Geographic Differences of Individual Views toward the Role of Government

Authors

  • Daniel Fudge University of Mississippi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-779X.2020.37.2.71-96

Abstract

Government, through the provision of public services, plays an integral role in the lives of American citizens.  In consequence, public opinion of government involvement has been consistently measured through the use of national surveys in order to better evaluate the public’s reaction to specific public policies.  While measuring of aggregate public opinions on government involvement is valuable, there are certainly differences across various groups of Americans.  The United States may be divided when it comes to partisanship and ideology, but perhaps there are also significant divisions between Americans based on their geography, or “place”.  Using data from the American National Election Survey from 1994-2008, this study examines the differences in opinion on government spending towards public services, welfare programs, and Social Security.  Rooted in the idea that different “places” harbor varying degrees of support for the government, I hypothesize that the role of government is viewed differently between urban and rural America, further demonstrating that America experiences an urban-rural division in regard to perceptions of American politics.  The findings demonstrate that ideology drives Americans’ support for these specific policies and that “place” can serve as a conditioning effect on the standard ideological view.  Specifically, liberals living in rural areas are less supportive of government spending than their liberal counterparts living in more urban areas.  Additionally, rural liberals are less supportive of welfare spending; however, are more supportive of Social Security than liberals from urban areas.

References

Agnew, John A. (1987). Place and Politics: The Geographical Mediation of State and Society. Winchester, MA: Allen & Unwin, Inc.

American National Election Studies (www.electionstudies.org). These materials are based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers SES 1444721,2014-2017, the University of Michigan, and Stanford University.

Associated Press-NORC Long-Term Care Poll, 2013-2018. (2018).

Bell, Michael. (1992). “The Fruit of Difference: The Rural-Urban Continuum as a System of Identity.” Rural Sociology 57 (1): 65-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1992.tb00457.x

Bishop, Bill. (2009). The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart. Mariner Books.

Blokland, Talja & Mike Savage. (2001). “Networks, Class and Place.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 (2): 221-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00308

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, & Donald E. Stokes. (1960). The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cho, Wendy K. Tam, James G. Gimpel, & Iris S. Hui. (2013). Voter Migration and the Geographic Sorting of the American Electorate. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(4), 856-870. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.720229

Clinton, Bill. (1996). State of the Union Address. January 23, 1996. https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/New/other/sotu.html

Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self- identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 617-645. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2110756

Cramer, Katherine J. (2016). The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness and the Rise of Scott Walker. University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226349251.001.0001

Ellis, Christopher & Stimson, James. (2012). Ideology in America. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139094009

Gimpel, James G., and Jason E. Schuknecht. (2003). Patchwork Nation: Sectionalism and Political Change in American Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.17820

Goren, P. (2003). Race, Sophistication, and White Opinion on Government Spending. Political Behavior, 25(3), 201-220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025121406460

Goren, P. (2008). The Two Faces of Government Spending. Political Research Quarterly, 61(1), 147-157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907311881

Green, Donald P., Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. (2002). Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hopkins, David. (2017). Red Fighting Blue: How Geography and Electoral Rules Polarize American Politics. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108123594

Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., & Sprague, J. (1999). Accessibility and the Political Utility of Partisan and Ideological Orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 888-911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2991839

Ingram D.D & Franco S.F. (2014). 2013 NCHS Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2(166).

Jacoby, W. (1994). Public Attitudes toward Government Spending. American Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 336-361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2111407

Jacoby, W. (2000). Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending. American Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 750-767. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2669279

Jacoby, W. (2006). Value Choices and American Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 706-723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00211.x

McDonald, Ian. (2011). Migration and Sorting in the American Electorate: Evidence from the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. American Politics Research, 39(3), 512-533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X10396303

McKee, Seth. (2008). Rural Voters and the Polarization of American Presidential Elections. PS: Political Science and Politics, 41(1), 101-108.

Misra, Tanvi. (2018). Rural and Urban America Have More in Common Than You Think. CityLab. https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/05/rural-and-urban-america-have-more-in-common-than-you-think/560783/?utm_source=citylab-daily&silverid=NDY5NTk2NTQwMTc0S0.

Nelson, T., & Kinder, D. (1996). Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion. The Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1055-1078. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2960149

Pickering, A., & Rockey, J. (2011). Ideology and the Growth of Government. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93, 907-919. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00101

Popkin, Samuel L. (1994). The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reagan, Ronald. (1986). “The President’s News Conference.” https://www.reaganfoundation.org/ronald-reagan/reagan-quotes-speeches/news-conference-1/

Rudolph, T., & Evans, J. (2005). Political Trust, Ideology, and Public Support for Government Spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 660-671. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00148.x

Scala, D. J., & Johnson, K. M. (2017). Political Polarization along the Rural-Urban Continuum? The Geography of the Presidential Vote, 2000–2016.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 672(1), 162–184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716217712696

Walsh, K. (2012). Putting Inequality in Its Place: Rural Consciousness and the Power of Perspective. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 517-532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000305

Downloads

Published

2020-12-22

Issue

Vol. 37 No. 2 (2020)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.