Modeling the Outcomes of State Abortion Funding Referenda: Morality or Redistributive Policy, or Both?

Abstract

While Lowi (1964) claims that policies can be classified as one of three types, distributive, redistributive, or regulatory, his work has been criticized as incomplete. Policies are frequently multidimensional, and his categories are neither comprehensive nor mutually exclusive. A fourth policy type, morality policy, has now been well-established as distinct from the other three types (e.g., Meier 1994; Mooney 2001). Evidence suggests that some policies can be framed as multidimensional policy types. Abortion funding is one such policy issue that has aspects of both morality policy and redistributive policy in its politics. In this study, we develop models of government abortion funding based on abortion as a morality and a redistributive policy. We estimate these models using weighted least squares to explain the voting outcomes of county-level votes in six state referenda elections for government funding of abortions. Then, we test a combined model and find clear evidence that the combined model, and variables from both perspectives, provide a stronger case than a single policy typology model alone. A practical implication is that policy advocates may purposely emphasize different values and results of the policies. Thus, testing policy theories may need to include more complex views of policies based on policy types. policy typologies have provided an important analytical framework in the study of public policy, using the assumption that every policy type has its own political dynamics. Typologies help classify policies and identify associated political dynamics. Lowi (1964) was the first author to hypothesize that the type of policy would shape the type of politics surrounding the issue. His work laid out distributive, redistributive, and regulatory policy as the primary policy types. Lowi's typology has been widely used in the study of public policy, but it has also been criticized because of its limited empirical applicability and difficulties in valid and reliable classifications (Greenberg,

Toward the permissive society? Morality policy agendas and policy directions in Western democracies

“…Knill and Tosun 2012: 18-19) 1 . Nevertheless, increasingly analysts have contended that some issues have such significant similarities in the content, framing, and/or processes by which they are decided that they deserve to be considered as a common category (Mooney 2001;Smith and Tatalovich 2003;Roh and Berry 2008;Schwartz and Tatalovich 2009;Engeli et al 2012a;Knill 2013;Ryan 2014).…”

“…There has been considerable debate about whether morality policy exists as a discernible category of policy, and if so, how to identify it (Smith 1969;1975;Tatalovich and Daynes 2011;Wald et al 2001;Mooney and Schuldt 2008;Roh and Berry 2008;Studlar 2008;Mucciaroni 2011;Knill 2013;Ryan 2014). The prevalent tendency in previous research, especially in the U.S. (Donovan et al 2015), is to argue that morality policy is defined by process as well as by content.…”

Voting Turnout and Referendum Outcomes on Same‐Sex Marriage, 1998–2015*

“…While the large number of SSM referenda is probably unique in the universe of plebiscites on morality policy, testing the impact of turnout on smaller samples of state referenda could still be a fruitful line of inquiry. Roh and Berry () analyzed 359 county votes on abortion funding referenda, but they did not assess the impact of voter turnout. Roh and Haider‐Markel () studied voting in 764 counties to determine the impact of “national” forces on 17 abortion‐related referenda, but they also did not consider turnout.…”

Inclusive Discourse? Local Media Coverage of the Terri Schiavo Case

“…Medoff determines the political ideology of a state through an analysis of U.S. Congressional representatives’ voting histories. He contends that this is a good way to determine how liberal, moderate, or conservative a state is because representatives are expected to vote the preferences of their constituents (also see Roh and Berry 2008). While other measures of state political ideology are more widely used (see Berry et al 1998, 2010) the Medoff classification is the most useful for our purposes because it categorizes states into three distinct groups rather than plotting states on a continuous scale ranging from 0–100.…”