IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v54y2021i1d10.1007_s11077-020-09399-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Classifying public policies with Moral Foundations Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Dane G. Wendell

    (Illinois College)

  • Raymond Tatalovich

    (Loyola University Chicago)

Abstract

Morality policy researchers have long grappled with the difficulty of determining objective or empirical criteria for classifying policies with moral content. A newer, but related, critique has suggested that we cannot classify morality policies by their substantive content, because policy debates employ moral frames for strategic purposes. This paper joins this debate by using Moral Foundations Theory to conduct quantitative content analyses of the supporting and opposing arguments in Voter Guides that accompanied referenda on enacting (1) the death penalty, (2) same-sex marriage, (3) physician-assisted suicide, (4) Official English, (5) recreational marijuana, (6) medical marijuana, (7) abortion funding bans, (8) tribal gaming, (9) minimum wage increase, (10) Right to Work legislation, and (11) property tax limits. MFT quantitative content analysis shows that frames with ostensibly instrumental arguments hold moral content. Our findings endorse the argument that researchers should differentiate between pure and mixed morality policies and other non-morality policies with decidedly less moral content.

Suggested Citation

  • Dane G. Wendell & Raymond Tatalovich, 2021. "Classifying public policies with Moral Foundations Theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 155-182, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:54:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-020-09399-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-020-09399-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-020-09399-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-020-09399-8?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raymond Tatalovich & Dane G. Wendell, 2018. "Expanding the scope and content of morality policy research: lessons from Moral Foundations Theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(4), pages 565-579, December.
    2. Charles T. Clotfelter & Philip J. Cook, 1989. "Selling Hope: State Lotteries in America," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number clot89-1, March.
    3. Nathalie Burlone & Rebecca Grace Richmond, 2018. "Between morality and rationality: framing end-of-life care policy through narratives," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 313-334, September.
    4. Gary Mucciaroni & Kathleen Ferraiolo & Meghan E. Rubado, 2019. "Framing morality policy issues: state legislative debates on abortion restrictions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 171-189, June.
    5. Christopher A. Simon & Richard E. Matland & Dane G. Wendell & Raymond Tatalovich, 2018. "Voting Turnout and Referendum Outcomes on Same‐Sex Marriage, 1998–2015," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1522-1534, December.
    6. Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl, 2008. "The Congressional Debate on Partial-Birth Abortion: Constitutional Gravitas and Moral Passion," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 383-410, July.
    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. Teodóra Szép & Sander Cranenburgh & Caspar Chorus, 2024. "Moral rhetoric in discrete choice models: a Natural Language Processing approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 179-206, February.
    2. Tuukka Ylä-Anttila, 2023. "Comparative moral principles: justifications, values, and foundations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.

    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. Thomas A. Garrett & Russell S. Sobel, 2004. "State Lottery Revenue: The Importance of Game Characteristics," Public Finance Review, , vol. 32(3), pages 313-330, May.
    2. Rachel Croson & James Sundali, 2005. "The Gambler’s Fallacy and the Hot Hand: Empirical Data from Casinos," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 195-209, May.
    3. David Bholat & Stephen Hans & Pedro Santos & Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey, 2015. "Text mining for central banks," Handbooks, Centre for Central Banking Studies, Bank of England, number 33, April.
    4. Nerilee Hing & Lorraine Cherney & Alex Blaszczynski & Sally M. Gainsbury & Dan I. Lubman, 2014. "Do advertising and promotions for online gambling increase gambling consumption? An exploratory study," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 394-409, December.
    5. Cletus C. Coughlin & Thomas A. Garrett & Ruben Hernandez-Murillo, 2004. "Spatial probit and the geographic patterns of state lotteries," Working Papers 2003-042, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
    6. Meir Gross, 1998. "Legal Gambling as a Strategy for Economic Development," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 12(3), pages 203-213, August.
    7. Rubenstein, Ross & Scafidi, Benjamin, 2002. "Who Pays and Who Benefits? Examining the Distributional Consequences of the Georgia Lottery for Education," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 55(N. 2), pages 223-238, June.
    8. Glenn P. Jenkins & Chun-Yan Kuo, 2004. "The Taxation and Regulation of Casino’s and Games of Chance in the Dominican Republic," Development Discussion Papers 2004-07, JDI Executive Programs.
    9. von Meduna, Marc & Steinmetz, Fred & Ante, Lennart & Reynolds, Jennifer & Fiedler, Ingo, 2020. "Loot boxes are gambling-like elements in video games with harmful potential: Results from a large-scale population survey," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    10. M. Forster & E. Randon, 2019. "Do lottery operators exploit their lottery power? Efficiency and equality considerations in optimal lottery design," Working Papers wp1135, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    11. Skidmore, Mark & Serkan Tosun, Mehmet, 2008. "Do New Lottery Games Stimulate Retail Activity? Evidence from West Virginia Counties," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 38(1), pages 1-11.
    12. Andrey Kudryavtsev & Gil Cohen & Shlomit Hon-Snir, 2013. "“Rational” or “Intuitive”: Are Behavioral Biases Correlated Across Stock Market Investors?," Contemporary Economics, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw., vol. 7(2), June.
    13. Whitney, Marilyn D., 1994. "Lotto And Money Illusion," Working Papers 225879, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    14. Gary E Bolton & Axel Ockenfels, 2008. "Risk Taking and Social Comparison - A Comment on “Betrayal Aversion: Evidence from Brazil, China, Oman, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Statesâ€," Working Paper Series in Economics 40, University of Cologne, Department of Economics.
    15. Johansen, Kathrin & Singer, Nico, 2012. "Chasing rainbows: On the relationship between lottery tickets and common stocks," Thuenen-Series of Applied Economic Theory 129, University of Rostock, Institute of Economics.
    16. David R. Just & Hope C. Michelson, 2007. "Wealth as Welfare: Are Wealth Thresholds behind Persistent Poverty?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 419-426.
    17. Farrell, Lisa & Walker, Ian, 1999. "The welfare effects of lotto: evidence from the UK," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 99-120, April.
    18. Brown, Ryan P. & Rork, Jonathan C., 2005. "Copycat gaming: A spatial analysis of state lottery structure," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 795-807, November.
    19. Nichols, Mark W. & Tosun, Mehmet Serkan, 2017. "The impact of legalized casino gambling on crime," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 1-15.
    20. Lim, Wooyoung & Matros, Alexander & Turocy, Theodore L., 2014. "Bounded rationality and group size in Tullock contests: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 155-167.

    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:kap:policy:v:54:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-020-09399-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.