Fearing Food: The Influence of Risk Perceptions on Public Preferences for Uniform and Centralized Risk Regulation

Abstract

Public opinion features prominently in policy research because it sets bounds on the definition of policy problems and acceptable policy solutions. We contend that public opinion is also important for setting bounds on the level of government at which policy hazards are regulated by shaping preferences for uniformity of regulation and, relatedly, preferences for centralization. We offer a theoretical argument for why risk creates pressures for uniform standards and examine the extent to which preferences for uniformity and centralization are the product of fairly stable individual-level predispositions (e.g. partisanship and ideology) versus more fluid attitudes like perceptions of risk, which vary in response to crises, new information, and issue framing. We test our argument using survey data in the policy domain of food safety and find that individuals who anticipate greater risk from food-borne illness prefer more uniform food safety regulation, which translates into preferences for federal-level policymaking. Our results imply that contextual circumstances and strategic communications that influence risk perceptions can create not only generalized public demand for more regulatory policy but specific demand for uniform, centralized regulation.

Venue Preference and Earthquake Mitigation Policy: Expanding the Micro‐Model of Policy Choice

“…As previously stated, both issue causality and issue image, elements of problem definition, have positive and significant relationships with individual policy support for both state and federal government. However, when we examine problem definition in an explicitly comparative manner, the significant relationship for issue image becomes null, seen in Figure below, in contrast to the findings of Maestas et al's () study of food regulation.…”

“…These studies primarily operationalize issue images as risk perceptions, where issues are first perceived on a scale which ranges from extremely low or no risk to extremely high risk. These studies have found that high‐risk perceptions are associated with changes in individuals' behaviors and lead to more support for government mitigation policies (Leiserowitz, ; Maestas, Chattopadhyay, Leland, & Piatak, ; Martin, Martin, & Kent, ; O'Connor, Bard, & Fisher, ). Furthermore, numerous studies have demonstrated the effect of issue causality on individual policy choice.…”

“…Following these arguments, scholars have investigated which levels of government the public chooses or prefers to address particular policy issues. These studies have found that political predispositions such as ideology and partisanship (Maestas et al, ; Schneider & Jacoby, ; Schneider et al, ), beliefs about the role of government (Wolak, ), and trust in different levels of government (del Pino & van Ryzin, ; Konisky, ) all affect individuals' venue selection.…”

“…While these studies have significantly contributed to the discussions around individual policy venue preferences, these studies primarily rely on theories of federalism or descriptively investigate the factors affecting which venues individuals prefer for their policy choice (see Maestas et al, , for a recent exception). There is a lack of studies investigating venue preference of individuals from a policy process perspective.…”

Editorial Introduction: Governance, Citizenry, and Methodological Advancement in Policy Research

“…Unlike previous research published in this journal (e.g., see Beyer & Hänni, 2018; Burstein, 2020), these articles move away from attempting to answer the age‐old question of whether public opinion influences policy, instead analyzing perception formation as well as individual experiences of policy outcomes. Maestas, Chattopadhyay, Leland, and Piatak (2020) examine the influence of risk perceptions on policy preference formation by drawing distinctions between preferences for uniformity and centralization in regulation. The authors argue that this distinction is important for federalism, namely because an essential emotional component of risk perception (e.g., anxiety or worry) is likely to motivate the public to seek uniformity in regulation as well as a centralized venue for policy issues that transcend state boundaries.…”