« Do economists think TV is good for you? | Main | Is this a sustainable business model? »
Why are governors in small states so popular?
Ezra Klein channels Andrew Gelman:
...small states tend to be more approving of their governors. Why? Gelman has some theories: "In a large state, there will be more ambitious politicians on the other side, eager to knock off the incumbent governor; small states often have part-time legislatures and thus the governor is involved in less political conflict; small states (notably Alaska) tend to get more funds per capita from the federal government, and it’s easier to be popular when you can disburse more funds; large states tend to be more heterogeneous and so it’s harder to keep all the voters happy. As the graphs show, the pattern isn’t perfect, but it looks real to me."
I have an additional hypothesis. People from small states, especially atypical small states, sometimes have an inferiority complex vis-a-vis the other states or regions. Taking pride in their politicians is one way of compensating for that. Furthermore there is often less to do in underpopulated states and is not pride sometimes a substitute for action? New Yorkers are not in fact so proud of the Metropolitan Opera, but in parts of Wisconsin the Green Bay Packers are king.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 6, 2008 at 07:34 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Or perhaps government really does work better in a smaller polity.
Posted by: Cyrus at Sep 6, 2008 9:18:13 AM
Ummmmm... and Yankees fans? Eagles fans? Patriots fans? Pride for those organizations could be be greater.
Posted by: O at Sep 6, 2008 9:40:15 AM
There are fewer degrees of separation between the governor of a small state and the average citizen than in a big state. So even those who disagree with the governor politically are more likely to see him as a human being, not some remote figure. They met him at a dinner, or know a top staffer or relative, etc., and so are more inclined to give credit for effort.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Sep 6, 2008 9:41:27 AM
From purely random considerations you would expect governors in small states to be most popular and the most unpopular - see 2006 graph. In a big state the mean is less variable.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Sep 6, 2008 9:47:13 AM
I agree with Bernard Yomtov; you're much more likely to have met your politicians personally in small states (just as you're much more likely to have met your local politicians, really). Growing up in West Virginia I met Robert C. Byrd on several occasions, and lobbied Rockefeller once, and in neither occasion did I have to go out of my way to meet them -- they came to places I was; having spent almost a decade in Massachusetts now, I've come nowhere close to meeting Kerry or Kennedy, despite having taught at a school they both attended.
(I intentionally use senators rather than governors here because WV governors are not necessarily popular as they tend to be riddled with scandal. But it would have been easy to meet my governors as well had I been motivated to do so.)
I also think that, in smaller states, governors are more likely to be involved with more local politics. One, this makes them more visible, and two, local politics tend to be less partisan. In a heavily partisan environment it's hard to be popular with more than x% of people, where x = "your party plus the independents", but if you're dealing with issues like school funding or road maintenance where there aren't necessarily partisan lines, people just want to see that you delivered for them, and if you did, they'll like you, regardless of party.
Posted by: Andromeda at Sep 6, 2008 9:53:41 AM
Note that these aren't smaller states: they are states with smaller populations. Though in large states with small populations, those populations tend to congregate in one or two centers.
Posted by: meter at Sep 6, 2008 11:07:25 AM
Alex,
Yes, there is more variability in small states. But the mean is higher in small states too, in 2006 and also in 2008.
Posted by: Andrew Gelman at Sep 6, 2008 11:49:32 AM
How about people in small states get to know their governors better? It's like ministers of parliament in many countries.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Sep 6, 2008 12:10:42 PM
"People from small states, especially atypical small states, sometimes have an inferiority complex vis-a-vis the other states or regions"
I spent most of my life in Oklahoma, and I can vouch for this. The most perverse example was the OKC Murrah Building bombing. While everyone was horrified, a lot of people seemed to take some sort of pride in all the attention it brought. We've been quick to build memorials for things like bridge collapses since then.
Another example: the city of Tulsa seriously considered helping fund a project to build a 21-story statue of an Indian. This was spearheaded by a huckster or visionary whose design was rejected for our capital dome (but likely would have been accepted by the Franklin Mint for Sunday supplements).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_(statue)
Posted by: burger flipper at Sep 6, 2008 12:16:09 PM
If the state is Alaska and you pay no state income tax and no state sales tax and you get a big state state tax check from surplus oil revenue, then that might be a reason you are popular.
Posted by: ziggurat at Sep 6, 2008 12:31:06 PM
Another thought. A better comparison may be between small-state governors and big-city mayors. Nobody would consider George Pataki for president, but Rudy was a viable candidate.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Sep 6, 2008 12:50:15 PM
It is an international phenomenon running through all levels of democratic government. The smaller the unit, the greater respect the boss man or woman tends to get; and the closer the citizens check on them.
Posted by: Diversity at Sep 6, 2008 1:08:18 PM
I'm dubious of the premise. Palin's predecessor Murkowski was extremely unpopular. The graph is a snapshot in time, and does not capture historical information. It's quite possible that over time the differences will disappear.
