The Party Mandate and the Westminster Model: Election Programmes and Government Spending in Britain, 1948–85

British Journal of Political Science

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 1992, Pages 151-182

  Hofferbert, Richard I ^a   Budge, Ian ^a  

^a BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84972364222     PISSN: 00071234     EISSN: 14692112     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007123400006323     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. G. Bingham Powell, ‘Holding Governments Accountable: How Constitutional Arrangement and Party Systems Affect Clarity of Responsibility for Policy in Contemporary Democracies’ (paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, 1990).
2. Writers like Schumpeter see democracy as competition between teams of rival leaders (Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper, 1950)). It is hard to see, however, how leaders could be rationally selected on personal qualities alone. Past record and promises would surely have to be taken into account. Similarly those who see democracy
3. Morris P. Fiorina, Retrospective Voting in American National Elections (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981).
4. For a summary of previous research and new findings on this, see Colin Railings, The Influence of Election Programmes: Britain and Canada 1945-1979’, in Ian Budge, David Robertson and Derek Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Movement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 1–14.
5. Francis G. Castles, The Impact of Parties on Public Expenditures’, in Francis G. Castles, ed., The Impact of Parties: Politics and Policies in Democratic Capitalist States (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1982), pp. 21-96.
6. Thomas R. Dye, Politics, Economics, and the Public (Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1966).
7. Richard I. Hofferbert, ‘State and Community Policy Studies: A Review of Comparative Input-Out Analyses’, in James A. Robinson, ed., Political Science Annual, 3 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merill, 1972), pp. 3-72.
8. Anthony King, ‘Ideas, Institutions and the Policies of Governments: A Comparative Analysis,’ British Journal of Political Science, 3 (1973), 291–313 and 409-23.
9. Richard Rose, Do Parties Make a Difference? (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, 1980).
10. Manfred Schmidt, The Role of the Parties in Shaping Macroeconomic Policy’, in Castles, ed., The Impact of Parties’, pp. 97-176.
11. Richard I. Hofferbert, The Relation Between Public Policy and Some Structural and Environmental Variables in the American States’, American Political Science Review, 60 (1966), 73-82.
12. A. Flora and A. Heidenheimer, eds, The Development of the Welfare States in Europe and North America (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1981).
13. For a broad assessment of the relevance of the earlier American research to the context of British public expenditure to the mid-1970s, see Rudolf Klein, The Politics of Public Expenditure: American Theory and British Practice’, British Journal of Political Science, 6 (1976), 401–32, along with the exchanges between Klein and Maurice Kogan, pp. 507–9 of the same volume, as well as an adjoining piece of additional relevance by B. Guy Peters (The Relationship Between Public Expenditures and Services: A Longitudinal Analysis’, pp. 510–17).
14. Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Movement, chap. 2.
15. Budge, Robertson and Heart, eds, Ideology, chap. 2.
16. Ian Budge and Dennis J. Farlie, Explaining and Predicting Elections (London: Allen & Unwin, 1983).
17. Bo Sarlvik and Ivor Crewe, Decade of Dealignment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
18. Charles Cnudde and Donald McCrone, ‘Party Competition and Welfare Polices in the American States’, American Political Science Review, 63 (1969), 858-66.
19. John G. Grumm, ‘The Effects of Legislative Structure on Legislative Performance’, in Richard I. Hofferbert and Ira Sharkansky, eds, State and Urban Politics (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1971), pp. 298–322.
20. These are fully described in Appendix B of Budge, Robertson and Hearl, eds, Ideology.
21. Francois Petry, ‘The Policy Impact of Canadian Party Programs: Public Expenditure Growth and Contagion from the Left’, Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de politique, 14 (1988), 376–89.
22. Peter Evans, Dietrich Rauschemeyer and Theda Skocpol, eds, Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).
23. Claus Offe, Contradictions of the Welfare State (London: Hutchinson, 1984).
24. Ian Budge and Richard I. Hofferbert, ‘Mandates and Policy Outputs: US Party Platforms and Federal Expenditures’, American Political Science Review, 84(1990), 111-31.
25. Richard I. Hofferbert and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, ‘The Policy Impact of Party Programmes and Government Declarations in the Federal Republic of Germany’, European Journal of Political Research, 18 (1990), 277–304.