IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v38y2021i1p6-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political Ideology, Political Party, and Support for Greater Federal Spending on Environmental Protection in the United States: Evidence from the General Social Surveys, 1993–2018

Author

Listed:
  • Steven T. Yen
  • Ernest M. Zampelli

Abstract

This paper focuses on the effects of political ideology and party affiliation on support for more government spending on environmental protection. Pooled‐sample results show that Liberals (Democrats) are more likely to support higher government spending on environmental protection than Moderates (Independents), who, in turn, are more likely to support higher spending levels than Conservatives (Republicans). The results persist even when we control for respondents' opinions concerning whether the federal government, in general, does too little or too much. When stratifying by party, ideological divisions generally narrow, while stratifying by ideology leads to slightly wider divisions between Democrats and Republicans. Together, these results suggest that when Liberals and Conservatives form opinions about government spending on the environment, party affiliation, to some degree, dampens the effects of ideology. Between 2014 and 2018 the probability of supporting more environmental spending increased, albeit slightly, for all ideologies and parties, but more so for Liberals and Democrats. Este documento se centra en los efectos de la ideología política y la afiliación partidista en el apoyo a un mayor gasto público en protección ambiental. Los resultados de muestras agrupadas muestran que los liberales (demócratas) tienen más probabilidades de apoyar un mayor gasto público en protección ambiental que los moderados (independientes), quienes, a su vez, tienen más probabilidades de apoyar niveles de gasto más altos que los conservadores (republicanos). Los resultados persisten incluso cuando controlamos las opiniones de los encuestados sobre si el gobierno federal, en general, hace demasiado poco o demasiado. Al estratificar por partido, las divisiones ideológicas generalmente se reducen, mientras que la estratificación por ideología conduce a divisiones ligeramente más amplias entre demócratas y republicanos. Juntos, estos resultados sugieren que cuando liberales y conservadores se forman opiniones sobre el gasto público en el medio ambiente, la afiliación a un partido, hasta cierto punto, amortigua los efectos de la ideología. Entre 2014 y 2018, la probabilidad de apoyar más gasto ambiental aumentó, aunque levemente, para todas las ideologías y partidos, pero más para los liberales y demócratas. 本文聚焦政治意识形态和政治派系对支持政府加大环境保护开支一事产生的效果。混合样本(Pooled‐sample)结果显示,自由派(民主党人士)比温和派(独立人士)更有可能支持政府加大对环境保护的开支,而后者反过来比保守派(共和党人士)更有可能支持更高的环境保护开支。当我们对调查对象关于联邦政府是否从整体上作的太少或太多所持的意见加以控制时,结果仍然不变。当用党派进行分类时,意识形态差别一般较窄,而当用意识形态进行分类时,民主党和共和党人士之间的差异稍大。综合来看,这些研究结果暗示,当自由派和保守派对政府在环境上的开支形成意见时,政治派别在一定程度上会抑制意识形态的效果。2014‐2018年间,支持更大的环境开支的可能性有所增加,尽管从所有意识形态和政党来看增幅很小,但就自由派和民主党人士而言增幅稍大。

Suggested Citation

  • Steven T. Yen & Ernest M. Zampelli, 2021. "Political Ideology, Political Party, and Support for Greater Federal Spending on Environmental Protection in the United States: Evidence from the General Social Surveys, 1993–2018," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 6-30, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:38:y:2021:i:1:p:6-30
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12410
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12410?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. 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.
    2. David M. Konisky & Jeffrey Milyo & Lilliard E. Richardson, 2008. "Environmental Policy Attitudes: Issues, Geographical Scale, and Political Trust," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1066-1085, December.
    3. Arne Henningsen & Ott Toomet, 2011. "maxLik: A package for maximum likelihood estimation in R," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 443-458, September.
    4. Adam McBride Lazri & David M. Konisky, 2019. "Environmental Attitudes Across Race and Ethnicity," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1039-1055, June.
    5. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521142373, Enero-Abr.
    6. Matthew B. Arbuckle & David M. Konisky, 2015. "The Role of Religion in Environmental Attitudes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1244-1263, November.
    7. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521194204 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Mark K. McBeth & Megan Warnement Wrobel & Irene van Woerden, 2023. "Political ideology and nuclear energy: Perception, proximity, and trust," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(1), pages 88-118, January.
    2. Vogeler, Colette S. & Parth, Anne-Marie, 2024. "An elephant in the room? Explaining agenda-setting in antimicrobial resistance policies in 30 European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 356(C).
    3. Yeongsu Anthony Kim, 2024. "Blue goes green: The impact of the chief executive officer and board of directors' political ideology on corporate environmental performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 134-148, February.

