Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T17:19:16.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Partisan Presidential Influence over US Federal Budgetary Outcomes: Evidence from a Stochastic Decomposition of Executive Budget Proposals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2014

Abstract

Can American presidents use their budget proposal authority to achieve their own partisan policy priorities? This is an important, yet challenging, question to answer since formal executive authority is ambiguous, and budgetary powers are shared in the US separation of powers system. Indeed, the question remains open since prior empirical designs conflate external constraints (arising from political and policy conditions) with those that reflect executive partisan policy priorities. This study advances a novel stochastic decomposition of executive budget proposals in order to analyze the extent to which presidents can shape the legislative funding of US federal agencies consistent with their own partisan policy priorities. Statistical evidence reveals that presidents exert partisan-based budgetary influence over appropriations that cannot be ascertained from previous empirical studies that rely on either the observed gap between presidential requests and congressional appropriations or standard instrumental variable estimation methods. The statistical evidence also indicates that presidents are marginally more effective at converting their partisan policy priorities into budgetary outcomes under divided party government. Contrary to theoretical predictions generated from bilateral veto bargaining models, presidents are also shown to exert effective partisan budgetary influence even when their budget requests exceed congressional appropriations.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

George A. Krause is Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 (email: gkrause@pitt.edu). Ian Palmer Cook is Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 (email: ipc4@pitt.edu). Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Politics of US Federal Spending Conference, UC–Merced, 27–28 May 2010 and at the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University, 6 March 2009. We thank Sarah Anderson, Dan Berkowitz, Anthony Bertelli, Janet Box–Steffensmeier, Brandice Canes–Wrone, Dan Carpenter, Chris Den Hartog, Sean Gailmard, Brad Gomez, Jude Hays, Will Howell, Kristin Kanthak, LeeAnne Krause, Matthew Lebo, David Lewis, Mathew McCubbins, Soilou Namoro, John Patty, Jean–Francois Richard, Mehmet Soytas, Jennifer Victor, Christopher Wlezien, Jon Woon and seminar participants for helpful feedback at various stages of this project. We thank Jon Woon for graciously providing us with his House Appropriations Subcommittee data.

