IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v85y1995i1-2p81-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Probit Analysis of the Senate Vote on Gramm-Rudman

Author

Listed:
  • Lloyd, Robert E
  • McGarrity, Joseph P

Abstract

The Leviathan theory of government was seemingly contradicted when the U.S. Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction law. This study analyzes the Senate vote on Gramm-Rudman to try to determine whether legislators acted in their own self-interest. A prisoner's dilemma argument explains how Senators made themselves better-off by limiting their own spending abilities. A probit analysis shows how voting for deficit reduction was consistent with the personal incentives faced by individual legislators. The eventual failure of Gramm-Rudman to eliminate the deficit reveals a need to consider institutional as well as constitutional means of controlling government. Copyright 1995 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Lloyd, Robert E & McGarrity, Joseph P, 1995. "A Probit Analysis of the Senate Vote on Gramm-Rudman," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 85(1-2), pages 81-90, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:85:y:1995:i:1-2:p:81-90
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sun, Changyou, 2006. "A roll call analysis of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and constituent interests in fire policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 126-138, November.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:85:y:1995:i:1-2:p:81-90. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.