1

A Paradigm Shift in Morality Policy?*

Paper for ECPR Workshop #21: The Dynamics of Morality Politics and Policy across

Time and Space, Joint Sessions, Muenster, March 22-27, 2010

Donley T. Studlar

Eberly Family Distinguished Professor of Political Science

West Virginia University

Morgantown, WV 26506-6317

USA

dstudlar@wvu.edu

2

Abstract: There has been increasing recognition that morality policy in Western

democracies is a distinctive field of study but many analyses of morality policy are

relatively narrow, often being based on one issue and/or one jurisdiction. Updating

previous cross-national empirical research on this topic, this paper examines the patterns

for five morality policy issues across 24 Western democracies since World War II. What

are the timing and duration of these issues on the governmental agenda? What are the

overall contents of the policy adoptions? What political processes are involved in their

adoption? Doe morality policy constitute a distinct policy sector? What social, cultural,

partisan, and political institutional factors help to account both for general patterns and

for the variations in those patterns? I analyze these questions through a broad overview of

policy developments since 1945. The issues analyzed are abortion, capital punishment,

euthanasia, assisted reproductive technology (ART), and same sex domestic

relationships. These issues have been on the agendas of all of the countries, the general

direction of policy has been toward “progressivism,” but there still remains considerable

policy diversity, especially on the newer issues of euthanasia, same sex domestic

relationships, and ART. The policy processes employed have diverged from normal

executive-legislative relations in parliamentary government. While it is early days for

explanations of these patterns, there has been a policy paradigm change in morality

policy in Western democracies since World War II.

3

A Paradigm Shift in Morality Policy?

People tend to have strong emotions about topics like food and sex, and to create their

own moral rules around these emotions, [Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert] says.

“Moral emotions are the brain’s call to action,” he wrote. “If climate change were caused

by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in

the streets.” Frank 2010

Introduction

Most public policy texts, especially those published outside the United States, do

not have a separate index entry for, much less any discussion, of what has come to be

called “morality policy” (Knoepfel et al. 2007; Cairney, forthcoming; Adolino and Blake

2011). Nevertheless, increasingly analysts have come to recognize that some issues have

significant similarities in the content and/or processes by which they are decided that they

deserve to be considered under this common appellation (Schwartz 1981; Meier 1994;

Kurzer 2001; Mooney 2001; Smith 2002; Smith and Tatalovich 2003; Mooney and

Schuldt 2008; Roh and Berry 2008; Engeli 2008; Studlar 2008). Most of this literature is

written by U.S. political scientists about U.S. politics, which means its generalizability is

questionable. There are two problems. The first is that U.S. political institutions different

from the domestic ones of most other Western democracies. Many “morality policies” are

mainly at the state and local level in a federal system and often arise from the “policy

shocks” of judicial decisions based on individual cases that then generate a broader

response among the public and other institutions (Donovan et al. 2010). Also, the U.S. is

considered particularly susceptible to issues with strong moral arguments; its residents

are more willing to argue on the basis of “individual human rights” as well as to profess

4

and practice religious faith, leading to moralistic political cleavages that become part of

partisan debate (Schwartz 1981; Tatalovich 1997).

Even in a largely secular West some “postmaterial” issues, such as

environmentalism, are more concerned with different views of the material world and

how much it is to be manipulated than with nonmaterial ethical concerns. The Muslim

value challenge to a largely secular Europe while certainly containing elements of

morality, is not usually considered primarily an issue of morality policy since it involves

several dimensions, including economic and security concerns. But other questions do

present strong moral dimensions, that is, at least one side of the debate bases its positions

on views of right and wrong detached from questions of material advantage (Mooney

2001).

The major European country in which morality policy has been a subject of

continuing analysis has been the United Kingdom, where they are usually considered

“issues of conscience” subject to a distinctive policy process of Private Member’s bills

and usually free (unwhipped) party votes. But even in this country, such analyses have

been less frequent in recent years (Bromhead 1956; Christoph 1962; Marsh and Read

1988; Mughan and Scully 1997; Cowley 1998, 2001). There also has been some analysis

of how the political process shapes morality policy in countries such as Denmark and

Canada (Chandler 1976; Overby et al. 1998; Pedersen 1967; Svensson 1982; Skjæveland

2001; Tatalovich 1997; Albæk 2003; Green-Pedersen 2007).

While there are scientific/technical issues as well as economic ones in the capital

punishment debate (Baumgartner et al. 2008), for the most part this is an issue of moral

debate about the balance of rights in a society. The same is true of same sex legal

5

relationships. The other three involve science to a much larger degree, in that advancing

technology has allowed moral debate to emerge over when a pregnancy should be

allowed to be terminated, what reproductive techniques are allowed, and under what

conditions of age and disability euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be permitted.

The application of science has not led to the elimination of conflicts over morality

policy; in some cases it has made such disputes more salient. More precise, calibrated,

and successfully science applied to the human body has been partly responsible for the

rise of morality controversy over such issues as abortion, assisted reproductive

technology (ART), including stem cell research, and end-of-life concerns, including

passive and active euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is now possible for babies born

under maternal duress and with life-threatening conditions to survive, for life to be

conceived under different circumstances than direct human contact of sperm and egg, and

for physical life to be extended through technological means beyond previously expected

limits. In the U.S., science has also become a major dimension of the dispute over capital

punishment, as DNA evidence has resulted in the release of dozens of death-row

defendants from the ultimate earthly punishment (Baumgartner et al. 2008). These

scientific innovations, however, also raise moral dilemmas about what policies are

desirable or are to be permitted by the state on behalf of its citizens.

Increasingly this has been recognized, even in countries reluctant to think of

“morality policies” as a distinct group. A long body of research has shown that abortion

has been an issue of moral conflict in many countries outside the U.S. although not

necessarily with the long-standing intensity demonstrated there (Field 1979; Outshoorn

1996; Ketting and Van Praag 1985; Stetson 2001; Studlar 2001). Recently there have

6

been detailed case studies as well as cross-country examinations of ART policies across

Western Europe and North America, including comparing biopolitical issue (red

technology) with the issue of genetically modified foods (green technology) (Bleikle et

al. 2004; Montpetit et al. 2005; 2007; Varone et al. 2006; Varone and Schiffino 2004).

But often the policy process operating in the same country for these two issues, covering

sex and food, differ. Some researchers have made fruitful comparisons of ART, abortion

and same sex domestic relationship policies (Grießler and Hadolt. 2006; Engeli 2008;

Albæk 2003). There are overlaps in policy content among some of these issues,

particularly ART, same sex domestic relations, and abortion. For this paper I am most

concerned with the overall focus of the bill rather than the connections.

Although various issues have been labeled as part of “morality policy,” their

presence, persistence, and degree of controversy varies across countries (Studlar 2001).

Some issues such as alcohol prohibition that were major, ongoing political controversies

in several Western democracies have now subsided largely into more routine regulatory

policy, sometimes at a different level of government, with only occasional outbreaks of

debate at the central level (Kurzer 2001; Frendreis and Tatalovich 2010; Donovan et al.

