Spring 2010
PS 775 Seminar in Public Policy: State Politics and Policy
Instructor: Prof. Richard Fording, 1655 POT (M-W), 302A Mathews (T-Th)
Phone: 257-9256 Email: rford@uky.edu
Office Hours: Flexible and by appointment
Class Time: Wednesday, 3:30-6:00pm
Location: 217-CB
Course Summary
In this course we will examine theories and related research on state government and the policymaking
process in the U.S. states. The course is divided into three parts. Although this is primarily a course in public policy,
to properly understand and appreciate the policymaking process at the state level, it is necessary to have a detailed
understanding of the political institutions and actors that are responsible for making and implementing policy in the
states. Therefore, for approximately the first third of the semester, this course will resemble a state politics course. In
this section of the course, we will examine a fairly representative set of readings which span a broad range of
political institutions through which policy is made. These institutions include the office of the governor, the state
legislature, the state judicial system, and the various practices of direct democracy across the states.
Part two of the course will be spent studying theories of the state policy process. We will examine a variety
of theories, reflecting a broad range of forces that are thought to play a significant role in shaping state policy
outcomes. As we will see, despite the complex and seemingly idiosyncratic nature of the policymaking process,
state politics scholars have identified many systematic relationships between various institutional and contextual
variables, and state policy outcomes. The insights that have been generated from this literature not only contribute to
our understanding of state policymaking, but in many cases they shed light on debates that are relevant to scholars of
U.S. federal politics, or in some cases, comparative politics.
In the final section of the course, we will examine research in several substantive policy areas which have
traditionally been considered the domain of the states. Our emphasis in this section will be broadened to include not
just studies of policy adoption, but studies of policy implementation and impact as well.
Course Objectives
This course is designed to achieve several important objectives.
 The course is intended to provide a broad overview of the state politics literature. However, I have
designed the course requirements (e.g. the research paper and the book review) in a flexible
fashion that will allow you to obtain a deeper exposure to the literature on a particular topic of
interest to you.
 This is a political science course, and as such we primarily focus on the research that has been
published in the leading political science journals. Yet, the research questions that we will study
are not solely studied by political scientists. Indeed, some of the best research on state politics and
policy has been conducted by scholars in economics, sociology, and the fields of public policy and
public administration. Recognizing this fact, I regularly read the journals from these disciplines
and have included several articles from other social science disciplines in the syllabus. My hope is
that you develop a deeper appreciation for the range of disciplines that study what we would think
of as “political science” questions, as well as the theoretical and methodological approaches that
that social scientists from other disciplines apply to these questions.
 I have chosen to focus almost exclusively on the most current literature in this course. The purpose
of this strategy is to insure that you have the best possible understanding of the current state of the
literature should you decide to publish in this area.
 One important advantage of studying the current literature is that you will be exposed to the most
current and sophisticated methods that are being applied today. Indeed, an important objective of
this course is to deepen your understanding of different research designs, their strengths and
weaknesses, and the application and interpretation of the statistical methods that we will be
reading about in this course. Therefore, I urge you to pay close attention to these details as I expect
we will spend significant time discussing such issues during the seminar.
 Upon successfully completing this course, you should be well prepared to teach your own course
in state politics. In order to achieve this objective, as well to better understand the strengths and
weaknesses of the research we will be reading, it is important that you have a good understanding
of the “nuts and bolts” of state government and state public policies. To achieve this objective, I

have assigned what I call “background reading” for each topic. This reading will not be the focus
of our discussion during the seminar, but rather will provide you with some background on the
topic that will enable to you better assess and critique the research articles you will read each
week.
Finally, this course will provide students with important background and insight that can either
lead to or enhance a research program in state politics and policy. Indeed, several former students
of mine have gone on to write dissertations on such topics as state campaign finance, state welfare
policy, state education policy, and state health policy. Many of these students have also had their
research published in refereed journals.
Format
As this is a graduate seminar, I will not be lecturing to you. Thus, it is up to you to make this course work
by carefully reading the assigned works and actively participating in structured discussions about the material.
Although I may occasionally interject a 10-15 minute lecture on a substantive or methodological issue, I plan to
keep this to a minimum. My role in the course is mostly to clarify issues that seem unclear and to steer us back on
track when the discussion wanders off course.
