Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:38:28.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Richard I. Hofferbert  and
Ian Budge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Do party manifestos matter to government policy? Does a genuine party mandate operate within the British political process? These questions are generally neglected in analyses of British politics, but they are crucial in assessing how far political parties transmit electoral preferences into government action. We try to answer them through a novel use of available data, using content analysis to code and classify policy emphases within the post-war election programmes of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties. Statistical analysis reveals that government party programmes are remarkably well reflected in post-election policy priorities, measured as percentages of central government spending in major policy areas. This gives strong support to traditional mandate theory within the context of the ‘Westminster model’ of party government. Anomalies, such as a strong relationship between Liberal emphases and expenditures in three key areas, and the more consistent relationship of expenditures with Conservative rather than Labour priorities, are also considered.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , April 1992 , pp. 151 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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.)

References

1 Powell, G. Bingham, ‘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).Google Scholar

2 Writers like Schumpeter see democracy as competition between teams of rival leaders (Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper, 1950)Google Scholar). 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 as embodied merely in constant dialogue between electors and parties, with the latter adjusting policy in light of poll findings, have to reckon with the fact that parties would not be so sensitive on a continuing basis had they not to face electors, on the basis of their policies, at a forthcoming election. Both these considerations underline the major continuing relevance of party policies in elections, even in an elitist or semi-plebiscitary situation. Fiorina's emphasis on retrospective voting is also difficult to separate out from current election emphases, as one shapes and acts as a validator of the other. See Fiorina, Morris P., Retrospective Voting in American National Elections (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981).Google Scholar

3 For a summary of previous research and new findings on this, see Rallings, Colin, ‘The Influence of Election Programmes: Britain and Canada 1945–1979’, in Budge, Ian, Robertson, David and Hearl, Derek, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Movement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

4 Castles, Francis G., ‘The Impact of Parties on Public Expenditures’, in Castles, Francis G., ed., The Impact of Parties: Politics and Policies in Democratic Capitalist States (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1982), pp. 21–96Google Scholar; Dye, Thomas R., Politics, Economics, and the Public (Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1966)Google Scholar; Hofferbert, Richard I., ‘State and Community Policy Studies: A Review of Comparative Input-Out Analyses’, in Robinson, James A., ed., Political Science Annual, III (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merill, 1972), pp. 3–72Google Scholar; King, Anthony, ‘Ideas, Institutions and the Policies of Governments: A Comparative Analysis,’ British Journal of Political Science, 3 (1973), 291–313 and 409–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rose, Richard, Do Parties Make a Difference? (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmidt, Manfred, ‘The Role of the Parties in Shaping Macroeconomic Policy’Google Scholar, in Castles, , ed., ‘The Impact of Parties’, pp. 97–176Google Scholar; Hofferbert, Richard I., ‘The Relation Between Public Policy and Some Structural and Environmental Variables in the American States’, American Political Science Review, 60 (1966), 73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Flora, A. and Heidenheimer, A., eds, The Development of the Welfare States in Europe and North America (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1981)Google Scholar. For a broad assessment of the relevance of the earlier American research to the context of British public expenditure to the mid-1970s, see Klein, Rudolf, ‘The Politics of Public Expenditure: American Theory and British Practice’, British Journal of Political Science, 6 (1976), 401–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, along with the exchanges between Klein, and Kogan, Maurice, pp. 507–9Google Scholar of the same volume, as well as an adjoining piece of additional relevance by Peters, B. Guy (‘The Relationship Between Public Expenditures and Services: A Longitudinal Analysis’, pp. 510–17).Google Scholar

5 Budge, , Robertson, and Hearl, , eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Movement, chap. 2.Google Scholar

6 Budge, , Robertson, and Hearl, , eds, Ideology, chap. 2.Google Scholar

7 Budge, Ian and Farlie, Dennis J., Explaining and Predicting Elections (London: Allen & Unwin, 1983)Google Scholar; Särlvik, Bo and Crewe, Ivor, Decade of Dealignment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

8 Cnudde, Charles and McCrone, Donald, ‘Party Competition and Welfare Polices in the American States’, American Political Science Review, 63 (1969), 858–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grumm, John G., ‘The Effects of Legislative Structure on Legislative Performance’, in Hofferbert, Richard I. and Sharkansky, Ira, eds, State and Urban Politics (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1971), pp. 298–322.Google Scholar

9 These are fully described in Appendix B of Budge, Robertson, and Hearl, , eds, Ideology.Google Scholar

10 Petry, François, ‘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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Evans, Peter, Rauschemeyer, Dietrich and Skocpol, Theda, eds, Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Offe, Claus, Contradictions of the Welfare State (London: Hutchinson, 1984).Google Scholar

12 Budge, Ian and Hofferbert, Richard I., ‘Mandates and Policy Outputs: US Party Platforms and Federal Expenditures’, American Political Science Review, 84 (1990), 111–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hofferbert, Richard I. and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, ‘The Policy Impact of Party Programmes and Government Declarations in the Federal Republic of Germany’, European Journal of Political Research, 18 (1990), 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar