IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v93y1999i04p821-835_21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unified Government, Divided Government, and Party Responsiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Coleman, John J.

Abstract

Revisionist accounts conclude that divided and unified government do not differ significantly in the production of “important” public policy. I argue instead that when one theoretically reclaims the concerns about party responsiveness and institutional features of American politics that have animated party government scholars, unified government is significantly more productive than divided government. Employing a range of measures of important legislative enactments in the postwar period, I find that unified government produces greater quantities of significant enactments and is more responsive to the public mood than is divided government. The evidence suggests that parties do, as party government theorists maintain, generate incentives to cooperation that help transcend some of the policymaking gaps created by the Constitution.

Suggested Citation

  • Coleman, John J., 1999. "Unified Government, Divided Government, and Party Responsiveness," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 821-835, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:93:y:1999:i:04:p:821-835_21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400219114/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. Beyer, Deborah B. & Fan, Zaifeng S., 2023. "The calming effects of conflict: The impact of partisan conflict on market volatility," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    2. Sojli, Elvira & Tham, Wing Wah, 2015. "Divided governments and futures prices," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 187(2), pages 622-633.
    3. Pablo Garofalo & Daniel Lema & Jorge M. Streb, 2020. "Political budget cycles and voting within a federal country: The influence of political alignment," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 305-334, July.
    4. Schelker, Mark, 2018. "Lame ducks and divided government: How voters control the unaccountable," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 131-144.
    5. Cipullo, Davide & Reslow, André, 2022. "Electoral cycles in macroeconomic forecasts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 307-340.
    6. Robert Pahre, 2001. "Divided Government and International Cooperation in Austria-Hungary, Sweden-Norway and the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 2(2), pages 131-162, June.
    7. Below, Amy, 2013. "Obstacles in energy security: An analysis of congressional and presidential framing in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 860-868.
    8. Tonja Jacobi, 2009. "The Role of Politics and Economics in Explaining Variation in Litigation Rates in the U.S. States," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(1), pages 205-233, January.
    9. Myunghoon Kang, 2017. "Representation, sophisticated voting, and the size of the gridlock region," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(4), pages 623-646, October.
    10. Christopher R. Berry & Barry C. Burden & William G. Howell, 2010. "After Enactment: The Lives and Deaths of Federal Programs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 1-17, January.
    11. Dimiter Toshkov, 2011. "Public opinion and policy output in the European Union: A lost relationship," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 169-191, June.
    12. Cheng, Mengyao, 2022. "Legislative gridlock and stock return dispersion around roll-call votes," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    13. Thomas Holyoke & Jeffrey Henig & Heath Brown & Natalie Lacireno-Paquet, 2009. "Policy dynamics and the evolution of state charter school laws," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(1), pages 33-55, February.
    14. Ade, Florian & Freier, Ronny, 2013. "Divided government versus incumbency externality effect—Quasi-experimental evidence on multiple voting decisions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-20.
    15. Anna M. Cox, 2018. "The Filibuster: A Means to Preserve the Voice of “We the People”," International Journal of Social Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 6(3), pages 79-95, March.
    16. Im, Hyun Joong & Kim, Jiyeon & Ryu, Dean, 2023. "Unified government and the value of cash holdings," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(PC).
    17. Repetto, Luca & Andrés, Maximiliano Sosa, 2023. "Divided government, polarization, and policy: Regression-discontinuity evidence from US states," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    18. Francis, Bill B. & Hasan, Iftekhar & Zhu, Yun, 2021. "The impact of political uncertainty on institutional ownership," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    19. Montone, Maurizio, 2022. "Does the U.S. president affect the stock market?," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    20. Matthew C. Stephenson, 2013. "Does Separation of Powers Promote Stability and Moderation?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 331-368.
    21. Jason Webb Yackee & Susan Webb Yackee, 2009. "Divided government and US federal rulemaking," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 128-144, June.
    22. Matthew N. Beckmann & Anthony J. McGann, 2008. "Navigating the Legislative Divide," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 20(2), pages 201-220, April.
    23. Manow, Philip & Burkhart, Simone, 2004. "Legislative Autolimitation under Divided Government: Evidence from the German Case, 1976-2002," MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/11, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    24. Nathan Monroe, 2010. "The policy impact of unified government: evidence from 2000 to 2002," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 111-124, January.

    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:93:y:1999:i:04:p:821-835_21. 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.