2010). For this paper, I shall examine five policies, one that has persisted even though

there is now near-unanimity in the resolution of one policy (capital punishment) and

four of which are largely limited to the post World War II period, sometimes arising only

recently (abortion, same sex domestic relationships, ART, and euthanasia) and. All five

of these policies are concerned with birth, sex, and/or death. These kinds of intimate

relations are particularly susceptible to becoming politicized as morality issues because,

even if the issues are complex and susceptible to scientific and economic influences, they

7

deal with fundamental human concerns that most people in a society consider to be easily

understood in principle and on which they often become politically mobilized in order to

have their jurisdiction adopt policies in line with their often strongly value-based views,

even if this conflicts with expert professional opinion on the matter. As Mooney (2001)

indicates, it takes only one side to consider an issue one of morality in order for these

dimensions to be presented as part of the debate, but sometimes both sides consider an

issue to be morally based, one of clashing rights between two groups, or between

individuals and group sentiment. This is not to deny that other issues may have moral

dimensions and potentially life-threatening repercussions but these five are clearly well

documented in several countries.

The major research questions are to determine the patterns of distribution of these

issues comparatively across space (countries) and time, based on available data, and offer

a preliminary assessment of what explains variations in morality policy agendas,

processes, timing, and outcomes. Current policy adoptions will be assessed on a familiar

three-point continuum—restrictive, intermediate, or permissive—scored as 0, 5, and 10

respectively, except for capital punishment, in which restrictive policies eliminate the use

of capital punishment and are therefore scored as 10. Thus I produce a scale of

restrictiveness—permissiveness (or “conservatism-progressivism,” by this

interpretation.)The universe of countries examined constitutes 24 advanced industrial

democracies in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region.

There has been much debate about whether morality policy exists as a discernible

category of policy (Smith 1969; 1975; Tatalovich and Daynes 1998; Wald et al. 2001;

Smith 2004; Mooney and Schuldt 2008; Roh and Berry 2008; Studlar 2008). Previous

8

research, especially in the U.S. (Donovan et al. 2010), has argued morality policy is

defined more by process than by content and that its particular institutional features

become less distinct over time. Comparative research across countries on these issues,

however, has been more conflicted about whether cultural, institutional, group, or

partisan factors are more important influences on outcomes (Lijphart 1999; Green-

Pedersen 2007; Montpetit et al. 2005; 2007; Banchoff, 2005; Albaek 2003; Grießler and

Hadolt. 2006; Smith and Tatalovich 2003). This paper aims to advance the debate by

identifying patterns of morality policy agendas, timing, duration, and processes as well as

possible explanations for these patterns across countries.

More generally, I am interested in what Hall (1993) has indentified as “paradigm

change.” He makes a useful distinction between what he calls first order, second order,

and third order policy change to distinguish among changes in policy goals, policy

instruments, and the settings or calibrations of policy instruments. First order change

involves changes in the calibration of the same policy instruments as previously utilized,

within the same set of policy goals and priorities. Second order change refers to changes

in the priorities of instruments, including new ones, within the same set of goals. Third

order change refers to paradigm change, or changes in the goals of policy as well as

instruments and calibrations, including the priorities of different goals, for example from

Keynesianism to monetarism in Britain in the 1970s. Policy subsystems play an

important role in each type of change, but in third order change the locus of authority, or

policy subsystem, changes to a major degree. This makes Hall’s view resemble that of

Baumgartner and Jones’ (1993) explanation of policy agenda change in the United States

through punctuated equilibriums involving changes of the subsystem responsible for

9

policy as well as different policy goals. Hall (1993) notes that paradigm change, although

occurring infrequently in developed democratic states, can proceed slowly as well as

rapidly and may differ from one country to another in the same policy area. This depends

on how embedded bureaucratic routines of policy are and how well new ideas can

penetrate the government, either from internal or external sources. The interaction

between society and the state is a key element in how paradigmatic policy change occurs,

and this may vary from one state to another and also across different policies. This paper

posits that morality policy in general as well as these five particular issues have

undergone a paradigm change in Western democracies since World War II.

Policy Agendas: Timing, Duration, and Outcomes

(Table 1 about here)

Although political debate on some of these issues dates back to the nineteenth

century, Table 1 indicates, in the post World War II period, when each of these five

issues appeared on the political agenda in these countries, when the last significant event

(official government report, proposed legislation, enactment, judicial decision, or

referendum) and the duration of subsequent governmental activity on these issues. We

shall consider both patterns across countries as well as patterns by issues in terms of

agenda timing, duration, and evaluations about the content of the policy adopted

(restrictive, intermediate, or permissive) by early 2010. Since some of them, such as

same sex domestic relations, ART, and euthanasia, presently are active on the agendas of

some countries, changes may even have occurred even in the time between circulation of

this paper and its presentation.

However varied in terms of timing, duration, and content, there is evidence that each

10

of these five issues has been on the political agendas of practically all Western

democracies. Timing, however, differs considerably. Capital punishment and abortion are

“old” morality issues in that they have been considered, at least in some jurisdictions,

since the nineteenth century (and in a few, even earlier) (Evans 1996; Rolston and Eggert

1994). These deliberations have been sporadic rather than continuous, both across time

and countries, however, until after World War II. The effects of the war should not be

underestimated in raising these two issues to greater public and political consciousness.

The widespread suffering caused by the war, including mass executions of prisoners and

civilians and the revelations of Nazi death camps, led to reconsideration of whether

capital punishment was an appropriate penalty for even the most heinous crimes,

especially those outside military justice. As the bitter memories of the war subsided,

increasingly the answer was “no,” and this eventually became extended to the military as

well (Hood and Hoyle 2008). The World War II experience of experiments on living

humans conducted by medical personnel also influenced the abortion debate in various

ways (Morton 1992).

As noted in Table 1, even though debate over capital punishment began at different

times in these countries, even decades apart, and sometimes took extended courses, today

this is largely a settled issue. All except three of countries are restrictive, having banned

capital punishment, some even inserting the abolition in their constitutions (see Table 2).

While not directly under consideration here, increasingly there has been pressure from

European international organizations, such as the Council of Europe and the European

Union, to adopt such a restrictive policy. There is a pan-European consensus on this

topic; the holdouts are elsewhere, namely the United States, Japan, and Israel, but even

11

these countries have reduced their use of the death penalty, and in the U.S. some states

have abolished it completely.

As technology allowed more fetuses to survive childbirth, legal and medical opinion

in some countries desired clearer legal guidance about the conditions for abortion. This

became a more broadly debated political issue, however, as both groups in support of

abortion and opposed to it mobilized. These included devout Christians, such as the

Roman Catholic church and its political allies (Christian Democratic and other Christian-

based parties), as well as feminists (Outshoorn 1996; Tatalovich, 1997). While the issue

had arisen in a few countries, especially Nordic ones, earlier, abortion became a

pervasive political issue across Western democracies from the 1960s when several of the

most prominent liberalizing laws were debated and passed. While the issue has been

extended and contentious in several countries, especially those with a high percentage of

practicing Catholics in the population, by the mid-1990s the debate was over except for a

few outliers. Although it was not as uniformly on one end of the scale as capital

punishment has become, all democracies have either permissive or intermediate abortion

laws, allowing it under defined circumstances (Ketting and Prang 1986; Outshoorn

2001). For the most part these compromises were stable. As with capital punishment,

this has been a long running contentious issue with a definite a policy convergence

although not as pronounced on one end of the policy content continuum. The US, of

course, has been the great exception in abortion remaining on the active political agenda

and affecting partisan politics.

