ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2023
Is fair representation good for children? effects of electoral partisan bias in state legislatures on policies affecting children's health and well-being.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Re-politicizing the WHO's social determinants of health framework.Health promotion international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Increasing evidence suggests that state policies impact constituents' health, but political determinants of health and health inequities remain understudied. Using state and year fixed-effects models, we determined the extent to which changes in electoral partisan bias in lower chambers of U.S. state legislatures (i.e., discrepancy between statewide vote share and seat share) were followed by changes in five state policies affecting children and families (1980-2019) and a composite of safety net programs (1999-2018). We examined effects on each policy and whether the effect was modified when bias was accompanied by unified party control. Next, we determined whether the effect differed depending on which party it favored. Less bias resulted only in higher AFDC/TANF benefits. Both pro-Democratic and pro-Republican bias was followed by decreased AFDC/TANF benefits and increased Medicaid benefits. AFDC/TANF recipients, unemployment benefits, minimum wage, and pre-K-12 education spending increased following pro-Democratic bias and decreased following pro-Republican bias. Estimated effects on the composite measure of safety net policies were all close to null. Some effects were modulated by unified party control. Results demonstrate that increasing fairness in elections is not a panacea by itself for increasing generosity of programs affecting children's well-being. Indeed, bias can be somewhat beneficial for the expansiveness of some policies. Furthermore, with the exception of unemployment benefits and AFDC/TANF recipients, Democrats have not been using the additional power that comes with electoral bias to spend more on major programs that benefit children. Finally, after decades in which electoral bias was in Democrats' favor, bias has started to shift toward Republicans in the last decade. This trend forecasts more cuts in almost all the policies in this study, especially education and AFDC/TANF recipients. There is a need for more research and advocacy emphasis on the political determinants of social determinants of health, especially at the state level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.