How Does Strengthening Church-State Relations Affect Religiosity and Conservative Social Values in the United States?

This study asks whether stronger church-state ties—specifically through U.S. faith-based initiatives—affect religiosity and conservative social values. Using difference-in-differences models and staggered implementation data from 332 state-level policies between 1996 and 2009, the authors analyze outcomes from over 44,000 respondents in the General Social Survey and data on 450,000 nonprofits. They find that the initiatives led to a 9% increase in monthly church attendance among non-regular attendees and contributed to 2,258 additional faith-based organizations. Conservative views, particularly opposition to abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, also increased—effects concentrated among Protestants, suggesting in-group responsiveness to ideologically aligned government actions.

Full Citation and Link to Article

Jeanet Sinding Bentzen, Alessandro Pizzigolotto & Lena Lindbjerg Sperling (2025), Divine Policy: The Impact of Religion in Government. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. Forthcoming. Available at: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20240018 

Extended Summary

Here is a 1,000-word summary of the paper “Divine Policy: The Impact of Religion in Government” by Jeanet Sinding Bentzen, Alessandro Pizzigolotto, and Lena Lindbjerg Sperling, following the requested structure.

Central Research Question

To what extent do strengthened church-state relations—particularly through U.S. faith-based initiatives—affect religiosity and conservative religious social values?

Previous Literature

This study builds upon literature documenting the growing entanglement of religion and government in the U.S., especially through evangelical activism. Historically, thinkers such as Weber, Marx, and Durkheim explored the societal role of religion. Recent empirical work has examined state support of religion, religious missions’ impact on human capital and values, and legal frameworks influencing religiosity (e.g., Gruber & Hungerman 2008; McCleary & Barro 2006). This paper aligns with theories of religious markets, identity politics, and ideological policy diffusion, while also addressing critiques that faith-based programs serve as vehicles for conservative values under the guise of social services.

Data

The authors use a unique, staggered dataset of 332 state-level executive orders and legislative changes on faith-based initiatives implemented between 1996 and 2009. The primary outcomes are measured using the General Social Survey (GSS, 1987–2018), which includes nearly 45,000 individuals with county identifiers. Additional data sources include:

• A database of 450,072 U.S. nonprofit organizations to track faith-based organizational growth.

• Measures of social values such as attitudes toward abortion and LGBTQ+ rights.

• Policy outcomes like gay marriage bans and gender gaps, primarily sourced from IPUMS.

They categorize policies as program laws (e.g., social service provision), concrete laws (e.g., advisory board positions), and symbolic laws (e.g., encouraging collaboration with faith-based groups).

Methods

The authors use a difference-in-differences (DiD) framework exploiting the staggered roll-out of initiatives across U.S. states. Key estimation strategies include:

1. Stacked DiD Models: Designed to address recent econometric critiques of staggered treatment (Goodman-Bacon 2021), the authors use treatment cohort-specific comparisons with never-treated states.

2. Triple Differences (DDD): They leverage religious identity (Protestants vs. non-Protestants) to isolate heterogeneous treatment effects, consistent with social identity theory.

3. Border-Pair Analyses: Comparisons across counties on either side of state borders help control for local fixed effects.

4. Robustness Checks: These include falsification tests on pre-treatment trends, alternate model specifications, and validation using institutional indicators like faith-based liaisons and budget grants.

Findings/Size Effects

The study finds significant and plausibly causal effects of faith-based initiatives on three fronts:

1. Religiosity:

   
   

   • The initiatives caused a 9% increase in monthly church attendance among individuals who were previously less observant.

   • Effects are concentrated among Protestants—especially Evangelicals and African American Protestants—consistent with the identity of initiative proponents.

   • No measurable change was found among Catholics or religiously unaffiliated individuals.

   
   

2. Growth of Faith-Based Organizations:

   
   

   • Using nonprofit registry data, the authors estimate that faith-based initiatives led to the formation of 2,258 additional faith-based organizations.

   • These new organizations could plausibly reach up to 4.9 million Americans annually.

   • Mechanisms included reduced regulation, access to grants, and increased state-level representation via liaisons.

   
   

3. Conservative Social Values:

   
   

   • Social views became more conservative in treated states, particularly regarding abortion and LGBTQ+ rights.

   • There were also statistically significant increases in:

     
     

     • Gender gaps (e.g., traditional gender role beliefs).

     • Restrictions on gay marriage.

     
     

   • These effects are again most visible among Protestants, suggesting limited spillovers to non-Protestant groups.

   
   

The paper links these outcomes to both supply-side (more organizations) and demand-side (in-group messaging) mechanisms. It also interprets this as a potential driver of polarization—not along party lines, but in diverging religious trajectories between Protestants and others.

Conclusion

This paper offers strong empirical evidence that increasing the presence of religion in U.S. government, through policies like the faith-based initiatives, has measurable and lasting effects on individual religiosity and social attitudes. Importantly, these effects are not uniform: they predominantly influence Protestants, especially Evangelicals, suggesting that in-group alignment plays a key role.

By documenting that government policies can amplify religious engagement and conservative social views, the authors contribute to broader debates on religion’s role in the public sphere and the origins of cultural polarization. Their findings also underscore that seemingly administrative changes—such as executive orders or advisory board appointments—can have far-reaching ideological consequences.

In addition to expanding the literature on religion and politics, this study provides methodological innovations for handling staggered policy implementation. It confirms that policy design can significantly alter civic life, not only by allocating resources but by shifting values and identities at a population level.