We explore budget data from twenty-nine Western countries from 1948 to 2012 to investigate the impact of partisan control of government on spending patterns. We use a variety of empirical methods, but the central element of analysis is to code spending allocations as “consistent” or “inconsistent” based on the partisanship of the majority party in government. Looking across the board, we show that inconsistent allocations occur at almost exactly the same rate as consistent ones. The implication is that budgets are best understood not as an expression of partisan priorities but as a reaction to changing contextual circumstances.
AldrichJ. H.1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AltJ. E.LowryR. C.1994. “Divided Government, Fiscal Institutions, and Budget Deficits: Evidence from the States.” American Political Science Review88:811–28.
3.
BaumgartnerF. R.BrouardS.GrossmanE.LazardeuxS. G.MoodyJ.2014. “Divided Government, Legislative Productivity, and Policy Change in the US and France.” Governance27:423–47.”
4.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D.WilkersonJ.2011. “The Dynamics of Policy Change in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Political Studies44:947–72.
5.
BawnK.RosenbluthF.2006. “Short versus Long Coalitions: Electoral Accountability and the Size of the Public Sector.” American Journal of Political Science50:251–65.
6.
BerryW. D.LoweryD.1987. Understanding United States Government Growth: An Empirical Analysis of the Postwar Era. New York: Praeger.
7.
BlaisA.BlakeD.DionS.1993. “Do Parties Make a Difference? Parties and the Size of Government in Liberal Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science37:40–62.
8.
BreunigC.2011. “Reduction, Stasis, and Expansion of Budgets in Advanced Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies44:1060–2088.
9.
BreunigC.JonesB. D.2010. “Stochastic Process Methods with an Application to Budgetary Data.” Political Analysis19:103–17.
10.
BudgeI.HofferbertR. I.1990. “Mandates and Policy Outputs: U.S. Party Platforms and Federal Expenditures.” American Political Science Review84:111–31.
11.
CameronD. R.1978. “The Expansion of the Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis.” American Political Science Review72:1243–61.
12.
Canes-WroneB.2006. Who Leads Whom? Presidents, Policy, and the Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
ClarkeW.1998. “Divided Government and Budget Conflict in the U.S. States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly23:5–22.
14.
CohenJ. E.1995. “Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda.” American Journal of Political Science39 (1): 87–107.
15.
ColemanJ. J.1999. “United Government, Divided Government, and Party Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review93:821–35.
16.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D.1991. “Divided Control of Fiscal Policy.” In The Politics of Divided Government, edited by CoxG. W.KernellS., 155–75. Boulder: Westview.
17.
DamoreD. F.2004. “The Dynamics of Issue Ownership in Presidential Campaigns.” Political Research Quarterly57:391–7.
18.
EdwardsG. C.IIIBarrettA.PeakeJ.1997. “The Legislative Impact of Divided Government.” American Journal of Political Science41:545–63.
19.
EdwardsG. C.IIIWoodB. D.1999. “Who Influences Whom? The President, Congress, and the Media.” American Political Science Review93 (2): 327–44.
20.
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 Research49:257–81.
21.
HibbsD.1977. “Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy.” American Political Science Review71:1467–87.
22.
HuberE.RaginC.StephensJ. D.1993. “Social Democracy, Christian Democracy, Constitutional Structure, and the Welfare State.” American Journal of Sociology99:711–49.
23.
HuberE.StephensJ. D.2001. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. R.2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Lewis-BeckM.RiceT. W.1985. “Government Growth in the United States.” Journal of Politics47:2–27.
26.
MartinL. W.2004. “The Government Agenda in Parliamentary Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science48:445–61.
27.
MartinL. W.VanbergG.2004. “Policing the Bargain: Coalition Government and Parliamentary Scrutiny.” American Journal of Political Science48:13–27.
28.
MayhewD.1991. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–1990. New Haven: Yale University Press.
29.
MullerW. C.StromK.2000. “Coalition Governance in Western Europe.” In Coalition Governments in Western Europe, edited by MullerW. C.StromK., 1–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
PetrocikJ. R.BenoitW. L.HansenG. J.2003. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952-2000.” Political Science Quarterly118:599–626.
31.
RoseR.DaviesP. L.1994. Inheritance in Public Policy: Change without Choice in Britain. New Haven: Yale University Press.
32.
SigelmanL.BuellE. H.Jr.2004. “Avoidance or Engagement? Issue Convergence in US Presidential Campaigns, 1960–2000.” American Journal of Political Science48:650–61.
SwankD. H.1988. “The Political Economy of Government Domestic Expenditure in the Affluent Democracies, 1960-1980.” American Journal of Political Science32:1120–50.
35.
WalgraveS.LefevereJ.NuytemansM.2009. “Issue Ownership Stability and Change: How Political Parties Claim and Maintain Issues through Media Appearances.” Political Communication26 (2): 153–72.
36.
WildavskyA.1984. The Politics of the Budgetary Process, 4th ed. Boston: Little Brown.
37.
WilenskyH.1975. The Welfare State and Equality. Berkeley: University of California Press.