Required Text
Gray, Virginia, and Russell Hanson, eds. 2008. Politics in the American States. 9th Edition. Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Quarterly Press.
Course Requirements
Your grade for the course will consist of several components:
Class Discussion. Class discussion will be led each week by a pair of discussion leaders. The discussion
leaders bear the responsibility of coordinating the discussion (in a general sense) for that week. There are
several responsibilities for discussion leaders, and they should share the burden (equally) of these
responsibilities.
1. For each journal article (i.e. this does not apply to assigned chapters in the textbook), the discussion
leaders are to prepare 1-2 page article summaries/outlines and distribute these to the class on the day
that the seminar meets (you may distribute these by email if you like - as long as it is done by the night
before class).
2. The discussion leaders will begin the class with an overview and introduction to the topic and the day’s
readings that should last no longer than 10-15 minutes. You are encouraged to reference other
materials and classic works here if relevant. In your comments, you should try to talk in general terms
about the readings, rather than talk about each article individually. Examples of some of the questions
you might discuss in your introduction might include the following: What do these articles have in
common (research question, research design, etc.)? What separates these studies (how are they
different)? How do they build from the existing literature? How do they contribute to knowledge?
3. After the opening remarks, discussion leaders will proceed to review each article as if they were a
discussant at a conference. This would include (i) a short summary of the article – including the
research question, the research design, and the findings, (ii) what you liked about the article and what
it contributes to our understanding of the topic, and (iii) the article’s weaknesses and how the research
might have overcome these weaknesses. Strengths and weaknesses should include BOTH theoretical
and methodological issues. Each review - including summary and critique - should last no more than
10 minutes.
4. Discussion leaders are responsible for leading discussion after they have reviewed the articles.
Basically, the discussion leaders should act as the ‘moderator” for the articles they have just discussed.
At the very least, this should take the form of reaction and response to the discussion leader’s
comments from other students in the class. But the discussion leaders might also consider formulating
one or two discussion questions for each article to help direct and stimulate class discussion.
5. I invite and even encourage the discussion leaders to meet with me before class if they would like
discuss their “plan” for that week’s class. That will allow me the opportunity to “steer” you in the
right direction if you feel somewhat lost or allow me to make sure you address a certain set of points.
6.
On days that you will not be serving as a discussion leader, your job is to react to the comments and
questions of the discussion leaders, and to offer your own thoughts about the strengths and weaknesses
of the articles.
Your grade for this component of the course will be based on both your performance as discussion leader
and as a participant during the remaining weeks. You will receive a grade after each class based on your
performance, and your final grade for this component of the course will be a simple average of these individual
grades.
Book review. Each student will pick one topic from the course outline and read an important/classic book
that is relevant to the topic. The student will write a book review (approximately 5-7 double-spaced pages in
length), which will be presented in class (10-15 minutes). The student should also provide a 1-2 page
summary/outline of the book for each student on the day of the presentation (this may be distributed by email if you
prefer). The student has the option of substituting a set of articles (perhaps 7-8 articles not covered in class) which
address a specific research question that is relevant to the course. You must have the book or article collection
approved by me in advance. Ideally, you would turn in and present your book review during the week that we cover
the general topic in class. However, I realize that this is not always possible (especially for the first few weeks of
class). In those cases, we will work together to schedule the due date.
Course Paper. Each student is required to write and present a major research paper on a topic relevant to
this course. You may choose from three types of projects.
1.
2.
3.
You may write a comprehensive literature review for a topic of your choice. The narrowness of the
topic will determine how much detail should be provided for the reviewed works, but in all cases the
review should be comprehensive. The review should focus on both the theoretical and methodological
development of the literature, in addition to the findings. It is probably not possible to write a good
paper in less than 30 double-spaced pages (including references).
You may write a research note. In this case, you will provide a short literature review to introduce a
specific research question, generate a set of hypotheses, and test them in some way. The entire paper
should run about 15-20 pages (minimum), including tables, figures and references.
You may write a research design. In this assignment, you will (1) introduce a research question, (2)
provide a brief review of prior work, (3) a justification for your research question, (4) a detailed
description of a research design that will answer the question, and (4) a concluding section in which
you discuss the potential contributions and the major limitations of the proposed research. I expect this
assignment would run about 25 pages (minimum).
