Gubernatorial Policy Priorities and State Fiscal Outcomes

Abstract

This study tests the effect of gubernatorial policy agendas on state budgetary choices. Governors are commonly perceived as state policy leaders, but lack direct legislative authority and depend on the law makers to pass bills and present them for signature. The theory posits that governors nonetheless possess several formal and informal tools that are used to overcome this institutional disadvantage and successfully pursue their policy goals. Gubernatorial policy priorities in this study are extracted from public speeches using unsupervised machine learning. Their influence on state spending choices in different policy areas is tested through panel data analysis of all states from 2007 through 2015. Empirical findings reveal that the effect of executive agendas is more pronounced in the area of transportation infrastructure and public safety—potentially due to lower levels of conflict and concentrated benefits, which eases deal making with law makers. Governors are also more persistent with policy proposals that are more important for reelection. Related Articles Adams, Brian E. 2016. “Assessing the Merits of Decentralization: A Framework for Identifying the Causal Mechanisms Influencing Policy Outcomes.” Politics & Policy 44 (5): 820‐849. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12172 Heidbreder, Brianne. 2012. “Agenda Setting in the States: How Politics and Policy Needs Shape Gubernatorial Agendas.” Politics & Policy 40 (2): 296‐319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00345.x Patrick, Barbara. 2012. “Fiscal Federalism, Performance Policies, and Education Reforms: Are States Using Performance Policies to Improve Workforce Quality?” Politics & Policy 40 (4): 593‐628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00370.x

Budget Execution and Public Spending Quality in Regional Governments: A Systematic Literature Review

“…However, it is essential to highlight the importance of identifying the phases of budget execution and determining which articles address them, as this provides indicators about the areas of focus in the existing literature. As shown in the figure, the studies characterized by having conclusions of high objectivity are: [44], [41], [12], [36], [57], [19], and [47]. On the other hand, those studies showing low polarity are: [18], [24], [54], etc.…”

“…At the conclusion of this rigorous process, 60 primary studies were selected for qualitative and quantitative evaluation cited as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], …”