IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v26y1996i01p45-80_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the Mandate Model in Britain and the United States: Evidence from the Reagan and Thatcher Eras

Author

Listed:
  • Royed, Terry J.

Abstract

The hypothesis that parties are better able to carry out mandates in Britain than the United States is tested for the Reagan and Thatcher years. A list of specific pledges was compiled and it was determined whether or not the pledges were fulfilled. The primary finding is that more Conservative party pledges were fulfilled, compared to those of the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States. In each country policy took a conservative turn, but because more pledges were fulfilled in Britain, the ‘Conservative revolution’ was more thorough there than in the United States. It is suggested, in contrast to the findings of previous literature, that institutional differences between the two countries are one factor that matters when it comes to bringing about policy change.

Suggested Citation

  • Royed, Terry J., 1996. "Testing the Mandate Model in Britain and the United States: Evidence from the Reagan and Thatcher Eras," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 45-80, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:26:y:1996:i:01:p:45-80_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123400007419/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. Mikael Elinder & Henrik Jordahl & Panu Poutvaara, 2008. "Selfish and Prospective: Theory and Evidence of Pocketbook Voting," CESifo Working Paper Series 2489, CESifo.
    2. Durevall, Dick & Henrekson, Magnus, 2011. "The futile quest for a grand explanation of long-run government expenditure," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 708-722.
    3. Robert Wapshott & Oliver Mallett, 2018. "Small and medium-sized enterprise policy: Designed to fail?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(4), pages 750-772, June.
    4. Petia Kostadinova & Magda Giurcanu, 2018. "Capturing the legislative priorities of transnational Europarties and the European Commission: A pledge approach," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 363-379, June.
    5. Matthieß, Theres, 2020. "Retrospective pledge voting: A comparative study of the electoral consequences of government parties’ pledge fulfilment," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59(4), pages 774-796.
    6. Andreas Schedler, 1998. "The Normative Force of Electoral Promises," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(2), pages 191-214, April.
    7. Werner, Annika & Giebler, Heiko, 2019. "Do Populists Represent? Theoretical Considerations on How Populist Parties (Might) Enact their Representative Function," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 55(4), pages 379-392.
    8. Paul Chaney, 2015. "“Post-Feminist†Era of Social Investment and Territorial Welfare? Exploring the Issue Salience and Policy Framing of Child Care in U.K. Elections 1983-2011," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(1), pages 21582440155, February.
    9. Chaney, Paul, 2014. "Mixed-methods analysis of political parties׳ manifesto discourse on rail transport policy: Westminster, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections 1945–2011," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 275-285.

    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:bjposi:v:26:y:1996:i:01:p:45-80_00. 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/jps .

    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.