Your grade for the paper will consist in part (5%) on your presentation of your paper, which will take place
on the last day of class. In writing the paper, you are required to follow the official style guidelines of a
major journal in your field, or the Chicago Manual of Style. I will mark your grade down for failure to
consistently follow these guidelines, and as well for more general stylistic deficiencies. The final due date
for the paper is Friday, April 30th @ 4:30pm.
Final Exam. There will be a take-home final exam that will be administered during final exam week. More
details will be provided at a later date.
Your final grade will be calculated as follows:
Class Discussion: 25%
Book Review: 15%
Course Paper: 30%
Final Exam: 30%
Reading Schedule (* = background reading)
Part I. State Politics and the Institutional Context of State Policymaking
Week 1 (January 20) – Governors (Discussion Leader: Fording)
*Beyle, Thad, and Margaret Ferguson. 2008. “Governors and the Executive Branch.” Chapter 7 in Gray and
Hanson, eds. 2007. Politics in the American States. 9th Edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
*Gross, Donald A. 1989. “Governors and Policymaking: Theoretical Concerns and Analytic Approaches.” Policy
Studies Journal. 17:764-787.
Atkeson, Lonna Rae, and Randall W. Partin. 1995. "Economic and Referendum Voting: A Comparison of
Gubernatorial and Senatorial Elections." American Political Science Review. 89:99-107.
Cohen, Jeffrey, and James D. King. 2004. “Relative Unemployment and Gubernatorial Popularity.” Journal of
Politics 66(4): 1267-1282.
Kubik, Jeffrey D., and John R. Moran. 2003. “Lethal Elections: Gubernatorial Politics and the Timing of
Executions.” Journal of Law and Economics Volume XLVI (1): 1-26.
Barrilleaux, Charles J. and Michael Berkman. 2003. “Do Governors Matter? Budget Rules and
the Politics of State Policymaking.” Political Research Quarterly 56(4):409–417.
Besley, Timothy, and Anne Case. 1995. “Does Electoral Accountability Affect Economic Policy Choices?
Evidence from Gubernatorial Term Limits.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 110, No. 3 (Aug., 1995), pp.
769-798.
Klarner, Carl, and Andrew Karch. 2008. “Why Do Governors Issue Vetoes? The Impact of Individual and
Institutional Influences.” Political Research Quarterly 2008; 61; 574-584.
Week 2 (January 27) – State Legislatures: Professionalism and the Incumbency Advantage (Discussion Leaders: )
*Hamm, Keith, and Gary F. Moncrief. 2008. “Legislative Politics in the States.” Chapter 6 in Gray, Virginia, and
Russell Hanson, eds. Politics in the American States. 9th Edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
James D. King . 2000. “Changes in Professionalism in U. S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol.
25, No. 2. (May, 2000), pp. 327-343.
Fiorina, Morris P. 1994. "Divided Government in the American States: A Byproduct of Legislative
Professionalism?" American Political Science Review. 88:304-316.

Stonecash, Jeffrey M., Anna M. Agathangelou. 1997. "Trends in the Partisan Composition of State
Legislatures: A Response to Fiorina." American Political Science Review. 91:148-155.

Fiorina, Morris P. 1997. "Professionalism, Realignment, and Representation." American Political Science
Review. 91:156-162

Fiorina, Morris P. 1999. “Further Evidence of the Partisan Consequences of Legislative Professionalism.”
American Journal of Political Science 43(3): 974-77.

Meinke S.R.; Hasecke E.B. 2003. “Term Limits, Professionalization, and Partisan Control in U.S. State
Legislatures.” Journal of Politics, August 2003, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 898-908(11).
William D. Berry; Michael B. Berkman; Stuart Schneiderman. 2000. “Legislative Professionalism and
Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries.” American Political Science Review,
Vol. 94, No. 4. (Dec., 2000), pp. 182-206.
Hirano, Shigeo, and James M. Snyder, Jr. 2009. “Using Multi-Member Districts to Decompose the
Incumbency Advantage." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 53, No. 2, April 2009, Pp. 292–306.
Chen, Jowei, and Neil Malhotra. 2007. “The Law of k/n: The Effect of Chamber Size on Government
Spending in Bicameral Legislatures.” American Political Science Review. 101(4): 657-676.
