This article develops an attention-based model of party mandates and policy agendas, where parties and governments are faced with an abundance of issues and must divide their scarce attention across them. In government, parties must balance their desire to deliver on their electoral mandate (i.e. the ‘promissory agenda’) with a need to continuously adapt their policy priorities in response to changes in public concerns and to deal with unexpected events and the emergence of new problems (i.e. the ‘anticipatory agenda’). Parties elected to office also have incentives to respond to issues prioritized by the platforms of their rivals. To test this theory, time series cross-sectional models are used to investigate how the policy content of the legislative program of British government responds to governing and opposition party platforms, the executive agenda, issue priorities of the public and mass media.
AdamsJ (2001) Party Competition and Responsible Party Government: A Theory of Spatial Competition Based Upon Insights From Behavioral Voting Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
2.
AdlerSWilkersonJD (2012) Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
APSA (American Political Science Association) (1950) Toward a more responsible two-party system. A report of the Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association (supplement to American Political Science Review, September, 1950). New York: Rinehart and Company.
4.
BaraJ (2005) A question of trust: implementing party manifestos. Parliamentary Affairs58(3): 585–599.
5.
BaumgartnerFRBryanJDWilkersonJ (2011) Comparative studies of policy dynamics. Comparative Political Studies44(8): 947–972.
6.
BaumgartnerFRBreunigCGreen-PedersenC. (2009) Punctuated equilibrium in comparative perspective. American Journal of Political Science53(3): 602–619.
7.
BevanSJenningsW (2014) Representation, agendas and institutions. European Journal of Political Research53(1): 37–56.
8.
BevanSJohnPJenningsW (2011) Keeping party programmes on track: The transmission of the policy agendas of the speech from the throne to acts of the UK parliament. European Political Science Review3(3): 395–417.
9.
BirklandTA (1997) After Disaster. Agenda Setting, Public Policy and Focusing Events. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
10.
BlaisABlakeDDionS (1993) Do parties make a difference? Parties and the size of government in liberal democracies. American Journal of Political Science37(1): 40–62.
11.
BoixC (2000) Partisan governments, the international economy, and macroeconomic policies in advanced nations, 1960–93. World Politics53(1): 38–73.
12.
BudgeIFarlieD (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.
13.
BudgeIHofferbertRI (1990) Mandates and policy outputs: U.S. party platforms and federal expenditures. American Political Science Review84(1): 111–132.
14.
BudgeIHearlDRobertsonD (1987) Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BudgeIKlingemannHDVolkensA. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments, 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
BudgeIMcDonaldMPenningsP. (2012) Organizing Democratic Choice: Party Representation Over Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
BurkeE (1968) Reflections on the Revolution in France. London: Penguin Books.
18.
CastlesFG (1982). The Impact of Parties: Politics and Policies in Democratic Capitalist States. London/Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
19.
CastlesFMcKinlayRD (1979) Does politics matter: an analysis of the public welfare commitment in advanced democratic states. European Journal of Political Research7(2): 169–186.
20.
Chaqués BonafontLBaumgartnerFR (2013) Newspaper attention and policy activities in Spain. Journal of Public Policy33(1): 65–88.
21.
Chaqués BonafontLPalauAM (2011) Assessing the responsiveness of Spanish policymakers to the priorities of their citizens. West European Politics34(4): 706–730.
22.
CobbRWElderDE (1983) Participation in American Politics. The Dynamics of Agenda-Building. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
23.
CobbRWRossJKRossMH (1976) Agenda building as a comparative political process. American Political Science Review70 (1): 126–138.
24.
DamoreDF (2004) The dynamics of issue ownership in presidential campaigns. Political Research Quarterly57(3): 391–397.
25.
DöringH (1995) Time as a scarce resource: government control of the agenda. In: DöringH (ed) Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Frankfurt-am-Main, Campus and New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 223–246.
26.
EdwardsGCWoodBD (1999) Who influences whom? The president, Congress, and the media. American Political Science Review93(2): 327–344.
27.
FroioC (2012) Que Reste-t-il des Partis?Sarrebruck: Presses Académiques Francophones.
28.
FroioC (2013) What is left for parties? An overview of party mandate in France 1981-2009. French Politics11(1): 98–116.
29.
GamsonWAModiglianiA (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95(1): 1–37.
30.
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.
31.
Green-PedersenCStubagerR (2010) The political conditionality of mass media influence: When do parties follow mass media attention?British Journal of Political Science40(3): 663–677.
32.
Green-PedersenCWalgraveS (2014) Agenda Setting, Policies, and Political Systems: A Comparative Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
HellwigT (2014) Globalization and Mass Politics: Retaining the Room to Maneuver. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
HibbsDA (1979) The mass public and macro-economic policy: the dynamics of public opinion towards unemployment and inflation. American Journal of Political Science2(3): 705–731.
35.
