Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:00:30.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partisan brand name building and deficit politics: examining the role of power sharing on party issue consistency*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2013

Michael S. Lynch  and
Anthony J. Madonna
Michael S. Lynch
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Georgia, USA E-mail: mlynch@uga.edu
Anthony J. Madonna
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Georgia, USA E-mail: ajmadonn@uga.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scholars of political parties frequently note that a party's candidates are aided by the presence of a consistent and favourable party brand name. We argue that partisan success in maintaining a consistent position on important policy issues hinges on how their role in the government motivates their strategies about public policy formation. Specifically, when parties share control of government institutions, parties need to balance their electoral interest in promoting a consistent brand name with the need to generate public policy that leads to effective governance. When control is held by one party, the costs and benefits of effective governance are born entirely by the majority, absolving both parties of the need to compromise on the substance of policy. By employing item response theory methods to assess patterns of party voting on deficit issues, we find strong support for these hypotheses.

Keywords

budgetary politicscongressional politicsparty politicsquantitative methods
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , December 2013 , pp. 319 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

*

The authors thank Ryan Bakker, Jamie Carson, Mike Crespin, Chuck Finocchiaro, Sean Gailmard, participants of the University of California, Merced's conference on “The Politics of Federal Spending”, anonymous reviewers, and the editor for helpful comments on this paper. The authors also wish to thank Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis for generously supplying open access to the congressional roll call data used in this paper. All errors remain the authors.

