IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v113y2019i4p1078-1084_15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Concentrated Burdens: How Self-Interest and Partisanship Shape Opinion on Opioid Treatment Policy

Author

Listed:
  • DE BENEDICTIS-KESSNER, JUSTIN
  • HANKINSON, MICHAEL

Abstract

When does self-interest influence public opinion on contentious public policies? The bulk of theory in political science suggests that self-interest is only a minor force in public opinion. Using nationally representative survey data, we show how financial and spatial self-interest and partisanship all shape public opinion on opioid treatment policy. We find that a majority of respondents support a redistributive funding model for treatment programs, while treatment funded by taxation based on a community’s overdose rate is less popular. Moreover, financial self-interest cross-pressures lower-income Republicans, closing the partisan gap in support by more than half. We also experimentally test how the spatial burden of siting treatment clinics alters policy preferences. People across the political spectrum are less supportive when construction of a clinic is proposed closer to their home. These results highlight how partisanship and self-interest interact in shaping preferences on public policy with concentrated burdens.

Suggested Citation

  • De Benedictis-Kessner, Justin & Hankinson, Michael, 2019. "Concentrated Burdens: How Self-Interest and Partisanship Shape Opinion on Opioid Treatment Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1078-1084, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:113:y:2019:i:4:p:1078-1084_15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055419000443/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Aaron R Kaufman & Eitan D Hersh, 2020. "The political consequences of opioid overdoses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-10, August.
    2. Nicole Siegal, 2023. "Exposure to Deaths of Despair and U.S. Presidential Election Outcomes," Working Papers 202307, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    3. David Foster & Joseph Warren, 2022. "The NIMBY problem," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(1), pages 145-172, January.
    4. Weiss, Max & Zoorob, Michael, 2021. "Political frames of public health crises: Discussing the opioid epidemic in the US Congress," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 281(C).

    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:cup:apsrev:v:113:y:2019:i:4:p:1078-1084_15. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.