Skip to main content
Log in

Executive budget proposal, executive veto, legislative override, and uncertainty: A comparative analysis of the budgetary process

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the roles of the executive budgetary proposal, the executive veto, the legislative override, and legislative uncertainty about the executive's preferences in determining the outcome of a budgetary process. A sequential model of the budgetary process with three institutional agents — a legislature, an appropriations committee, and an executive — is presented. To focus attention on the executive proposal, the veto, the override provision, and uncertainty, simplifying assumptions are made: (1) the appropriations committee has monopoly agenda power, and (2) there is a closed amendment control rule. In order to characterize sequential equilibria of various combinations of veto rules and override provisions, we examine a particular arrangement of agents' preferences and a two item budget. The results demonstrate that the final budget depends critically on the executive proposal, the executive veto rule, the override provision, and the uncertainty. We achieve three striking results. First, the executive proposal may be effective in reducing the frequency of the exercised veto. Second, for a given override provision, a movement from the item veto to the item reduction veto leaves the executive worse off in some cases. Third, with the same change in institutions, the government budget may increase.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abreu, D. and Sen, A. (1987). Virtual implementation in Nash equilibrium. Mimeo. Harvard University.

  • Austin-Smith, D. and Riker, W. (1987). Asymmetric information and the coherence of legislation. American Political Science Review 81: 897–918.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Enterprise Institute. (1984). Proposals for the line-item veto authority. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Book of the States (Various Editions). Lexington: Council of State Governments.

  • Carter, J. and Schap, D. (1987). Executive veto, legislative override, and structure-induced equilibria. Public Choice 52: 227–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. and Schap, D. (1988). Line-item veto: Where is thy sting? Mimeo. College of the Holy Cross.

  • Cho, I. and Kreps, D. (1987). Signaling games and stable equilibria. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 102: 179–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Rules, U.S. House of Representatives (1986). Item veto: State experience and its application to the Federal situation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, M. and Miller, J. (8 June, 1988). Item-reduction's veto wallop. Wall Street Journal 24.

  • Dearden, J. and Husted, T. (1988). The executive's power and economic factors in the budgetary process. Mimeo. The American University, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtz-Ekan, D. (1987). The effect of the line item veto on state budgets. Mimeo. Columbia University.

  • Holtz-Eakin, D. (1988). The line item veto and public sector budgets: Evidence from the states. Journal of Public Economics 36: 269–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, D. and Wilson, R. (1982). Sequential equilibria. Econometrica 50: 80–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ordeshook, P. and Palfrey, T. (1988). Agendas, strategic voting, and signaling with incomplete information. American Journal of Political Science 32: 441–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, T. and Rosenthal, H. (1978): Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and status quo. Public Choice 33: 27–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schap, D. (1986). Executive veto and information strategy. American Journal of Political Science 30: 755–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schap, D. (1988). Executive veto and spending limitation: Positive political economy with implications for institutional choice. Mimeo. College of the Holy Cross.

  • Shepsle, K. (1979a). Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science 23: 57–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K. (1979b). The role of institutional structure in the creation of policy equilibrium. In D.W. Rae and T.J. Eismeier (Eds.), Public choice and public policy, 249–281. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, J. (1985). A theory of credibility. Review of Economic Studies 52: 557–573.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

We gratefully acknowledge helpful comments from Nancy Barrett, Larry Samuelson, and David Schap.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dearden, J.A., Husted, T.A. Executive budget proposal, executive veto, legislative override, and uncertainty: A comparative analysis of the budgetary process. Public Choice 65, 1–19 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139288

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139288

Keywords

Navigation