Public Responses to Unilateral Policymaking

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2024-04-02 DOI:10.1017/xps.2024.3

Benjamin Goehring, Kenneth Lowande

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Presidents possess vast authority over policies and outcomes. Recent studies suggest the public checks this unilateralism through expressive opinions and political participation. We reevaluate this accountability link with a preregistered panel survey that incorporates a number of design and conceptual improvements over existing experimental studies. Our findings reveal a more complex relationship between presidential actions and public opinion. We find no evidence that the public reacts negatively to unilateralism – and some evidence they react positively. Respondents, however, may punish an incumbent for failing to implement the proposed policy change. While such a result suggests that the public can hold presidents accountable, we close by discussing how a lack of information likely renders this check moot.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

公众对单边决策的反应

总统对政策和结果拥有极大的权力。最近的研究表明，公众通过表达意见和政治参与来制衡这种单边主义。我们通过一项预先登记的小组调查重新评估了这种问责关系，与现有的实验研究相比，这项调查在设计和概念上做了一些改进。我们的研究结果揭示了总统行动与公众舆论之间更为复杂的关系。我们没有发现公众对单边主义有负面反应的证据，但有一些证据表明公众对单边主义有正面反应。然而，受访者可能会因为在任者未能实施建议的政策变革而对其进行惩罚。虽然这样的结果表明公众可以让总统承担责任，但我们在最后讨论了信息的缺乏如何可能使这种检查失去意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.