IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ctf/journl/v68y2020i2p481.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy Forum: Assessing Party Platforms for Fiscal Credibility in the 2019 Federal Election

Author

Listed:
  • Mostafa Askari

    (Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, University of Ottawa)

  • Kevin Page

    (Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, University of Ottawa)

Abstract

Party platforms are important. They signal what matters for political parties and with whom parties are engaging. Platforms can be used to predict government behaviour and are an important tool to hold a government to account. In the 2019 federal election, all the major parties released platform documents outlining an array of policy positions to address short- and medium-term policy challenges. For the first time, all political parties worked with the parliamentary budget officer and released independent costings of their major proposals. The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD) at the University of Ottawa provided an assessment of whether the fiscal plan—revenues, spending, and balances—and the economic and fiscal assumptions underlying each platform were realistic, responsible, and transparent. This article describes the approach taken by the IFSD to assess the fiscal credibility of party platforms, what was found, and the potential implications for governing in a minority Parliament and future elections.

Suggested Citation

  • Mostafa Askari & Kevin Page, 2020. "Policy Forum: Assessing Party Platforms for Fiscal Credibility in the 2019 Federal Election," Canadian Tax Journal, Canadian Tax Foundation, vol. 68(2), pages 481-490.
  • Handle: RePEc:ctf:journl:v:68:y:2020:i:2:p:481
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2020.68.2.pf.askari
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ctf.ca/EN/Publications/CTJ_Contents/2020CTJ2.aspx
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/https://doi.org/10.32721/ctj.2020.68.2.pf.askari?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ctf:journl:v:68:y:2020:i:2:p:481. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jim Lyons (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ctf.ca/EN .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.