Dataset Information

Do public officials exhibit social class biases when they handle casework? Evidence from multiple correspondence experiments.

ABSTRACT: Are public officials more responsive to requests from affluent or poor constituents? A growing body of evidence suggests that lawmakers are more responsive to the rich when they craft policy. However, some scholars theorize that officials also exhibit a corresponding bias in favor of the poor when they handle casework, essentially giving policy to the rich and services to the poor. In this paper, we test this casework prediction using four experiments in which confederates sent simple requests to state or local officials. In each, our confederates' reported social classes were randomly assigned and signaled with a brief introductory statement mentioning the sender's occupation or economic situation. Across our samples, we find precisely-estimated null effects of social class biases: the officials we studied were equally likely to respond regardless of the constituent's class. These findings raise doubts about whether casework is really a class-biased process.

SUBMITTER: Carnes N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6436734 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do public officials exhibit social class biases when they handle casework? Evidence from multiple correspondence experiments.

Carnes Nicholas N Holbein John J

PloS one 20190327 3

Are public officials more responsive to requests from affluent or poor constituents? A growing body of evidence suggests that lawmakers are more responsive to the rich when they craft policy. However, some scholars theorize that officials also exhibit a corresponding bias in favor of the poor when they handle casework, essentially giving policy to the rich and services to the poor. In this paper, we test this casework prediction using four experiments in which confederates sent simple requests t ...[more]

PMID: 30917183

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSocial media is an important way for governments to communicate with the public. This is particularly true in times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, during which government officials played a strong role in promoting public health measures such as vaccines.ObjectiveIn Canada, provincial COVID-19 vaccine rollout was delivered in 3 phases aligned with federal government COVID-19 vaccine guidance for priority populations. In this study, we examined how Canadian public officials used Twitter to engage with the public about vaccine rollout and how this engagement has shaped public response to vaccines across jurisdictions.MethodsWe conducted a content analysis of tweets posted between December 28, 2020, and August 31, 2021. Leveraging the social media artificial intelligence tool Brandwatch Analytics, we constructed a list of public officials in 3 jurisdictions (Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia) organized across 6 public official types and then conducted an English and French keyword search for tweets about vaccine rollout and delivery that mentioned, retweeted, or replied to the public officials. We identified the top 30 tweets with the highest impressions in each jurisdiction in each of the 3 phases (approximately a 26-day window) of the vaccine rollout. The metrics of engagement (impressions, retweets, likes, and replies) from the top 30 tweets per phase in each jurisdiction were extracted for additional annotation. We specifically annotated sentiment toward public officials' vaccine responses (ie, positive, negative, and neutral) in each tweet and annotated the type of social media engagement. A thematic analysis of tweets was then conducted to add nuance to extracted data characterizing sentiment and interaction type.ResultsAmong the 6 categories of public officials, 142 prominent accounts were included from Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. In total, 270 tweets were included in the content analysis and 212 tweets were direct tweets by public officials. Public officials mostly used Twitter for information provision (139/212, 65.6%), followed by horizontal engagement (37/212, 17.5%), citizen engagement (24/212, 11.3%), and public service announcements (12/212, 5.7%). Information provision by government bodies (eg, provincial government and public health authorities) or municipal leaders is more prominent than tweets by other public official groups. Neutral sentiment accounted for 51.5% (139/270) of all the tweets, whereas positive sentiment was the second most common sentiment (117/270, 43.3%). In Ontario, 60% (54/90) of the tweets were positive. Negative sentiment (eg, public officials criticizing vaccine rollout) accounted for 12% (11/90) of all the tweets.ConclusionsAs governments continue to promote the uptake of the COVID-19 booster doses, findings from this study are useful in informing how governments can best use social media to engage with the public to achieve democratic goals.

Project description:Leadership in public health is necessary, relevant, and important as it enables the engagement, management, and transformation of complex public health challenges at a national level, as well as collaborating with internal stakeholders to address global public health threats. The research literature recommends exploring the journey of public health leaders and the factors influencing leadership development, especially in developing countries. Thus, we aimed to develop a grounded theory on individual leadership development in the Nepalese context. For this, we adopted constructivist grounded theory, and conducted 46 intensive interviews with 22 public health officials working under the Ministry of Health, Nepal. Data were analysed by adopting the principles of Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory. The theory developed from this study illustrates four phases of leadership development within an individual-initiation, identification, development, and expansion. The 'initial phase' is about an individual's wishes to be a leader without a formal role or acknowledgement, where family environment, social environment and individual characteristics play a role in influencing the actualisation of leadership behaviours. The 'identification phase' involves being identified as a public health official after having formal position in health-related organisations. The 'development' phase is about developing core leadership capabilities mostly through exposure and experiences. The 'expansion' phase describes expanding leadership capabilities and recognition mostly by continuous self-directed learning. The grounded theory provides insights into the meaning and actions of participants' professional experiences and highlighted the role of individual characteristics, family and socio-cultural environment, and workplace settings in the development of leadership capabilities. It has implications for academia to fulfill the absence of leadership theory in public health and is significant to fulfill the need of leadership models grounded in the local context of Asian countries.

Project description:State health officials (SHOs) serve a critical role as the leaders of state public health systems. Despite their many responsibilities, there is no formal process for preparation to become an SHO, and few requirements influence the selection of an SHO. Furthermore, to date, no studies have examined SHO tenure or their experiences.This study examines SHO tenure over time and the relationship between SHO tenure and organizational and state attributes.This longitudinal study employed primary data on SHOs and secondary data from the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials on organizational attributes of state public health agencies.This study examines SHOs within the United States.SHOs who served in years 1980-2017.Annual average SHO tenure; average SHO tenure by state.In the 38 years of this study, 508 individuals served as SHOs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The average tenure over this period was 4.1 years, with a median tenure of 2.9 years. During the study period, almost 20% of SHOs served terms of 1 year or less. A total of 32 SHOs (32/508 or 6.3%) served for 10 years or longer. Excluding SHOs who served 10 years or longer (n = 32 SHOs who had a collective 478 years of tenure) reduces the average term in office to 3.5 years. The average number of new SHOs per year is 12.3. SHOs appointed by a board of health averaged more than 8 years in office compared with averages just under 4 years for those appointed by governors or secretaries of state agencies.There are notable differences in SHO tenure across states. Future research is needed to further examine SHO tenure, effectiveness, job satisfaction, transitions, and the relationship between SHOs and state health. It may be valuable to expand on opportunities for new SHOs to learn from peers who have moderate to long tenures as well as SHO alumni. Given that average SHO tenure is approximately 4 years and that an SHO could be thrust into the national spotlight at a moment's notice, governors may want to consider experience over partisanship as they appoint new SHOs.

Dataset Information

Do public officials exhibit social class biases when they handle casework? Evidence from multiple correspondence experiments.

Publications

Do public officials exhibit social class biases when they handle casework? Evidence from multiple correspondence experiments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets