↓ 跳过正文

Survey Experiment

Beyond monolithic state logic: how top-down accountability shapes policy implementation

·475 字·1 分钟
Polihot 公共行政 公共政策 Accountability Policy Implementation Institutional Logics Survey Experiment Public Administration
PMR — pp. 1-30 2026-08-26 Original Beyond monolithic state logic: how top-down accountability shapes policy implementation W. G. Will Zhao Abstract How does top-down accountability shape policy implementation? Drawing on institutional logics, this paper distinguishes two state sub-logics: ‘high-stakes context logic’ emphasizing centralized control during crises, and ‘routine governance logic’ allowing discretion during day-to-day administration. These sub-logics condition the perceived legitimacy of accountability demands, felt accountability, and behavioural responses. A survey experiment with over 800 public service respondents shows that, under high-stakes logic, intensified accountability progressively improve compliance, whereas under routine logic, moderate accountability produces optimal compliance, with high-intensity accountability yielding diminishing returns. These findings challenge binary views of accountability and reveal how within-logic variations may alter governance mechanisms.

Americans favor predistributive over redistributive economic policies

·825 字·2 分钟
Polihot 政治行为 公共政策 Predistribution Redistribution Economic Inequality Public Opinion Survey Experiment
PNAS 123/33 pp. e2617191123-e2617191123 2026-08-10 Original Americans favor predistributive over redistributive economic policies David Broska, Jonne Kamphorst, Robb Willer Abstract Redistributive policies designed to reduce economic inequality through taxes and transfers (e.g., safety-net benefits funded by progressive taxation) receive less support in the United States than in many Western democracies. Recent work suggests Americans may be more receptive to "predistributive" policies, which seek to reduce economic inequality before taxes and transfers (e.g., minimum-wage increases). Yet existing evidence leaves open whether this support gap characterizes contemporary Americans overall, and whether it persists when the same policy proposals are described in predistributive vs. redistributive terms, with their core provisions held constant. Across 31 national U.S. survey waves from 2015 to 2024 (total [Formula: see text]), we find greater support for policies classified as predistributive than redistributive. We then fielded a preregistered experiment with a national U.S. sample ([Formula: see text]), randomly varying whether otherwise identical policy proposals were described as increasing earnings for people lower in the income distribution, shifting resources from higher- to lower-income individuals, or presented only with the policy description given in all conditions. Support was higher under predistributive than redistributive descriptions. Comparison with the control condition clarifies this difference: Predistributive descriptions received support comparable to control, whereas redistributive descriptions received lower support. Exploratory analyses suggest perceived respect for hard work and beneficiary deservingness were associated with the support gap. Together, these results suggest Americans prefer policies that reduce inequality by influencing earnings more than through taxes and transfers.

Still Instrumentally Inclusive

·620 字·2 分钟
Polihot 政治行为 研究方法 LGBT+ Inclusion Homonationalism Immigration Attitudes Survey Experiment Replication
APSR — pp. 1-9 2026-07-28 Original Still Instrumentally Inclusive STUART J. TURNBULL-DUGARTE, ALBERTO LÓPEZ ORTEGA Abstract Do individuals in Western democracies shift their views on LGBT+ inclusion when exposed to opposition from Muslim out-groups? And is this “homonationalist” responsiveness stronger among anti-immigration individuals? Our article “Instrumentally inclusive [...]” addressed these questions using representative data from Britain (Study 1) and crowd-sourced data from Spain (Study 2). We revisit Study 2 in response to concerns about post-stratification weighting a convenience sample and erroneously inconsistent use of robust standard errors. Varying population reference parameters, weight caps, variance estimators, subgroup definitions, and covariate adjustments, we find strong support for the original findings. Neither reasonable alternative weighting schemes nor corrected variance estimators substantively change the results. In fact, the originally published point estimates are equal to or smaller than the median across alternative specifications. Consistent with the Article, we find that treatment increases support for LGBT+ inclusion in Spain, without consistent identifiable variation by immigration attitudes.