Governors' Job Performance Ratings and State Unemployment: The Case of California

• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X9903100101
• Author: Susan B. Hansen
• Published date: 01 December 1999
• Date: 01 December 1999
• Subject Matter: General Interest

7Winter 1999

State an d Local Government Review

Vol. 31, No. 1 (Winter 1999): 7-17

GENERAL INTEREST

THIS ARTICLE analyzes changes over

time in the relationship between

state economic conditions and gu-

bernatorial job performance ratings. Most

previous rese arch has found little evidence of

a state-level relationship comparable to that

linking a president’s popularity to national

economic trends. A few recent studies, how-

ever, have suggested that governors’ repu-

tations are vulnerable to state economies.

Time-ser ies data from the California Field

Poll (1967–97) are used here to model changes

in these relationships.

Even when controlling for other factors

that affect approval or disapproval of the

governor (changes in per capita p ersonal

income, tax increases, national economic

trends, length of time in office, the governor’s

party or electoral margin), regression analy-

sis shows a significant relationship between

state-level unemployment and a governor’s

job per formance ratings. This may not be an

entirely reasonable or fair judgment on the

part of Californian s, since most analysts con-

clude that governors can do very little about

state economic trends in general and un-

employment in particular. Politically, how-

ever, these results accord well with both pop-

ular expectations and governors’ views of

their agendas.

Governors’ Job Performance Ratings and State

Unemployment: The Case of California

Susan B. Hansen

Previous Research on Governors

and State Economies

The impact of economic conditions on presi-

dential popularity has b een well documented

using survey and electoral data (Mueller

1973; Monroe 1984; Markus 1988; Erikson

1989; Edwards 1991). Few could deny that

a troubled economy hurt G eorge Bush in

1992, or that the lowest unemployment lev-

els in 24 years helped Clinton to victory in

1996, despite the media focus on scandals

and special prosecutors. But as Brody’s re-

view of this literature shows (1991), the re-

sults are decidedly mixed; duration of unem-

ployment, inflation, elite policy views, the

party of the president, and media coverage

all mediate the impact of economic down-

turns on presidential popularity. As Suzuki

(1992) hypothesizes, voters and the media

may have come to expect preelection pump-

priming and economic activism, and this

forces presidential candidates to make pledges

that may prove difficult to keep in an increas-

ingly global ec onomy.

Does the president, as the most visible and

responsible economic policymaker, shoulder

more of the blame? Are governors likewise

vulnerable to economic conditions in their

states? Most previous research has found