HofferbertRIBudgeI (1992) The party mandate and the Westminster model: party programmes and government spending in Britain, 1948-1985. British Journal of Political Science22(2): 151–182.
36.
ImbeauLMPétryFLamariM (2001) Left-right party ideology and government policies: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Political Research40(1): 1–29.
37.
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.
38.
JenningsWWlezienC (2011) Distinguishing between most important problems and issues?Public Opinion Quarterly75(3): 545–555.
39.
JenningsWBevanSJohnP (2011a) The agenda of British government: the Speech from the Throne, 1911-2008. Political Studies59(1): 74–98.
40.
JenningsWBevanSTimmermansA. (2011b) Effects of the core functions of government on the diversity of executive agendas. Comparative Political Studies44(8): 1001–1030.
41.
JohnPBertelliAJenningsW. (2013) Policy Agendas in British Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
JonesBD (1994) Reconceiving Decision-making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
JonesBD (2001) Politics and the Architecture of Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
JonesBDBaumgartnerFR (2004) Representation and agenda setting. Policy Studies Journal32(1): 1–24.
45.
JonesBDBaumgartnerFR (2005a) The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
JonesBDBaumgartnerFR (2005b) A model of choice for public policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15(3): 325–351.
47.
JonesBDLarsen-PriceHWilkersonJ (2009) Representation and American governing institutions. Journal of Politics71(1): 277–290.
48.
KaplanNParkDKRidoutTN (2006) Dialogue in American political campaigns? An examination of issue convergence in candidate television advertising. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 724–736.
49.
KingdonJW (1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
50.
KlingemannHDHofferbertRIBudgeI (1994) Parties, Policies, and Democracy. Boulder: Westview Press.
51.
LaverM (2001) Position and salience in the politics of political parties. In: LaverM (ed) Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors. London: Routledge: pp. 66–75.
52.
LaverMGarryJ (2000) Estimating policy positions from political texts. American Journal of Political Science44(3): 619–634.
53.
LijphartA (2012) Patterns of Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
54.
LindeboomGJ (2012) Public priorities in government’s hands: corresponding policy agendas in the Netherlands?Acta Politica47(4): 443–467.
55.
LouwerseT (2011) The spatial approach to the party mandate. Parliamentary Affairs64(3): 425–447.
56.
LovettJBevanSBaumgartnerF (2015) Popular presidents can affect congressional attention, for a little while. Policy Studies Journal43(1): 22–43.
57.
MairP (2008) The challenge to party government. West European Politics31(1-2): 211–234.
58.
MayhewDR (2006) Congress as problem solver. In: GerberAPatashnikEM (eds) Promoting the General Welfare: New Perspectives on Government Performance. Washington: Brookings Institution.
59.
McCombsM (2014) Setting the agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Malden: Polity.
60.
McCombsMEShawDL (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public opinion Quarterly36(2): 176–187.
61.
McDonaldMDBudgeI (2005) Elections, Parties, Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
62.
McDonaldMDMendesSMBudgeI (2004) What are elections for? Conferring the median mandate. British Journal of Political Science34(1): 1–26.
63.
MansbridgeJ (2003) Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review97(4): 515–528.
64.
PersicoSFroioCGuinaudeauI (2012) Action publique et partis politiques: l’analyse de l’agenda législatif français entre 1981 et 2009 [Parties and policies: an analysis of the French]. Gouvernement & Action Publique1(1): 11–35.
65.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825–850.
66.
PowellGB (2000) Elections as Instrument of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven: Yale University Press.
67.
PowellGB (2004) The chain of responsiveness. Journal of Democracy15(4): 91–105.
68.
PrzeworskiAStokesSCManinB (1999) Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69.
RoseR (1980) Challenge to Governance: Studies in Overloaded Polities. Vol. 1. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
70.
ScharpfFW (2000) Economic changes, vulnerabilities, and institutional capabilities. In: ScharpfFWSchmidtV (eds) Welfare and Work in the Open Economy, Vol. I: From Vulnerability to Competitiveness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–124.
71.
SidesJ (2007) The consequences of campaign agendas. American Politics Research35(4): 465–488.
72.
SorokaSN (2002) Issue attributes and agenda-setting by media, the public, and policymakers in Canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research14(3): 264–285.
73.
SorokaSWlezienC (2010) Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
74.
StimsonJAMacKuenMBEriksonRS (1995) Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review89(3): 543–565.
75.
StokesD (1963) Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review57(2): 368–377.
76.
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.
77.
WlezienC (2005) On the salience of political issues: The problem with ‘most important problem’. Electoral Studies24(4): 555–579.
78.
WalgraveSDumontPVaroneF (2006) Policy with or without parties? A comparative analysis of policy priorities and policy change in Belgium (1991–2000). Journal of European Public Policy13(7): 1039–1052.
79.
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.
80.
WlezienC (1996) Dynamics of representation: The case of US spending on defense. British Journal of Political Science26(1): 81–103.
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.