    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. Sarrias, Mauricio, 2021. "A two recursive equation model to correct for endogeneity in latent class binary probit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Boto-García, David & Bucciol, Alessandro, 2020. "Climate change: Personal responsibility and energy saving," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    3. Hilary Boudet & Chad Zanocco & Greg Stelmach & Mahmood Muttaqee & June Flora, 2021. "Public preferences for five electricity grid decarbonization policies in California," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 510-528, September.
    4. Ernest M. Zampelli & Steven T. Yen, 2021. "Individual Attitudes Toward Government’s Role in Redistributing Income in the United States: Analysis by Ideological Subgroups," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(1), pages 115-137, March.
    5. Maryam Dilmaghani, 2018. "Which is greener: secularity or religiosity? Environmental philanthropy along religiosity spectrum," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(2), pages 477-502, April.
    6. Zhengyan Li & David M. Konisky, 2023. "Personal attributes and (mis)perceptions of local environmental risk," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(1), pages 119-152, January.
    7. Dixon, Huw D. & Grimme, Christian, 2022. "State-dependent or time-dependent pricing? New evidence from a monthly firm-level survey: 1980–2017," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    8. William H. Greene & Mark N. Harris & Rachel J. Knott & Nigel Rice, 2021. "Specification and testing of hierarchical ordered response models with anchoring vignettes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 31-64, January.
    9. Hanna Dudek & Joanna Landmesser, 2012. "Income satisfaction and relative deprivation," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 13(2), pages 321-334, June.
    10. Andrew Powell & Pilar Tavella, 2012. "Capital Inflow Surges in Emerging Economies: How Worried Should LAC Be?," Research Department Publications 4782, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    11. Chappell, Henry W. & McGregor, Rob Roy, 2018. "Committee decision-making at Sweden's Riksbank," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 120-133.
    12. Maness, Michael & Cirillo, Cinzia, 2016. "An indirect latent informational conformity social influence choice model: Formulation and case study," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 75-101.
    13. Charlie Tchinda & Marcus Dejardin, 2021. "Are Business Policy Measures in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic to Be Equally Valued? An Exploration According to SMEs Owners’ Business Expectations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-42, October.
    14. Patricia Cubí‐Mollá & Mireia Jofre‐Bonet & Victoria Serra‐Sastre, 2017. "Adaptation to health states: Sick yet better off?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1826-1843, December.
    15. Ahmad Adeel & Bruno Notteboom & Ansar Yasar & Kris Scheerlinck & Jeroen Stevens, 2021. "Sustainable Streetscape and Built Environment Designs around BRT Stations: A Stated Choice Experiment Using 3D Visualizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    16. Jeffrey A. Edwards & Tara R. Wade & Mark L. Burkey & R. Gary Pumphrey, 2014. "Forecasting the Public's Acceptability of Municipal Water Regulation and Price Rationing for Communities on the Ogallala Aquifer," Journal of Economic Insight, Missouri Valley Economic Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-30.
    17. Simona Iammarino & Elisabetta Marinelli & Elisabetta Marinelli, 2011. "Is the Grass Greener on the other Side of the Fence? Graduate Mobility and Job Satisfaction in Italy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(11), pages 2761-2777, November.
    18. Ermagun, Alireza & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2018. "To bid or not to bid: An empirical study of the supply determinants of crowd-shipping," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 468-483.
    19. Mohit Batham & Soudeh Mirghasemi & Mohammad Arshad Rahman & Manini Ojha, 2021. "Modeling and Analysis of Discrete Response Data: Applications to Public Opinion on Marijuana Legalization in the United States," Papers 2109.10122, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    20. Mahdi Rezapour & F. Richard Ferraro, 2021. "The impact of commuters’ psychological feelings due to delay on perceived quality of a rail transport," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.

    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:38:y:2021:i:1:p:6-30. 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.