References

Angrist, Joshua D., and Pischke, Jorn–Steffen. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey S. 1989. ‘Agency Budgets, Cost Information, and Auditing’. American Journal of Political Science 33(August):670699.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., Jones, Bryan D., and True, James L.. 1998. ‘Policy Punctuations: U.S. Budget Authority, 1947–1995’. Journal of Politics 60(February):133.Google Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan, and Moe, Terry M.. 1985. ‘An Adaptive Model of Bureaucratic Politics’. American Political Science Review 79(September):755774.Google Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan B., Taylor, Serge, and Van Gaalen, Roland. 1985. ‘Bureaucratic Expertise versus Legislative Authority: A Model of Deception and Monitoring in Budgeting’. American Political Science Review 79(December):10411069.Google Scholar
Berman, Larry P. 1979. The Office of Management and Budget and the Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, Christopher R., Burden, Barry C., and Howell, William G.. 2010. ‘The President and the Distribution of Federal Spending’. American Political Science Review 104(November):783799.Google Scholar
Bureau of Labor Statistics The Employment Situation: Civilian Unemployment Rate. Washington, D.C.: General Printing Office 7 May 2010.Google Scholar
Cameron, Charles M. 2000. Veto Bargaining: Presidents and the Politics of Negative Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Canes–Wrone, Brandice. 2006. Who Leads Whom? Presidents, Policy, and the Public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, Royce, Lewis, Jeffrey B., Lo, James, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2009. ‘Measuring Bias and Uncertainty in DW–NOMINATE Ideal Point Estimates via the Parametric Bootstrap’. Political Analysis 17(June):261275.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Vidar, and Jansen, Eilev S.. 1978. ‘Implicit Social Preferences in the Norwegian System of Indirect Taxation’. Journal of Public Economics 10(October):217245.Google Scholar
Christoffersen, Peter F., and Diebold, Francis X.. 1997. ‘Optimal Prediction under Asymmetric Loss’. Econometric Theory 13(December):808817.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., and Lewis, David E.. 2008. ‘Expert Opinion, Agency Characteristics, and Agency Preferences’. Political Analysis 16(Winter):320.Google Scholar
Dixit, Avinash, K. 1997. The Making of Economic Policy: A Transaction Cost Politics Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1966. The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John A., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1987. ‘The Budget Process and the Size of the Budget’. American Journal of Political Science. 31(May):296320.Google Scholar
Gilmour, John B. 1995. Strategic Disagreement: Stalemate in American Politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Granger, Clive, W.J. 1969. ‘Prediction with a Generalized Cost of Error Function’. Operations Research Quarterly 20(June):199207.Google Scholar
Heclo, Hugh, and Salamon, Lester M.. 1981. Editors. The Illusion of Presidential Government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Howell, William G., Jackman, Saul P., and Rogowski, Jon C.. 2013. The Wartime President: Executive Influence and the Nationalizing Politics of Threat. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
James, Scott C. 2005. ‘The Evolution of the Presidency: Between the Promise and the Fear’. In Institutions of American Democracy: The Executive Branch, edited by Joel D. Aberbach and Mark A. Peterson, 340. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., Sulkin, Tracy, and Larsen, Heather A.. 2003. ‘Policy Punctuations in American Political Institutions’. American Political Science Review 97(February):151169.Google Scholar
Kamlet, Mark S., and Mowery, David C.. 1987. ‘Influences on Executive and Congressional Budgetary Priorities, 1955–1981’. American Political Science Review 81(March):155178.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and Krehbiel, Keith. 2000. Domestic Discretionary Appropriations, 1950–1999: Here’s the President. Where’s the Party? Typescript. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1988. ‘Presidential Influence on Congressional Appropriation Decisions’. American Journal of Political Science 32(August):713736.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1991. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levitt, Steven D. 1996. ‘How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voter Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senator Ideology’. American Economic Review 86(June):425441.Google Scholar
Meyers, Roy T. 1994. Strategic Budgeting. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Neustadt, Richard B. 1990. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership Second Edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Niskanen, William A. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. New York: Aldine–Atherton.Google Scholar
Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government (Historical Tables): Fiscal Years 1960–2009. Washington, D.C.: General Printing Office.Google Scholar
Ramsey, James B. 1969. ‘Test for Specification Errors in Classical Linear Least Squares Regression Analysis’. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 31(2):350371.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W., and Simon, Dennis M.. 1985. ‘Presidential Vetoes and Congressional Response: A Study of Institutional Conflict’. American Journal of Political Science 29(August):397427.Google Scholar
Rossiter, Clinton. 1960. The American Presidency. Second Edition. New York: Harcourt–Brace.Google Scholar
Schick, Allen. 1990. The Capacity to Budget. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. 1973. The Imperial Presidency. Boston, MA: Houghton–Mifflin.Google Scholar
Stovey, Allison J., and Green, Donald P.. 2010. ‘Instrumental Variables Estimation in Political Science: A Reader’s Guide’. American Journal of Political Science 55(January):188200.Google Scholar
Ting, Michael, M. 2001. ‘The “Power of the Purse” and its Implications for Bureaucratic Policy–Making’. Public Choice 106(March):243274.Google Scholar
Veillette, Connie, Epstein, Susan B., Margesson, Rhoda, and Tarnoff, Curt. 2008. FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for International Affairs . Order Code RL34276. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E., and Carpenter, Daniel P.. 2003. ‘Executive Power in American Institutional Development’. Perspectives on Politics 1(September):495513.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1988. The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1993. ‘The Political Economy of Supplemental Appropriations’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 18(February):5176.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Krause and Cook Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 1

Download Krause and Cook Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 22 MB
Supplementary material: PDF

Krause and Cook Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 2

Download Krause and Cook Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 609.4 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Krause and Cook Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material 3

Download Krause and Cook Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 609.4 KB