Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:35:39.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Party Reputations and Policy Priorities: How Issue Ownership Shapes Executive and Legislative Agendas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2017

Jane Green  and
Will Jennings
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Election-oriented elites are expected to emphasize issues on which their party possesses ‘issue ownership’ during campaigns. This article extends those theories to the content of executive and legislative agendas. Arguing that executives have incentives to pursue their party’s owned issues in the legislature, it theorizes three conditions under which these incentives are constrained: when governments are responsive to issues prioritized by the public, when a party has a stronger electoral mandate and under divided government. The theory is tested using time-series analyses of policy agendas of US congressional statutes and State of the Union addresses (1947–2012) and UK acts of Parliament and the Queen’s Speech (1950–2010). The results offer support for the theory, and are particularly strong for the US State of the Union address, providing insights into institutional differences. The implications provide reassurance concerning the conditions under which governments focus attention only on their partisan issue priorities.

Keywords

issue ownershipsaliency theoryagenda settinglegislative priorities
Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 443 - 466
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester (email: jane.green@manchester.ac.uk); Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Southampton (email: w.j.jennings@soton.ac.uk). The data on US policy agendas were originally collected by Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones, with the support of National Science Foundation grant numbers SBR 9320922 and 0111611, distributed through the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin. The data on UK policy agendas were collected by Peter John, Will Jennings and Shaun Bevan with the support of ESRC research award RES-062-23-0872. Data on issue competence were collected by Jane Green and Will Jennings with the support of ESRC research award RES-000-22-4616. We thank Shaun Bevan for advice on model specification and Frank Baumgartner for valuable comments on an earlier version of this article. Thanks also to Rob Johns and the anonymous journal reviewers. Data replication sets are available at http://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123416000636

