IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v37y2020i1p39-63.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Elections and Policy Responsiveness: Evidence from Environmental Voting in the U.S. Congress

Author

Listed:
  • Richard J. McAlexander
  • Johannes Urpelainen

Abstract

Do elections affect legislators' voting patterns? We investigate this question in the context of environmental policy in the U.S. Congress. We theorize that since the general public is generally in favor of legislation protecting the environment, legislators have an incentive to favor the public over industry and vote for pro‐environment legislation at election time. The argument is supported by analyses of data on environmental roll call votes for the U.S. Congress from 1970 to 2013 where we estimate the likelihood of casting a pro‐environment vote as a function of the time to an election. While Democrats are generally more likely to cast a pro‐environment vote before an election, this effect is much stronger for Republicans when the legislator won the previous election by a thinner margin. The election effect is maximized for candidates receiving substantial campaign contributions from the (anti‐environment) oil and gas industry. Analysis of Twitter data confirms that Congressmembers make pro‐environmental statements and highlight their roll call voting behavior during the election season. These results show that legislators do strategically adjust their voting behavior to favor the public immediate prior to an election. 选举与政策响应度:来自美国国会环境投票的证据 选举会影响立法者的投票模式吗?我们以美国国会的环境政策为背景,对该疑问进行研究。我们的理论认为,既然公众整体上支持亲环境的法律,那么立法者就会被激励去支持公众而不是产业,并在选举期间为亲环境法投票。该主张基于1970年至2013年期间美国国会环境点名投票的数据分析,我们在分析中预测了在一次选举中为亲环境法投票的可能性的时间函数。尽管民主党一般更有可能在选举前为亲环境法投票,但该效果对共和党的作用更强,当立法者以微弱优势赢得之前的选举时。对那些从(反环境的)石油天然气产业中获得大量竞选资助的候选人而言,该选举效果发挥的作用达到最大化。推特数据分析证明,国会成员在选举期间作出亲环境的论断并强调其点名投票行为。研究结果表明,立法者确实会从战略上调整其投票行为,以期在选举前迎合大众。 Elecciones y capacidad de respuesta política: evidencia de la votación ambiental en el Congreso de los EE. UU. ¿Las elecciones afectan los patrones de votación de los legisladores? Investigamos esta cuestión en el contexto de la política ambiental en el Congreso de los Estados Unidos. Teorizamos que, dado que el público en general está a favor de la legislación que protege el medio ambiente, los legisladores tienen un incentivo para favorecer al público sobre la industria y votar por la legislación favorable al medio ambiente en las elecciones. El argumento está respaldado por análisis de datos sobre votaciones nominales ambientales para el Congreso de EE. UU. Desde 1970 hasta 2013, donde estimamos la probabilidad de emitir un pro ambiente en función del tiempo para una elección. Si bien los demócratas generalmente tienen más probabilidades de emitir un voto favorable al medio ambiente antes de una elección, este efecto es mucho más fuerte para los republicanos cuando el legislador ganó las elecciones anteriores por un margen más delgado. El efecto electoral se maximiza para los candidatos que reciben contribuciones sustanciales de campaña de la industria del petróleo y el gas (anti medioambiente). El análisis de los datos de Twitter confirma que los miembros del Congreso hacen declaraciones a favor del medio ambiente y destacan su comportamiento de votación nominal durante la temporada electoral. Estos resultados muestran que los legisladores ajustan estratégicamente su comportamiento de votación para favorecer al público inmediatamente antes de una elección.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard J. McAlexander & Johannes Urpelainen, 2020. "Elections and Policy Responsiveness: Evidence from Environmental Voting in the U.S. Congress," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 39-63, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:37:y:2020:i:1:p:39-63
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12368
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12368
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12368?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. Baldwin, Robert E & Magee, Christopher S, 2000. "Is Trade Policy for Sale? Congressional Voting on Recent Trade Bills," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 105(1-2), pages 79-101, October.
    2. Canes-Wrone, Brandice & Brady, David W. & Cogan, John F., 2002. "Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(1), pages 127-140, March.
    3. John A. List & Daniel M. Sturm, 2006. "How Elections Matter: Theory and Evidence from Environmental Policy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1249-1281.
    4. Fredriksson, Per G. & Wang, Le & Mamun, Khawaja A., 2011. "Are politicians office or policy motivated? The case of U.S. governors' environmental policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 241-253, September.
    5. John Ferejohn, 1986. "Incumbent performance and electoral control," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 5-25, January.
    6. Andrew Cheon & Johannes Urpelainen, 2013. "How do Competing Interest Groups Influence Environmental Policy? The Case of Renewable Electricity in Industrialized Democracies, 1989–2007," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(4), pages 874-897, December.
    7. James B. Kau & Donald Keenan & Paul H. Rubin, 1982. "A General Equilibrium Model of Congressional Voting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 97(2), pages 271-293.
    8. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1996. "Electoral Competition and Special Interest Politics," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 63(2), pages 265-286.
    9. Sung Eun Kim & Johannes Urpelainen, 2017. "The Polarization of American Environmental Policy: A Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Senate and House Votes, 1971–2013," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(4), pages 456-484, July.
    10. Hall, Richard L. & Wayman, Frank W., 1990. "Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(3), pages 797-820, September.
    11. McCrary, Justin, 2008. "Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 698-714, February.
    12. Carmines, Edward G. & Stimson, James A., 1980. "The Two Faces of Issue Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 78-91, March.
    13. Aidt, Toke S., 1998. "Political internalization of economic externalities and environmental policy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-16, July.
    14. Miller, Warren E. & Stokes, Donald E., 1963. "Constituency Influence in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(1), pages 45-56, March.
    15. Caughey, Devin & Warshaw, Christopher, 2018. "Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 249-266, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joëlle Noailly ; Laura Nowzohour; Matthias van den Heuvel, 2022. "Does Environmental Policy Uncertainty Hinder Investments Towards a Low-Carbon Economy?," CIES Research Paper series 74-2022, Centre for International Environmental Studies, The Graduate Institute.
    2. Seth Wynes & John Kotcher & Simon D. Donner, 2021. "Can citizen pressure influence politicians’ communication about climate change? Results from a field experiment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 1-20, September.