Week 3 (February 3) – State Legislatures and Representation (Discussion Leaders: )
L. Marvin Overby; Kenneth M. Cosgrove. 1996. “Unintended Consequences? Racial Redistricting and the
Representation of Minority Interests.” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 58, No. 2. (May, 1996), pp. 540-550.
Lublin, David and D. Stephen Voss. 2000. “Racial Redistricting and Realignment in Southern State
Legislatures.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, No. 4., pp. 792-810.
Gay, Claudine. 2007. “Legislating Without Constraints: The Effect of Minority Districting on Legislators’
Responsiveness to Constituency Preferences.” Journal of Politics Vol. 69, No. 2, May 2007, pp. 442–456.
Gerald C. Wright, Brian F. Schaffner. 2002. The influence of party: evidence from the state legislatures
American Political Science Review June v96 p367.
Kousser, Thad, Jeffrey Lewis and Seth Masket. 2007. “Ideological Adaptation? The Survival Instinct of
Threatened Legislators.” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 69, No. 3, August 2007, pp. 828–843.
Hogan, Robert E. 2008. “Policy Responsiveness and Incumbent Reelection in State Legislatures,”
American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 858-73.
Week 4 (February 10) – State Courts (Discussion Leaders: )
*Hall, Melinda Gann. 2008. “State Courts: Politics and the Judicial Process.” Chapter 8 in Gray, Virginia, and
Russell Hanson, eds. Politics in the American States. 9th Edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Huber, Gregory A. and Gordon, Sanford C. 2004. “Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind when It Runs for
Office?” American Journal of Political Science 48, no. 2 (2004): 247-263.
Hall, Melinda Gann, and Chris W. Bonneau. 2006. “Does Quality Matter? Challengers in State Supreme
Court Elections.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 2006, Pp. 20–33.
Hall, Melinda Gann, and Chris W. Bonneau. 2008. “Mobilizing Interest: The Effects of Money on Citizen
Participation in State Supreme Court Elections” American Journal of Political Science 52 (July): 457-470.
Gibson, James L. 2008. “Challenges to the Impartiality of State Supreme Courts: Legitimacy Theory and
‘New-Style’ Judicial Campaigns.” American Political Science Review 102 (#1, February): 59-75.
Boyea, Brent D., and Paul Brace. 2008. “State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty and the Practice of Electing
Judges,” American Journal of Political Science, 52(2): 360-372.
Langer, Laura, and Paul Brace. 2005. “The Preemptive Power of State Supreme Courts: Adoption of Abortion and
Death Penalty Legislation.” Policy Studies Journal 33(3): 317-340.
Week 5 (February 17) – Direct Democracy in the States (Discussion Leaders: )
*Bowler, Shaun, and Todd Donovan. 2008. The Initiative Process. Chapter 8 in Gray, Virginia, and Russell
Hanson, eds. Politics in the American States. 9th Edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Smith Daniel A., and Dustin Fridkin. 2008. “Delegating Direct Democracy: Interparty Legislative Competition
and the Adoption of the Initiative in the American States,” American Political Science Review 102: 333-50.
Smith,Mark A. 2002. Ballot Initiatives and the Democratic Citizen. Journal of Politics 64(3):892–903.
Scholzman, Daniel, and Ian Yohai. 2008. “How Initiatives Don’t Always Make Citizens:Ballot Initiatives in the
American States, 1978-2004.” Political Behavior 30(4):46989.
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2002. “The Effect of Direct Democracy on the Size and Diversity of State Interest Group
Populations.” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 64, No. 3. (Aug., 2002), pp. 827-844.
Donovan, Todd, Caroline Tolbert, and Daniel A. Smith. 2008. “Priming Presidential Votes by Direct Democracy,”
Journal of Politics 70: 1217-31.
Stratman, Thomas. 2006. “Is Spending More Potent For or Against a Proposition? Evidence from Ballot Measures.”
American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50, No. 3, July 2006, Pp. 788–801.
Part II. Theories of State Policymaking
Week 6 (February 24) – Party Control and Competition (Discussion Leaders: )
*Dye, Thomas. 1979. "Politics vs. Economics: The Development of Literature on Policy Determinism." Policy
Studies Journal. 7:652-662.
Dawson, Richard E. and Robinson, James A. 1963. “Interparty Competition, Economic Variables, and Welfare
Policies in the American States.” Journal of Politics 25(May): 265-89.
