Religious tides: The time‐variant effect of religion on morality policies

Abstract

Morality policies evince a much closer relationship to religious doctrines than is the case in other policy areas and hence constitute a most likely case for the observation of religious effects on policymaking and regulatory change. Yet we still lack generally accepted answers to the questions of whether and how religion matters to morality policy. In this paper, we present a theoretical argument that helps to overcome the seemingly contradictory expectations derived from the secularization and religion matters hypotheses. We postulate a bottleneck effect of religious opposition: while religious influence matters most during early stages of the policy process when the problem definition of a moral issue is still in flux, it diminishes during later stages when the issue has made it onto the political agenda. We find evidence of the bottleneck effect in a dataset of policy permissiveness covering 26 countries and spanning 50 years for five morality policies (abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography, and same‐sex marriage). The data is analyzed via a multilevel model and using Bayesian inference.

The Politicization of the European Union

“…Although there is a large consensus acknowledging that religious principles shape morality politics (Knill et al, 2015;Budde et al, 2018), scholars have operationalized the 'religious factor' in different ways (Euchner, 2019). While some of them have pointed out that the salience of morality controversies depends on the presence of the secular-religious cleavage in the party system (Engeli et al, 2012), others have studied the agency of religious authorities (Knill and Preidel, 2014;Ozzano and Giorgi, 2015), the level of religiosity of the population (Knill et al, 2020) and the prevailing denominations in a given country (Budde et al, 2017). However, the burgeoning scholarship on morality politics has focused on centrallevel national politics (Studlar et al, 2013, p. 355) and has principally investigated why morality controversies received great attention instead of exploring their politicization patterns and outcomes (Euchner, 2019).…”

Conceptualizing morality policy: a dyadic morality frame analysis of a gendered legislative debate on abortion

“…The morality policy literature (MPL) has grown significantly over the last few decades, all the more so if we include the literature on 'culture-war issues' (e.g., Lindaman & Haider-Markel, 2002;Studlar, Cagossi, & Duval, 2013). This literature focuses on issues that generate heated debates and high political participation (Knill, Fernández-i-Marín, Budde, & Heichel, 2020;Mooney & Schuldt, 2008). There are two complementing schools to studying morality policy.…”

Regulatory intermediaries and value conflicts in policy implementation: Religious organizations and life‐and‐death policies in Belgium

“…Religious organizations are a paradigmatic example of regulatory intermediaries that have a comprehensive value system on morality issues and—depending on the denomination—an explicit system of goals and objectives for acting upon these issues. Moreover, they illustrate the case of resourceful societal actors that have lost important political influence in most morality policy fields due to the increasing secularization of Western societies (Ciornei et al, 2022; Engeli et al, 2013; Knill et al, 2018; Minkenberg, 2002). Nonetheless, several scholars argue that religion and religious actors continue to be significant parties in (morality) policy‐making because of their control over welfare sectors such as education and health care (Grzymala‐Busse, 2016; Toft et al, 2011).…”

“…Regulatory governance research argues that goal congruence and complementary capabilities constitute essential prerequisites for smooth collaboration between regulator and intermediary (Abbott, 2015) as well as important selection criteria for private actors that would become engaged in the implementation of morality policies (Euchner, 2019). Yet, state intervention in morality issues is a relatively new phenomenon; prior to the late 1960s, private actors-especially churches-used to provide moral guidance and services in areas related to sexual conduct, addiction, and life and death through various institutions such as schools, hospitals, and social organizations (Knill et al, 2018). In this regard, the field of morality policy implementation is not necessarily a pristine ground upon which the regulator has full control over the selection of intermediaries; rather, it is a complex web of stakeholders with sufficient expertise, resources, and tenure to perform implementation tasks.…”

“…Religious organizations are a paradigmatic example of intermediaries that are likely to experience value conflicts and goal incongruence in morality policy‐making 4 . This is due, on the one hand, to the increasing permissiveness of regulations in fields related to sexuality, reproduction, and life and death (Knill et al, 2018), and on the other, to religious actors' long tenure and solid infrastructure to influence policy implementation in various sectors such as education, health care, and social policy (Brisbin, 2001; Euchner, 2019; Gastmans et al, 2006; Grzymala‐Busse, 2015). The analysis centers on abortion and euthanasia policies in Belgium, which are two of the most prominent morality policies today in one of the countries with the most permissive regulations of life‐and‐death issues (Engeli et al, 2013; Mooney, 2001; Nebel & Hurka, 2015; Preidel & Knill, 2015; Schiffino, 2020).…”