Euthanasia was the third of these morality issues to reach the political agenda, at

least in a few countries although its overall mean year in Table 1 is later than ART. That

12

is because euthanasia has only been on the governmental agenda since the 1980s in half

of the countries, and it remains active in several. Furthermore, the ART scores for first

consideration have four early outlying cases—all of the Nordic countries except Iceland,

which had very early reports on some dimensions of this issue (Burrell 2006). With

greater human longevity, increasing medical costs, and more emphasis on individual

choice, it has become a more prevalent issue in the 1990s and subsequently. Most

recently, this has become a more salient issue, with less restrictive policies, even in

nominally Catholic countries such as Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands as well

as the long time permissive leader, Switzerland. In contrast to capital punishment and

abortion, it is these countries rather than the Nordic ones that are the most “progressive”

on the issue. Overall, however, this issue is the one on which the nature of the resulting

policies is still the most conservative.

In most countries consideration of ART began in the 1980s, driven by scientific

developments, notably including the first “test-tube baby“ in 1978 (Montpetit et al. 2005;

2007; Bleikle et al, 2004; Varone et al. 2006, Rothmayr 2006). ART debates, in their

various dimension such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF), surrogate parentage, cloning, age

and relationship availability, and stem cell research, has proceeded at different times and

paces, with a variety of outcomes, resulting in an overall mean score exactly at the

midpoint of the scale. While almost all countries have been willing to address the issue,

there is not a strong convergence of policy outcomes. Furthermore, it has been found that

there is no strong association between this ‘red technology” issue and the “green

technology” of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) for food production (Varone and

Schiffino 2004; Monpetit et al. 2007). Ratings by the specialist team that has been

13

investigating ART policies comparatively over the past decade have also changed over

this period as some countries have adopted additional measures in this policy area. As a

leading-edge scientific research area with strong morality dimensions, ART is

particularly susceptible to policy changes and therefore consequent ratings variations.

In contrast, same sex domestic relations is not a “hard science” area; instead, views

may be informed by social science research, but this is often disputed. Like capital

punishment, this is perhaps closer to being a “purely” moral issue on which opinions,

once formed, are difficult to change. Furthermore, while there is increasing acceptance of

general same sex rights, the institution of marriage is invested with symbolic and even

sacred meanings for many, even in largely secularized societies. This is the most recent

issue of the five, with a mean year of 1998. Thus there is a policy trend toward some

legal recognition of same sex domestic partnerships but less of their marriage rights.

Nevertheless, the latter seems to be becoming more widely adopted, even in nominally

Catholic countries that heretofore have been reluctant to go this far. The overall mean

content score for this policy is higher on the progressive scale than for euthanasia or even

ART, which suggests how quickly relative liberalization has occurred.

The summary content scores on the right side of Table 1 indicate how each country

fares in content evaluations across these five issues on a permissiveness-restrictiveness

scale. Perhaps surprisingly, the most progressive countries are not the Nordic ones, but

Belgium and the Netherlands (10), followed by Sweden (9), Canada, Luxembourg, and

the United Kingdom (8), with Italy (3) as the most conservative, followed by Ireland,

Austria, and Israel (4). The overall mean score for the progressive-conservative

continuum if 6.37, meaning most countries tend to be somewhat above “intermediate” on

14

the scale.

Overall, while there is a clear trend toward greater liberalization of policy in all of

these areas and away from traditional, often Christian-based morality, there remains a

considerable amount of moral diversity among Western democracies, even in Europe.

Countries are not always consistent in their policies on related issues or even what one

might expect on scale of religious devoutness. There may be several potential

explanations for this, which will be explored later, but one undoubtedly is variety of

preferences of professional as well as activist groups for declared government policies in

some countries while in others a more relaxed attitude toward different forms of social

behavior exists. In other words, an attempted change, usually towards liberalization, of

morally-charged policies can lead to ongoing political conflict and difficult relations,

even among governing parties in a coalition, while some societies prefer to leave such

matters out of the political realm (Timmermans 2003; Outshoorn 1996; Green-Pedersen

2007).

Policy Processes for Morality Issues

Various commentators have argued that morality issues constitute a distinctive

policy area not only by their content, but also by the processes used to decide them.

Whether taken individually (Christoph 1962; Cohan 1986)) or as a group (Tatalovich and

Daynes 1988; 1998; Cowley 1998; Studlar 2001; Meier 2001; Smith and Tatalovich

2003), it has been claimed that morality issues constitute “marginal,” “emotive-

symbolic,” “morally redistributive,” or “social regulatory” policies, different than what

most analysts see as the “normal” policy process in the democratic countries in which

they are considered. This claim relates to the question first raised by Lowi (1964) and

15

notably in the comparative politics field by Smith (1969, 1975) and Freeman (1986),

namely, does policy determine politics rather than the widely-assumed reversal. More

recently, the “policy arenas” argument has achieved greater visibility in the study of

European politics as well (Timmermans 2001, Montpetit et al 2007) although it has never

been broadly validated empirically even in the U.S. Nevertheless, is fair to ask, do

morality policies have special policy processes different than the norm, considering the

political institutions for the countries involved? That is the subject of Table 2

(Table 2 about here.)

The “normal” policy process for most Western democracies is what is often called

“parliamentary government,” with the lower house of the legislature choosing the

government based on party shares of the seats and ability to form any necessary

coalitions for a workable governing agreement. Usually a government is based on a

majority of seats, but the key point is to be able to sustain itself in office until the next

scheduled general election. However, the government is subject to periodic votes of

confidence from the legislature, which, if ever lost, means that the government would

have to resign and a new one formed, perhaps after an intervening general election. In

order to make this “fused” system of executive-legislative relations work, strong party

cohesion among legislators is necessary to make credible policy commitments, both to

voters in party manifestos, to governing coalition partners, and to interest groups and the

public more generally. The government controls the legislative agenda, and most policies

considered are prepared, presented, and defended by the cabinet, which, except in rare

circumstances, expects all government-supporting party members in the legislature to

vote for it. This description of parliamentary government obtains for all but five countries

16

surveyed here. There are some variations in Norway and Austria (Laver and Shepsle

1994) and bigger ones involving a separately chosen executive in Switzerland, the United

States, and more recently Israel.

Table 2 indicates some ways in which the institutionalized policy process might

differ from the norm. These are as follows:

: 1) Judicialization: when major policy decisions have been made by the judiciary;

2) Legislative Party: when policy has been introduced in the lower house of the

legislature by a party not in the government or by an individual member of

parliament (MP);

3) Divided Party: when a vote on a bill shows divisions within one or more parties;

4) Referendum: when a policy has been put to a popular vote;

5) Federalism/Devolution: when a policy has been subject to adoption decisions at

a level of government below that of the center (e.g., provinces, regions, districts,

or municipal);

6) Constitution: when a policy has led to a constitutional dispute;

7) Multiple Arenas: when a policy has been decided by other than the normal

executive dominated process.

