Cabinets are the engine of policy change in parliamentary systems. Yet, we still know little about how cabinets micro-manage the content of their multifaceted agenda during their term in office. Drawing on the party and agenda-setting literature, this article addresses this gap by focusing on three main determinants of cabinet priorities: issue priorities in the electoral platforms of majority and opposition parties, and new and unforeseen problems as conveyed by the media. Our analysis reveals that (1) majority platforms have a stronger impact on the cabinet agenda than those of opposition parties, but this effect decreases as the legislative term progresses; (2) cabinet agendas do take into consideration opposition electoral priorities but only when the latter are expressed by mainstream competitors or when the media focus on them and (3) an externally imposed adjustment programme can also create the conditions for strengthening the congruence between electoral and cabinet agendas.
AndewegR (1997) Collegiality and Collectivity: Cabinets, Cabinet Committees, and Cabinet Ministers. In: BakvisHRhodesRAWWellerP (eds) The Hollow Crown (Transforming Government). London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.58–83.
2.
ArtésJ (2013) Do Spanish Politicians Keep Their Promises?Party Politics19 (1): 143–158.
3.
BaraJ (2005) A Question of Trust: Implementing Party Manifestos. Parliamentary Affairs58 (3): 585–599.
4.
BaumgartnerFBrouardSGrossmanE (2009a) Agenda-Setting Dynamics in France: Revisiting the ‘Partisan Hypothesis’. French Politics7 (2): 75–95.
5.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (2015) The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BaumgartnerFRFoucaultMFrançoisA (2009b) Public Budgeting in the French Fifth Republic: The End of La République des partis?West European Politics32 (2): 404.
7.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBDWilkersonJ (2011) Comparative Studies of Policy Dynamics. Comparative Political Studies44 (8): 947–972.
8.
BeckNKatzJN (1995) What to do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review89 (3): 634–647.
BennettWLLawrenceRGLivingstonS (2008) When the Press Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
BlaisABlakeDDionS (1993) Do Parties Make a Difference? Parties and the Size of Government in Liberal Democracies. American Journal of Political Science37: 40–62.
12.
BlondelJMuller-RommelF (eds) (1993) Governing Together : The Extent and Limits of Joint Decision-making in Western European Cabinets. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Available at: http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/27437 (accessed 10 February 2015).
13.
BorghettoEViscontiFMichieliM (2017) Government Agenda-Setting in Italian Coalitions. Testing the «Partisan Hypothesis» Using Italian Investiture Speeches 1979–2014. Bologna: Rivista Italiana Di Politiche Pubbliche, pp.193–220.
14.
BoscoAVerneyS (2016) From Electoral Epidemic to Government Epidemic: The Next Level of the Crisis in Southern Europe. South European Society and Politics21 (4): 383–406.
15.
BreemanGLoweryDPoppelaarsC, et al. (2009) Political Attention in a Coalition System: Analysing Queen’s Speeches in the Netherlands 1945–2007. Acta Politica44 (1): 1–1.
16.
BrouardSGrossmanEGuinaudeauI, et al. (2018) Do Party Manifestos Matter in Policy-Making? Capacities, Incentives and Outcomes of Electoral Programmes in France. Political Studies66: 903–921.
17.
Chaques-BonafontLPalauAMBaumgartnerFR (2015) Agenda Dynamics in Spain. London: Palgrave.
18.
EzrowLHellwigT (2014) Responding to Voters or Responding to Markets? Political Parties and Public Opinion in an Era of Globalization. International Studies Quarterly58 (4): 816–827.
19.
FernandesJM (2015) O Parlamento Português. Lisbon: FFMS.
20.
FroioCBevanSJenningsW (2017) Party Mandates and the Politics of Attention: Party Platforms, Public Priorities and the Policy Agenda in Britain. Party Politics23 (6): 692–703.
21.
Green-PedersenCMortensenPB (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 Research49 (2): 257–281.
22.
Green-PedersenCMortensenPBThesenG (2017) The Incumbency Bonus Revisited: Causes and Consequences of Media Dominance. British Journal of Political Science47 (1): 131–148.
23.
Green-PedersenCWalgraveS (eds) (2014) Agenda Setting, Policies, and Political Systems: A Comparative Approach. Chicago, IL; London: Chicago University Press.
24.
HoboltSKlemmensenR (2008) Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Political Studies41 (3): 309–337.
25.
HoboltSBTilleyJ (2016) Fleeing the Centre: The Rise of Challenger Parties in the Aftermath of the Euro Crisis. West European Politics39 (5): 971–991.
26.
JalaliC (2007) Partidos E Democracia Em Portugal: 1974–2005 : Da Revolução Ao Bipartidarismo. Lisboa: Instituto Ciencias Sociais.
27.
JenningsWJohnP (2009) The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen’s Speech in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science53 (4): 838–854.
28.
JenningsWBevanSTimmermansA, et al. (2011) Effects of the Core Functions of Government on the Diversity of Executive Agendas. Comparative Political Studies44 (8): 1001–1030.
29.
JonesBDBaumgartnerFR (2005) The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.
30.
KangS-GPowellGB (2010) Representation and Policy Responsiveness: The Median Voter, Election Rules, and Redistributive Welfare Spending. The Journal of Politics72 (4): 1014–1028.
31.
KingdonJW (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
32.
KlingemannH-DHofferbertRIBudgeI (1994) Parties, Policies, and Democracy. Oxford: Westview Press.
33.
LisiM (2015) Party Change, Recent Democracies, and Portugal: Comparative Perspectives. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
34.
