IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v44y2014i3p369-398..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Polarized Parties, Politics, and Policies: Fragmented Federalism in 2013–2014

Author

Listed:
  • J. Mitchell Pickerill
  • Cynthia J. Bowling

Abstract

Polarized parties, politics, and policies at the federal and state levels of government continue to affect the nature of federalism and intergovernmental relations in the United States. Although polarization and fragmentation are prevalent, there are important instances of cooperation and collaboration. But bottom-up state activism has yielded polarized policies across the states in important issue areas such as same-sex marriage and marijuana policy. And even as states collaborate on implementation of the Common Core standards for K-12 education, the rhetoric remains politicized. The effects of polarization have also been significant for fiscal policies and budgeting. We conclude that, even as states push forward their agendas in light of a gridlocked national government, federalism faces continued challenges, remaining fragmented in both theory and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Mitchell Pickerill & Cynthia J. Bowling, 2014. "Polarized Parties, Politics, and Policies: Fragmented Federalism in 2013–2014," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 44(3), pages 369-398.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:44:y:2014:i:3:p:369-398.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pju026
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Binder, Sarah A., 1999. "The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947–96," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 519-533, September.
    2. Kirsten Nussbaumer, 2013. "The Election Law Connection and U.S. Federalism," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 43(3), pages 392-427, July.
    3. Cynthia J. Bowling & J. Mitchell Pickerill, 2013. "Fragmented Federalism: The State of American Federalism 2012--13," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 43(3), pages 315-346, July.
    4. J. Mitchell Pickerill & Paul Chen, 2008. "Medical Marijuana Policy and the Virtues of Federalism," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 38(1), pages 22-55, Winter.
    5. Sean Nicholson-Crotty, 2012. "Leaving Money on the Table: Learning from Recent Refusals of Federal Grants in the American States," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 42(3), pages 449-466, July.
    6. Jeffrey R. Lax & Justin H. Phillips, 2012. "The Democratic Deficit in the States," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(1), pages 148-166, January.
    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. Cynthia J. Bowling & Shanna Rose, 2016. "Introduction to the Special Issue," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 46(3), pages 275-280.
    2. Aaron C. Weinschenk, 2022. "The nationalization of school superintendent elections," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(3), pages 597-606, May.
    3. Jennifer M. Jensen, 2017. "Governors and Partisan Polarization in the Federal Arena," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 47(3), pages 314-341.

    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. Shannon Jenkins & Douglas D. Roscoe, 2014. "Parties as the Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Impact of Local Political Party Activity on National Elections," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 44(3), pages 519-540.
    2. Chengguang Li & Rodrigo Isidor & Luis Alfonso Dau & Rudy Kabst, 2018. "The More the Merrier? Immigrant Share and Entrepreneurial Activities," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 42(5), pages 698-733, September.
    3. De Clercq, Dirk & Meuleman, Miguel & Wright, Mike, 2012. "A cross-country investigation of micro-angel investment activity: The roles of new business opportunities and institutions," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 117-129.
    4. Jason Webb Yackee & Susan Webb Yackee, 2009. "Divided government and US federal rulemaking," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 128-144, June.
    5. Jonathan B Slapin, 2014. "Measurement, model testing, and legislative influence in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(1), pages 24-42, March.
    6. Ian Ostrander & Joel Sievert, 2020. "Presidential Communication During the Legislative Process," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(3), pages 1165-1182, May.
    7. Motta, Matt & Callaghan, Timothy & Trujillo, Kristin Lunz, 2022. "“The CDC Won’t Let Me Be.” The Opinion Dynamics of Support for CDC Regulatory Authority," SocArXiv pxrn3, Center for Open Science.
    8. Luca Repetto & Maximiliano Sosa Andrés, 2022. "Divided Government and Polarization: Regression-Discontinuity Evidence from US States," CESifo Working Paper Series 9823, CESifo.
    9. Erasmus Kersting & Christopher Kilby, 2021. "Do domestic politics shape U.S. influence in the World Bank?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 29-58, January.
    10. Bernecker, Andreas, 2016. "Divided we reform? Evidence from US welfare policies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 24-38.
    11. Facchini, Giovanni & Hatton, Timothy J. & Steinhardt, Max F., 2024. "Opening Heaven’s Door: Public Opinion and Congressional Votes on the 1965 Immigration Act," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(1), pages 232-270, March.
    12. Chris Hanretty & Benjamin E. Lauderdale & Nick Vivyan, 2020. "A Choice‐Based Measure of Issue Importance in the Electorate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 519-535, July.
    13. Dimiter Toshkov, 2011. "Public opinion and policy output in the European Union: A lost relationship," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 169-191, June.
    14. Iskander De Bruycker & Anne Rasmussen, 2021. "Blessing or Curse for Congruence? How Interest Mobilization Affects Congruence between Citizens and Elected Representatives," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(4), pages 909-928, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Matsusaka, John G., 2017. "When Do Legislators Follow Constituent Opinion? Evidence from Matched Roll Call and Referendum Votes," Working Papers 264, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    17. Schelker, Mark, 2018. "Lame ducks and divided government: How voters control the unaccountable," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 131-144.
    18. John G. Matsusaka, 2018. "Public policy and the initiative and referendum: a survey with some new evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 107-143, January.
    19. Wittels, Annabelle Sophie, 2020. "The effect of politician-constituent conflict on bureaucratic responsiveness under varying information frames," SocArXiv 4x8q2, Center for Open Science.
    20. Andreas Bernecker, 2015. "Divided Government and the Adoption of Economic Reforms," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 12(4), pages 47-52, 01.

    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:oup:publus:v:44:y:2014:i:3:p:369-398.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    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.