In order to assess this, it was documented as to whether each morality issues was

subject to these processes in each country, as far as data would allow. One instance of the

policy being treated in other than the “normal” executive-dominated process is enough to

qualify; thus the table does not record frequency of occurrence of each process. As is

observable from Table 2, there have been lots of aberrant policy processes on morality

issues in Western democracies, congruent with findings dating back to Christoph (1962)

17

and most systematically developed by Smith (1969, 1975). Because of the dominant

model of party government obtains so broadly, the most likely deviation from established

procedures occurs in executive-legislative relations. Opposition party and individual

backbench MPs often introduce morality measures in the legislature even though this is

not likely to be successful, and there are frequent splits in party voting on “conscience”

issues. Judicialization is the next most likely unusual process since this has been

spreading across Western democracies (Tate and Vallinder, 1995). Morality issues have

even been the subject of important court decisions in countries where this rarely occurs

(Austria, New Zealand, and Sweden). Many countries have only rare referendums on any

issue, but others, such as Switzerland and the U.S. (on state, not central level) have many.

Butler and Ranney (1994) find that moral issues are one of the major topics of

referendums, and the data here indicate that morality policy is the topic of selective

referendums outside where it might be expected. of policy initiatives and even different

outcomes among jurisdictions in a country, usually but not always formally federal

systems. Multiple arenas for morality policy occur almost everywhere.

In some instances morality policies have even led to constitutional decisions,

either by the judiciary, referendums, or other amending procedures. This is especially

true for capital punishment, where the movement for abolition has encouraged writing

bans into the constitution. There remains a considerable elite-mass gap over its use in

several countries, with the population being more sympathetic to retaining the death

penalty (Smith and Tatalovich 2003). In a time of war or especially outrageous crime,

there might be serious efforts to reinstate the death penalty unless it was constitutionally

forbidden.

18

This survey of the various unusual institutional pathways that morality issues

have taken indicates that the normal model of parliamentary government is less frequent

for these issues. This confirms Studlar’s (2001; see also Outshoorn 1996) more limited

study of the policy processes for abortion as an issue across Western democracies.

Despite expectations that “more scientific” morality issues might be handled

through usual parliamentary government processes, Table 2 indicates that across Western

democracies there are not wide variations in the susceptibility of particular morality

issues to unusual political processes in general although it is noteworthy that abortion is

the issue most subject to multiple arenas. However, there are specific variations by issue

and political process. Overall, most procedural aberrations occur through legislatures and

judiciaries. Judicialization is highly involved is rarely involved in capital punishment or

ART compared to the other three issues. Although unusual legislative procedures (private

member’s bills and split party voting) were first documented for capital punishment, in

fact it is abortion that is the most common topic of these particular behaviors, in fact

twice as much as any other morality policy. Referendums are rare, but again abortion is

the leading issue, largely due to Catholic countries. Contestation at multiple levels of

government is also a limited option, utilized in similar proportions for each issue.

Constitutional changes are also infrequent, but utilized the most for capital punishment,

as expected, and secondarily abortion. This includes judicial decisions based on

constitutional grounds.

Some countries are more susceptible to institutional aberrations on morality issues

than others are. It is no surprise that the country with the most venues involved in

morality policy is the United States. The second group, however, contains a mix of

19

federal countries with strong judiciaries as well as some with strong Catholic influence—

Switzerland, Australia, Germany, Italy, Canada, and Ireland. The United Kingdom is also

in this group, but not because of devolution. Overall, parliamentary government seems to

be a more preferable model for dealing with morality policy for Continental and Nordic,

especially consensus-based political systems than for majoritarian ones.

Explanations

Now that the patterns of agenda-setting, adoption, and procedures of morality policy

issues have been shown, the question arises, “what can explain these patterns?” Some of

the tentative answers have been suggested above, but they will be made more explicit in

this section. Especially in the recent literature on ART, several different explanations

have been surveyed, with various results depending on the countries examined (Bleikle

et al. 2004; Montpetit et al. 2007). Most credence is given to a group-based explanation

of interests outside government and how they have mobilized to lobby for their preferred

positions. This type of analysis normally requires in-depth case studies, which the

scholars of ART have provided, but which are impossible in the article-length, broader

survey of morality policies here. Thus I shall set this explanation aside.

But there remain other contenders. These include Families of Nations/political

culture (Castles 1993; Goetz 2006), institutions (Lijphart 1999; Baumgartner and Jones

2009; Tsebelis 1995; Timmermans 2001), partisanship (Green-Pedersen 2007; Cowley

2001; Outshoorn 1996), policy arenas/policy sectors (Smith 1969; 1975; Cohan 1986;

Tatalovich and Daynes 1988; Studlar 1996); lesson drawing/policy transfer (Montpetit et

al. 2007), and international organization influences (Montpetit et al. 2007).

Families of Nations is a somewhat ambiguous theory since it can incorporate both

20

political culture and policy diffusion influences. Nevertheless, it has proven to be more

robust in the European/colonial experience than its US cousin, policy diffusion through

regional influences (Obinger and Wagschal 2001; Castles and Obinger 2008; Leichter

1983). Here I only point out some broad patterns. The most obvious one is the nearly

uniformly progressive moral policies of the Benelux countries rather than the usual

Families of Nations groupings (English-speaking, Nordic, German, Continental), with

strongly Catholic countries from several of the usual categories (Ireland, Italy, Austria)

remaining conservative. There also may be Family of Nations patterns for individual

issues in terms of dates of agendas, decisions, timing, and procedures that will be

explored in future work.

One assumes that at least part of the Families of Nations grouping is due to social

and especially religious influences on these issues. As noted below, this often operates,

especially in Europe, through partisan orientations and their expression in government

coalitions. But with the decline of even Roman Catholic regular observation in Europe,

even such nominally Catholic countries as Benelux, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland

have adopted some intermediate or even permissive policies on some morality issues.

Notably, there is Benelux permissiveness on same-sex domestic relations and even

euthanasia issues; this is true in highly Catholic Canada as well.

But researchers could also assume that through cognate languages, similar cultures,

and ease of communication and transportation among Families of Nations, policy

learning through lesson drawing and policy transfer is involved. While we have no direct

measures of this, scattered evidence exists to support this hypothesis (Montpetit et al.

2007; Grießler and Hadolt 2006) even though some argue that moral/cultural issues,

21

because of their relatively high value rather than technological content, are less

susceptible to this process than other issues (cf. Rose 1993; Studlar 1993; 2008). As

noted, the amount of technological content of these issues, varies, however, with ART the

highest and same sex domestic relations the lowest.

