The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Do Parties Make a Difference? Parties and the Size of Government in Liberal Democracies
Abstract
The paper attempts to determine whether parties of the left, when in government, spend more than parties of the right. It first reviews the theoretical literature and concludes that parties are likely to make a difference, but only a modest one. It then reviews previous empirical studies, which come out with conflicting results. It finally proposes a study that covers 15 liberal democracies over a period of 28 years, from 1960 to 1987, and combines longitudinal, cross-sectional, and pooled designs. The analysis shows that parties of the left do spend a little more than parties of the right. The difference, however, emerges only for majority governments whose party composition remains unchanged over a number of years, an indication that it takes time for parties to affect total spending. A quarter of a century ago, Dye (1966) concluded that policy variations in the United States ought to be attributed essentially to economic factors, political variables proving to be largely uninfluential. This was a most disturbing result for the political science discipline, whose relevance, it would seem, depends on the substantive importance of the phenomena it examines. Ten years later, Wilenski's (1975) study of the welfare state came to similar conclusions: the root cause of the level of welfare expenditure in a country is economic growth, and the mechanism that translates economic change into public policy is demographic rather than political. Enlightened political scientists knew it could not be so, and a counterattack was mounted. The case was made that politics matters, and refined analyses vindicated the revisionist view (Castles and McKinlay 1979; Castles 1982). This paper is about the most cherished of all political variables, the parties. Political scientists typically view parties as fulfilling an essential role in democracy (Epstein 1983). A strong party system is considered as a necessary condition for an adequate representation of interests and opinions (Birch 1971). Our objective is to determine whether it matters
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data
LAVER, M., BENOIT, K., & GARRY, J. (2003) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055403000698 · Cited by 1,377
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together. Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barbera, P. (2012) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2108098 · Cited by 983
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barberá, P. (2015) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011 · Cited by 982
The Effect of the Expansion of the Voting Franchise on the Size of Government
Husted, T. A., & Kenny, L. W. (1997) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/262065 · Cited by 330
Metadata
- Authors
- Blais, A., Blake, D., & Dion, S.
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1993-02
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 40
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1997644161
- Cited by
- 383
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Do Parties Make a Difference? Parties and the Size of Government in Liberal Democracies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2111523
- The paper
- Blais, A., Blake, D., & Dion, S. (1993). Do Parties Make a Difference? Parties and the Size of Government in Liberal Democracies. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111523
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.