CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 135Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Theory and DemocracyAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics

Madison's Constitution Under Stress: A Developmental Analysis of Political Polarization

Open access
Pierson, Paul, Schickler, Eric·2020·Annual Review of Political Science
DOI 10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033629
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We present a “developmental” approach to understanding why rising polarization in the United States has not been self-correcting but instead continues to intensify. Under specified conditions, initial increases in polarization may change the meso-environment, including such features as state parties, the structure of media, and the configuration of interest groups. These shifts can in turn influence other aspects of politics, leading to a further intensification of polarization. This analysis has four important benefits: ( a) It directs our attention to the meso-institutional environment of the American polity; ( b) it clarifies the features of the polity that have traditionally limited the extent and duration of polarization, and the reasons why their contemporary impact may be attenuated; ( c) it helps us analyze asymmetrical, or party-specific, aspects of polarization; and ( d) it provides an analytic foundation that connects discussions of American politics to the comparative politics literature on democratic backsliding.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033629

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Historically speaking, polarization in the USA reflects social patterns that began with Southern realignment following civil rights legislation, the rise of single-issue interest groups, changes in campaign finance law, and the withdrawal of moderates from party politics and primary races, especially on the political right.

    “Historically speaking, polarization in the USA reflects social patterns that began with Southern realignment following civil rights legislation, the rise of single-issue interest groups, changes in campaign finance law, and the withdrawal of moderates from party politics and primary races, especially on the political right10,27,31,34,37,72,342,343).”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [343]

    The Development of Modern Political Polarization links modern polarization to party realignment over civil rights, and The Shifting Relationship Between Interest Groups and Parties describes the growth and partisan alignment of interest groups. Shifts in State Parties and Federalism discusses nomination reforms that increased activists’ influence. The passages do not establish changes in campaign finance law or a withdrawal of moderates from party politics and primary races, particularly on the right; they describe reduced moderating influence by party organizations instead. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 71

