PARTY PLATFORMS, MANDATES, AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING

In their 1990 Review article, Ian Budge and Richard Hofferbert analyze d the relationship between party platform emphases, control of the Whi te House, and national government spending priorities, reporting stron g evidence of a ''party mandate'' connection between them. Gary King a nd Michael Laver successfully replicate the original analysis, critiqu e the interpretation of the causal effects, and present a reanalysis s howing that platforms have small or nonexistent effects on spending. I n response, Budge, Hofferbert, and Michael McDonald agree that their l anguage was somewhat inconsistent on both interactions and causality b ut defend their conceptualization of ''mandates'' as involving only an association, not necessarily a causal connection, between party commi tments and government policy. Hence, while the causes of government po licy are of interest, noncausal associations are sufficient as evidenc e of party mandates in American politics.