LisiM (2016) U-Turn: The Portuguese Radical Left from Marginality to Government Support. South European Society and Politics21 (4): 541–560.
35.
LoboMC (2005) Governar Em Democracia. Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais.
36.
LoboMCPintoACMagalhãesP (2011) The Political Institutions of Portuguese Democracy. In: RoyoS (ed.) Portugal in the Twenty-First Century. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, pp.23–48.
37.
LouwerseT (2011) The Spatial Approach to the Party Mandate. Parliamentary Affairs64 (3): 425–447.
38.
McDonaldMDBudgeI (2005) Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
McDonaldMDMendesSMBudgeI (2004) What Are Elections For? Conferring the Median Mandate. British Journal of Political Science34 (1): 1–26.
40.
MagalhãesPC (2012) After the Bailout: Responsibility, Policy, and Valence in the Portuguese Legislative Election of June 2011. South European Society and Politics17 (2): 309–327.
41.
MagoneJM (2014) Portugal Is Not Greece: Policy Responses to the Sovereign Debt Crisis and the Consequences for the Portuguese Political Economy. Perspectives on European Politics and Society15 (3): 346–360.
MairP (2013) Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy. London; New York: Verso.
44.
ManinB (1997) The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
MansbridgeJ (2003) Rethinking Representation. American Political Science Review97 (4): 515–528.
46.
MortensenPBGreen-PedersenCBreemanG, et al. (2011) Comparing Government Agendas: Executive Speeches in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies44 (8): 973–1000.
47.
MouryC (2011) Coalition Agreement and Party Mandate: How Coalition Agreements Constrain the Ministers. Party Politics17 (3): 385–404.
48.
MouryCFernandesJM (2018) Minority Governments and Pledge Fulfilment: Evidence from Portugal. Government and Opposition53 (2): 335–355.
49.
MouryCFreireA (2013) Austerity Policies and Politics: The Case of Portugal. Pôle Sud39 (2): 35–56.
50.
MouryCStandringA (2017) ‘Going Beyond the Troika’: Power and Discourse in Portuguese Austerity Politics. European Journal of Political Research56 (3): 660–679.
51.
PetersonDAMGrossbackLJStimsonJA, et al. (2003) Congressional Response to Mandate Elections. American Journal of Political Science47 (3): 411–426.
52.
RoyedTJ (1996) Testing the Mandate Model in Britain and the United States: Evidence from the Reagan and Thatcher Eras. British Journal of Political Science26 (1): 45–80.
53.
RussoFVerzichelliL (2016) Government Ideology and Party Priorities: The Determinants of Public Spending Changes in Italy. Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana Di Scienza Politica46 (3): 269–290.
54.
SchedlerA (1998) The Normative Force of Electoral Promises. Journal of Theoretical Politics10 (2): 191–214.
55.
SeebergHB (2013) The opposition’s Policy Influence Through Issue Politicisation. Journal of Public Policy33 (1): 89–107.
56.
SorokaSN (2002) Issue Attributes and Agenda-Setting by Media, the Public, and Policymakers in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research14 (3): 264–285.
57.
SorokaSNWlezienC (2010) Degrees of Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
58.
StimsonJAMackuenMBEriksonRS (1995) Dynamic Representation. The American Political Science Review89 (3): 543–565.
59.
ThesenG (2013) When Good News is Scarce and Bad News is Good: Government Responsibilities and Opposition Possibilities in Political Agenda-Setting. European Journal of Political Research52 (3): 364–389.
60.
ThesenGGreen-PedersenCMortensenPB (2017) Priming, Issue Ownership, and Party Support: The Electoral Gains of an Issue-Friendly Media Agenda. Political Communication34 (2): 282–301.
61.
ThomsonR (2001) The programme to policy linkage: The fulfilment of election pledges on socio-economic policy in The Netherlands, 1986–1998. European Journal of Political Research40 (6): 171–197.
62.
ThomsonRBrandenburgH (2018) Trust and Citizens’ Evaluations of Promise Keeping by Governing Parties. Political Studies67: 249–266.
63.
ThomsonRRoyedTNaurinE, et al. (2017) The Fulfillment of Parties’ Election Pledges: A Comparative Study on the Impact of Power Sharing. American Journal of Political Science61 (3): 527–542.
64.
Van AelstPWalgraveS (2016) Political Agenda Setting by the Mass Media: Ten Years of Research, 2005–2015. In: ZahariadisN (ed.), Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.157–179.
65.
van de WardtM (2015) Desperate Needs, Desperate Deeds: Why Mainstream Parties Respond to the Issues of Niche Parties. West European Politics38 (1): 93–122.
66.
VliegenthartRWalgraveS (2011) When the Media Matter for Politics: Partisan Moderators of the Mass Media’s Agenda-Setting Influence on Parliament in Belgium. Party Politics17 (3): 321–342.
67.
VliegenthartRWalgraveSBaumgartnerFR, et al. (2016) Do the media set the parliamentary agenda? A comparative study in seven countries. European Journal of Political Research55 (2): 283–301.
68.
VriesCEDHoboltSB (2012) When Dimensions Collide: The Electoral Success of Issue Entrepreneurs. European Union Politics13 (2): 246–268.
69.
WalgraveSSorokaSNuytemansM (2008) The Mass Media’s Political Agenda-Setting Power: A Longitudinal Analysis of Media, Parliament, and Government in Belgium (1993 to 2000). Comparative Political Studies41 (6): 814–836.
70.
WolfeMJonesBDBaumgartnerFR (2013) A Failure to Communicate: Agenda Setting in Media and Policy Studies. Political Communication30 (2): 175–192.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
