Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:55:00.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contours of the Modern Congressional Career

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

John R. Hibbing
John R. Hibbing
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the last 40 years careerism has hit Congress full force, yet we do not know much about the pros and cons of lengthy congressional careers. I describe the changes typically occurring over the course of extended stays in Congress and then show that these contours have shifted over the decades such that for most aspects of congressional service (electoral support, formal positions held, and constituency attention) there is less differentiation between a member's early and late career stages than there used to be. However, a major exception exists to the diminution of life cycle effects in Congress: pure legislative involvement (raw levels of activity combined with the extent to which a member's legislative agenda is focused and efficient), despite widely held beliefs about the death of apprenticeship, is now more than ever dependent on tenure. In relative terms, junior members are less legislatively involved than they were a few decades ago. While many portions of congressional service are now routinized from the beginning, legislative involvement comes not just with a subcommittee chair but only with experience. This finding has clear implications both for proposals to limit congressional terms and for perceptions of congressional careerism in general.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 85 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 405 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alford, John R., and Hibbing, John R. 1981. “Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House.” Journal of Politics 43:1042–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Herbert B., and Weisberg, Herbert F. 1978. “Voting Change in Congress: Some Dynamic Perspectives on an Evolutionary Process.” American Journal of Political Science 22:391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Monica, and Hibbing, John R. 1989. “Which Incumbents Lose in House Elections: A Response to Jacobson's The Marginals Never Vanished'.” American Journal of Political Science 33:262–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birren, James E., and Cunningham, Walter R. 1985. “Research on Psychology of Aging: Principles, Concepts, and Theories.” In Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, ed. Birren, James E. and Schaie, K. Warner. New York: Von Nostrana.Google Scholar
Bogue, Allan G., Clubb, Jerome M., McKibbin, Carroll R., and Traugott, Santa A. 1976. “Members of the House of Representatives and the Process of Modernization: 1789–1960.” Journal of American History 63:275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, Richard. 1979. “Generational Replacement and the Growth of Incumbent Reelection Margins in the U.S. House.” American Political Science Review 73:811–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookshire, Robert G., and Duncan, Dean F. III. 1983. “Congressional Career Patterns and Party Systems.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 8:65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, Charles S. 1972. “House Careerists: Changing Patterns of Longevity and Attrition.” American Political Science Review 66:1295–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, Charles S., and Loomis, Burdett. 1985. “The Changing Congressional Career.” In Congress Reconsidered, 2d ed., ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I.Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce E., Ferejohn, John A., and Fiorina, Morris P. N.d. “Allocation of Personal Staffs by Members of the House of Representatives, 1959–1979.” Typescript. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Canon, David T. 1990. Actors, Athletes, and Astronauts: Political Amateurs in the United States Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Casstevens, Thomas W., and Casstevens, Harold T. 1981. “Stability of Membership in Congress, 1789 Onwards.” UMAP Journal 2:5–10.Google Scholar
Collie, Melissa P. 1981. “Incumbency, Sectoral Safety, and Turnover in the House or Representatives, 1952–1976.” American Political Science Review 75:119–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and West, William. 1981a. “The Congressional Career in the 1970s.” In Congress Reconsidered, 2d ed., ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I.Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and West, William. 1981b. “Voluntary Retirement, Incumbency, and the Modern House.” Political Science Quarterly 96:279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, Lawrence C. 1983. “The Calculus of Legislative Change.” Presented at the 1983 annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Dodd, Lawrence C., and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. 1981. “The House in Transition: Change and Consolidation.” In Congress Reconsidered, 2d ed., ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I.Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Ehrenhalt, Alan. 1986. “Media, Power Shifts Dominate O'Neill's House.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 13 September, pp. 2131–38.Google Scholar
