations?," NBER Working Papers 3663, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Smith, Marlene A. & Maddala, G. S., 1983. "Multiple model testing for non-nested heteroskedastic censored regression models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 71-81, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Potters, Jan & Sloof, Randolph, 1996. "Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 403-442, November.
    2. Andrew Chupp, B., 2011. "Environmental Constituent Interest, Green Electricity Policies, and Legislative Voting," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 254-266, September.
    3. B. Chupp, 2014. "Political interaction in the senate: estimating a political “spatial” weights matrix and an application to lobbying behavior," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 521-538, September.
    4. Jeffrey Harden & Thomas Carsey, 2012. "Balancing constituency representation and party responsiveness in the US Senate: the conditioning effect of state ideological heterogeneity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 137-154, January.
    5. Arsene Aka & W. Robert Reed & D. Eric Schansberg & Zhen Zhu, 1996. "Is There A “Culture Of Spending” In Congress?," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(3), pages 191-211, November.
    6. Dennis, Christopher & Medoff, Marshall H. & Magnera, Michael, 2008. "Constituents' economic interests and senator support for spending limitations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2443-2453, December.
    7. Fredriksson, Per G. & Gaston, Noel, 1999. "The "greening" of trade unions and the demand for eco-taxes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 663-686, November.
    8. Franklin G. Mixon & Rand W. Ressler & M. Troy Gibson, 2003. "Congressional Memberships as Political Advertising: Evidence from the U.S. Senate," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 70(2), pages 414-424, October.
    9. Philippe Gagnepain & Marc Ivaldi & David Martimort, 2013. "The Cost of Contract Renegotiation: Evidence from the Local Public Sector," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2352-2383, October.
    10. Matilde Bombardini & Bingjing Li & Francesco Trebbi, 2023. "Did US Politicians Expect the China Shock?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(1), pages 174-209, January.
    11. Cohen, Lauren & Diether, Karl & Malloy, Christopher, 2013. "Legislating stock prices," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(3), pages 574-595.
    12. Schaltegger, Christoph A & Kuttel, Dominique, 2002. "Exit, Voice, and Mimicking Behavior: Evidence from Swiss Cantons," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 113(1-2), pages 1-23, October.
    13. McAleer, Michael, 1995. "The significance of testing empirical non-nested models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 149-171, May.
    14. Lodewijk Smets & Stephen Knack & Nadia Molenaers, 2013. "Political ideology, quality at entry and the success of economic reform programs," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 447-476, December.
    15. Eline Poelmans & John A. Dove & Jason E. Taylor, 2018. "The politics of beer: analysis of the congressional votes on the beer bill of 1933," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 81-106, January.
    16. César Martinelli & John Duggan, 2014. "The Political Economy of Dynamic Elections: A Survey and Some New Results," Working Papers 1403, Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM.
    17. Dean Lacy & Emerson M. S. Niou, 1998. "Elections in Double-Member Districts with Nonseparable Voter Preferences," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 89-110, January.
    18. Fumitoshi Mizutani & Eri Nakamura, 2014. "Managerial incentive, organizational slack, and performance: empirical analysis of Japanese firms’ behavior," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 18(1), pages 245-284, February.
    19. Michael A. Nelson, 2000. "Electoral Cycles and the Politics of State Tax Policy," Public Finance Review, , vol. 28(6), pages 540-560, November.
    20. Svaleryd, Helena, 2009. "Women's representation and public spending," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 186-198, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ajecsc:v:53:y:1994:i:4:p:455-474. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0002-9246 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.