Related to diffusion is adoption through policy learning and perhaps even coercion

by international NGOs and IGOs, what are sometimes called “international prohibition

regimes” (Nadelmann1990; Keck and Sikkink 1998). In contrast to much of the country-

based policy diffusion literature, however, research on such regimes indicates that value-

based issues are those most susceptible to such formations. While such regimes exist for

some issues, such as capital punishment, especially through Amnesty International, the

Council of Europe, and the European Union, their influence is limited. These

organizations may have had some influence on agendas, but they can also act as an

affirmation or justification of adopted policies rather than being persuasive in adopting

them. Euthanasia remains a highly contested issue, with international lobbying on it from

the Catholic church and volunteer NGOs.

Although most European countries in this study are members of the European

Union, the EU has not had any discernible influence on these issues, even ART, which is

closest to the economic competences of the EU (Montpetit 2007). While there are fears in

some countries that the EU may restrict their policy options on morality issues (Kurzer

2001), this rarely occurs. However, since 1998 the EU has required that capital

punishment be abolished in order for an applicant country to be accepted in the

organization. This is an outcome of policy consensus among older EU members, the ones

included here, rather than influencing their adoptions.

22

From the parliamentary government model, one might expect that party composition

of the government is an important dimension in debate and resolution of these issues. On

several of them, the absence of the Christian Democrats from a coalition government

allowed parties interested in advocating “progressive” positions on issues, mainly

Socialist, Liberal, and other center-left parties, to move the issue from parliamentary

dissent to government-sponsored or at least government-tolerated bills. Even if party

splits occurred in the voting, the left-leaning parties normally overwhelmingly had their

MPs support more progressive legislation while members of right-leaning parties voted

for less progressive bills (Cowley 2001; Green-Pedersen 2007; Timmermans 2001;

Outshoorn 1996; Grießler and Hadolt 2006). Thus it would seem that the religious-

secular dimension is an important determinant of government proposals, legislative votes,

and outcomes. Only ART is a partial issue exception, as there is both secular left wing

and religiously based right-wing suspicion of allowing science to tamper with the

creation of human life (Bleikle et al. 2004; Montpetit et.. 2007). Even with workable

government majorities, however, sometimes free votes are allowed on ART issues.

Even though parties often abdicate responsibility for morality policies in their

manifestos and even in government, analysts argue that parties still have a strong

influence on outcomes, either behind the scenes or through largely party line, if not

whipped, votes (Cowley 2001). Green-Pedersen (2007) argues that party domination of

these issues is likely to lead to quicker, more definitive resolution. In those countries that

have the fewest institutional aberrations from parliamentary government, the duration of

the agenda is shorter and the policies are more definitive. But the availability of other

institutional options, for instance the possibility of judicialization in some countries, or

23

because of internal reluctance within the parties to take a strong stand on these issues,

party dominance does not necessarily occur. The latter suggests that it may be the nature

of the issue itself that is partly responsible. This will be explored below.

There are several institutional theories that might apply morality policy agendas,

timing, outcomes, and processes. Lijphart’s (1999) well known theory suggests that

consensus democracies would be “kinder and gentler” in their morality policies than

majoritarian ones. The only morality issue he considers, however, is the death penalty,

which confirms his hypothesis; his data, however, show that it is British-influenced

majoritarian democracies, especially in the developing world, that are the redoubts of

capital punishment. If, for the sake of argument, one assumes that, in general, progressive

policies fit Lijphart’s designation of “kinder, gentler,” then there is no clear evidence here

for his contention. As noted earlier, however, there is some evidence that unitary,

consensus democracies are more likely to have fewer venues involved in morality

policies than others.

Two other institutional theories are somewhat contradictory; these are

Baumgartner and Jones’s (2009) “multiple venues” and Tsebilis’s (1995) “veto players.”

Multiple venues suggests that issues reach the agenda and dominant subsystem coalitions

shift if there are more institutional opportunities for them to challenge dominant

coalitions and policies. The U.S. political system that they analyze is famous for its

multiple venues, both on the central level and through federalism, but this

conceptualization has been extended elsewhere as well. On the other hand, Tsebilis

emphasizes that the more potential veto players there are who have to be conciliated in

order for a decision to occur, the more compromises have to be made, and, in general, the

24

more difficult it is to reach decisions. In other words, issues may stay on the institutional

agenda for a long time as groups become involved who challenge the direction of

previous decisions. The U.S. is also famous for long-standing indecision on some issues

and the difficulty of getting different institutions based on varying constituencies to

agree. While multiple venues may not necessarily involve conflicting veto players, these

two perspectives seem to clash in their essentials. Which explanation is more relevant to

the various dimensions of morality policy?

Timmermans (2001) proposes another variation of an institutional argument for

explaining policy outcomes, involving both the number of institutional arenas in policy

deliberation and the tightness of the rules governing the institutions. Assessing the

tightness of rules comparatively is a formidable task, perhaps best done by the small-N

case studies For morality issues, the number of institutions involved is likely to be higher

than the norm for that country and may range from professional groups and expert

executive committees to subcentral institutions and even the general public through

referendums. As has been observed, the normally tight rules of parliamentary government

are often relaxed for morality policies.

These institutional approaches, especially that of Timmermans, raise the issue of

whether morality policy is a distinctive policy type that occasions a somewhat different

institutional response in a political system from the normal one obtaining in that country.

This is the contention of some U.S.-based observers (Smith 1969; 1975; Tatalovich and

Daynes 1988; 1998; Smith and Tatalovich 2003). In the U.S. and Switzerland, there are

so many venues available for all policies that it is hard to distinguish whether morality

policies are distinctive. More generally, this study concerns only morality policies and

25

therefore does not have a range of other types of issues. What would constitute the

boundaries of morality issues (Studlar 2008) is also not explored as these dimensions for

these five issues are clear. Nevertheless, supporting the views of previous students of

particular issues, often in individual countries, the diversity of institutions involved in

morality policies in most of these 24 democracies indicates that the contentious value

conflict involved in these policy deliberations makes them difficult to contain within the

normal institutional boundaries. In other words, often morality policies lead to relaxation

of normal institutional rules, spillover effects into other institutions as disaffected groups

challenge decisions, extended debate, and the revisiting of decisions. Nevertheless, some

political systems are able to contain these issues and make binding decisions that stand.

The problem is that there does not appear to be any general institutional configuration for

this; instead the pertinent factors would appear to be a combination of cultural and

institutional factors, namely Nordic countries with unitary institutions.

In terms of Hall’s (1993) concept of policy change, it does appear that what the

West has been experiencing, however uneven in location and timing, has been a

paradigm change in the policy goals in morality policy. Morality policy is difficult to

adopt because it is, generally speaking, “socially redistributive,” and not entirely subject

to scientific findings and expertise, however much these are invoked. To move from a

legal ban on abortion, assisted suicide, or same sex domestic relationships can be a

dramatic directional change for large numbers of individuals, groups, and political

interests in a democratic polity. Even taking the first step on these issues, as well as at

least some dimensions of assisted reproductive technology, may be difficult. Limiting

what crimes fall under the death penalty has been done for centuries, and therefore may

26

not represent a paradigm shift until much later, if a complete ban is contemplated. While

there may be first and second-order policy change along the way, that is, incremental

steps concerning the adoption of different policy instruments or calibrations of

instruments, taking the last step, toward a fully permissive regime on abortion,

euthanasia, same sex domestic relationships, and ART, as well as a ban on capital

punishment, may also represent a paradigm change in that it is fully legitimating policy

goals desired by some but loathed by others. That such seismic shifts closely related to

citizens’ values generate controversy over often extended periods, procedural aberrations,

and avoidance behavior from governments should not be surprising. Most parties and

politicians are much more comfortable in the more normal world of policy adjustment

through first and second order changes.

