Are political parties getting in the way of our health? – EurekAlert

image:Political scientists from the University of Rochester and the University of California, San Diego, found that party competition at the state level is linked to increased spending on human capital and infrastructure and measurable improvements in public welfare. view more

Credit: (University of Rochester illustration / Julia Joshpe)

Today, the two major political parties are often blamed for a plethora of problems in American governance. But for most of the last century and a half, political party competition has had positive effects on the welfare of Americans.

Thats according to new research byGerald Gamm, a professor of political science and history at theUniversity of Rochester, andThad Kousser,a political science professor at theUniversity of California, San Diego.

The pair conducted a historical analysis spanning all 50 states for the period 18802010. In the studyLife, Literacy, and the Pursuit of Prosperity: Party Competition and Policy Outcomes in 50 States,published in theAmerican Political Science Reviewthey present two related findings:

Competition between parties is not just healthy for a political system but for the life prospects of the population, says Gamm, whose research focuses on Congress, state legislatures, urban politics, and modern party politics.

The data show that states in which the same party won most elections and held an overwhelming majority of seats in the state legislature were likely to have populations with lower life expectancy, levels of education, and incomecoupled with higher infant mortality. But as soon as competition among parties within a state increased and a second party started winning seats and more elections, state spending on infrastructure and human capital went upand with it, literacy, earnings, and longevity.

We find that states that spend moreand spend more because of party competitionbecome places where children are more likely to survive infancy, where they learn to read and where they graduate from high school, where adults live longer lives, and, at least in the pre-New Deal era, where people earn higher incomes, says Kousser, an expert on term limits, governors, and state politics.

How do the researchers explain the data?

According to Gamm and Kousser, when one party holds overwhelming power, it tends to divide into factions. Moreover, legislators have an incentive to push for pork-barrel projects that narrowly target groups of constituents.

By contrast, when two parties closely compete for control of a statehouse, lawmakers find they can improve their individual reputations by helping their parties pursue a statewide program. Democrats have an incentive to show how they differ from Republicans and vice versa. Demonstrating what their party stands for, not through district bills or pork-barrel spending but through statewide policy making, provides a route to electoral success.

In turn, the authors write, Party competition creates bonds between copartisans from across the state and between the executive and legislative branches, leading both parties to work for programs that benefit a broad set of constituents.

That question has, indeed, hovered over their latest work. Arguably, American politics began changing profoundly in the 1980s. Gamm notes that the last four decades have been a time of unremitting and closely fought party competition in national politics, new social and cultural cleavages, historically high levels of partisan polarization, a collapse in mediating institutions, shifting norms and rules in Congress, geographic sorting, and the growth of social media. Whereas in the past, voters and elites alike agreed on many policy goals, politics nowadays has increasingly become a zero-sum game, with the two major parties in fundamental conflict on most important issues.

In the contemporary environment, we recognize that the historic importance of party competition may be attenuated, negated, or even reversed, the team writes. They caution that the rise of the Democratic Party in this era as a distinctively liberal party may also mean that the party in control matters more now than it did in the past.

With often a lag of decades between cause and effect, Gamm and Kousser posit that readers in a generation or two may conclude that party competitiona hallmark of American politics since the days of Madison, Hamilton, and Jackson and perhaps the nations greatest contribution to modern democracyceased to be beneficial in the 1980s. But its too early to know whether the contemporary shift toward party polarization will prove permanent.

That means our generation cant (yet) render the verdict.

What we show here, they conclude, drawing on a full century of data on party competition and spending, as well as data on health, literacy, and prosperity through 2010, is the central importance of two-party competition to the rise of the American state and the flourishing of the American people.

###

American Political Science Review

Data/statistical analysis

People

Life, Literacy, and the Pursuit of Prosperity: Party Competition and Policy Outcomes in 50 States

2-Nov-2021

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

See the article here:
Are political parties getting in the way of our health? - EurekAlert