Part 8 – Causes, Tactics, and the Political Economy of Shutdowns

8.1 Why shutdowns happen (root causes)

  • Institutional design: Separation of powers + the Antideficiency Act (ADA) make a lapse in appropriations legally binding: non-excepted work must stop. This turns any unresolved budget dispute into an operational halt. (Congress.gov)
  • Multiple veto points: Two chambers, the presidential veto, Senate filibuster, and cohesive intra-party factions (e.g., ideologically disciplined caucuses) increase the odds of stalemate. Political-science work on veto players predicts more gridlock as the number/ideological distance of veto players rises. (Congress.gov)
  • Polarisation and issue-linkage: Parties increasingly tie substantive demands (healthcare, border, energy/climate riders) to the procedural act of funding, making the budget a bargaining chip. CRS documents this evolution across the modern era. (Congress.gov)

8.2 The playbook (tactics used by negotiators)

  • Threat credibility: Because the ADA compels agencies to cease unfunded operations, shutdown threats are credible; agencies publish contingency plans that telegraph where pain will be felt (air travel, parks, statistics). This both informs the public and becomes bargaining leverage. (U.S. Office of Personnel Management)
  • Framing and blame assignment: Each side aims to shift public blame. Polls typically show asymmetric but shared culpability—often tilting against the GOP in recent episodes, but with substantial blame on Democrats and the President as well (2019; 2025). (Pew Research Center)
  • Selective pain & salience: Parties highlight high-salience harms (TSA/ATC delays, SNAP risks, closed parks) to pressure the other. The 2018–19 episode and 2025’s prolonged lapse brought warnings about aviation curbs and statistical “blackouts,” raising salience for markets and the public. (TIME)
  • Short-term CRs as stepping-stones: Successive continuing resolutions (CRs) buy time but also reset deadlines, extending brinkmanship cycles and “chicken game” dynamics noted by think-tanks. (Brookings)

8.3 Who wins and who loses (distributional effects)

  • Workers vs contractors: Since 2019, federal employees are guaranteed back pay, but contractors are not—so private-sector losses are often permanent. This asymmetry explains why CBO estimated the 2018–19 shutdown caused $11bn in lost output, $3bn of it permanent. (CBO)
  • Regions and sectors: Federal-workforce hubs (D.C.–Maryland–Virginia), tourism regions tied to parks, and regulated/contract-heavy industries (aviation, defence, construction, IT services) bear outsized pain during lapses. (Synthesis from CBO/CRS; see Part 5.) (CBO)
  • Parties’ political calculus: Polling rarely delivers clear partisan “wins.” 2025 surveys show majorities blaming both sides; some polls tilt more against Republicans/Trump, others show diffuse responsibility—limiting incentives to compromise quickly if leaders think their base approves confrontation. (Reuters)

8.4 How the media and data environment shape bargaining

  • Data blackout = uncertainty: With BEA/Census/BLS releases delayed, economists and markets fly blind, which can raise volatility and increase perceived macro risk. This uncertainty can pressure negotiators—but it also clouds the feedback signals that normally foster compromise. (TIME)
  • Narrative cycles: Day-count milestones (“Day 21”, “Day 35”, “Day 40”) and visible service disruptions amplify attention, but attention alone does not ensure a deal unless blame clearly concentrates. (Brookings)

8.5 The game theory of shutdown bargaining (why deals come late)

  • Chicken with asymmetric costs: Each side prefers the other to swerve before the deadline. Because some constituencies (e.g., contractors) absorb irrecoverable losses while core political actors do not, the costs are unevenly distributed, sustaining brinkmanship longer than is socially efficient. (CBO)
  • Credible commitment problems: Leaders fear that early compromise signals weakness and invites future ransom demands; hence deals cluster around salient pain points (missed paydays, approaching holidays, looming safety incidents). (Brookings)
  • Veto-player arithmetic: Any agreement must satisfy all pivotal actors; a single faction can scuttle deals, especially in narrow House/Senate margins. (See veto-player logic referenced earlier.) (Congress.gov)

8.6 Why shutdowns persist despite their costs

  • Diffuse public costs vs concentrated political benefits: The macro cost is broad and delayed; the perceived partisan “stand-firm” benefit is immediate for base voters.
  • Institutional stickiness: Changing the ADA framework or adding an automatic CR requires legislation—ironically, the very cooperation that shutdown politics undermines. Think-tanks have proposed auto-CRs for years, but adoption remains partial and episodic. (Cato Institute)

8.7 Implications for the next parts

The political economy shows why shutdowns repeat: credible threats, diffuse costs, many veto players, and blame that rarely lands cleanly. This frames Part 9 (federal continuity playbooks) and Part 10 (reform options such as automatic CRs, biennial budgeting, and confidence-style triggers).

References

  • Congressional Research Service (2025) Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects (RL34680, v.27, 21 Oct). Washington, DC: Library of Congress. (Congress.gov)
  • Government Accountability Office (n.d.) ‘Antideficiency Act (ADA) resources’. Available at: gao.gov (Accessed 9 Nov 2025). (Government Accountability Office)
  • Congressional Budget Office (2019) The Effects of the Partial Shutdown Ending in January 2019. Washington, DC: CBO. (CBO)
  • Pew Research Center (2019) ‘Americans view this shutdown much as they did past ones’. Washington, DC: Pew. (Pew Research Center)
  • Reuters (2025) ‘Trump’s approval edges up despite Americans blaming Republicans for shutdown’, 21 Oct. (Reuters)
  • Reuters/Ipsos (2025) ‘Who’s to blame for the shutdown? All of the above’, 9 Oct. (Reuters)
  • Brookings Institution (2025) ‘What is a government shutdown and why are we likely to have another one?’ Washington, DC: Brookings. (Brookings)
  • U.S. Office of Personnel Management (2025) Guidance for Shutdown Furloughs (28 Sept). Washington, DC: OPM. (U.S. Office of Personnel Management)
  • Cato Institute (2018) ‘Government Shutdown Solution: Auto-CR’. Washington, DC: Cato. (Cato Institute)

Home