IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/ratioi/0053.html

How Politically Diverse Are the Social Sciences and Humanities? Survey Evidence from Six Fields

Author

Listed:
  • Klein, Daniel B.

    (Department of Economics)

  • Stern, Charlotta

    (Institute for Social Research (SOFI))

Abstract

In Spring 2003, a large-scale survey of American academics was conducted using academic association membership lists from six fields: Anthropology, Economics, History, Philosophy (political and legal), Political Science, and Sociology. This paper focuses on one question: To which political party have the candidates you’ve voted for in the past ten years mostly belonged? The question was answered by 96.4 percent of academic respondents. The results show that the faculty is heavily skewed towards voting Democratic. The most lopsided fields surveyed are Anthropology with a D to R ratio of 30.2 to 1, and Sociology with 28.0 to 1. The least lopsided is Economics with 3.0 to 1. After Economics, the least lopsided is Political Science with 6.7 to 1. The average of the six ratios by field is about 15 to 1. Our analysis and related research suggest that for the the social sciences and humanities overall, a “one-big-pool” ratio of 7 to 1 is a safe lower-bound estimate, and 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 are reasonable point estimates. Thus, the social sciences and humanities are dominated by Democrats. There is little ideological diversity. We discuss Stephen Balch’s “property rights” proposal to help remedy the situation.

Suggested Citation

  • Klein, Daniel B. & Stern, Charlotta, 2004. "How Politically Diverse Are the Social Sciences and Humanities? Survey Evidence from Six Fields," Ratio Working Papers 53, The Ratio Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:ratioi:0053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ratio.se/pdf/wp/dk_ls_diverse.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klein, Daniel B. & Western, Andrew, 2004. "How Many Democrats per Republican at UC-Berkeley and Stanford? Voter Registration Data Across 23 Academic Departments," Ratio Working Papers 54, The Ratio Institute.
    2. Victor R. Fuchs & Alan B. Krueger & James M. Poterba, 1998. "Economists' Views about Parameters, Values, and Policies: Survey Results in Labor and Public Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1387-1425, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. IGM, Economic Consensus, and Partisan Bias, by Bryan Caplan
      by in Econlog on 2012-07-27 05:16:01
    2. A Critique of Wisdom, by Bryan Caplan
      by ? in Econlog on 2012-12-03 06:09:16

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Klein, Daniel B. & Western, Andrew, 2004. "How Many Democrats per Republican at UC-Berkeley and Stanford? Voter Registration Data Across 23 Academic Departments," Ratio Working Papers 54, The Ratio Institute.

    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. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2002:i:17:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Alan Blinder & Alan Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Working Papers 875, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    3. Bruno De Borger & Bart Wuyts, 2009. "Commuting, Transport Tax Reform and the Labour Market: Employer-paid Parking and the Relative Efficiency of Revenue Recycling Instruments," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(1), pages 213-233, January.
    4. Picard, Pierre M. & Toulemonde, Eric, 2006. "Firms agglomeration and unions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 669-694, April.
    5. Roger Gordon & Gordon B. Dahl, 2013. "Views among Economists: Professional Consensus or Point-Counterpoint?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 629-635, May.
    6. Author-Name: Alan S. Blinder & Alan B. Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 35(1), pages 327-397.
    7. Parry Ian W. H. & West Sarah E & Laxminarayan Ramanan, 2009. "Fiscal and Externality Rationales for Alcohol Policies," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-48, July.
    8. Kevin J. Murphy, 2003. "A General Equilibrium Model of the Payroll Tax Incidence of State Unemployment Insurance Systems," Public Finance Review, , vol. 31(1), pages 44-65, January.
    9. Pizer, William A. & Burtraw, Dallas & Harrington, Winston & Newell, Richard G. & Sanchirico, James N., 2005. "Modeling Economywide versus Sectoral Climate Policies Using Combined Aggregate-Sectoral Models," Discussion Papers 10502, Resources for the Future.
    10. Ian W.H. Parry, 2005. "Fiscal Interactions and the Costs of Controlling Pollution from Electricity," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(4), pages 849-869, Winter.
    11. Parry, Ian W. H., 2002. "Funding transportation spending in metropolitan Washington, DC: the costs of alternative revenue sources," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 362-390, September.
    12. Bargain, Olivier B. & Orsini, Kristian & Peichl, Andreas, 2011. "Labor Supply Elasticities in Europe and the US," IZA Discussion Papers 5820, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Ian W. H. Parry & Antonio Bento, 2001. "Revenue Recycling and the Welfare Effects of Road Pricing," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 103(4), pages 645-671, December.
    14. Marina Riem, 2017. "Essays on the Behavior of Firms and Politicians," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 73.
    15. Parry, Ian W.H., 1999. "Tax Deductions, Consumption Distortions, and the Marginal Excess Burden of Taxation," Discussion Papers 10801, Resources for the Future.
    16. Vendryes, Thomas, 2011. "Migration constraints and development: Hukou and capital accumulation in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 669-692.
    17. Masayuki MORIKAWA, 2008. "What Do Japanese Unions Do for Productivity?: An Empirical Analysis Using Firm-Level Data," Discussion papers 08027, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    18. Ian W.H. Parry & Antonio M. Bento, 2002. "Tax Deductions, Environmental Policy, and the "Double Dividend" Hypothesis," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 22, pages 397-426, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Driver, Ciaran & Temple, Paul & Urga, Giovanni, 2008. "Real options -- delay vs. pre-emption: Do industrial characteristics matter?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 532-545, March.
    20. Fullerton, Don & Metcalf, Gilbert E., 2002. "Tax incidence," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 26, pages 1787-1872, Elsevier.
    21. Weichselbaumer, Doris & Winter-Ebmer, Rudolf, 2003. "Rhetoric in Economic Research: The Case of Gender Wage Differentials," Economics Series 144, Institute for Advanced Studies.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • A13 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Social Values
    • A14 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Sociology of Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:ratioi:0053. 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: Martin Korpi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ratiose.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.