The Influence of Political Culture on State Budgets

Abstract

In addition to deepening the understanding of factors that influence budget outputs, this study also seeks to contribute to the larger discussion concerning the administrative implications of political culture. The data indicate that political culture exerted an independent impact on total state and local spending in the 1990s, even after controlling for commonly cited economic, political, and demographic variables. Although other variables undoubtedly influence policy outputs, this study suggests that the role of political culture should not be ignored and may be very useful for explaining policy variations that exist between jurisdictions.

Politics, Interest Groups and State Funding of Public Higher Education

“…In this scale, 1 is a pure moralistic culture, five a pure individualistic culture, nine a pure traditionalistic culture, and the values in between represent states with combinations of cultural types. Sharkansky's rating scale has been used in previous research with adequate results (e.g., Fitzpatrick and Hero 1988;Koven and Mausolff 2002;Morgan and Watson 1991). However Sharkansky's measure is cross-sectional and data is not readily available to develop time-series measures for all fifty states, which is essential if a fixedeffects model is to be used.…”

An Examination of Seven Sociopolitical Factors and Their Connection with State Environmental Expenditures

“…Similarly, Weston-Cox et al, 2012 andLi &Elligers, 2014 connected state agency staffing levels (including non-environmental agencies) with funding. Education attainment has long been recognized as correlated to environmental awareness (Konisky, 2011;Koven & Mausolff, 2002;and Chamberlain, 2013) and so, by extension, to the robustness of state environmental agency funding. The independent variable Performance, a measure of overall state bureaucratic effectiveness, is based largely on infrastructure and financial management (Barrett & Greene, 2008).…”

“…Studies such as Hays et al 1996;Koven & Mausolff, 2002;and Heckman, 2012 tend to confirm the intuitive belief that a liberal state citizenry (i.e., politically Democratic or left-leaning) will be strongly committed to environmental policies. However, research efforts by Sharp & Haider-Markel, 2008;Olive et al, 2012;Flavin, 2012;and Chamberlain, 2013 do not show such a clear correlation; citing other factors such as activity by special interest groups, constituent wealth (income), and moral beliefs as playing a more crucial or dominant role in state environmental policy.…”

“…Income levels, manufacturing activity (as measured by gross state product), and state environmental expenditures are selected as measures used in the evaluation of either agency performance or legislative intent in papers by Hays et al, 1996;Koven & Mausolff, 2002;and Woods et al, 2008. Non-economic factors also have been used regularly to assess the presence or strength of relationships between state environmental commitment and constituent characteristics.…”

“…Non-economic factors also have been used regularly to assess the presence or strength of relationships between state environmental commitment and constituent characteristics. Educational attainment (Koven & Mausolff, 2002;Konisky, 2011;Chamberlain, 2013), advocacy group activity (Hays et al, 1996) and moral or cultural beliefs (Heckman, 2012;Olive et al, 2012) have been shown to be correlated, either positively or negatively, with state environmental policy development and outcomes.…”