Skip to main content
Log in

Executive veto, legislative override, and structure-induced equilibrium

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study the structure-induced equilibrium approach for modeling democratic institutions is extended to allow for the added structural features of executive veto and legislative override. A multidimensional model is presented for a budgetary process involving three actors — a legislature, an appropriations committee, and an executive. In order to focus attention on the role of the veto and override possibilities, simplifying assumptions are made with regard to other aspects of the agenda formation process. In particular, the committee has monopoly agenda power, a closed amendment control rule is operative, and perfect-foresight expectations are held by the committee and the executive. Given these assumptions, utility maximization by the several actors generates a budget outcome characterized as a structure-induced equilibrium. The general model is illustrated geometrically with a two-dimensional example, permitting budget outcomes to be analyzed for various combinations of veto rules and override provisions. The analysis demonstrates that budget outcomes are sensitive to alternative specifications of veto rules and override provisions. In the illustration, executive veto power is shown to vary directly with both the permissiveness of the veto rule and the stringency of the override provision. Similar relationships, however, are not found to exist for total budget expenditures.

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K.J. (1963). Social choice and individual values 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, G. (1982). The diffiusion of the Governor's veto power. State Government 55(3): 99–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J., and Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R.H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3(October): 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of State Governments (1984). The book of States: 1984–85, Vol. 25. Lexington, Ky: Council of State Governments.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzau, A.T., and Mackay, R.J. (1981). Structure-induced equilibrium and perfect-foresight expectations. American Journal of Political Science 25(November): 762–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzau, A.T., and Mackay, R.J. (1983). Gatekeeping and monopoly power of committees: An analysis of sincere and sophisticated behavior. American Journal of Political Science 27(November): 740–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairlie, J.A. (1917). The veto power of the state Governors. American Political Science Review 11(August): 473–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackay, R.J., and Weaver, C.L. (1981). Agenda control by budget maximizers in a multi-bureau setting. Public Choice 37(3): 447–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, R.D. (1976). Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. Journal of Economic Theory 12(June): 472–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, R.D. (1979). General conditions for global intransitivities in formal voting models. Econometrica 47(September): 1085–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, N.R. (1985). Agenda formation in voting bodies: A preliminary survey. Paper presented at the Public Choice Society Meetings, New Orleans.

  • Plott, C.R. (1967). A notion of equilibrium and its possibility under majority rule. American Economic Review 57(September): 787–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prescott, F.W. (1950). The executive veto in American states. Western Political Quarterly 3(March): 98–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W.H. (1980). Implications from the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions. American Political Science Review 74(June): 432–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, T., and Rosenthal, H. (1978). Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo. Public Choice 33(4): 27–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, N. (1978). Instability of simple dynamic games. Review of Economic Studies 45(October): 575–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K.A. (1979a). Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science 23(February): 27–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K.A. (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 Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K.A. (1983). Institutional equilibrium and equilibrium institutions. Working paper, Center for the Study of American Business, Washington University, St. Louis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K.A., and Weingast, B.R. (1981). Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice 37(3): 503–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K.A., and Weingast, B.R. (1982). Institutionalizing majority rule: A social choice theory with policy implications. American Economic Review 72(May): 367–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K.A., and Weingast, B.R. (1984a). Political solutions to market problems. American Political Science Review 78(June): 417–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K.A., and Weingast, B.R. (1984b). Uncovered sets and sophisticated voting outcomes with implications for agenda institutions. American Journal of Political Science 28(February): 49–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingast, B.R. (1981). Regulation, reregulation, and deregulation: The political foundations of agency clientele relationships. Law and Contemporary Problems 44(Winter): 147–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingast, B.R., and Moran, M.J. (1983). Bureaucratic discretion or congressional control: Regulatory policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Political Economy 91(October): 765–801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, R.A. (1924). The item veto and state budget reform. American Political Science Review 18(November): 782–791.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This study has benefited from the comments of Barry R. Weingast. The authors also gratefully acknowledge helpful comments arising out of presentations at the Economics Workshop at Holy Cross (September 1984) and the Public Choice Society Meetings (New Orleans, February 1985). The authors thank the Procter and Gamble Fund for financial support that contributed to the completion of this paper. The authors are solely responsible for the paper's final content.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carter, J.R., Schap, D. Executive veto, legislative override, and structure-induced equilibrium. Public Choice 52, 227–244 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00116706

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00116706

Keywords

Navigation