• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

不负责任的各方,负责任的选民?立法僵局与集体问责制。

Irresponsible parties, responsible voters? Legislative gridlock and collective accountability.

机构信息

Department of Economics and Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2020 Mar 2;15(3):e0229789. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229789. eCollection 2020.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0229789
PMID:32119706
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7051087/
Abstract

Legislative gridlock is a failure of one of the key functions of government: to pass legislation. Can voters counter such political dysfunction? This paper examines whether and how voters hold politicians accountable for gridlock. We focus on the passage of the government budget, the central task of any legislature, and define a legislature to experience budgetary gridlock if it fails to pass the budget on time. We argue, based on evidence from twenty years of budget enactment data, that voters hold state legislators accountable for budget gridlock in US state governments, with gridlocked incumbents losing their seat more often than incumbents passing budgets on time. Based on established theories of party organization in American politics, we develop three competing theoretical hypotheses to guide our understanding of the observed patterns of retrospective voting. We find strong support for collective electoral accountability with voters punishing incumbent members of state legislature majority parties.

摘要

立法僵局是政府的关键职能之一失败

通过立法。选民能否应对这种政治功能障碍?本文探讨了选民是否以及如何让政客对立法僵局负责。我们关注政府预算的通过,这是任何立法机构的核心任务,并将未能按时通过预算的立法机构定义为出现预算僵局。我们根据二十年来的预算制定数据提出证据,认为选民会让美国州政府的州立法者对预算僵局负责,与按时通过预算的现任议员相比,陷入僵局的现任议员更有可能失去席位。基于美国政治中政党组织的既定理论,我们提出了三个相互竞争的理论假设来指导我们对观察到的回溯投票模式的理解。我们发现选民对州立法机构多数党派的现任成员进行集体选举问责制的支持非常强烈。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e4eb/7051087/dee4655d14ff/pone.0229789.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e4eb/7051087/b94fa6689a41/pone.0229789.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e4eb/7051087/dee4655d14ff/pone.0229789.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e4eb/7051087/b94fa6689a41/pone.0229789.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e4eb/7051087/dee4655d14ff/pone.0229789.g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Irresponsible parties, responsible voters? Legislative gridlock and collective accountability.不负责任的各方,负责任的选民?立法僵局与集体问责制。
PLoS One. 2020 Mar 2;15(3):e0229789. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229789. eCollection 2020.
2
SMS texts on corruption help Ugandan voters hold elected councillors accountable at the polls.短信举报腐败,帮助乌干达选民在投票时让当选议员负责。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jun 26;115(26):6668-6673. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1722306115. Epub 2018 Jun 11.
3
Political cycles: Beyond rational expectations.政治周期:超越理性预期。
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 11;13(10):e0203390. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203390. eCollection 2018.
4
Anti-elite attitudes and support for independent candidates.反精英态度与独立候选人支持。
PLoS One. 2023 Oct 12;18(10):e0292098. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292098. eCollection 2023.
5
Governator vs. Hunter and Aggregator: A simulation of party competition with vote-seeking and office-seeking rules.州长对决猎人与聚合者:基于逐票规则和逐职规则的政党竞争模拟
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 2;13(2):e0191649. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191649. eCollection 2018.
6
Politics of the U.S. Federal budget process.美国联邦预算程序的政治因素。
Int Q Community Health Educ. 2007;28(1):3-12. doi: 10.2190/IQ.28.1.b.
7
Legislative coalitions with incomplete information.信息不完全的立法联盟。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Mar 14;114(11):2876-2880. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1608514114. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
8
Old Voters on New Dimensions: Why Do Voters Vote for Pensioners' Parties? The Case of the Netherlands.老年选民的新维度:选民为何投票给养老金领取者政党?以荷兰为例。
J Aging Soc Policy. 2018 Jan-Feb;30(1):24-47. doi: 10.1080/08959420.2017.1363589. Epub 2017 Aug 25.
9
Social identification among political party voters and members: an empirical test of optimal distinctiveness theory.政党选民与党员之间的社会认同:最优独特性理论的实证检验。
J Soc Psychol. 2002 Apr;142(2):202-9. doi: 10.1080/00224540209603895.
10
What is accountability in health care?医疗保健中的问责制是什么?
Ann Intern Med. 1996 Jan 15;124(2):229-39. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-124-2-199601150-00007.

引用本文的文献

1
Decoding budget awareness: A multivariate analysis of generation Z undergraduates.解读预算意识:对Z世代大学生的多变量分析
PLoS One. 2025 Aug 14;20(8):e0328742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328742. eCollection 2025.