IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v78y1984i02p356-371_25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Presidential Priorities: The Competing Aspiration Levels Model of Macrobudgetary Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Fischer, Gregory W.
  • Kamlet, Mark S.

Abstract

This article develops a new statistical model of trade-offs among defense, nondefense, and fiscal policy concerns as they are reflected in the presidential budgetary process. The Competing Aspiration Levels Model (CALM) builds on Crecine's (1971) “Great Identity” argument. Unlike most previous attempts to model presidential budgeting, CALM explicitly represents the interdependence of decisions about defense, nondefense, and total federal expenditures. CALM models this interdependence as the result of the interaction of minimal aspirations for defense and nondefense expenditures with a maximum acceptable level of expenditures from a fiscal policy standpoint. Statistical analyses of presidential budgets for the fiscal years from 1955 through 1980 provide strong support for the CALM formulation. Substantively, the results indicate that fiscal constraints on total expenditures have progressively weakened, that the maximum acceptable expenditure level has generally exceeded the minimal expenditure aspiration level, and that when a potential “fiscal surplus” has existed, the nondefense sector has been more successful in capturing a share of this surplus than the defense sector. In keeping with traditional incrementalist arguments, the results indicate that previous year expenditure levels provide a relatively secure “budgetary base” for both the defense and nondefense sectors. Both sectors tend to receive their minimal aspiration levels plus a share of whatever fiscal surplus exists. The analysis also indicates that the executive branch has not been as strong a direct force for budgetary growth as Congress.

Suggested Citation

  • Fischer, Gregory W. & Kamlet, Mark S., 1984. "Explaining Presidential Priorities: The Competing Aspiration Levels Model of Macrobudgetary Decision Making," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(2), pages 356-371, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:78:y:1984:i:02:p:356-371_25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400253604/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Gerace, 2002. "US Military Expenditures and Economic Growth: Some Evidence from Spectral Methods," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11.
    2. G. Choate & Fred Thompson, 1988. "Budget makers as agents: A preliminar investigation of discretionary behavior under state-contingent rewards," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 3-20, July.
    3. Janet Pack, 1988. "The Congress and fiscal policy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 101-122, August.
    4. Janet Pack, 1987. "The political policy cycle: Presidential effort vs. presidential control," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 231-259, August.
    5. Dale L. Smith, 1988. "Reagan's National Security Legacy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(4), pages 595-625, December.
    6. Terje P. Hagen & Rune J. Sørensen & Øyvind Norli, 1996. "Bargaining Strength in Budgetary Processes," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 8(1), pages 41-63, January.
    7. Sung Deuk Hahm & Mark S. Kamlet & David C. Mowery & Tsai-Tsu Su, 1992. "The influence of the gramm-rudman-hollings act on federal budgetary outcomes, 1986-1989," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 207-234.
    8. Mary Jo McGowan & JoEllen V. Pope & Martha E. Kropf & Zachary Mohr, 2021. "Guns or Butter… or Elections? Understanding intertemporal and distributive dimensions of policy choice through the examination of budgetary tradeoffs at the local level," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 3-19, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:78:y:1984:i:02:p:356-371_25. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.