Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:44:32.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individuals, Institutions, and Public Preferences over Public Finance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

John Mark Hansen
John Mark Hansen*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines public preferences over deficits, taxes, and spending. Using responses to public opinion questions designed for the purpose, the article assesses the state of preferences as expressed by individuals and as represented in government. One section examines the characteristics of individual preferences—their completeness, consistency, and coherence. Public opinion is remarkably well structured and overwhelmingly partial to the policy status quo. A second section explores the properties of mass preferences as they are aggregated by several different kinds of institutional voting rules. Institutions matter, at least to a point: Consistent institutional differences over federal budget policy trace directly to the diverse means by which institutions represent the public's positions. The conclusion assesses the meaning and import of the public's resistance to budget policy change.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 92 , Issue 3 , September 1998 , pp. 513 - 531
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1998

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

REFERENCES

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1972. Public Opinion and Taxes. Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.Google Scholar
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1974–1994. Changing Public Attitudes on Governments and Taxes. Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Brehm, John. 1995. “American Ambivalence towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Heteroskedastic Probit Model of Competing Values.” American Journal of Political Science 39(November):1055–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Brehm, John. 1997. “Are Americans Ambivalent toward Racial Policies?” American Journal of Political Science 41(April):345–74.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Franklin, Charles H.. 1994. “Uncertainty and Political Perceptions.” Journal of Politics 56(August):671–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, W. E. 1950. “A Note on the Theory of Consumer's Behaviour.” Oxford Economic Papers 2(January):119–22.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J. [1951] 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1986. “Issue Voting under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test.” American Journal of Political Science 30(November): 709–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1991. “Constituent Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup.” American Political Science Review 85(June):457–74.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1994. “The American Public's Defense Spending Preferences in the Post-Cold War Era.” Public Opinion Quarterly 58(Winter):479–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David W., and Volden, Craig. 1997. Revolving Gridlock. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Ansolabehere, Stephen D.. 1989. “The Nature of Utility Functions in Mass Publics.” American Political Science Review 83(March):143–64.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M., and Wagner, Richard E.. 1977. Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Kuklinski, James H.. 1990. “Incentives, Opportunities, and the Logic of Public Opinion in American Political Representation.” In Information and Democratic Processes, ed. Ferejohn, John A. and Kuklinski, James H.. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Pp. 240–68.Google Scholar
Citrin, Jack. 1979. “Do People Want Something for Nothing: Public Opinion on Taxes and Government Spending.” National Tax Journal 32(June):113–30.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David E.. New York: Free Press. Pp. 206–61.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cullis, John, and Lewis, Alan. 1985. “Some Hypotheses and Evidence on Tax Knowledge and Preferences.” Journal of Economic Psychology 6(September):271–87.Google Scholar
Dion, Douglas. 1992. “The Robustness of Structure-Induced Equilibrium.” American Journal of Political Science 36(May):462–82.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Drew, Elizabeth. 1996. Showdown: The Struggle between the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton White House. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Eismeier, Theodore J. 1988. “Public Preferences about Government Spending: Partisan, Social, and Attitudinal Sources of Policy Differences.” Political Behavior 4(2):133–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Stanley, and Zaller, John. 1992. “The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State.” American Journal of Political Science 36(February):268–307.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1966. The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fernandez, Raquel, and Rodrik, Dani. 1991. “Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty.” American Economic Review 81(December):1146–55.Google Scholar
Fishburn, Peter C. 1970. “Intransitive Indifference in Preference Theory: A Survey.” Operations Research 18(March/April):207–28.Google Scholar
Free, Lloyd A., and Cantril, Hadley. 1967. The Political Beliefs of Americans. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Froman, Lewis A. 1963. Congressmen and Their Constituencies. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Hansen, John Mark. 1995. “Public Preferences over Public Finance: Revealed Preferences for Expenditures, Taxes, and Deficits.” Proposal to the Board of Overseers of the American National Election Studies (February).Google Scholar
Hansen, John Mark. 1996. “Revealed Preference Budget Items on the 1995 National Election Pilot Study.” Report to the Board of Overseers of the American National Election Studies (January).Google Scholar
Hansen, John Mark. 1997. “Public Constituencies in Public Finance.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hartley, Thomas, and Russett, Bruce. 1992. “Public Opinion and the Common Defense: Who Governs Military Spending in the United States?” American Political Science Review 86(December):905–15.Google Scholar
Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr., and Madsen, Henrik Jess. 1981. “Public Reactions to the Growth of Taxation and Government Expenditure.” World Politics 33(April):413–35.Google Scholar
Inman, Robert P., and Fitts, Michael A.. 1990. “Political Institutions and Fiscal Policy: Evidence from the U.S. Historical Record.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6(Special Issue):79–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ippolito, Dennis S. 1981. Congressional Spending. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1994. “Public Attitudes toward Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 38(May):336–61.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., True, James L., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 1997. “Does Incrementalism Stem from Political Consensus or from Institutional Gridlock?” American Journal of Political Science 41(October):1319–39.Google Scholar