Jennings, Edward T. 1979. “Competition, Constituencies, and Welfare Policies in the States.” American Political
Science Review 73(June): 414-29.
Brown, Robert D. 1995. "Party Cleavages and Welfare Effort in the American States." American Political Science
Review. 89:23-33.
Erikson, Robert S.; Wright, Gerald C.; McIver, John P. 1989. “Political parties, public opinion, and state policy in
the United States.” American Political Science Review v. 83 (Sept. '89) p. 729-50.
Charles Barrilleaux, Thomas Holbrook, Laura Langer. 2002. Electoral competition, legislative balance, and
American state welfare policy. American Journal of Political Science v46 i2 p415(13)
Alt, James E., and Robert C. Lowry. 2000. “A Dynamic Model of State Budget Outcomes under Divided Partisan
Government.” Journal of Politics 62 (4): 1035–69.


McAtee, Andrea, Susan Webb Yackee, and David Lowery. 2003. “Reexamining the Dynamic Model of
Divided Partisan Government.” Journal of Politics 65 (2): 477–90.
Alt, J., R. Lowry. 2003. “Party Differences in State Budget Outcomes Are There After All: Response
to ‘Reexamining the Dynamic Model of Divided Partisan Government’,” The Journal of Politics 65:
491-497.
Week 7 (March 3) – Mass Influences on Public Policy in the States (Discussion Leaders: )
*Burstein Paul. 2003. “The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda.” Political
Research Quarterly 56 (1): 29-40.
*Berry, William D., Evan J. Ringquist, Richard C. Fording, and Russell L. Hanson. 1998. "Measuring Citizen and
Government Ideology in the American States." American Journal of Political Science. 42:337-348.
Wright, Gerald C.; Erikson, Robert S.; McIver, John P. 1987. “Public opinion and policy liberalism in the
American states. American Journal of Political Science v. 31 (Nov.) p. 980-100.
Hill, Kim Quaille, Jan E. Leighley, and Angela Hinton-Andersson. 1995. "Lower-Class Mobilization and Policy
Linkage in the U.S. States." American Journal of Political Science. 39:75-86.
Elisabeth R. Gerber. 1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of
Political Science, Vol. 40, No. 1. (Feb.), pp. 99-128.
Lax, Jeffrey R. and Justin H. Phillips. 2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.”
American Political Science Review Vol. 103, No. 3 August 2009.
Gamble, Barbara S. 1997. "Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote." American Journal of Political Science. 41:245269.
 Response to Gamble: Todd Donovan; Shaun Bowler. 1998. “Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: An
Extension.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 42, No. 3., pp. 1020-1024.
Lascher, Edward L., Jr., Michael G. Hagen, and Steven A. Rochlin. 1996. "Gun Behind the Door? Ballot Initiatives,
State Policies, and Public Opinion." Journal of Politics. 58:760-775.
 Matsusaka, John. 2001. “Problems with a Methodology Used to Evaluate the Voter Initiative.” Journal of
Politics 63:1250–56.
 Hagen, Michael, Edward Lascher, and John Camobreco. 2001. “Response to Matsusaka: Estimating the
Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Policy Responsiveness.” Journal of Politics 63:1257–1263.
Week 8 (March 10) – Race, Ethnicity and Public Policy (Discussion Leaders: )
*Hutchings, Vincent L., and Nicholas A. Valentino. 2004. "The Centrality of Race in American Politics." Annual
Review of Political Science 7(May):383-408.
Hero, Rodney and Caroline Tolbert. 1996. “A racial/ethnic interpretation of politics and policy in the states of the
U.S.” American Journal of Political Science, 40, 851-871.
Tolbert, Caroline J., and Rodney E. Hero. 2001. "Dealing with Diversity: Racial/Ethnic Context and Social Policy
Change." Political Research Quarterly 54(September):571- 604.
Kathleen A. Bratton; Kerry L. Haynie. 1999. “Agenda Setting and Legislative Success in State Legislatures: The
Effects of Gender and Race.” Journal of Politics, Vol. 61, No. 3. (Aug., 1999), pp. 658-679.
Preuhs, Robert. 2006. “The Conditional Effects of Minority Descriptive Representation: Black Legislators and
Policy Influence in the American States.” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 68, No. 3, August 2006, pp. 585–599.
