Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T23:41:47.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mandates and Policy Outputs: U.S. Party Platforms and Federal Expenditures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Ian Budge  and
Richard I. Hofferbert
Ian Budge
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Richard I. Hofferbert
Affiliation:
State University of New York Binghamton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political parties in the United States are usually regarded as too weak and decentralized, too much the prey of office-seeking politicians and special interests, to function effectively as programmatic., policy-effecting agents within the separation of powers. This has been taken as a serious flaw in the U.S. version of representative democracy, prompting cycles of proposed reform; criticisms of the existing set-up as a capitalistic sham; or alternative justifications of the system as pluralist rather than strictly party democracy. Our research challenges these assumptions by demonstrating the existence of strong links between postwar (1948–1985) election platforms and governmental outputs. Platforms' sentences, coded into one of 54 subject categories, are used as indicators of programmatic emphases and are related to corresponding federal expenditure shares. Resulting regression models demonstrate the full applicability of party mandate theory to the United States, and they operationalize its U.S. variants concretely.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 84 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 111 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William. 1954. Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, and Farlie, Dennis J.. 1983. Explaining and Predicting Elections. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, Robertson, David, and Hearl, Derek, eds. 1987. Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in Nineteen Democracies. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, David R. 1984. “Social Democracy, Corporatism, Labour Quiescence, and the Representation of Economic Interest in Advanced Capitalist Society.” In Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism, ed. Goldthorpe, John H.. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Castles, Francis G., ed. 1982. The Impact of Parties. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Cutright, Phillips. 1965. “Political Structure, Economic Development, and National Social Security Programs.” American Sociological Review 28: 537–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, Richard E., and Robinson, James A.. 1963. “Interparty Competition, Economic Variables, and Welfare Policies in the American States.” Journal of Politics 25: 265–89.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dye, Thomas R. 1966. Politics, Economics, and the Public. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Evans, Peter, Reuschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda, eds. 1985. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting m American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, Benjamin. 1976. “Elections and Public Policy.” American Political Science Review 70: 41–50.Google Scholar
Hibbs, Douglas. 1977. “Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy.” American Political Science Review 71: 1467–87.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard 1.1966. “The Relation between Policy and Some Structural and Environmental Variables in the American States.” American Political Science Review 60: 73–82.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard I., and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. 1988. “The Policy Impact of Party Programs and Government Declarations in the Federal Republic of Germany.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington.Google Scholar
Kalegeropoulou, Efthalia. 1989. “Do Parties Do What They Say They Will? Pledge Fulfillment under the First Pasok Government in Greece, 1981–85.” European Journal of Political Research 17: 289–311.Google Scholar
Kavanagh, Dennis. 1981. “The Politics of Manifestos.” Parliamentary Affairs 34: 7–27.Google Scholar
Keman, Hans. 1984. “Parties, Politics and Consequences: A Cross-National Analysis.” European Journal of Political Research 12: 147–70.Google Scholar
Krukones, Michael G. 1984. Promises and Performances: Presidential Campaigns As Policy Predictor. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. 1977. Politics and Markets. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Michels, Roberto. 1962. Political Parties. New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57: 45–56.Google Scholar
Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus. 1984. Contradictions of the Welfare State, ed. Keane, John. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Petry, Francois. 1988. “The Policy Impact of Canadian Party Programs: Public Expenditure Growth and Contagion from the Left.” Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de politique 14: 376–89.Google Scholar
Pomper, Gerald M. 1968. Elections in America. New York: Dodd Mead.Google Scholar
Railings, Colin. 1987. “The Influence of Election Programmes: Britain and Canada 1945–1979.” In Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change, ed. Ian Budge, David Robertson, and Hearl, Derek. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robertson, David. 1976. A Theory of Party Competition. London & New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard. 1980. Do Parties Make a Difference? London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sarlvik, Bo, and Crewe, Ivor. 1983. Decade of Dealignment. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John, and O'Conner, Robert E.. 1972. “Electoral Choice and Popular Control of Public Policy: The Case of the 1966 House Elections.” American Political Science Review 66: 1256–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, Edward. 1978. Political Control of the Economy. Princeton; Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 1988. Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government. Washington: GPO.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.