IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v35y2018i1p61-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutions and Morality Policy in Western Democracies

Author

Listed:
  • Donley T. Studlar
  • Alessandro Cagossi

Abstract

This article investigates whether different political institutions such as executives, legislatures, parties, party systems, judiciaries, decentralization, constitutionalism, and referendums across 24 Western democracies are venues for debate across five individual morality policies. Using data since 1945, the article compares three theories of morality policy—(1) Policy Type leading to different institutional venues; (2) Two Worlds of religious/secular party systems; and (3) U.S./European exceptionalism. In order, the most frequently debated issues are abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, stem cells/assisted reproductive technology (ART), and capital punishment. There is considerable variation in the institutions and country groups that debate them although fewer differences in the Two Worlds model. Abortion, euthanasia, and same sex marriage are the most convergent issues across institutions, party systems, and country groupings while capital punishment and stem cells/ART show the most diverse patterns of deliberation. The general Policy Type model of morality policy is upheld, but varies institutionally by specific issues. The Two Worlds model is of some importance, but only on three issues. There also are regional differences between the United States, Europe, and non†European democracies.è¥¿æ–¹æ°‘ä¸»å›½å®¶ä¸­çš„åˆ¶åº¦å’Œé “å¾·æ”¿ç­– 本文调查了24ä¸ªè¥¿æ–¹æ°‘ä¸»å›½å®¶çš„ä¸ å Œæ”¿æ²»æœºæž„/体制(political institutionsï¼‰æ˜¯å ¦èƒ½ä½œä¸º5ä¸ªé “å¾·æ”¿ç­–ï¼ˆmorality policiesï¼‰çš„è¾©è®ºèˆžå °ã€‚è¿™äº›æ”¿æ²»æœºæž„/ä½“åˆ¶åŒ…æ‹¬è¡Œæ”¿éƒ¨é—¨ã€ è®®ä¼šã€ å…šæ´¾ã€ æ”¿å…šä½“ç³»ã€ å ¸æ³•éƒ¨ã€ æ”¿æ²»åˆ†æ ƒï¼ˆdecentralization)〠宪政和公民投票。通过使用1945å¹´ä»¥æ ¥çš„æ•°æ ®, æœ¬æ–‡æ¯”è¾ƒäº†æœ‰å…³é “å¾·æ”¿ç­–çš„ä¸‰ç§ ç †è®º — (1)政策类型(Policy Type), è¯¥ç †è®ºé€šå¾€ä¸ å Œåˆ¶åº¦èˆžå °ï¼›ï¼ˆ2ï¼‰é “å¾·æ”¿æ²»çš„ä¸¤ä¸ªä¸–ç•Œï¼ˆTwo Worlds), å ³å®—æ•™å…šæ´¾ç³»ç»Ÿå’Œä¸–ä¿—å…šæ´¾ç³»ç»Ÿï¼›ï¼ˆ3)美国/æ¬§æ´²ä¾‹å¤–è®ºã€‚æŒ‰ç…§æŽ’åˆ—é¡ºåº , æœ€é¢‘ç¹ å‡ºçŽ°çš„è¾©è®ºé—®é¢˜ä¾ æ¬¡æ˜¯å •èƒŽã€ å Œæ€§å©šå§»ã€ å®‰ä¹ æ­»ã€ å¹²ç»†èƒž/辅助生殖技术(assisted reproductive technology, ARTï¼‰å’Œæ­»åˆ‘ã€‚å ‚ä¸Žè¾©è®ºçš„ä¸ å Œæ”¿æ²»æœºæž„å’Œå›½å®¶é›†å›¢å­˜åœ¨æ˜¾è‘—å·®å¼‚, å°½ç®¡åœ¨ç¬¬äºŒç§ ç †è®ºæ¨¡å¼ ä¸‹å·®å¼‚ä¹‹å¤„è¾ƒå°‘ã€‚å •èƒŽã€ å®‰ä¹ æ­»å’Œå Œæ€§å©šå§»æ˜¯ä¸ å Œæœºæž„ã€ æ”¿å…šä½“ç³»å’Œå›½å®¶é›†å›¢é—´æœ€è¶‹å Œçš„é—®é¢˜, 而死刑和干细胞/ARTåˆ™æ˜¯æœ€å¤šæ ·åŒ–çš„å®¡è®®æ¨¡å¼ ã€‚ç¬¬ä¸€ç§ ç †è®ºæ¨¡å¼ æ˜¯å —åˆ°æ”¯æŒ çš„, ä½†åœ¨ç‰¹å®šé—®é¢˜ä¸Šå­˜åœ¨åˆ¶åº¦æ€§çš„å ˜åŒ–ã€‚ç¬¬äºŒç§ ç †è®ºæ¨¡å¼ å…·æœ‰ä¸€å®šçš„é‡ è¦ æ€§, ä½†å…¶é‡ è¦ æ€§ä»…ä½“çŽ°åœ¨ä¸‰ä¸ªé—®é¢˜ä¸Šã€‚ç¾Žå›½ã€ æ¬§æ´²å’Œé žæ¬§æ´²æ°‘ä¸»å›½å®¶é—´ä¹Ÿå­˜åœ¨åŒºåŸŸå·®å¼‚ã€‚Política de instituciones y moralidad en las democracias occidentales Este artículo investiga si las diferentes instituciones políticas como la rama ejecutiva, la legislativa, los partidos, los sistemas de partidos, la rama judicial, la descentralización, el constitucionalismo y los referéndums en 24 democracias occidentales son escenarios para el debate en 5 diferentes políticas individuales de moralidad. Utilizando datos desde 1945, el artículo compara tres teorías de la política de la moralidad—(1) Tipo de Política que lleva a diferentes escenarios institucionales; (2) Dos Mundos de sistemas seculares/religiosos; y (3) Excepcionalismo entre EE. UU. y Europa. En orden, los temas más frecuentemente debatidos son el aborto, el matrimonio del mismo sexo, la eutanasia, las células madre/ tecnología de reproducción asistida (ART), y la pena de muerte. Hay una variedad considerable en las instituciones y los grupos de países que debaten estos temas, aunque hay menos diferencias en el modelo de los Dos Mundos. El aborto, la eutanasia y el matrimonio del mismo sexo son los temas más convergentes en las diferentes instituciones, sistemas de partidos y grupos de países mientras que la pena de muerte y las células madre/ART muestran los patrones más diversos de deliberación. El modelo de tipo de política general se mantiene, pero varía institucionalmente según los temas específicos. El modelo de Dos Mundos tiene algo de importancia, pero solo en tres temas. También hay diferencias regionales entre los Estados Unidos, Europa y las democracias no europeas.

Suggested Citation

  • Donley T. Studlar & Alessandro Cagossi, 2018. "Institutions and Morality Policy in Western Democracies," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(1), pages 61-88, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:35:y:2018:i:1:p:61-88
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12253
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12253?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
    ---><---

    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:35:y:2018:i:1:p:61-88. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.