Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Explaining Presidential Priorities: The Competing Aspiration Levels Model of Macrobudgetary Decision Making

  • Gregory W. Fischer (a1) and Mark S. Kamlet (a1)

Abstract

This article develops a new statistical model of trade-offs among defense, nondefense, and fiscal policy concerns as they are reflected in the presidential budgetary process. The Competing Aspiration Levels Model (CALM) builds on Crecine's (1971) “Great Identity” argument. Unlike most previous attempts to model presidential budgeting, CALM explicitly represents the interdependence of decisions about defense, nondefense, and total federal expenditures. CALM models this interdependence as the result of the interaction of minimal aspirations for defense and nondefense expenditures with a maximum acceptable level of expenditures from a fiscal policy standpoint. Statistical analyses of presidential budgets for the fiscal years from 1955 through 1980 provide strong support for the CALM formulation. Substantively, the results indicate that fiscal constraints on total expenditures have progressively weakened, that the maximum acceptable expenditure level has generally exceeded the minimal expenditure aspiration level, and that when a potential “fiscal surplus” has existed, the nondefense sector has been more successful in capturing a share of this surplus than the defense sector. In keeping with traditional incrementalist arguments, the results indicate that previous year expenditure levels provide a relatively secure “budgetary base” for both the defense and nondefense sectors. Both sectors tend to receive their minimal aspiration levels plus a share of whatever fiscal surplus exists. The analysis also indicates that the executive branch has not been as strong a direct force for budgetary growth as Congress.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Buchanan, J. M., & Wagner, R. E.Democracy in deficit: The political legacy of Lord Keynes. New York: Academic Press, 1977.
Crecine, J. P.Defense budgeting. In Cooper, W. W., Byrne, R. F., Charnes, A., Davis, O. A., & Gilford, D. (Eds.), Studies in budgeting. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1971, pp. 210261.
Crecine, J. P.The shape of the defense budget: internal DOD resource allocation. In Appendices: Commission on the organization of the government for the conduct of foreign policy (Vol. 4). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.
Crecine, J. P., & Fischer, G. W.On resource allocation in the U.S. Department of Defense. In Cotter, C. P. (Ed.), Political Science Annual, 1973, 4, 181236.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G.A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.
Davis, O. A., Dempster, M. A. H., & Wildavsky, A.A theory of the budgetary process. American Political Science Review, 1966, 60, 529547.
Davis, O. A., Dempster, M. A. H., & Wildavsky, A.On the process of budgeting II: an empirical study of congressional appropriations. In Cooper, W. W., Byrne, R. F., Charnes, A., Davis, O. A., & Gilford, D. (Eds.), Studies in budgeting. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1971.
Domke, W. K., Eichenberg, R. C., & Kelleher, C. M.The illusion of choice: defense and welfare in advanced industrial democracies, 1948-1978. American Political Science Review, 1983, 77, 1935.
Enthoven, A., & Smith, W. K.How much is enough? New York: Harper-Colophon Books, 1971.
Fischer, G. W., & Crecine, J. P.Defense budgets, fiscal policy, domestic spending and arms races. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington, D.C., 08 1979.
Fischer, G. W., & Crecine, J. P.Defense spending, nondefense spending, and the need for fiscal restraint: two models of the presidential budgetary process. Arms Control, 1981, 2, 65106.
Frank, R., & Kamlet, M. Total expenditures, resource intensity, and quantity of public good provision: the case of public mental hospitals. Unpublished, 1983.
Huntington, S. P.The common defense: strategic programs in national defense. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 1979, 47, 6391.
Kamlet, M. S., & Mowery, D. C.The budgetary base in federal resource allocation. The American Journal of Political Science, 1980, 4, 804821.
Larkey, P. D.Evaluating public programs: the impact of general revenue sharing on municipal government. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1979.
Manns, D., & March, J. G.Financial adversity, internal competition, and curriculum change in a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 541552.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A.Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958.
McGuire, T. W., Farley, J. U., Lucas, R. E., & Ring, L. W.Estimation and inference for linear models in which subsets of the dependent variable are constrained. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1968, 63, 12011213.
McNamara, R. S.The essence of security: reflections in office. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.
Mowery, D. C., Kamlet, M. S., & Crecine, J. P.Presidential management of budgetary and fiscal policymaking. Political Science Quarterly, 1980, 95, 395425.
Ostrom, C. W. Jr.A reactive linkage model of the U.S. defense expenditure policymaking process. American Political Science Review, 1978, 72, 941957.
Richardson, L.Arms and insecurity. Pittsburgh: Boxwood Press, 1960.
Russett, B.Defense expenditures and national wellbeing. American Political Science Review, 1982, 76, 767777.
Schick, A.Congress and money. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1980.
Simon, H.A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1955, 69, 99118.
Simon, H. A.On the concept of organizational goal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1964, 9, 122.
Stolp, C.Local dollars vs. federal dollars in municipal expenditure allocation. Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1982.
Stromberg, J.The internal mechanisms of the defense budgetary process: fiscal 1953-1968. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation, RM 6243-PR, 1970.
Wildavsky, A.The politics of the budgetary process. Boston: Little-Brown, 1964.

Explaining Presidential Priorities: The Competing Aspiration Levels Model of Macrobudgetary Decision Making

  • Gregory W. Fischer (a1) and Mark S. Kamlet (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.