No abstract

Berry et al.'s (1998) measures of U.S. state citizen and government ideology rely on unadjusted interest-group ratings for a state's members of Congress to infer information about (1) the ideological orientation of the electorates that selected them or (2) state legislators and the governor from the same state. Potential weaknesses in unadjusted interest-group ratings prompt the question: Are the Berry et al. measures flawed, and if so, can they be fixed by substituting alternative measures of a member's ideology? We conclude that a version of the Berry et al. state government ideology indicator relying on NOMINATE common space scores is marginally superior to the extant version. In contrast, we reaffirm the validity of the original state citizen ideology indicator and find that versions based on NOMINATE common space scores and adjusted ADA and COPE scores introduced by Groseclose, Levitt, and Snyder (1999) are weaker. berry et al. (hereafter "BRFH") (1998) offer two measures of ideology in the American states, observed annually for years after 1959. 1 Their indicator of citizen ideology measures the average location of the active electorate in each state on a liberal-conservative continuum. Their government ideology indicator measures the average location of the elected officials in each state on the same continuum. The underlying continuum for both indicators is conceived as operational ideology (or policy mood)-the kinds of policies preferred-rather than self-identification (or symbolic ideology) Stimson 1991). These ideology indicators have proven useful in analyzing the impact of public opinion or the policy preferences of elected officials on a wide variety of state policy outputs, including welfare reform at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on June 9, 2015 spa.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Over the past decade activists, academics, and policymakers have devoted a great deal of attention to “environmental equity,” or the notion that sources of potential environmental risk may be concentrated among racial and ethnic minorities and the poor. Despite these efforts, the existence and extent of environmental inequities is still the subject of intense scholarly debate. This manuscript reports the results from a meta-analysis of 49 environmental equity studies. The analysis demonstrates that while there is ubiquitous evidence of environmental inequities based upon race, existing research does not support the contention that similar inequities exist with respect to economic class. © 2005 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management

Over the past decade activists, academics, and policymakers have devoted a great deal of attention to "environmental equity," or the notion that sources of potential environmental risk may be concentrated among racial and ethnic minorities and the poor. Despite these efforts, the existence and extent of environmental inequities is still the subject of intense scholarly debate. This manuscript reports the results from a meta-analysis of 49 environmental equity studies. The analysis demonstrates that while there is ubiquitous evidence of environmental inequities based upon race, existing research does not support the contention that similar inequities exist with respect to economic class.

This article develops an integrated theory of state policy influence and responsiveness, then operationalizes this theory to account for variations in the strength and scope of state water pollution control and hazardous waste management programs. The analysis finds that economic, ideological, interest group, and political system characteristics act in concert to affect state policymaking, and that the influences behind policymaking vary systematically and predictably across policy areas within environmental protection.