Ok glorious18may1977-ga,
I am going WAY out on limb for you here. Your question has been
sitting idle since yesterday, not because no one can answer it. But
because A) no one really wants to do your homework for you and B) no
one wants to take the risk that you’re going to reject the answer if
it isn’t EXACTLY what your professor is looking for. Even if it IS
technically correct.
The fact is, you’re the one with the text book in front of you, so you
have the best chance of finding the answer yourself. But, I’m going to
gamble on your goodwill and on the presumption that you have read the
text and just need some guidance getting to an answer.
Here’s what I’m going to do – I’m going to give you a couple of ways
to fill in the blanks and some explanatory material. Just remember, in
the end, the choice is yours as to what to hand in.
The question is comparing 3 things – showing how each of these 3
things clash when a budget is being prepared. So, no matter how you
answer it, you have to end up with that kind of comparison.
This sentence makes the most sense -----------
Budgeting is where individual CANDIDATE’S electoral incentives and
POLITICAL party and GOVERNMENT imperatives clash most repeatedly
and visibly.
But, consider this ------------
The first blank could be filled with any of the following and have the
same meaning. I think since we are talking about electoral incentives,
“candidate” works best:
POLITICIAN’S
LAWMAKERS’
REPRESENTATIVE’S
LEGISLATOR’S
POLICY-MAKER’S
The second blank really doesn’t leave much room for any other word.
“Political party” is the only phrase that works well there.
The third blank could change to any of the following, but the change
would change the whole meaning of the sentence.
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
PERSONAL
But these are much more specific than the word “government.” If you
change to any of these words you have, in effect, changed the “clash”
to an inner clash – a struggle within the candidate him/herself rather
than a clash between him and his party and the government’s
obligations.
The sentence would really mean this -------
Budgeting is where individual candidate’s electoral incentives and his
political party allegiance and his personal imperatives clash most
repeatedly
and visibly.
Somehow I don’t think this is what we’re talking about since the
sentence states that the clash is visible. Doesn’t sound like an inner
struggle to me.
So, now what you need to do is go back and read the text and see if
our first sentence sums up what the author is trying to get across.
Here is what our first sentence means -------
That when forming a budget there will always be conflict between
politicians who are looking to the next elections so are trying to
please voters and political party agendas and the government itself,
which has certain mandates to provide for the people. When these three
things are not aligned, there will be a clash.
Sound right to you?
Good luck with it. As I said, only you can weigh if that answer works
with your readings and coursework. If anything I’ve said isn’t clear,
feel free to ask for a clarification.
--K~
ADDITIONAL READING ----------
Party Politics
An International Journal for the Study of Political Parties and
Political Organizations
Volume 08 Issue 03 - Publication Date: 1 May 2002
The Supply and Demand of the Personal Vote : Theoretical
Considerations and Empirical Implications of Collective Electoral
Incentives
Stephen M. Swindle Southeast Missouri State University
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/frame.html?http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/Details/issue/abstract/ab022816.html |
,
0 Comments
)