Preuhs, Robert R. 2007. “Descriptive Representation as a Mechanism to Mitigate PolicyBacklash." Political
Research Quarterly 60(2):277-92.
Soss, Joe, Richard C. Fording, and Sanford F. Schram. 2008. “The Color of Devolution: Race, Federalism, and the
Politics of Social Control.” American Journal of Political Science 52, 3 (July): 536-553.
Spring Break – March 15-19
Week 9 (March 24) – Competitive Federalism and the Race to the Bottom (Discussion Leaders: )
*Jan K. Brueckner. 2000. “Welfare Reform and the Race to the Bottom: Theory and Evidence.” Southern Economic
Journal v66 i3 p505.
Peterson, Paul E. and Mark C. Rom. 1989. “American Federalism, Welfare Policy and Residential Choices.”
American Political Science Review 83:711-28.
Bailey, Michael A. 2005. “Welfare and the Multifaceted Decision to Move.” American Political Science Review
99, no. 1: 125-135.
Berry, William D., Richard C. Fording and Russell Hanson. 2003. "Reassessing the 'Race to the Bottom' in State
Welfare Policy." Journal of Politics 65, no. 2(May): 327-349.
Bailey, Michael A., and Mark C. Rom. 2004. “A Wider Race? Interstate Competition across Health and Welfare
Programs. Journal of Politics 66, no. 2: 326-347.
Timothy Besley; Anne Case. 1995. “Incumbent Behavior: Vote-Seeking, Tax-Setting, and Yardstick
Competition.”American Economic Review, Vol. 85, No. 1. (Mar.), pp. 25-45.
David M. Konisky. 2007. “Regulatory Competition and Environmental Enforcement: Is There a Race to the
Bottom?” American Journal of Political Science 51(4): 853-872.
Week 10 (March 31) – Policy Innovation and Diffusion (Discussion Leaders: )
*Berry, Frances Stokes, and William D. Berry. 1998. "Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research." In
Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Paul Sabatier. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Walker, Jack L. 1969. "The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States." American Political Science
Review 63: 880-899.
Berry, Frances Stokes, and William D. Berry. 1990. "State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event
History Analysis." American Political Science Review. 84:395-416.
Craig Volden. 2006. “States as Policy Laboratories: Emulating Success in the Children’s Health Insurance
Program.”
Charles Shipan and Craig Volden. 2006. “Bottom-Up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from U.S.
Cities to States.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50, No. 4, October 2006, Pp. 825–843.
Volden, Craig, and Charles Shipan. 2008. “The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion.” American Journal of Political
Science 52(4): 840‐857.
Nicholson-Crotty, Sean. “The Politics of Diffusion: Public Policy in the American States.” Journal of Politics. Vol.
71, No. 1, January 2009, Pp. 192–205.
Part III. Substantive Areas of Focus
Week 11 (April 7) – Welfare Reform in the States (Discussion Leaders: )
*Mark Rom. 2008. “Transforming State Health and Welfare Programs.” Chapter 11 in Gray, Virginia, and Russell
Hanson, eds. Politics in the American States. 9th Edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
*Rebecca M. Blank. 2002. “Evaluating Welfare Reform in the United States.” Journal of Economic Literature,
Vol. 40, No. 4. (Dec.), pp. 1105-1166.
Joe Soss; Sanford F. Schram; Thomas P. Vartanian; Erin O'Brien. 2001. “Setting the Terms of Relief: Explaining
State Policy Choices in the Devolution Revolution.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, No. 2. (Apr.,
2001), pp. 378-395.
Matthew C. Fellowes, Gretchen Rowe. 2004. “Politics and the New American Welfare States.” American Journal of
Political Science 48 (2), 362–373.
Rodney E. Hero and Robert R. Preuhs. 2007. “Immigration and the Evolving American Welfare State: Examining
Policies in the U.S. States.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, No. 3, July 2007, Pp. 498–517.
Meyers, M.K., Gornick, J.C. & Peck, L. (2001). Packaging Support for Low Income Families: Policy
Variation Across the U.S. States. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(3), 457-486.
Ziliak, James P., David Figlio, Elizabeth Davis, and Laura Connolly. 2000. “Accounting for the Decline in AFDC
Caseloads: Welfare Reform or the Economy?,” Journal of Human Resources 35(3): 570–586.
