IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jpe/journl/1754.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rhetoric as a Way of Limiting the Range of Acceptable Policy Positions

Author

Listed:
  • Stefanie Haeffele

    (Mercatus Center at George Mason University)

  • Virgil Henry Storr

    (George Mason University)

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefanie Haeffele & Virgil Henry Storr, 2021. "Rhetoric as a Way of Limiting the Range of Acceptable Policy Positions," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 36(Spring 20), pages 1-16.
    • Handle: RePEc:jpe:journl:1754
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journal.apee.org/index.php/ajax/GDMgetFile/2021_Journal_of_Private_Enterprise_Vol_36_No_1_Spring_parte1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacobs, Lawrence R. & Shapiro, Robert Y., 1994. "Issues, Candidate Image, and Priming: The Use of Private Polls in Kennedy's 1960 Presidential Campaign," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 527-540, September.
    2. Chong, Dennis & Druckman, James N., 2007. "Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(4), pages 637-655, November.
    3. Jennifer Jerit, 2009. "How Predictive Appeals Affect Policy Opinions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 411-426, April.
    4. Abigail R. Hall & Christopher J. Coyne, 2014. "The political economy of drones," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(5), pages 445-460, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Munger, 2023. "“Apparently, You Don’t”: Economist Jokes as an Educational Tool," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 38(Fall 2023), pages 61-82.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    2. Midha, Joshua, 2022. "The Cycle of Rule: Existential Risks, Continuity Of Governance, And Conflict-Based Preservation," SocArXiv vc7w9, Center for Open Science.
    3. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    4. Denter, Philipp & Sisak, Dana, 2015. "Do polls create momentum in political competition?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-14.
    5. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    6. Hall Abigail R., 2015. "Drones: Public Interest, Public Choice, and the Expansion of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(2), pages 273-300, April.
    7. Bloemraad, Irene & Voss, Kim & Silva, Fabiana, 2014. "Framing the Immigrant Movement as about Rights, Family, or Economics: Which Appeals Resonate and for Whom?," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt3b32w33p, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    8. Justin Wedeking, 2010. "Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 617-631, July.
    9. Garcia-Alonso, Maria D.C. & Levine, Paul & Smith, Ron, 2016. "Military aid, direct intervention and counterterrorism," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 112-135.
    10. Bandyopadhyay, Subhayu & Sandler, Todd, 2023. "Politically influenced counterterrorism policy and welfare efficiency," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    11. Bhalotra, Sonia & Clots-Figueras, Irma & Iyer, Lakshmi, 2021. "Religion and abortion: The role of politician identity," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    12. Victor I. Espinosa & Miguel A. Alonso Neira & Jesús Huerta de Soto, 2021. "Principles of Sustainable Economic Growth and Development: A Call to Action in a Post-COVID-19 World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-14, November.
    13. Trisha R. Shrum, 2021. "The salience of future impacts and the willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: an experiment in intergenerational framing," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-20, March.
    14. Rogers, Todd & Nickerson, David W., 2013. "Can Inaccurate Beliefs about Incumbents be Changed? And Can Reframing Change Votes?," Working Paper Series rwp13-018, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    15. Simon D Angus & Lachlan O'Neill, 2024. "Paired Completion: Flexible Quantification of Issue-framing at Scale with LLMs," Papers 2408.09742, arXiv.org.
    16. Hawkins, Christopher V. & Chia-Yuan, Yu, 2018. "Voter support for environmental bond referenda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 193-200.
    17. Shapiro, Matthew A. & Bolsen, Toby, 2019. "Korean perceptions of transboundary air pollution and domestic coal development: Two framing experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 333-342.
    18. Abigail R. Hall-Blanco, 2016. "Why Development Programmes Fail: William Easterly and the Political Economy of Intervention," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 175-183, June.
    19. Bechtel, Michael & Hainmueller, Jens & Hangartner, Dominik & Helbling, Marc, 2015. "Reality Bites: The Limits of Framing Effects for Salient and Contested Policy Issues," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 3(3), pages 683-695.
    20. Katerina Linos & Kimberly Twist, 2016. "The Supreme Court, the Media, and Public Opinion: Comparing Experimental and Observational Methods," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 223-254.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    rhetoric; framing; political strategy; public policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jpe:journl:1754. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/apeeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.