References

Agiesta, J. (2009) Gallup: Majority of Americans Back Stimulus Package. The Washington Post 9 January.Google Scholar
Aldrich, J. H. (1995) Why Parties:The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artés, J. (2013). Do Spanish Politicians Keep Their Promises. Party Politics 19(1): 143–158.Google Scholar
Artés, J.Bustos, A. (2008) Electoral Promises and Minority Governments: An Empirical Study. European Journal of Political Research 47(3): 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balla, S. J., Lawrence, E. D., Maltzman, F.Sigelman, L. (2002) Partisanship, Blame Avoidance, and the Distribution of Legislative Pork. American Journal of Political Science 46(3): 515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D.MacLeod, M. C. (2000) The Evolution of Legislative Jurisdictions. Journal of Politics 62(2): 321–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, S. A. (2003) Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, A. (1968) Some Latent Models and Their Uses in Inferring and Examinee's Ability. In Lord F. M. and Novick M. R. (eds.), Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addition-Wesley Publishing Co., 395–479.Google Scholar
Calmes, J.Hulse, C. (2009) Obama Considers Major Expansion in Aid to Jobless. The New York Times 4 January.Google Scholar
Cameron, C. M. (2000) Veto Bargaining: Presidents and the Politics of Negative Agenda Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsey, T. M.Rundquist, B. (1999) Party and Committee in Distributive Politics: Evidence from Defense Spending. Journal of Politics 61(4): 1156–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, J., Jackman, S.Rivers, D. (2004) The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data. American Political Science Review 98(2): 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G. W.McCubbins, M. D. (1993) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, G. W.McCubbins, M. D. (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H.Rogers, J. H. (1991) Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Heller, W. B. (1997) Bicameralism and Budget Deficits: The Effect of Parliamentary Structure on Government Spending. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22(4): 485–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herszenhorn, D. M. (2008a) Administration Is Seeking $700 Billion for Wall Street. The New York Times 21 September.Google Scholar
Herszenhorn, D. M. (2008b) Bailout Talks Advance, but Doubts Voiced in Congress. The New York Times 23 September.Google Scholar
Herszenhorn, D. M. (2010) As G.O.P. Seeks Spending Cuts, Details are Scarce. The New York Times 19 October.Google Scholar
Hulse, C. (2008) Pressure Builds on House After Senate Backs Bailout. The New York Times 2 October.Google Scholar
Hulse, C.Herszenhorn, D. M. (2009) Senators Reach Deal on Stimulus Plan as Jobs Vanish. The New York Times 7 February.Google Scholar
Iversen, T.Soskice, D. (2006) Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More than Others. American Political Science Review 100(2): 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, S. (2001) Multidimensional Analysis of Roll Call Data via Bayesian Simulation: Identification, Estimation, Inference, and Model Checking. Political Analysis 9(3): 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, S. (2010) pscl: Classes and Methods for R Developed in the Political Science Computational Laboratory, Stanford University. R package version 1.03.5. http://pscl.stanford.edu/.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. (1966) The Responsible Electorate. New York: Vintage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, H.-D., Hofferbert, R. I.Budge, I. (1994) Parties, Policies, and Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, K. (1998) Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krutz, G. S. (2001) Hitching a Ride: Omnibus Legislating in the U.S. Congress. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, F. E. (2004) Bicameralism and Geographic Politics: Allocating Funds in the House and Senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly 29(2): 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S. D.Snyder, J. M. Jr (1995) Political Parties and the Distribution of Federal Outlays. American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 958–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. B., Poole, K. T. (2010) 111th Congress Roll Call Vote Data Download. http://adric.sscnet.ucla.edu/rollcall/.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1980) Applications of Item Response Theory To Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
Mansergh, L.Thomson, R. (2007) Election Pledges, Party Competition, and Policymaking. Comparative Politics 39(3): 311–329.Google Scholar
Martin, A. D.Quinn, K. M. (2002) Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10(2): 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D. R. (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, D. R. (1991) Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking and Investigating: 1946–1990. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Montgomery, L.Kane, P. (2008) Bush Calls Bailout Vital to the Economy, Will Meet with McCain and Obama. The Washington Post 25 September.Google Scholar
Otterman, S. (2009) Republicans are Resistant to Obama's Stimulus Plan. The New York Times 29 January.Google Scholar
Peterson, P. E.Rom, M. C. (1989) Macro-Economic Policy: Who's in Control?. In Peterson P. E. and Chubb J. E. (eds.), Can the Government Govern?. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 139–182.Google Scholar
Poole, K. T. (2010) Voteview Roll Call Data. http://www.voteview.com.Google Scholar
Poole, K. T.Rosenthal, H. (1997) Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, K. T.Rosenthal, H. (2007) Ideology and Congress. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Powell, G. B. (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. B.Whitten, G. D. (1993) A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context. American Journal of Political Science 37(2): 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1962) The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, D. W. (1991) Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago, IL: Univeristy of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roubini, N.Sachs, J. (1989) Government Spending and Budget Deficits in the Industrial Countries. Economic Policy 4(8): 100–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royed, T. J. (1996) Testing the Mandate Model in Britain and the United States: Evidence from the Reagan and Thatcher Eras. British Journal of Political Science 26(1): 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royed, T. J., Leyden, K. M.Borrelli, S. A. (2000) Is ‘Clarity of Responsiblity’ Important for Economic Voting? Revisisting Powell and Whitten's Hypothesis. British Journal of Political Science 30(4): 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schick, A. (2000) The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. G. (1996) When Parties Matter: A Review of the Possibilities and Limits of Partisan Influence on Public Policy. European Journal of Political Research 30(2): 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, M. S.Carey, J. M. (1992) Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, B. (1983) Majority Leadership in the U.S. House. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, B. (2007) Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress, 3rd edWashington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Smith, S. S. (2007) Party Influence In Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, K. (1990) A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 34(2): 565–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R. (2001) The Programme to Policy Linkage: The Fulfillment of Election Pledges on Socio-Economic Policy in the Netherlands, 1986–1998. European Journal of Political Research 40(2): 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treier, S.Jackman, S. (2008) Democracy as a Latent Variable. American Journal of Political Science 52(1): 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002) Veto Players: How Political Insitutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, B. R. (1979) A Rational Choice Perspective on Congressional Norms. American Journal of Political Science 23(2): 254–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisman, J. (2008) House Rejects Financial Rescue, Sending Stocks Plummeting. The Washington Post 30 September.Google Scholar
Zelany, J.Herszenhorn, D. M. (2009) Obama Seeks Wide Support in Congress for Stimulus. The New York Times 6 January.Google Scholar