📌 Why This Question Matters
Today, intense party competition and partisan polarization are often blamed for political dysfunction. A long-standing political science tradition, however, argues that competitive party politics can improve government performance. This historical study asks whether more competitive party systems actually improve economic and social well-being at the state level.
📊 What Was Examined
- The political and policy trajectories of all 50 U.S. states from 1880 to 2010.
- Comparison of states with more competitive party systems versus less competitive systems.
🧾 How the Evidence Was Gathered
- Long-run historical analysis of state-level politics, public budgets, and social indicators across 130 years.
- Measurement focuses on party competition and state government spending patterns, with attention to specific spending categories identified as investments in human capital and infrastructure.
🔎 Key Findings
- States with more competitive party systems spend more overall than less competitive states.
- The higher spending is concentrated in:
- Education
- Health
- Transportation
- That pattern of spending is linked to measurable improvements in social and economic outcomes, specifically:
- Longer life expectancy
- Lower infant mortality
- Better educational outcomes
- Higher incomes
💡 What This Means
Party competition appears to do more than sharpen electoral contests: across U.S. states over 1880–2010, competitiveness correlates with higher public investment in education, health, and transportation, which in turn associate with improved life prospects and economic well-being for residents. These results suggest that competitive party politics can have enduring, positive policy consequences at the state level.