Ewalt, Jo Ann, and Edward T. Jennings, Jr. 2004. “Administration, Governance, and Policy Tools in Welfare
Implementation.” Public Administration Review 64(4):449-462.
Week 12 (April 14) – Criminal Justice Policy in the States (Discussion Leaders: )
*Wooldredge, John. 2008. “Corrections Policy in the States.” Chapter 9 in Gray, Virginia, and Russell Hanson, eds.
Politics in the American States. 9th Edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
*Steven D. Levitt. 2004. “Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors That Explain the Decline and
Six That Do Not.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Winter, 2004), pp. 163-190 [read only if
interested]
Stucky, Thomas D., Karen Heimer, and Joseph B. Lang. 2005. “Partisan Politics, Electoral Competition, and
Imprisonment: An Analysis of States over Time.” Criminology 43:211–48.
 *Kevin B. Smith. 2004. “The Politics of Punishment: Evaluating Political Explanations of Incarceration
Rates.” The Journal of Politics 66 (3), 925–938.
Jeff Yates, Richard Fording. 2005. “Politics and State Punitiveness in Black and White.” The Journal of Politics 67
(4), 1099–1121.
Behrens, Angela, Christopher Uggen, and Jeff Manza. 2003. “Ballot Manipulation and the ‘Menace of Negro
Domination’: Racial Threat and Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850–2002.” American Journal of
Sociology 109:559–605.
 *Christopher Uggen; Jeff Manza , “Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon
Disenfranchisement in the United States,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 67, No. 6. (Dec., 2002), pp.
777-803.
Mocan, H. Naci, and Gittings, R. Kaj. "Getting off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of
Capital Punishment." Journal of Law and Economics 46 (2003): 45378.
Kuziemko, Ilyana, Levitt, Steven D., 2004. “An empirical analysis of imprisoning drug offenders.” Journal of
Public Economics 88, 2043–2066.
Donohue, John, and Steven Levitt. 2001. “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime.” Quarterly Journal of
Economics 116(2):379– 420.
 *Joyce, Theodore. 2003. “Did Legalized Abortion Lower Crime?” Journal of Human Resources,
38(1):1– 37.
 *Donohue, J. J., & Levitt, S. D. (2004). Further evidence that legalized abortion lowered crime: A reply
to Joyce. The Journal of Human Resources, XXXIX(1), 29–49.
Week 13 (April 21) – Health, Education and Morality Policies (Discussion Leaders: )
*Mark Rom. 2008. “Transforming State Health and Welfare Programs.” Chapter 11 in Gray, Virginia, and Russell
Hanson, eds. Politics in the American States. 9th Edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
*Kenneth Wong. 2008. “The Politics of Education.” Chapter 12 in Gray, Virginia, and Russell Hanson, eds.
Politics in the American States. 9th Edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
*Christopher Z. Mooney. 2000. “The Decline of Federalism and the Rise of Morality-Policy Conflict in the United
States.” Publius Wntr-Spring p171
Health
Grogan, Colleen M. 1994. "Political-Economic Factors Influencing State Medicaid Policy." Political Research
Quarterly 48:403-16.
 Grogan, C. M. 1996. “Correction Note: Political-Economic Factors Influencing State Medicaid
Policy.” Political Research Quarterly 49:673– 675.
Kousser, Thad. 2002. The Politics of Discretionary Medicaid Spending, 1980–1993. Journal of Health Politics,
Policy and Law 27:639– 671.
Education
Wood, B. D., & Theobald, N. A. 2003. “Political responsiveness and equity in public education finance.” Journal of
Politics, 65(3), 718-738.
Hicklin, Alisa and Kenneth J. Meier. 2008. “Race, Structure, and State Governments: The Politics of Higher
Education Diversity.” Journal of Politics. 70(3): 851-860.
Morality Policies
Mooney, Christopher Z., and Mei-Hsien Lee. 1995. "Legislating Morality in the American States: The Case of PreRoe Abortion Regulation Reform." American Journal of Political Science. 39:599-627.
Patton, Dana J. 2007. “The Supreme Court and Morality Policy Adoption in the American States: The Impact of
Constitutional Context”. Political Research Quarterly. September.
Week 14 (April 28) – Student Presentations (30 minutes each)