  1. Abramowitz AI. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  2. Acemoglu D, Robinson J. 2006. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  3. Aldrich JA, Berger MM, Rohde D. 2002. The historical variability in conditional party government, 1877- 1994. In Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress, ed. D Brady, M McCubbins, Vol. 1, pp. 17-35.
  4. Anderson W. 1955. The Nation and the States: Rivals or Partners? Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
  5. Azari J, Hetherington MJ. 2016. Back to the future? What the politics of the late nineteenth century can tell us about the 2016 election. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 667(1):92-109
  6. Bensel RF. 2001. Political Economy of American Industrialization, 1877-1900. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  7. Berry JM, Sobieraj S. 2013. The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  8. Brady DW, Han HC. 2006. Polarization then and now: a historical perspective. In Red and Blue Nation? Charac- teristics and Causes of America's Polarized Politics, ed. PS Nivola, DW Brady, Vol. 1, pp. 119-73. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
  9. Brady DW, Han HC. 2007. A delayed return to historical norms: congressional party polarization after the Second World War. Br. J. Political Sci. 37(3):505-31
  10. Brooks C. 2016. Antislavery Third Parties and the Transformation of American Politics. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  11. Caughey D, Dunham J, Warshaw C. 2018. The ideological nationalization of partisan subconstituencies in the American states. Public Choice 176(1-2):133-51
  12. Dahl RA. 1961. Who Governs? New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  13. Darr JP, Hitt MP, Dunaway JL. 2018. Newspaper closures polarize voting behavior. J. Commun. 68(6):1007- 28
  14. Disalvo D. 2012. Engines of Change: Party Factions in American Politics, 1868-2010. New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
  15. Fiorina MP, Abrams SJ. 2009. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman, OK: Univ. Okla. Press
  16. Greif A, Laitin DD. 2004. A theory of endogenous institutional change. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 98(4):633-52
  17. Grossmann M, Hopkins DA. 2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  18. Grumbach JM. 2018. From backwaters to major policymakers: policy polarization in the states, 1970-2014. Perspect. Politics 16(2):416-35
  19. Gunnell JG. 2004. Imagining the American Polity: Political Science and the Discourse of Democracy. University Park, PA: Penn State Univ. Press
  20. Hacker JS, Pierson P. 2005. Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  21. Hacker JS, Pierson P. 2014. After the "master theory": Downs, Schattschneider, and the rebirth of policy- focused analysis. Perspect. Politics 12(3):643-62
  22. Hall AB. 2019. Who Wants to Run? How the Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  23. Hansen JM. 1991. Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919-1981. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  24. Hershey M. 2017. Party Politics in America. New York: Routledge. 17th ed.
  25. Hertel-Fernandez A. 2019. State Capture: How Conservative Activists, Big Businesses, and Wealthy Donors Reshaped the American States-and the Nation. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press
  26. Hopkins DA. 2017. Red Fighting Blue: How Geography and Electoral Rules Polarize American Politics. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  27. Hopkins DJ. 2018. The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  28. Jenkins JA, Stewart C. 2013. Fighting for the Speakership. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  29. Jones B, Theriault S, Whyman M. 2019. The Great Broadening: How the Vast Expansion of the Policymaking Agenda Changed American Politics. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  30. Karol D. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  31. Karol D. 2015. American political parties: exceptional no more. In Solutions to Political Polarization in America, ed. N Persily, pp. 208-17. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  32. Karol D. 2019. Red, Green, and Blue: The Partisan Divide on Environmental Issues. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  33. Kernell S. 2003. "The true principles of republican government": reassessing James Madison's political science. In James Madison and the Theory and Practice of Republican Government, ed. S Kernell, pp. 92-125. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  34. Klar S, Krupnikov Y. 2016. Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  35. Krimmel K. 2017. The efficiencies and pathologies of special interest partisanship. Stud. Am. Political Dev. 31(2):149-69
  36. La Raja RJ, Schaffner BF. 2015. Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  37. Latham E. 1952. The group basis of politics: notes for a theory. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 46(2):376-97
  38. Lee FE. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  39. Lee FE. 2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  40. Lee FE, Curry JM. 2019. Non-party government: bipartisan lawmaking and party power in Congress. Perspect. Politics 17(1):47-65
  41. Leech B, Baumgartner FR, La Pira TM, Semanko NA. 2005. Drawing lobbyists to Washington: government activity and the demand for advocacy. Political Res. Q. 58(1):19-30
  42. Lieberman RC, Mettler S, Pepinsky TB, Roberts KM, Valelly R. 2019. The Trump presidency and American democracy: a historical and comparative analysis. Perspect. Politics 17(2):470-79
  43. Linz J. 1990. The perils of presidentialism. J. Democracy 1(1):51-69
  44. Lunch WM. 1987. The Nationalization of American Politics. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  45. Margolis MF. 2018. From Politics to the Pews: How Partisanship and the Political Environment Shape Religious Identity. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  46. Mayhew DR. 1991. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  47. Mayhew DR. 2002. Critical Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  48. McAdam D, Kloos K. 2014. Deeply Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Postwar America. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  49. McCarty N. 2019. Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  50. McCarty N, Poole KT, Rosenthal H. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  51. Moe TM. 1985. The politicized presidency. In The New Direction in American Politics, ed. JE Chubb, PE Peterson, pp. 235-71. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
  52. Muirhead R, Rosenblum NL. 2019. A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  53. Neustadt R. 1960. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents. New York: Wiley O'Brian N. 2019. Racial realignment and the roots of contemporary polarization. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL
  54. Paddock JW. 2005. State and National Parties and American Democracy. New York: Peter Lang Paddock JW. 2014. Local and state political parties. In Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government, ed. DP Haider-Markel. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199579679.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199579679-e-007 · DOI
  55. Peters R. 1990. The American Speakership: The Office in Historical Perspective. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
  56. Pierson P. 2007. The rise and reconfiguration of activist government. In The Transformation of American Politics: Activist Government and the Rise of Conservatism, ed. P Pierson, T Skocpol, pp. 19-38. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  57. Polsby NW. 1997. The American party system. In The New Federalist Papers, ed. A Brinkley, N Polsby, K Sullivan, pp. 37-44. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
  58. Poole KT, Rosenthal H. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  59. Roberts KM. 2019. Parties, populism and democratic decay: a comparative perspective on party polarization in the United States. In When Democracy Trumps Populism: European and Latin American Lessons for the United States, ed. K Weyland, R Madrid, pp. 132-53. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  60. Schaffner BF. 2011. Party polarization. In Oxford Handbook of the American Congress, ed. E Schickler, FE Lee, pp. 527-49. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  61. Schattschneider EE. 1942. Party Government. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston Schickler E. 2001. Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress. Prince- ton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  62. Schlozman D. 2015. When Movements Anchor Parties: Electoral Alignments in American History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  63. Schlozman D, Rosenfeld S. 2019. The hollow parties. In Can America Govern Itself?, ed. FE Lee, NM McCarty, pp. 120-52. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  64. Shade WG. 1998. "The most delicate and exciting topics": Martin Van Buren, slavery, and the election of 1836. J. Early Republic 18(3):459-84
  65. Skocpol T. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman: Univ. Okla. Press
  66. Skocpol T. 2007. Activist government and the reorganization of American civic democracy. In The Transfor- mation of American Politics, ed. P Pierson, T Skocpol, pp. 39-67. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  67. Skocpol T, Williamson V. 2013. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  68. Skowronek S. 1997. The Politics Presidents Make. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  69. Truman DB. 1966. Federalism and the party system. In American Party Politics, ed. D Herzberg, G Pomper, pp. 81-109. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
  70. Tucker J, Guess A, Barbera P, Vaccari C, Siegel A, et al. 2018. Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature. Rep., Hewlett Found., Menlo Park, CA
  71. Zingher JN, Richman J. 2018. Polarization and the nationalization of state legislative elections. Am. Politics Res. 47(5):1036-54

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pierson, P., & Schickler, E.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annual Review of Political Science
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2020-05-11
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
37-58
ISSN
  • 1094-2939 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-1577
DOI
10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033629
OpenAlex
W2986280458
Cited by
135
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 6
FWCI
13.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Annual Review of Political Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
  • Johns Hopkins University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › American Constitutional Law and Politics
Keywords
political polarization, developmental approach, state parties, media structure, interest groups, democratic backsliding, American politics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review