Replication data for: On Party Platforms, Mandates, and Government Spending

In their 1990 Review article, Ian Budge and Richard Hofferbert analyzed the relationship between party platform emphases, control of the White House, and national government spending priorities, reporting strong evidence of a "party mandate" connection between them. Gary King and Michael Laver successfully replicate the original analysis, critique the interpretation of the causal effects, and present a reanalysis showing that platforms have small or nonexistent effects on spending. In response, Budge, Hofferbert, and Michael McDonald agree that their language was somewhat inconsistent on both interactions and causality but defend their conceptualization of "mandates" as involving only an association, not necessarily a causal connection, between party commitments and government policy. Hence, while the causes of government policy are of interest, noncausal associations are sufficient as evidence of party mandates in American politics. See also: Presidency Research, Voting Behavior

伊恩·巴奇（Ian Budge）与理查德·霍弗伯特（Richard Hofferbert）在1990年的综述文章中，分析了政党纲领侧重点、白宫控制权与联邦政府支出优先级之间的关联，并提供了三者间存在“政党授权（party mandate）”关联的有力证据。加里·金（Gary King）与迈克尔·拉弗（Michael Laver）成功复刻了原始分析，对因果效应的解读提出批判，并通过重新分析表明，政党纲领对政府支出的影响微乎其微甚至完全不存在。对此，巴奇、霍弗伯特与迈克尔·麦克唐纳（Michael McDonald）承认，他们在交互作用与因果关系的表述上存在一定不一致，但为其提出的“授权”概念进行辩护，认为该概念仅指代政党承诺与政府政策之间的关联，而非必然存在因果联系。因此，尽管政府政策的成因值得探讨，但在美国政治语境中，非因果关联足以作为政党授权的佐证。另见：总统研究、投票行为