The Effect of Academic Discipline on Policy Attitudes: The Case of Czech University Students

IF 1.1 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.2478/nispa-2022-0010
A. Veselý, P. Soukup
{"title":"The Effect of Academic Discipline on Policy Attitudes: The Case of Czech University Students","authors":"A. Veselý, P. Soukup","doi":"10.2478/nispa-2022-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract While the effect of academic discipline on political attitudes has long been acknowledged, much less is known on how disciplinary background affects policy attitudes. Linder and Peters (1992) argued that attitudes to policy instruments correspond with discipline: lawyers are assumed to tend to be partial to legalistic regulatory instruments, economists to favor economic tools such as loans or taxation. Nevertheless, relevant empirical evidence is almost non-existent. The paper attempts to bridge this gap by comparing policy instruments attitudes in different academic disciplines on a sample of Czech university students (N = 8820). We inquire whether students in different academic fields (with special emphasis on economics, law, education, political science, and mass media/journalism) differ in their political and policy views. In line with previous research, students pursuing economics and law (as well as education) are found to be more right-wing oriented than students of political science and mass media. Students also differ in terms of their overall acceptance of policy instruments, with those of political science being the most accepting of all types of instruments. However, we find little support for the correspondence thesis proposed by Linder and Peters.","PeriodicalId":43378,"journal":{"name":"NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy","volume":"15 1","pages":"223 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2022-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract While the effect of academic discipline on political attitudes has long been acknowledged, much less is known on how disciplinary background affects policy attitudes. Linder and Peters (1992) argued that attitudes to policy instruments correspond with discipline: lawyers are assumed to tend to be partial to legalistic regulatory instruments, economists to favor economic tools such as loans or taxation. Nevertheless, relevant empirical evidence is almost non-existent. The paper attempts to bridge this gap by comparing policy instruments attitudes in different academic disciplines on a sample of Czech university students (N = 8820). We inquire whether students in different academic fields (with special emphasis on economics, law, education, political science, and mass media/journalism) differ in their political and policy views. In line with previous research, students pursuing economics and law (as well as education) are found to be more right-wing oriented than students of political science and mass media. Students also differ in terms of their overall acceptance of policy instruments, with those of political science being the most accepting of all types of instruments. However, we find little support for the correspondence thesis proposed by Linder and Peters.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学术纪律对政策态度的影响:以捷克大学生为例
虽然学科背景对政治态度的影响早已得到承认,但学科背景对政策态度的影响却鲜为人知。林德和彼得斯(1992)认为,对政策工具的态度与纪律是一致的:人们认为律师倾向于偏袒法律主义的监管工具,经济学家则倾向于贷款或税收等经济工具。然而,相关的经验证据几乎不存在。本文试图通过比较捷克大学生(N = 8820)不同学科的政策工具态度来弥合这一差距。我们询问不同学术领域(特别强调经济学、法学、教育学、政治学和大众传媒/新闻学)的学生在政治和政策观点上是否存在差异。与之前的研究一致,经济学和法学(以及教育学)专业的学生被发现比政治学和大众传媒专业的学生更倾向于右翼。学生对政策工具的总体接受度也有所不同,政治学专业的学生是所有类型工具中接受度最高的。然而,我们发现很少有证据支持林德和彼得斯提出的函授论文。
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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
18.20%
发文量
10
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessing Individuals’ Perceptions of the Impact of Corruption on the Domains of Sustainable Development: A Cross-sectional Study in Palestine Reducing Error Rate in Property Tax Declaration Forms through Simplification and Highlighting Instructions Procedural Challenges of Cross-border Cooperation and Consistency in Personal Data Protection in the EU Hierarchical Clustering of the European Countries from the Perspective of E-government, E-participation, and Human Development Reorganising Local Public Utilities: Where and Why We Can Argue for the Remunicipalization Trends?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1