If it is true, then a part of this is the point made by Diversity and Yomtov, that greater personal familiarity can lead to greater popularity - but that only holds if the governor is, in fact, likeable. Palin is personally likeable (although former governor Tony Knowles is also quite likeable personally, and was not nearly so popular as Palin).
ziggurat - I can't speak for other states, but in Alaska it isn't the governor who hands out the federal money - it's Ted Stevens. For years he was the most popular politician in the state, probably for that reason.
Posted by: Ak Mike at Sep 6, 2008 3:54:33 PM
yeah, they cling to their pride. tyler, you elitist.
Posted by: paul at Sep 6, 2008 4:37:14 PM
I think small states are simply more homogeneous and thus political divisions are not as sharp. It is easier for politicians to build consensus, and more importantly, related to their constituency. Large states on the other hand tend to have one or more large cities as well as rural/exurban area. This creates friction between the "small town America" and the sophisticated cosmopolitan elite in the big cities. Politicians have a much harder time bringing everyone together.
Posted by: MS at Sep 6, 2008 6:36:56 PM
In addition to their governors being more popular, it seems senators from smaller states seem to last longer. Almost of the ten most senior members of the senate are from small states. Additionally most of the previous president pro temp's have been form small states. This is probably related to why small states receive so much in federal funding
Posted by: JD at Sep 6, 2008 8:51:16 PM
I think the real reason is that small states tend to have greater homogeneity of political and cultural interests and therefore greater collective spirit. It's really a corollary of the reason why agricultural interests are disproportionately powerful--in any country! It's because everyone in agg country is if favour of ag. In short: large states are more multicultural and that's messy, politically.
Posted by: Cdn Expat at Sep 6, 2008 9:24:10 PM
I think the real reason is that small states tend to have greater homogeneity of political and cultural interests and therefore greater collective spirit. It's really a corollary of the reason why agricultural interests are disproportionately powerful--in any country! It's because everyone in agg country is if favour of ag. In short: large states are more multicultural and that's messy, politically.
Posted by: Cdn Expat at Sep 6, 2008 9:24:56 PM
I think the real reason is that small states tend to have greater homogeneity of political and cultural interests and therefore greater collective spirit. It's really a corollary of the reason why agricultural interests are disproportionately powerful--in any country! It's because everyone in agg country is if favour of ag. In short: large states are more multicultural and that's messy, politically.
Posted by: Cdn Expat at Sep 6, 2008 9:25:08 PM
I think the real reason is that small states tend to have greater homogeneity of political and cultural interests and therefore greater collective spirit. It's really a corollary of the reason why agricultural interests are disproportionately powerful--in any country! It's because everyone in agg country is if favour of ag. In short: large states are more multicultural and that's messy, politically.
Posted by: Cdn Expat at Sep 6, 2008 9:25:26 PM
I think the real reason is that small states tend to have greater homogeneity of political and cultural interests and therefore greater collective spirit. It's really a corollary of the reason why agricultural interests are disproportionately powerful--in any country! It's because everyone in agg country is if favour of ag. In short: large states are more multicultural and that's messy, politically.
Posted by: Cdn Expat at Sep 6, 2008 9:25:35 PM
I think the real reason is that small states tend to have greater homogeneity of political and cultural interests and therefore greater collective spirit. It's really a corollary of the reason why agricultural interests are disproportionately powerful--in any country! It's because everyone in agg country is if favour of ag. In short: large states are more multicultural and that's messy, politically.
Posted by: Cdn Expat at Sep 6, 2008 9:25:44 PM
I think the real reason is that small states tend to have greater homogeneity of political and cultural interests and therefore greater collective spirit. It's really a corollary of the reason why agricultural interests are disproportionately powerful--in any country! It's because everyone in agg country is if favour of ag. In short: large states are more multicultural and that's messy, politically.
Posted by: Cdn Expat at Sep 6, 2008 9:25:51 PM
ak mike....
http://www.adn.com/legislature/story/487381.html
I don't have any desire to get into Palin. However, most states have to tax in order to spend, and generally never mail out checks.
Posted by: ziggurat at Sep 6, 2008 9:29:13 PM
ziggurat - sorry, I didn't read your comment carefully enough. Ted hands out the federal dough, the legislature (with the encouragement of our governor) does hand out the oil money.
As far as most states - in most states, the government does not own 90% or so of the land, has not retained mineral rights on the land it does give up, and does not own the assets of all the state's major industries (oil and gas, mining, fishing, tourism, timber). In most states the wealth is in the hands of the private sector and government taxes the revenue generated by that wealth. In Alaska the wealth is in the hands of the government, so it obtains the money by renting out the right to use those assets.
Posted by: Ak Mike at Sep 6, 2008 10:37:42 PM