References

Adler, E. Scott, and Wilkerson, John D.. 2012. Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, Erikson, Robert S., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Balancing, Generic Polls and Midterm Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 72 (3):705–719.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1995. What To Do (and Not To Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review 89 (3):634–647.Google Scholar
Bélanger, Éric, and Meguid, Bonnie M.. 2008. Issue Salience, Issue Ownership, and Issue-Based Vote Choice. Electoral Studies 27 (3):477–491.Google Scholar
Bevan, Shaun, and Jennings, Will. 2014. Representation, Agendas and Institutions. European Journal of Political Research 53 (1):37–56.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. 1999. The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947–96. American Political Science Review 93 (3):519–533.Google Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14 (1):63–82.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian. 1993. Issues, Dimensions, and Agenda Change in Post-War Democracies: Long-Term Trends in Party Election Programs and Newspaper Reports in Twenty-Three Democracies. In Agenda Formation, edited by William H. Riker, 41–80. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, and Farlie, Dennis. 1977. Voting and Party Competition: A Theoretical Critique and Synthesis Applied to Surveys from Ten Democracies. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, and Farlie, Dennis. 1983. Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, Hearl, Derek, and Robertson, David. 1987. Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, and Hofferbert, Richard I.. 1990. Mandates and Policy Outputs: U.S. Party Platforms and Federal Expenditures. American Political Science Review 84 (1):111–132.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, and Shotts, Kenneth W.. 2004. The Conditional Nature of Presidential Responsiveness to Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science 40 (4):690–706.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Herron, Michael C., and Shotts, Kenneth W.. 2001. Leadership and Pandering: A Theory of Executive Policymaking. American Journal of Political Science 45 (3):532–550.Google Scholar
Chaqués Bonafont, Laura, and Palau, Anna M.. 2011. Assessing the Responsiveness of Spanish Policymakers to the Priorities of their Citizens. West European Politics 34 (4):706–730.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jeffrey E. 1997. Presidential Responsiveness and Public Policy-Making. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jeffrey E. 2012. The President’s Legislative Policy Agenda, 1789–2002. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, John J. 1999. Unified Government, Divided Government, and Party Responsiveness. American Political Science Review 93 (4):821–835.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, Jeff. 2010. The Partisan Considerations of the President’s Agenda. Polity 42 (3):398–422.Google Scholar
Damore, David F. 2004. The Dynamics of Issue Ownership in Presidential Campaigns. Political Research Quarterly 57 (3):391–397.Google Scholar
Damore, David F. 2005. Issue Convergence in Presidential Campaigns. Political Behavior 27 (1):71–97.Google Scholar
Edwards, George C. III, Barrett, Andrew, and Peake, Jeffrey. 1997. The Legislative Impact of Divided Government. American Journal of Political Science 41 (2):545–563.Google Scholar
Egan, Patrick. 2013. Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Jane. 2011. A Test of Core Vote Theories: The British Conservatives, 1997–2005. British Journal of Political Science 41 (4):667–688.Google Scholar
Green, Jane, and Jennings, Will. 2012. Valence as Macro-Competence: An Analysis of Mood in Party Competence Evaluations in the UK. British Journal of Political Science 42 (2):311–343.Google Scholar
Green, Jane, and Jennings, Will. 2017. The Politics of Competence: Parties, Public Opinion and Voters. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, and Mortensen, Peter B.. 2010. Who Sets the Agenda and Who Responds To It in the Danish Parliament? A New Model of Issue Competition and Agenda-Setting. European Journal of Political Research 49 (2):257–281.Google Scholar
Hibbs, Douglas A. 1979. The Mass Public and Macroeconomic Performance: The Dynamics of Public Opinion Toward Unemployment and Inflation. American Journal of Political Science 23 (4):705–731.Google Scholar
Hicks, Alexander. 1984. Elections, Keynes, Bureaucracy, and Class: Explaining United States Budget Deficits, 1961–1978. American Sociological Review 49 (2):165–182.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard I., and Budge, Ian. 1992. The Party Mandate and the Westminster Model: Party Programmes and Government Spending in Britain, 1948–1985. British Journal of Political Science 22 (2):151–182.Google Scholar
Holian, David B. 2004. He’s Stealing My Issues! Clinton’s Crime Rhetoric and the Dynamics of Issue Ownership. Political Behavior 26 (2):95–124.Google Scholar
Holian, David B. 2006. Trust the Party Line: Issue Ownership and Presidential Approval from Reagan to Clinton. American Politics Research 34 (6):777–802.Google Scholar
Howell, William, Adler, Scott, Cameron, Charles, and Riemann, Charles. 2000. Divided Government and the Legislative Productivity of Congress, 1945–94. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25 (2):285–312.Google Scholar
Jennings, Will, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2011. Distinguishing Between Most Important Problems and Issues? Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (3):545–555.Google Scholar
Jennings, Will, and John, Peter. 2009. The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen’s Speech in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science 53 (4):838–854.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. 2001. Politics and the Architecture of Choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2004. Representation and Agenda Setting. Policy Studies Journal 32 (1):1–24.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., Larsen-Price, Heather, and Wilkerson, John. 2009. Representation and American Governing Institutions. Journal of Politics 71 (1):277–290.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., Sulkin, Tracy, and Larsen, Heather A.. 2003. Punctuations in American Political Institutions. American Political Science Review 97 (1):151–169.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Noah, Park, David K., and Ridout, Travis D.. 2006. Dialogue in American Political Campaigns: An Examination of Issue Engagement in Candidate Television Advertising. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):724–736.Google Scholar
Karol, David. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, Sean Q. 1993. Divided We Govern? A Reassessment. Polity 25 (3):475–484.Google Scholar
Lebo, Matthew J., and O’Geen, Andrew J.. 2011. The President’s Role in the Partisan Congressional Arena. Journal of Politics 73 (3):1–17.Google Scholar
Light, Paul. 1982. The President’s Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Carter. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Manza, Jeff, and Cook, Fay Lomax. 2002. The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: The State of the Debate. In Navigating Public Opinion: Polls, Policy and the Future of American Democracy, edited by Jeff Manza, Fay Lomax Cook and Benjamin I, Page 17–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael D., and Budge, Ian. 2005. Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael D., Mendes, Sylvia M., and Budge, Ian. 2004. What are Elections For? Conferring the Median Mandate. British Journal of Political Science 34 (1):1–26.Google Scholar
Mortensen, Peter B., Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, Breeman, Gerard, Jennings, Will, John, Peter, Timmermans, Arco, Chaques, Laura, and Palau, Anna. 2011. Comparing Government Agendas: Executive Speeches in the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies 44 (8):973–1000.Google Scholar
Norporth, Helmut, and Buchanan, Bruce. 1992. Wanted: The Education President Issue Trespassing by Political Candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (1):87–99.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John R. 1996. Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40 (3):825–850.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John R., Benoit, William L., and Hansen, Glenn J.. 2003. Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly 118 (4):599–626.Google Scholar
Riker, William H, ed. 1993. Agenda Formation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Sides, John. 2006. The Origins of Campaign Agendas. British Journal of Political Science 36 (3):407–436.Google Scholar
Sigelman, Lee, and Buell, Emmett H.. 2004. Avoidance or Engagement? Issue Convergence in U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1960–2000. American Journal of Political Science 48 (4):650–661.Google Scholar
Simon, Adam F. 2002. The Winning Message: Candidate Behavior, Campaign Discourse, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spiliotes, Constantine J., and Vavreck, Lynn. 2002. Campaign Advertising: Partisan Convergence and Divergence? Journal of Politics 64 (1):249–261.Google Scholar
Sulkin, Tracy. 2005. Issue Politics in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sulkin, Tracy. 2009. Campaign Appeals and Legislative Action. Journal of Politics 71 (3):1093–1108.Google Scholar
Vliegenthart, Rens, and Walgrave, Stefaan. 2011. Content Matters. The Dynamic of Parliamentary Questioning in Belgium and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies 44 (8):1031–1059.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher, and Erikson, Robert S.. 2002. The Timeline of Presidential Election Campaigns. Journal of Politics 64 (4):969–993.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher, Jennings, Will, Fisher, Stephen, Ford, Robert, and Pickup, Mark. 2013. Polls and the Vote in Britain. Political Studies 61 (S1):66–91.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Green and Jennings supplementary material

Appendix

Download Green and Jennings supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 627 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Green and Jennings Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VFJ4EB
Link