IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v113y2019i4p1071-1077_14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Public Opinion Constrain Presidential Unilateralism?

Author

Listed:
  • CHRISTENSON, DINO P.
  • KRINER, DOUGLAS L.

Abstract

Whether presidential unilateralism is normatively advantageous or parlous for American democracy may depend on the extent to which a check remains on its exercise and abuse. Because the formal institutional constraints on unilateral action are weak, an emerging literature argues that the most important checks on unilateralism may be political, with public opinion playing a pivotal role. However, existing scholarship offers little systematic evidence that public opinion constrains unilateral action. To fill this gap, we use vector autoregression with Granger-causality tests to examine the relationship between presidential approval and executive orders. Contra past speculation that presidents increasingly issue executive orders as a last resort when their stock of political capital is low, we find that rising approval ratings increase the frequency of major unilateral action. Low approval ratings, by contrast, limit the exercise of unilateral power.

Suggested Citation

  • Christenson, Dino P. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2019. "Does Public Opinion Constrain Presidential Unilateralism?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1071-1077, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:113:y:2019:i:4:p:1071-1077_14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055419000327/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Djourelova, Milena & Durante, Ruben, 2019. "Media Attention and Strategic Timing in Politics: Evidence from U.S. Presidential Executive Orders," CEPR Discussion Papers 13961, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Stephan Schneider & Sven Kunze, 2021. "Disastrous Discretion: Ambiguous Decision Situations Foster Political Favoritism," KOF Working papers 21-491, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    3. Milena Djourelova & Ruben Durante, 2019. "Media attention and strategic timing in politics: Evidence from U.S. presidential executive orders," Economics Working Papers 1675, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    4. Howell, William & Shepsle, Kenneth & Wolton, Stephane, 2020. "Executive Absolutism: A Model," MPRA Paper 98221, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Milena Djourelova & Ruben Durante, 2019. "Media Attention and Strategic Timing in Politics: Evidence from U.S. Presidential Executive Orders," Working Papers 1125, Barcelona School of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:apsrev:v:113:y:2019:i:4:p:1071-1077_14. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.