Heat Waves,Droughts, and Preferences for Environmental Policy

Using data from a new household survey on environmental attitudes, behaviors, and policy preferences, we find that current weather conditions affect preferences for environmental regulation. Individuals who have recently experienced extreme weather (heat waves or droughts) are more likely to support laws to protect the environment. We find evidence that the channel through which weather conditions affect policy preference is via perceptions of the importance of the issue of global warming. Furthermore, environmentalists and individuals who consult more sources of news are less likely to have their attitudes toward global warming changed by current weather conditions. These findings suggest that communication and education emphasizing consequences of climate change salient to the individual's circumstances may be the most effective in changing attitudes of those least likely to support proenvironment policy. In addition, the timing of policy introduction could influence its success.     

Single-issue voting: Elite-mass linkages

In this paper we consider the abortion and E.R.A. issues as examples of single-issue politics, as well as the nature of single-issue politics in general. We argue that many single issues are what others have called easy issues but that hard-issue voting as well as easy-issue voting may be occurring on both issues. We test this hypothesis using both mass and elite data sets. Our findings suggest that political activists may be cuing the masses into a pattern of single-issue voting, and hence keeping the battle over abortion and the E.R.A. intense.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1981 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, September 3–6, 1981.     

Presidential priorities,congressional control,and the quality of regulatory analysis: an application to healthcare and homeland security

Elected leaders delegate rulemaking to federal agencies, then seek to influence rulemaking through top-down directives and statutory deadlines. This paper documents an unintended consequence of these control strategies: they reduce regulatory agencies’ ability and incentive to conduct high-quality economic analysis to inform their decisions. Using scoring data that measure the quality of regulatory impact analysis, we find that hastily adopted “interim final” regulations reflecting signature policy priorities of the two most recent presidential administrations were accompanied by significantly lower quality economic analysis. Interim final homeland security regulations adopted during the G.W. Bush administration and interim final regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act in the Obama administration were accompanied by less thorough analysis than other “economically significant” regulations (regulations with benefits, costs, or other economic impacts exceeding $100 million annually). The lower quality analysis apparently stems from the confluence of presidential priorities and very tight statutory deadlines associated with interim final regulations, rather than either factor alone.     

The dynamics of presidential support during international conflict situations: The Iranian hostage crisis

Public opinion data concerning President Carter's handling of the Iranian hostage crisis are used to analyze (1) the factors that facilitate support for the President's handling of international conflict situations, and (2) the factors that influence the persistence of such support. Analysis reveals that support for the President's performance is enhanced if one holds a favorable personal image of the President, if one's own policy preferences are congruent with the President's actions, and if one belongs to the President's party. Over time, the impact of these factors grows, reflecting the fact that those who hold unfavorable images of the President, who disagree with the policies he is pursuing, and who belong to the opposition party fall out of the support coalition at an unusually high rate.     

Effects of Tennessee Medicaid managed care on obstetrical care and birth outcomes

A comparative study was conducted in two neighboring states, Tennessee and North Carolina, to determine whether Medicaid managed care (implemented in Tennessee as TennCare) affected prenatal care, care patterns at labor-delivery, and birth outcomes. A pre- and post-design coupled with a difference-in-difference approach--using North Carolina as a control--was used to assess TennCare's effects for all births and for three categories of high-risk mothers (under age eighteen, unwed, or living in high poverty areas). Data from 328,296 singleton births in birth files and matched birth-death files for 1993 and 1995 in both states were used to analyze a number of variables related to maternal behavior during pregnancy, utilization of care before and after labor-delivery, patterns of obstetrical care at delivery, and birth outcomes. Under TennCare, Tennessee mothers were relatively more likely to obtain no prenatal care or to wait and initiate third trimester care as compared to those in North Carolina. Relative utilization of specific prenatal procedures declined, Apgar scores fell very slightly, and birth abnormalities increased in the poverty subsample. TennCare had no significant effect on infant mortality. Utilization reductions in obstetrical services were achieved with apparent spillovers to non-TennCare births, but without adverse effects overall. TennCare was neither a panacea nor an unmitigated disaster. It is a model worth examining, but not uncritically.