Conclusions

At least in some of these countries, all of these morality policies remain on the

active public agenda. How long this will be the case depends both on whether they can be

resolved in a stable manner and the availability of alternative institutional venues to

pursue them. Within the general trend of progressive movements on all of these issues,

restrictiveness and even constitutionally-based abolition of capital punishment is

pervasive, relatively permissive abortion has become a “stable compromise” in most

countries, same sex domestic relations are in the process of being liberalized in several

countries. There is most variation, from permissive to restrictive, on ART and euthanasia

policies although both have undergone overall liberalization over the past 20 years

despite persistent, well-entrenched resistance. Overall, there has been a policy paradigm

change on morality policies in Western democracies since World War although the

27

change is more thorough in some jurisdictions rather than others. Morality policy seems

to be a distinctive policy area in its violations of the normal parliamentary government

model, but more persuasive explanations for similarities and differences in content of

policies remain to be developed.

References Adolino, J. and C. Blake. 2011. Comparing Public Policies. 2nd ed. Washington: CQ

Press. Albæk, E. 2003.“Political Ethics and Public Policy: Homosexuals Between Moral Dilemmas and Political Considerations in Danish Parliamentary Debates,” Scandinavian Political Studies 26: 245-267. Andeweg, R.B. and G.A. Irwin. 2002. Governance and Politics of the Netherlands. New York: Palgrave 2002. Baumgartner, F.R., S. L. De Boef, and A. E. Boydstun. 2008. The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Baumgartner, F.R. and B. D. Jones. 2009. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Banchoff, T. 2005. “Path Dependence and Value-Driven Issues; The Comparative Politics of Stem Cell Research.” World Politics 57, 2: 200-230. Blank, R. H. and J. C. Merrick. 2001. End-of-Life Decision Making: A Cross- National Study. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Bleiklie, I., M.L. Goggin and C. Rothmayr (eds). 2004. Comparative Biomedical Policy:

Governing Assisted Reproductive Technologies. London: Routledge. Bondeson, U. 2007. Nordic Moral Climates. London: Transaction. Bromhead, P. 1956. Private Members’ Bills in the British Parliament. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Burrell, R. 2006. Assisted Reproduction in the Nordic Countries: A Comparative Study

of Policies and Regulation. TemaNord 2006:505. Butler, D. and A. Ranney (eds). 1994. Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy. Washington: AEI Press. Bryld, M. 2001. “The Infertility Clinic and the Birth of the Lesbian: The Political Debate On Assisted Reproduction in Denmark.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 8:

299-312. Cairney, P. forthcoming. Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues.

Basingstoke: Palgrave. Castles, F.G. (ed.) 1993. Families of Nations. Dartmouth, NH: Aldershot. Castles, F.G. and H. Obinger. 2008. “Worlds, Families, Regimes: Country Clusters in European and OECD Area Public Policy.” West European Politics 31: 321-344. Chandler, D.B. 1976. Capital Punishment in Canada; A Sociological Study of Repressive Law. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Christoph, J.B. 1962. Capital Punishment in British Politics. Chicago: University

28

of Chicago Press. Cohan. A.S. 1986. “Abortion as a Marginal Issue: The Use of Peripheral Mechanisms in Britain and the United States.” In J. Lovenduski and J. Outshoorn (eds.) The New

Politics of Abortion. London: Sage. Cohen, J. and H.W. Jones, Jr. 2004. “Worldwide Legislation.” In D.K. Gardner, A.

Weissman, C.M. Howels and Z. Shoham (eds) Textbook Of Assisted Reproductive Techniques: Laboratory and Clinical Perspectives. 2nd ed. London: Taylor and Francis. Council of Europe. 1999. The Death Penalty Abolition in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Cowley, P. (ed). 1998. Conscience and Parliament. London: Frank Cass Cowley, P. 2001. “Morality Policy Without Politics? The Case of Britain.” In C.Z. Mooney (ed.) 2001. The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy. New York: Chatham House. Donovan, T., C.Z. Mooney and D.L. Smith. 2010. State and Local Politics: Institutions and Reform. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Engeli, I. 2008. “The Challenges of Abortion and Assisted Reproductive Technologies Policies in Europe.” Comparative European Politics 7: 56-74. Evans, R.J. 1996. Rituals of Retribution: Capital Punishment in Germany 1600-1987. New York: Oxford University Press. Field, M. 1979. "Determinants of Abortion Policy in Developed Nations," Policy Studies Journal 9: 771-781. Forst, M. 1999. “The Abolition of the Death Penalty in France.” In Council of Europe. The Death Penalty Abolition in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Frank, R. H. 2010. “A Small Price for a Large Benefit.” New York Times. February 20. Freeman, G. P. 1986. “National Styles and Policy Sectors: Explaining Structured Variation.” Journal of Public Policy 5: 467-496. Frendreis, J. and R. Tatalovich. 2010. “’A Hundred Miles of Dry’: Religion and the Persistence of Prohibition in the American States.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly (forthcoming). Goetz, K.H. 2006. “Territory, Temporality, and Clustered Europeanization,” Unpublished paper, University of Potsdam. Green-Pedersen, C. 2007. “The Conflict of Conflicts in Comparative Perspective: Euthanasia as a Political Issue in Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands.” Comparative Politics 39: 273-291. Grießler, E. and B. Hadolt. 2006. “Policy Learning in Policy Domains with Value Conflicts: The Austrian Cases of Abortion and Assisted Reproductive Technologies.” German Policy Studies 3: 698-746. Hall. P. 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain.” Comparative Politics 25: 275-296. Hill, M. et al. 2005. The Public Policy Process. 4th edition. Essex: Pearson Education. Hood, R. and C. Hoyle. 2008. The Death Penalty: Worldwide Perspective. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Keck, M. and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in

29

International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Ketting, E. and P. van Praag. 1986. “The Marginal Relevance of Legislation Relating to

Induced Abortion.” In J. Lovenduski and J. Outshoorn (eds.) The New Politics of Abortion. London: Sage.

Klinh, Margaet Otlowski, and M. Trappenburg (eds). 2001. Regulating Physician-Negotiated Death. ‘s-Gravenhage: Elsevier.

Knoepfel, P., C. Larrue, F Varone and M. 2007. Public Policy Analysis. Bristol: Policy Press.

Krabbendam, H. and H-M. Ten Napel (eds). 2000. Regulating Morality: A Comparison of the Role of the State in Monitoring the Mores in the Netherlands and the United States. Antwerpen-Apeldoom: Maklu.

