Can the design of governmental institutions promote timely governance? This article investigates this question by examining the relationship between the design of fiscal institutions and budgetary delays across the fifty states. These budgetary offices are created by lawmakers to advance sound fiscal policy and sustainable public finance. This article argues that the unbiased information provided by nonpartisan budget offices minimize the likelihood of budgetary delay as well as lessen how long budgetary stalemate persists when a delay occurs. The findings suggest that nonpartisan fiscal institutions do not prevent budgetary delay but substantially reduce the duration of budgetary gridlock.
AldrichJohn H.2011. Why parties?: A second look. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AndersenAsger LauLassenDavid DreyerNielsenLasse Holbøll Westh. 2012. Late budgets. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy4 (4): 1–40.
3.
ArnoldDouglas R.1990. The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4.
BarberMichaelBoltonAlexanderThrowerSharece. 2019. Legislative constraints on executive unilateralism in separation of powers systems. Legislative Studies Quarterly44 (3): 515–48.
5.
BaumgartnerFrank R.JonesBryan D.. 2015. The politics of information: Problem definition and the course of public policy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BeetsmaRoelDebrunXavierFangXiangmingKimYoungLledoVictorMbayeSambaZhangXiaoxiao. 2019. Independent fiscal councils: Recent trends and performance. European Journal of Political Economy57:53–69.
7.
BinderSarah A.2003. Stalemate: Causes and consequences of legislative gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
8.
BirkheadNathaniel A.2016. State budgetary delays in an era of party polarization. State and Local Government Review48 (4): 259–69.
9.
BowlingCynthia J.FergusonMargaret R.. 2001. Divided government, interest representation, and policy differences: Competing explanations of gridlock in the fifty states. Journal of Politics63 (1): 182–206.
10.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.JonesBradford S.. 2004. Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
FennoRichard F.1978. Home style: House members in their districts. New York: HarperCollins.
22.
FinocchiaroCharles J.JenkinsJeffery A.. 2016. Distributive politics, the electoral connection, and the antebellum US Congress: The case of military service pensions. Journal of Theoretical Politics28 (2): 192–224.
23.
FowlerLukeRudnikNicholas. 2015. Punctuality is for the bored: The California budget process. California Journal of Politics and Policy7 (2): 1–19.
24.
GelmanAndrew. 2008. Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine27 (15): 2865–73.
25.
GilliganThomas W.KrehbielKeith. 1987. Collective decisionmaking and standing committees: An informational rationale for restrictive amendment procedures. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization3 (2): 287–335.
26.
GilmourJohn B.1995. Strategic disagreement: Stalemate in American politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
27.
GoodmanDougClynchEdward J.. 2004. Budgetary decision making by executive and legislative budget analysts: The impact of political cues and analytical information. Public Budgeting & Finance24 (3): 20–37.
28.
HealyAndrewMalhotraNeil. 2013. Retrospective voting reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science16:285–306.
29.
HicksWilliam D.2015. Partisan competition and the efficiency of lawmaking in American state legislatures, 1991-2009. American Politics Research43 (5): 743–70.
30.
Holtz-EakinDouglas. 1988. The line item veto and public sector budgets: Evidence from the states. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
31.
Illinois Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. n.d.Commission on government forecasting and accountability—commission profile. http://cgfa.ilga.gov/CommissionProfile.aspx (accessed February 12, 2020).
32.
IyengarShantoLelkesYphtachLevenduskyMatthewMalhotraNeilWestwoodSean J.. 2019. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science22:129–46.
33.
JonesBryan D.BaumgartnerFrank R.. 2005. The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
KingdonJohn W.1989. Congressmen’s voting decisions. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
35.
KirklandPatricia A.PhillipsJustin H.. 2018. Is divided government a cause of legislative delay?Quarterly Journal of Political Science13 (2): 173–206.
36.
KlarnerCarl E.PhillipsJustin H.MucklerMatt. 2012. Overcoming fiscal gridlock: Institutions and budget bargaining. The Journal of Politics74 (4): 992–1009.
37.
KousserThadPhillipsJustin H.. 2009. Who blinks first? Legislative patience and bargaining with governors. Legislative Studies Quarterly34 (1): 55–86.
38.
KousserThadPhillipsJustin H.. 2012. The power of American governors: Winning on budgets and losing on policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
KrehbielKeith. 1991. Information and legislative organization. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
National Conference of State Legislatures. 1995. Fundamental of sound state budgeting practices. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures.
RogersJames R.2005. The impact of divided government on legislative production. Public Choice123 (1-2): 217–33.
57.
RogersSteven. 2015. Strategic challenger entry in a federal system: The role of economic and political conditions in state legislative competition. Legislative Studies Quarterly40 (4): 539–70.
ZelizerAdam. 2018. How responsive are legislators to policy information? Evidence from a field experiment in a state legislature. Legislative Studies Quarterly43 (4): 595–618.
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.
