Where Self-Interest Trumps Ideology: Liberal Homeowners and Local Opposition to Housing Development

被引:44
作者
Marble, William [1 ]
Nall, Clayton [2 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Dept Polit Sci, Encina Hall West,Rm 100,616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[2] Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Dept Polit Sci, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA
关键词
homeownership; self-interest; local politics; ideology; housing; GROWTH; RENT; CITY;
D O I
10.1086/711717
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
How much does self-interest drive Americans' policy attitudes? Survey research typically finds that self-interest's role is minimal. Such conclusions are typically reached by examining attitudes toward federal policies that present diffuse costs and low stakes. We consider a starker test case of self-interest: controversies surrounding development of dense and affordable housing in Americans' communities. Liberal homeowners, especially, must cope with dissonance between their egalitarian ideology and a desire to protect their home values and quality of life. They often embrace liberal housing goals and redistributive housing policies but join conservatives in opposing dense housing in their own communities. Two survey experiments show that liberal homeowners are cross-pressured and barely more likely than conservative homeowners to support dense housing development. Messages appealing to homeowners' self-interest reduce support further, while countervailing appeals about housing's benefits to low- and middle-income families barely offset the negative effect. We discuss implications for the politics of equal opportunity at the state and local level.
引用
收藏
页码:1747 / 1763
页数:17
相关论文
共 63 条
[51]  
Pew Research Center, 2014, Political polarization in the American public
[52]   Is there room for resilience? A scoping review and critique of substance use literature and its utilization of the concept of resilience [J].
Rudzinski, Katherine ;
McDonough, Peggy ;
Gartner, Rosemary ;
Strike, Carol .
SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PREVENTION AND POLICY, 2017, 12
[53]  
Schneider W., 1992, The Atlantic Monthly, V270, P33
[54]   WHITES OPPOSITION TO BUSING - SELF-INTEREST OR SYMBOLIC POLITICS [J].
SEARS, DO ;
HENSLER, CP ;
SPEER, LK .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 1979, 73 (02) :369-384
[55]  
Sniderman PaulM., 2012, The Reputational Premium: A Theory of Party Identification and Policy Reasoning
[56]  
Stegman Michael A., 2019, Eliminating Exclusionary Land Use Reuglations Should Be The Civil Rights Issue of Our Time
[57]  
Trounstine J., 2018, Segregation by Design
[58]   All Politics Is Local: The Reemergence of the Study of City Politics [J].
Trounstine, Jessica .
PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICS, 2009, 7 (03) :611-618
[59]  
US Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census., 2014, CURRENT POPULATION S
[60]  
Wilson WJ, 1997, POLIT SCI QUART, V111, P567