Kurzer, P. 2001. Markets and Moral Regulation: Cultural Change in the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lahti, R. 2006.”Euthanasia” in E. J. Holloditor, Finnish Legal System and Recent Development. Helsinki: Edita. Laver, M. and K.A. Shepsle. 1994. “Cabinet Government in Theoretical Perspective.” In M. Laver and K.A. Shepsle (eds.) Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Government New York: Cambridge University Press. Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Institutions and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press. Leduc, L. 2003. The Politics of Direct Democracy: Referendums in Global Perspective. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press. Leichter, H.M. 1983. “The Patterns and Origins of Policy Diffusion: The Case of the Commonwealth” Comparative Politics 15: 223-233 Lowi, T. J. 1964. “American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory.” World Politics 16: 677-715/ Marsh, D. and M. Read. 1988. Private Members’ Bills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meier. K. 1994. The Politics of Sin. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Meier, K. 2001.”Drugs, Sex, and Rock and Roll: A Theory of Morality Politics.” In C.Z. Mooney (ed.) 2001. The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of

Morality Policy. New York: Chatham House Mitchell, P. 1999. “”Coalition Discipline, Enforcement Mechanisms, and Intraparty Politics.” In S. Bowler, D.M. Farrell and R.S.Katz. (eds) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Mitsumori, Y. and P. Rogers. 2004. Human Embryo and Stem cell Research in Japan-an Update. Tokyo, British Embassy, September. Mohrenschlager, M. 1987. “The Abolition of Capital Punishment in the Federal Republic of Germany: German Experiences.” Revue Internationale de Droit Penal 58: 509- 519. Montpetit, E., C. Rothmayr, and F. Varone. 2005. “Institutional Vulnerability to Social Constructions: Federalism, Target Populations, and Policy Designs for Assisted Reproductive Technology in Six Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 38: 119-142. Montpetit, E., C. Rothmayr, and F. Varone (eds.). 2007. The Politics of Biotechnology in North America and Europe: Policy Networks, Institutions, and

30

Internationalization. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Mooney, C.Z. (ed.) 2001. The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality

Policy. New York: Chatham House. Mooney, C Z. and R. G. Schuldt. 2008. “Does Morality Policy Exist? Testing a Basic Assumption.” Policy Studies Journal 36: 199-218. Morton, F.L. 1992. Morgentaler vs. Borowski: Abortion, the Charter, and the Courts: Toronto: McClelland Stewart. Mughan, A. and R.M. Scully 1997.”Accounting for Change in Free Vote Outcomes in the House of Commons.” British Journal of Political Science 37: 640-647. Nadelmann, E.A.1990. “ Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society.” International Organization 44: 479-526. Obinger, H. and U Wagschal, 2001. “Families of Nations and Public Policy.” West European Politics 24 (2001): 99-114. Outshoorn, J. 1996. AThe Stability of Compromise: Abortion Politics in Western Europe,” in M. Githens and D. Stetson (eds.), Abortion Politics: Public Policy in Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Routledge, 1996. Overby, M., R. Tatalovich and D. Studlar 1998. “Party and Free Votes in Canada: Abortion in the House of Commons,” Party Politics 4 (3): 481-492. Pedersen, M.N. 1967. “Consensus and Conflict in the Danish Folketing, 1945-1965.” Scandinavian Political Studies 2: 143-166. Roh, J. and F.S. Berry. 2008. “Framing and Modeling the Outcomes of State Abortion Funding Referenda: Morality or Redistributive Policy, or Both?” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 8: 66-87. Rolston, B. and A. Eggert (eds). 1994. Abortion in the New Europe. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Rose, R. 1993. Lesson Drawing in Public Policy. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Rothmayr, C. 2006. “Explaining Restrictive ART Politics in Switzerland and Germany: Similar Processes—Similar Results?” German Policy Studies 3: 595-647. Rothmayr, C., F. Varone and E. Montpetit. 2003. “Does Federalism matter for Biopolitics? Switzerland in Comparative Perspective” Swiss Political Science Review 9: 109-136. Schwartz, M.A.1981. “Politics and Moral Causes in Canada and the United States.” Comparative Social Research 4: 65-90. Skjæveland, A. 2001. “Party Cohesion in the Danish Parliament.” Journal of Legislative Studies 7: 35-56. Smith, K. 2002. “Typologies, Taxonomies, and the Benefits of Policy Classification,” Policy Studies Journal 30 (2002): 379-392 Smith, T.A. 1969. “Toward a Comparative Theory of the Policy Process.” Comparative Politics 1: 498-515. Smith, T.A. 1975. The Comparative Policy Process. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio. Smith, T.A. and R. Tatalovich, 2003. Cultures at War: Moral Conflicts in Western Democracies. Peterborough: Broadview Press. Søland, B. 1998. “A Queer Nation? The Passage of the Gay and Lesbian Partnership Legislation in Denmark, 1989.” Social Politics 5: 48-69. Stetson, D.M. (ed) 2001. Abortion Politics, Women’s Movements, and the Democratic State: A Comparative Study of State Feminism. New York: Oxford University

Press.

31

Studlar, D.T. 1993. “Ethnic Minority Groups, Agenda Setting and Policy Borrowing in Britain,” in P.D. McClain (ed) Minority Group Influence: Agenda Setting, Formulation And Public Policy. New York: Greenwood Press. Studlar, D.T. 1996. Britain: Decline or Renewal? Boulder: Westview Press. Studlar, D.T. 2001. “What Constitutes Morality Policy? A Cross-National Analysis,” in C. Z. Mooney (ed.) The Public Clash of Private Values: the Politics of Morality Policy. New York: Chatham House. Studlar, D.T. 2008. “U.S. Tobacco Control: Public Health, Political Economy, or Morality Policy?” Review of Policy Research 25 (5): 393-410. Svensson, P. 1982. “Party Cohesion in the Danish Parliament during the 1970s.”

Scandinavian Political Studies 5:17-42. Tatalovich, R. 1997. Abortion Politics in the United States and Canada. Armonk, NY:

M.E. Sharpe. Tatalovich, R. and B. Daynes (eds). 1988. Social Regulatory Policy: Moral Controversies

In American Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview.. Tatalovich, R. and B. Daynesn (eds). 1998. Moral Controversies in American Politics.

Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Tate, C. N. and T. Vallinder. 1995. The Global Expansion of Judicial Power. New York: New York University Press. Timmermans, A. 2001. “Arenas as Institutional Sites for Policymaking: Patterns and

Effects in Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 3: 311-337.

Timmermans, A. I. 2003. High Politics in the Low Countries: An Empirical Study of Coalition Agreements in Belgium and The Netherlands. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Tsebelis, G. 1995. “Decisionmaking in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism, and Multipartyism” British Journal of Political Science 25: 289-325. Varone, F., C. Rothmayr and E. Montpetit. 2006. “Regulating Biomedicine in Europe And North America: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” European Journal of Political Research 45: 317-343. Varone, F. and N.Schiffino. 2004. “Regulating Red and Green Biotechnologies in Belgium: Diverging Designs of Biopolicies.” Archives of Public Health 63:83- 106. von Beyme, K. 1998. The Legislator: German Parliament as the Centre of Decision- making. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate. Wald, K. D., J. W. Button and B. A. Rienzo 2001 “Morality Politics vs. Political

Economy: The Case of School-based Health Centers.” Social Science Quarterly 82: 221-234.