    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. Laurent Bouton & Paola Conconi & Francisco Pino & Maurizio Zanardi, 2018. "Guns, Environment, and Abortion: How Single-Minded Voters Shape Politicians' Decisions," Working Papers gueconwpa~18-18-15, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
    2. Laurent Bouton & Paola Conconi & Francisco Pino & Maurizio Zanardi, 2021. "The Tyranny of the Single-Minded: Guns, Environment, and Abortion," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 103(1), pages 48-59, March.
    3. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    4. Sean Gailmard & Jeffery A. Jenkins, 2009. "Agency Problems, the 17th Amendment, and Representation in the Senate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 324-342, April.
    5. Laurent Bouton & Paola Conconi & Francisco Pino & Maurizio Zanardi, 2013. "Guns and Votes," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2013-39, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
      • Laurent Bouton & Paola Conconi & Francisco Pino & Maurizio Zanardi, 2014. "Guns and Votes," NBER Working Papers 20253, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
      • Laurent Bouton & Paola Conconi & Francisco Pino & Maurizio Zanardi, 2013. "Guns and votes," Working Papers 43819146, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
      • Zanardi, Maurizio & Conconi, Paola & Bouton, Laurent & Pino, Francisco, 2013. "Guns and Votes," CEPR Discussion Papers 9726, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Matthew Doyle & Corrado Di Maria & Ian A. Lange & Emiliya Lazarova, 2016. "Electoral Incentives and Firm Behavior: Evidence from U.S. Power Plant Pollution Abatement," CESifo Working Paper Series 6127, CESifo.
    7. Jacob M. Grumbach & Jamila Michener, 2022. "American Federalism, Political Inequality, and Democratic Erosion," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 699(1), pages 143-155, January.
    8. Dumas, Marion & Rising, James & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2016. "Political competition and renewable energy transitions over long time horizons: A dynamic approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 175-184.
    9. Bellemare, Marc F. & Carnes, Nicholas, 2015. "Why do members of congress support agricultural protection?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 20-34.
    10. Nicolli, Francesco & Vona, Francesco, 2019. "Energy market liberalization and renewable energy policies in OECD countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 853-867.
    11. Conconi, Paola & Facchini, Giovanni & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2014. "Policymakers' horizon and trade reforms: The protectionist effect of elections," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 102-118.
    12. Beland, Louis-Philippe & Boucher, Vincent, 2015. "Polluting politics," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 176-181.
    13. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/f6h8764enu2lskk9p544jc8op is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Bernardo P. Schettini & Rafael Terra, 2020. "Electoral incentives and Public Employees’ Retirement Systems in Brazilian municipalities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 79-103, July.
    15. Olper, Alessandro, 2017. "The political economy of trade-related regulatory policy: environment and global value chain," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 5(3), February.
    16. Per G. Fredriksson & Le Wang & Patrick L Warren, 2013. "Party Politics, Governors, and Economic Policy," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(1), pages 106-126, July.
    17. Nicola Mastrorocco, 2018. "Organised Crime, Captured Politicians and the Allocation of Public Resources," Trinity Economics Papers tep1018, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    18. Chauvin, Juan Pablo & Tricaud, Clemence, 2022. "Gender and Electoral Incentives: Evidence from Crisis Response," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 12411, Inter-American Development Bank.
    19. Thomas Stratmann, 2005. "Some talk: Money in politics. A (partial) review of the literature," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 135-156, July.
    20. Bartels, Larry, 2005. "Economic Inequality and Political Representation," Papers 08-11-2005, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    21. Aaron A. Elrod & Serkan Karadas & Katherine C. Theyson, 2019. "The effect of gubernatorial political parties on monitoring and enforcement of federal environmental regulation: evidence from the Clean Water Act," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(2), pages 171-202, April.

    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:revpol:v:37:y:2020:i:1:p:39-63. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    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.