This article investigates changes within national budget by examining actors’ behavioral predilections and the institutional constraints under which they operate. The article presents three theoretical propositions about the influence of attention and institutions on all magnitudes of programmatic budget changes ranging from large cuts to massive expansions. Using quantile regression, the author is able to uncover which distinct processes bear on cuts, stasis, and expansion across spending categories within a budget. An examination of budgetary data from Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States from 1964 to 1999 leads to the conclusion that attention shifts lead to contractions and expansions of budgetary items, whereas preference-based explanations have marginal support. In addition, institutional costs involved in budgetary politics amplify budgetary shifts. The author closes the article by discussing the implications of the findings for partisan theories of government and institutional theories.
BaumgartnerF. R.BreunigC.Green-PedersenC.JonesB. D.MortensenP. B.NuytemansM.WalgraveS. (2009). Punctuated equilibrium in comparative perspective. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 603-620.
2.
BawnK. (1999). Money and majorities in the federal republic of Germany: Evidence for a veto players model of government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 707-736.
3.
BerryW. D.LoweryD. (1987). Understanding United States government growth: An empirical analysis of the postwar era. New York, NY: Praeger.
4.
BreunigC. (2006). The more things change, the more things stay the same: A comparative analysis of budget punctuations. Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 1069-1085.
5.
BreunigC.JonesB. D. (2011). Stochastic process methods with an application to budgetary data. Political Analysis, 19, 103-117.
6.
BreunigC.KoskiC. (2006). Punctuated equilibria and budgets in the American states. Policy Studies Journal, 34, 363-379.
7.
BreunigC.KoskiC.MortensenP. B. (2009). Stability and punctuations in public spending: A comparative study of budget functions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 703-722.
8.
BuchananJ. M.TullockG. (1962). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
9.
BudgeI.KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA.BaraJ.TanenbaumE. (2001). Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945-1998. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
CastlesF. G. (1999). Comparative public policy: Patterns of post-war transformation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
11.
CoaseR. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 386-405.
12.
CusackT. R. (1997). Partisan politics and public spending. Public Choice, 91, 375-395.
13.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
14.
Green-PedersenC.MortensenP. 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, 257-281.
15.
HallerbergM. (2004). Domestic budgets in a United Europe: Fiscal governance from the end of Bretton Woods to EMU. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
16.
HallerbergM.StrauchR.von HagenJ. (2001). The use and effectiveness of budgetary rules and norms in EU member states. Report prepared for the Dutch Ministry of Finance by the Institute of European Integration Studies in Bonn.
17.
HeniszW. (2002). The institutional environment for infrastructure investment. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 355-389.
18.
HibbsD. A. (1977). Political-parties and macroeconomic policy. American Political Science Review, 71, 1467-1487.
19.
HicksA. M.SwankD. H. (1992). Politics, institutions, and welfare spending in industrialized democracies, 1960-82. American Political Science Review, 86, 658-674.
20.
HoboltS.KlemmensenR. (2008). Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 309-337.
21.
HuberE.StephensJ. D. (2001). Development and crisis of the welfare state: Parties and policies in global markets. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
JonesB. D. (2001). Politics and the architecture of choice: Bounded rationality and governance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. R. (2005a). A model of choice for public policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 325-351.
24.
JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. R. (2005b). The politics of attention. How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. R.BreunigC.WlezienC.SorokaS.FoucaultM.WalgraveS. (2009). A general empirical law of public budgets: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 855-873.
26.
JonesB. D.SulkinT.LarsenH. A. (2003). Policy punctuations in American political institutions. American Political Science Review, 97, 151-169.
27.
KlingemannH.-D.HofferbertR. I.BudgeI. (1994). Parties, policies, and democracies. Boulder, CO: Westview.
28.
KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA. (2007). Mapping policy preferences II: Estimates for parties, electors and governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990-2003. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
KoenkerR.HallockK. (2001). Quantile regression: An introduction. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 143-156.
31.
KönigT.TroegerV. (2005). Budgetary politics and veto players. Swiss Political Science Review, 11, 47-75.
32.
KrehbielK. (1998). Pivotal politics: A theory of U.S. lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
LarkeyP. D. (1979). Evaluating public programs: The impact of general revenue sharing on municipal government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
NorthD. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
PadgettJ. F. (1980). Bounded rationality in budgetary research. American Political Science Review, 74, 354-372.
37.
PerssonT.TabelliniG. E. (2003). The economic effects of constitutions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
PiersonP. (1996). The new politics of the welfare state. World Politics, 48, 143-179.
39.
SimonH. A. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. American Political Science Review, 79, 293-304.
40.
SorokaS. N.WlezienC.McLeanI. (2006). Public expenditure in the UK: How measures matter. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 169, 255-271.
41.
TrueJ.JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. (2007). Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in policymaking. In SabatierP. A. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 155-188). Boulder, CO: Westview.
42.
TsebelisG. (1995). Decision-making in political-systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25, 289-325.
43.
TsebelisG. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
TsebelisG.ChangE. C. C. (2004). Veto players and the structure of budgets in advanced industrialized countries. European Journal of Political Research, 43, 449-476.
45.
von HagenJ. (1992). Budgeting procedures and fiscal performance in the European communities (Economic Papers 96). October.
46.
WalgraveS.NuytemansM. (2009). Friction and party manifesto change in 25 countries, 1945-1998: American Journal of Political Science, 53, 190-206.
47.
WildavskyA. (1964). The politics of the budgetary process. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
48.
WilenskyH. (1975). The welfare state and equality. Berkeley: University of California Press.
49.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