*Thanks to William Harrison and Alessandro Cagossi, graduate students at West Virginia University, for their assistance in data gathering and translation.

32

Table 1: Morality Policy Agendas, Timing, Duration, and Content

Country Cap. P Yrs. Con Abor-Yrs Con Euth, Yrs Con ART-Yrs Con S Sex DR Yrs Con M Con

Australia  1922-1985 R 1861- 2006 I

1995-2009 I 1988 - 2005 P? 2003 - 2009 I 7

Austria 1950 - 1968 R 1962 - 1976 I R 1986 - 1992 R 2003 - 2009 I 4

Belgium 1996 - 2005 R 1973 - 1990 P

1980s - 2002 P 1987 - 2003 P 1999 - 2003 P 10

Canada 1961-1998 R 1969 - 1989 P

1957 - 1992 I 1993 - 2004 I 1999- 2006 P 8

Denmark 1930 - 1993 R 1937 - 1973 P 1995 R 1948 - 2004 I 1984 - 1999 I 6

Finland 1949 -2000 R 1950 - 2001 P R 1950 - 2006 P 2001 I 7

France 1950- 2007 R 1955 - 1992 P

2000- 2009 I

1983 - 2004 I 1999 - 2006 I 7

Germany 1949 - 1952 R 1927 - 1993 I 2000 R/I ? 1982 - 2002 R 2001 I 5

Greece 1993 - 2001 R 1984 P? R I? 2006 - 2009 R 5

Iceland 1928 - 1995 R 1935 - 1975 P R 1986 - 2006 P 1996 - 2010 I 7

Ireland 1990 - 2001 R 1861 - 1999 I 1993 R/I? R 2003- 2010 R? 4

Israel 1954 I 1977 I 2009 P/I? 1998 - 2009 I? 1994 - 2004 R 4

Italy 1948 - 2007 R 1971 - 1981 I

1984 - 2009 R 2003 - 2009 R 1986 - 2007 R 3

Japan 1989 - 2009 I 1948 - 1996 P

1962 - 1996 I 2001 - 2007 I 2009 R 5

Luxemburg 1949-1999 R

1978 - 2010 I

2008 - 2009 P I/P 2002 - 2010 P 8

Netherland 1870 - 1991 R

1911 - 1981 P

1973 - 2001 P 1989 - 2003 P 1997 -2000 P 10

New Zealand 1961 - 1989 R

1861 - 2004 P

1961- 2003 R/I? R? 2004 I 6

Norway 1905 - 1979 R 1902 - 1978 P 2000 R 1950 -2003 R 1993 - 2008 P 6

Portugal 1911- 1976 R 1886 - 2007 P R R 2001 - 2010 P 6

Spain 1978 - 1995 R 1936 - 1985 I

1995 - 2007 R I 2005 P 6

Sweden 1921 - 1972 R 1938 -1974 P 1979 I 1948 - 2005 P 1994 - 2009 P 9

Switzerland 1937- 1992 R

1916 - 2002 I

1918 - 2006 P 1988 - 1992 R 2001 -2005 I 6

U.K. 1947 - 2001 R 1861 - 1990 P

1957 - 2004 I 1982 - 2005 P 2004 I 8

U.S.A. 1846 - 2010 I 1967 - 2010 I

1976 - 2008 I 1974 -,2009 P 1972 - 2010 I 6

MeanY start (post-war) 1957

1955 1983 1980 1998 1975

MeanY end 1989

1991 2002 2004 2006 1998

Mean Duration 32 36 19 24 8 24 Mean Cont 9.38 7.91 3.96 5 5.63 6.38

33

Table 2: Morality Policy Processes Other Than Parliamentary Government Model

Country Judl Leg.Part Div

Party Ref Fed/Dev Const Mult Ar Tot

Australia 15 Cap. Pt X X X 2 Abortion X X X X X 4 Euthan X X X X X 4

ART X X X 2 S Sex DR X X X X 3 Austria 5 Cap. P

AB X X X X 3 Euthan

ART S Sex DR X X X 2 Belgium 8 Cap. P X 1

AB X X 2 Euthan X X X 2

ART X X X 2 S Sex DR X 1 Canada 12 Cap. P X X X 2

AB X X X X X 4 Euthan X 1

ART X X 1 S Sex DR X X X X X 4 Denmark 7

Cap. P X X 1 AB X X 2

Euthan ART X X X 2

S Sex DR X X X 2 Finland 5 Cap. P X X X 2

AB X X X 2 Euthan

ART X X 1 S Sex DR

France 9 Cap. P X X X X 3

AB X X X X 3 Euthan X X 1

ART S Sex DR X X X 2 Germany 14

Cap. P X X X X X 4 AB X X X X X X 5

Euthan X 1

34

ART X X X X X 4 S Sex DR Greece 3 Cap. P

AB X X 1 Euthan

ART S Sex DR X X X 2 Iceland 2 Cap. P X 1

AB X X 1 Euthan

ART S Sex DR

Ireland 10 Cap. P X X X 2

AB X X X X X 4 Euthan

ART X 1 S Sex DR X X X X 3

Israel 2 Cap. P

AB Euthan X X 1

ART S Sex DR X X 1

Italy 14 Cap. P X X X 2

AB X X X X X X 5 Euthan X X 1

ART X X X X 3 S Sex DR X X X X 3

Japan 1 Cap. P

AB Euthan X X 1

ART S Sex DR

Luxemburg 6 Cap. P X X X 2

AB X X 1 Euthan X X X 2

ART X S Sex DR X X 1

Netherlands

6

Cap. Pt AB X X X X 3

Euthan X X X X 3 ART

S Sex DR

35

New Zealand

7

Cap. P X X X 2 AB X X X X 3

Euthan X X ? X 2 ART

S Sex DR Norway 5 Cap. P

AB X X X 2 Euthan X X 1

ART X X X 2 S Sex DR Portugal 7 Cap. P

AB X X X X X 4 Euthan

ART S Sex DR X X X X 3

Spain 5 Cap. P

AB X X X 2 Euthan X X 1

ART X X X 2 S Sex DR Sweden 4 Cap. P X

AB X X 1 Euthan X X 1

ART S Sex DR X X X 2

Switzerland 15 Cap. P X X

AB X X X X X X 5 Euthan X X X 2

ART X X X X X X X 6 S Sex DR X X X 2

U.K. 12 Cap. X X X X 3 AB X X X X 3

Euthan X X ? X X 3 ART X X 2

S Sex DR X 1 U.S.A. 25 Cap. X X X X X 4 AB X X X X X X X 6

Euthan X X X X X X 5 ART X X X X X X 5

S Sex DR X X X X X X 5

36

Total 45 53 44 13 26 20 74

Cap. P 1 11 5 2 4 9 13 AB 12 17 21 5 6 5 19

Euthan 15 9 3 1 3 2 14 ART 5 7 9 3 6 2 13

S Sex DR 12 9 6 2 7 2 15