A New Measure of Policy Spending Priorities in the American States

Abstract

In this paper, we develop and test a general measure of policy expenditures in the American states. Our approach is to construct a spatial proximity model of yearly state program spending. The empirical analysis reveals that state spending patterns vary along a clear and readily-interpretable unidimensional continuum which differentiates policies that provide particularized benefits to needy constituencies from policies that provide broader collective goods. Based upon standard evaluative criteria, the variable created from our model possesses some highly desirable characteristics. And, it compares favorably to other measures of state policy activity. The net result is a yearly score for each state which summarizes that state's spending across all major program areas. More generally, we believe that our variable can be interpreted as valid and reliable representational measurement of state policy priorities. In this capacity, it could occupy an important position within models of state politics.

Political influences on greenhouse gas emissions from US states

“…Ideology. We construct a composite measure of the strength of conservative vs. liberal ideology using three measures well accepted in the literature on state politics: citizen ideology, legislative ideology, and state spending patterns (53,54,59). To enhance reliability, compensate for idiosyncrasies that might influence any single measure, and preserve degrees of freedom, we created an additive composite of these three measures.…”

The Dynamics of State Policy Liberalism, 1936–2014

“…To our knowledge, the only existing time‐varying measure that provides a holistic summary of state policy outputs is the measure of policy spending priorities developed by Jacoby and Schneider () . This measure, available annually between 1982 and 2005, is estimated with a spatial proximity model using data on the proportions of state budgets allocated to each of nine broad policy domains (e.g., corrections, education, welfare).…”

“…Despite both being holistic yearly policy measures, policy liberalism and policy priorities differ in important ways. As Jacoby and Schneider emphasize, policy liberalism and policy priorities are conceptually distinct; indices of policy liberalism “simply do not measure the same thing” as their policy priorities scale (, 19). For example, the policy priorities scale is not intended to capture “ how much states spend” but rather “how states divide up their yearly pools of available resources” (Jacoby and Schneider , 4).…”

“…Unfortunately, the literature on U.S. state politics, perhaps the most vibrant field for testing theories of policymaking, relies almost exclusively on policy indicators that are either measured at a single point in time (e.g., Wright, Erikson, and McIver ) or else cover only a partial subset of state policy outputs (e.g., Besley and Case ) . Static measures are poorly suited to studying causes of policy change over time (Jacoby and Schneider ; Lowery, Gray, and Hager ; Ringquist and Garand ). And while domain‐specific measures may provide useful summaries of some aspects of state policy, such as welfare spending (Moffitt ) or gay rights (Lax and Phillips ), they are at best imperfect proxies for what is often the outcome of interest, the overall orientation of state policy.…”

Where Do Parties Live? Electoral Institutions, Party Incentives, and the Dimensionality of Politics

“…This method is rooted in work by Poole (1984), Young (1981), and Jacoby (1999). A similar, metric approach is used by Jacoby and Schneider (2009). This method determines the degree to which the ideal points of parties and voters in a given country and election are captured by a single dimension.…”