Progressive Ideology and Support for Punitive Crime Policy: Evidence from Argentina and Brazil

IF 4.2 1区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Comparative Political Studies Pub Date : 2023-07-31 DOI:10.1177/00104140231193011

Isabel G. Laterzo

{"title":"Progressive Ideology and Support for Punitive Crime Policy: Evidence from Argentina and Brazil","authors":"Isabel G. Laterzo","doi":"10.1177/00104140231193011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholars commonly link citizens’ broader ideological views to their preferences for two opposing approaches to fighting crime: conservatives are believed to support punitive approaches, while progressives support preventative solutions. Yet, other studies indicate that citizens across the ideological spectrum support punitive approaches, often due to instrumental factors such as experiences with and perceptions of crime. This study examines how instrumental factors interact with ideology and determines under what circumstances progressives support punitive candidates. The results of a conjoint experiment fielded in Argentina and Brazil demonstrate that among progressives, the effect of ideology on preferences for punitive candidates is moderated by three instrumental factors: perceptions regarding 1) insecurity, 2) the ineffectiveness of social policy, and 3) gang-driven crime; there are null results regarding the role of victimization. The findings also provide evidence that conservatives prefer punitive candidates regardless of instrumental explanations. The results are validated through an analysis of AmericasBarometer data.","PeriodicalId":10600,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Political Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231193011","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scholars commonly link citizens’ broader ideological views to their preferences for two opposing approaches to fighting crime: conservatives are believed to support punitive approaches, while progressives support preventative solutions. Yet, other studies indicate that citizens across the ideological spectrum support punitive approaches, often due to instrumental factors such as experiences with and perceptions of crime. This study examines how instrumental factors interact with ideology and determines under what circumstances progressives support punitive candidates. The results of a conjoint experiment fielded in Argentina and Brazil demonstrate that among progressives, the effect of ideology on preferences for punitive candidates is moderated by three instrumental factors: perceptions regarding 1) insecurity, 2) the ineffectiveness of social policy, and 3) gang-driven crime; there are null results regarding the role of victimization. The findings also provide evidence that conservatives prefer punitive candidates regardless of instrumental explanations. The results are validated through an analysis of AmericasBarometer data.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

进步意识形态与对犯罪惩罚政策的支持——来自阿根廷和巴西的证据

学者们通常将公民更广泛的意识形态观点与他们对两种相反的打击犯罪方法的偏好联系起来：保守派被认为支持惩罚性方法，而进步派则支持预防性解决方案。然而，其他研究表明，不同意识形态的公民都支持惩罚方法，这通常是由于犯罪经历和认知等工具性因素。这项研究考察了工具性因素如何与意识形态相互作用，并确定了进步派在什么情况下支持惩罚性候选人。在阿根廷和巴西进行的一项联合实验的结果表明，在进步派中，意识形态对惩罚性候选人偏好的影响受到三个工具性因素的调节：1）不安全感，2）社会政策的无效性，以及3）帮派驱动的犯罪；关于受害的作用，没有任何结果。研究结果还提供了证据，表明保守派倾向于惩罚性候选人，而不管工具性解释如何。通过对AmericasBarometer数据的分析对结果进行了验证。

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

Comparative Political Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

8.40

自引率

4.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Comparative Political Studies is a journal of social and political science which publishes scholarly work on comparative politics at both the cross-national and intra-national levels. We are particularly interested in articles which have an innovative theoretical argument and are based on sound and original empirical research. We also encourage submissions about comparative methodology, particularly when methodological arguments are closely linked with substantive issues in the field.