Shifting the Blame: Federalism, Media, and Public Assignment of Blame Following Hurricane Katrina

Abstract

Federalism sprang to the forefront in public debates about the response to Hurricane Katrina as officials from the national, state, and local government sought to shift blame to other levels of government. Our analysis shows that attempts by national political actors to frame the response as the fault of state government actions were successful, but the size of the effect was conditional on predispositions. Those who were more attentive to coverage were more likely to believe that state failure to call for help had a great effect on the length of time it took for national government to provide aid to New Orleans.The effect was strongest for Republicans, however, suggesting that predispositions mediate acceptance of elite frames that transfer blame. Assigning responsibility for political outcomes is complex in a federalist system because power is apportioned across multiple levels of government and often shared among actors at different levels. Federalism is designed to enhance representation by allowing citizens a voice through their local, state, and federal ballot boxes. However, federalism also creates potentially confusing layers of bureaucracy and redundancies in services that make it difficult for citizens to identify and hold accountable the responsible government actors (Arceneaux 2005, 2006; Atkeson and Partin 2001). Moreover, in systems where policy in the same area is carried out by multiple levels of government, political actors have incentives to shift blame to actors at other levels, further complicating the public’s task in assigning blame to the appropriate targets. How do citizens form opinions about cause and effect in such a complex system? We address this question by exploring citizens’ perceptions of various reasons given by media and political elite to explain the length of time it took for the national government to provide aid to those in New Orleans. Attributions—beliefs