Elite Belief Consistency and the Effect of Position in the Policy-Making Process

Bibliographic Data

ID3333434
AuthorsBarbara J Burt (Arizona State University West), Max Neiman (University of California, Riverside)
Year1987
Volume40
Issue1
Pages121
Publication date1987-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe Western Political Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0043-4078 • E-ISSN: 2325-8675
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/448557
OpenAlexW4255419748
LanguageEN
Citations received5
References cited25

HE CONSISTENCY among the elements in the belief systems of political elites and the public has received attention of scholars beginning with the work of Converse (1964). The initial body of research focused on the differences between elites and the mass public (Anderson and Thorsen 1978; Luttbeg 1968; McCloskey 1964). Although many researchers on belief systems have confirmed the initial findings regarding the greater levels of belief constraint among elites, some have begun to advance work on belief systems in directions beyond the preoccupation with elite-mass contrasts. More recent research has examined differences in levels of belief consistency among types of elite political actors especially in relationship to specified policy issues (Pierce 1977; Pierce and Lovrich 1980; Constantini and Hanf 1972; Mazmanian and Sabatier 1981; Milbrath 1981). Pierce, for example, has studied belief system constraint among elites by examining levels of constraint across elites with differing policy interests. In a later work, Pierce and Lovrich contrasted several kinds of policy elites in the public with elected elites in order to examine not only differences in levels of constraint, but to begin more specific probing as to why differences are found among different elite types. It was shown, for example, that elites with similar structures of general beliefs could nevertheless differ as to the importance of elements making up that belief system. The degree of belief system constraint is, to some degree affected by the substantive domain in question. Moreover, it is reasonable to expect that the degree of constraint can vary across different issue domains. For example, commitments and actions in the field of economic problems might be structured by a different set of core beliefs (e.g., attitudes about property and profit) than those involved in education problems (e.g., attitudes about preparation for the labor force or citizenship). In contributing to the study of constrained belief systems, we focus on contrasts between elected officials and policy activists, regarding their degree of belief system constraint. We simplify our analysis by concentrating on one major issue domain at both the general and specific levels

Belief system · Business · Consistency (knowledge bases) · Constraint (computer-aided design) · Converse · Economics · Elite · Epistemology · Political science · Politics · Position (finance) · Positive economics · Process (computing) · Sociology · Work (physics) · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Law · Mathematics · Philosophy · Political Influence and Corporate Strategies · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub