Author
Listed:
- Donley T. Studlar
- Gordon J. Burns
- Alessandro Cagossi
Abstract
In recent years, several countries have experienced widespread, intense debates about morality issues such as the death penalty, abortion, ART/stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia. Assuming the distinctiveness of morality policies from other policy fields, this article analyses three alternative institutional models for explaining variations in the amount of conflict over these morality issues across 24 Western democracies. Is either the US-developed “policy type” model or the European-developed “two worlds” of morality politics, based on religious and secular party systems, applicable more broadly? Are there regional patterns (Europe and non-Europe) to any institutional findings? How does each model contribute to our understanding of morality policy comparatively across Western democracies? We find broader cross-national support for the policy type model, with the two worlds model largely restricted to Europe. The US has more morality policy conflict because of its unusual combination of a political party targeting religiously oriented voters within an institutional framework of multiple venues. The US and other non-European countries have similar patterns of institutional deliberation through decentralization, and the US also has similarities in multiple venues with religious party systems in Europe. Secular European party systems with centralized institutions have the fewest venues for morality policy debate.
Suggested Citation
Donley T. Studlar & Gordon J. Burns & Alessandro Cagossi, 2018.
"Morality policy processes in advanced industrial democracies,"
Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(5), pages 479-497, September.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:39:y:2018:i:5:p:479-497
DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2018.1481501
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:taf:cposxx:v:39:y:2018:i:5:p:479-497. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cpos .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.