Kay, Alan F., Steeper, Frederick T., Henderson, Hazel, Lake, Celinda, and Hansen, David J.. 1992. What the American People Want in the Federal Budget. Washington, DC: Americans Talk Issues Foundation.Google Scholar
Keith, Bruce E., Magleby, David B., Nelson, Candice J., Orr, Elizabeth, Westlye, Mark C., and Wolfinger, Raymond E.. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kernell, Sam. 1973. “Is the Senate More Liberal than the House?” Journal of Politics 35(May):332–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. “Where's the Party?” British Journal of Political Science 23(April):235–66.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1996. “Institutional and Partisan Sources of Gridlock: A Theory of Divided and Unified Government.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 8(January):7–40.Google Scholar
Ladd, Everett Carll Jr., with Potter, Marilyn, Basilick, Linda, Daniels, Sally, and Suszkiw, Dana. 1979. “The Polls: Taxing and Spending.” Public Opinion Quarterly 43(Spring):126–35.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B. 1996. “Referendums, Roll Calls, and Constituencies.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. 1977. Politics and Markets. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lippmann, Walter. [1922] 1997. Public Opinion. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan. 1956. “Semiorders and a Theory of Utility Discrimination.” Econometrica 24(April):178–91.Google Scholar
McClosky, Herbert. 1964. “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics.” American Political Science Review 58(June):361–82.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D. 1991. “Party Governance and U.S. Budget Deficits: Divided Government and Fiscal Stalemate.” In Politics and Economics in the 1980s, ed. Alesina, Alberto and Carliner, Geoffrey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 83–111.Google Scholar
Manley, John F. 1970. The Politics of Finance: The House Committee on Ways and Means. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Modigliani, Andre, and Modigliani, Franco. 1987. “The Growth of the Federal Deficit and the Role of Public Attitudes.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51(Winter):459–80.Google Scholar
Mueller, Dennis C. 1989. Public Choice II. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mueller, Eva. 1963. “Public Attitudes toward Fiscal Programs.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 77(May):210–35.Google Scholar
Oleszek, Walter J. 1984. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process, 2d ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter C. 1986. Game Theory and Political Theory: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1983. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.” American Political Science Review 77(March): 175–90.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1992. The Rational Public-Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Peters, B. Guy. 1991. The Politics of Taxation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quattrone, George A., and Tversky, Amos. “Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice.” American Political Science Review 82(September):719–36.Google Scholar
Radcliff, Benjamin. 1993. “The Structure of Voter Preferences.” Journal of Politics 55(August):714–19.Google Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., and Hansen, John Mark. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., Kinder, Donald R., Miller, Warren E., and the National Election Studies. 1995. American National Election Study: 1995 Pilot Study [computer file] (Study #6636). University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producers], 1995. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1995.Google Scholar
Roubini, Nouriel, and Sachs, Jeffrey D.. “Political and Economic Determinants of Budget Deficits in the Industrial Democracies.” European Economic Review 33(May):903–38.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1938. “A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behaviour.” Economica 5(February):61–71.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1948. “Consumption Theory in Terms of Revealed Preference.” Economica 15(November):243–53.Google Scholar
Samuelson, William, and Zeckhauser, Richard. 1988. “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1(January):7–59.Google Scholar
Sanders, Arthur. 1988. “Rationality, Self-Interest, and Public Attitudes on Public Spending.” Social Science Quarterly 69(June):311–24.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. [1960] 1975. The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.Google Scholar
Schick, Allen. 1980. Congress and Money: Budgeting, Spending and Taxing. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Sears, David O., and Citrin, Jack. 1985. Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1973. “Behaviour and the Concept of Preference.” Economica 40(August):241–59.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1979. “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models.” American Journal of Political Science 23(February):27–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Tom W. 1987. “That Which We Call Welfare by Any Other Name Would Smell Sweeter: An Analysis of the Impact of Question Wording on Response Patterns.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51(Spring 1987):75–83.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A., MacKuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89(September):543–65.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” American Political Science Review 57(June):368–77.Google Scholar
Tabellini, Guido, and Alesina, Alberto. 1990. “Voting on the Budget Deficit.” American Economic Review 80(March):37–49.Google Scholar
Thomas, Rosita M. 1991. American Public Opinion on the Federal Budget Deficit, Government Taxing and Spending, and the Economy. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Times Mirror. 1989. The People, the Press, and Economics. May.Google Scholar
Tuchfarber, Alfred J., Oldendick, Robert W., and Bishop, George F.. 1984. “Citizen Attitudes toward Taxation and Spending: Inconsistent Answers or the Wrong Questions?” Presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Varian, Hal R. 1982. “The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis.” Econometrica 50(May):945–73.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry E.. 1995. Voice and Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Welch, Susan. 1985. “The ‘More for Less’ Paradox: Public Attitudes on Taxing and Spending.” Public Opinion Quarterly 49(Fall):310–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Joseph, and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1989. The Deficit and the Public Interest: The Search for Responsible Budgeting in the 1980s. Berkeley and New York: University of California Press and Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: The Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39(November):981–1000.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R., and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions Versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36(August):579–616.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.