Eulau, Heniz, and Sprague, John D. 1964. Lawyers in Politics. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrffl.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1978. Home Style. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1977. Congress: Keystone to the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Rohde, David W., and Wissel, Peter. 1975. “Historical Change in House Turnover.” In Congress in Change, ed. Ornstein, Norman J.New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Fowler, Linda L., and McClure, Robert D. 1989. Political Ambition: Who Decides To Run for Congress. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Frantzich, Stephen E. 1978a. “De-Recruitment: The Other Side of the Congressional Equation.” Western Political Quarterly 31:105–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frantzich, Stephen E. 1978b. “Opting Out: Retirement from the House of Representatives.” American Politics Quarterly 6:251–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hain, Paul. 1974. “Age, Ambition, and Political Careers.” Western Political Quarterly 27:265–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R. 1982a. “Voluntary Retirement from the U.S. House: The Costs of Congressional Service.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7:57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R. 1982b. “Voluntary Retirement from the U.S. House of Representatives: Who Quits?” American Journal of Political Science 26:467–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R. 1991. Congressional Careers: Contours of Life in the U.S. House of Representatives. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Hook, Janet. 1990. “New Drive To Limit Tenure Revives an Old Proposal.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 24 February, pp. 567–69.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1965. “Congressional Responses to the Twentieth Century.” In Congress and America's Future, ed. Truman, David B.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1983. The Politics of Congressional Elections. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1987. “The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952–82.” American Journal of Political Science 31:126–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazee, Thomas A. 1980. “The Decision To Run for the U.S. Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 5:79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1977. “Toward Understanding Nineteenth-Century Congressional Careers: Ambition, Competition, and Rotation.” American Journal of Political Science 21:669–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1978. “Explaining Presidential Popularity.” American Political Science Review 72:506–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, Burdett A. 1984. “Congressional Careers and Party Leadership in the Contemporary House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science 28:180–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, Burdett A. 1988. The New American Politician. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Maisel, Louis Sandy. 1982. From Obscurity to Oblivion: Running in the Congressional Primary. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Donald R. 1954. The Social Backgrounds of Political Decision Makers. New York: Doubleday.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Donald R. 1960. U.S. Senators and Their World. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David B. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mueller, John E. 1973. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Ornstein, Norman J., Mann, Thomas E., and Malbin, Michael J. 1990. Vital Statistics on Congress 1989–90. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Parker, Glenn R. 1986a. “Is There a Political Life Cycle in the House of Representatives?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 11:375–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Glenn R. 1986b. Homeward Bound: Explaining Changes in Congressional Behavior. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 1968. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 62:144–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, H. Douglas 1971. “The Congressional Career: Then and Now.” In Congressional Behavior, ed. Polsby, Nelson W.New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Price, H. Douglas 1975. “Congress and the Evolution of Legislative Professionalism.” In Congress in Change, ed. Ornstein, Norman J.New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Price, H. Douglas 1977. “Careers and Committees in the American Congress.” In The History of Parliamentary Behavior, ed. Aydelotte, William O.Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1988. “Studying Congressional Norms: Concepts and Evidence.” Congress and the Presidency 15:139–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiff, Steven H., and Smith, Steven S. 1983. “Generational Change and the Allocation of Staff in the U.S. Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 8:457–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, Joseph A. 1966. Ambition and Politics. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Schneider, William. 1989. “JFK's Children: The Class of 1974.” Atlantic Monthly, March, pp. 35–59.Google Scholar
Schneier, Edward V. 1988. “Norms and Folkways in Congress: How Much Has Actually Changed?” Congress and the Presidency 15:117–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1983. Majority Leadership in the U.S. House. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven S. 1986. Revolution in the House: Why Don't We Do It on the Floor?” Brookings Discussion Paper no. 5. Washington: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1985. “Regression in Space and Time: A Statistical Essay.” American Journal of Political Science 29:914–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strate, John, Parrish, Charles J., Elder, Charles D., and Ford, Coit III. 1989. “Life Span Civic Development and Voting Participation.” American Political Science Review 83:443–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struble, Robert Jr. 1980. “House Turnover and the Principle of Rotation.” Political Science Quarterly 94:649–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubben, Jerry, and Hibbing, John R. 1987. “The Prestige of Formal Positions in the Modern U.S. House of Representatives.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, and Nie, Norman H. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Wittmer, T. Richard. 1964. “The Aging of the House.” Political Science Quarterly 79:526–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.