Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T08:05:51.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional Change in the House of Representatives, 1867–1998: A Test of Partisan and Ideological Power Balance Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Eric Schickler
Eric Schickler*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I examine competing explanations for House rules changes with significant partisan overtones. I sought to identify all rules changes adopted from 1867 to 1998 that were intended either to advantage or to undermine the majority party and its leaders in their efforts to shape the House agenda. I test a majority party cartel model of institutional change against a model that focuses on the ideological balance of power on the floor, that is, on the closeness of the median voter to the median member of the majority and minority parties. I also evaluate the conditional party government approach. The data analysis suggests the preeminent importance of shifts in the ideological balance. Two variables identified by the conditional party government theory, party polarization and party capacity, obtain limited support, but their effect is neither as robust nor as large in magnitude as that of change in the median voter's position.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 94 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 269 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2000

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, Scott H., and Sened, Itai. 1998. “Institutional Stickiness and Statistical Models of Congressional Reform.” University of Georgia. Typescript.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John A., and Rohde, David W.. 1995. “Theories of the Party in the Legislature and the Transition to Republican Rule in the House.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John A., and Rohde, David W.. 1998. “Measuring Conditional Party Government.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Alexander, De Alva. 1916. History and Procedure of the House of Representatives. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Beth, Richard S. 1994. “Control of the House Floor Agenda: Implications from the Use of the Discharge Rule, 1931–1994.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York City.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah. 1996. “The Partisan Basis of Procedural Choice: Allocating Parliamentary Rights in the House, 1789–1991.” American Political Science Review 90 (03): 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah. 1997. Minority Rights, Majority Rule: Partisanship and the Development of Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolling, Richard. 1968. Power in the House. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Cohen, Richard, and Baumann, David. 1998. “After the Riot.” National Journal 30 (11 14): 2700–6.Google Scholar
Connelly, William F. Jr., and Pitney, John J. Jr. 1997. “The House GOP's Civil War: A Political Science Perspective.” PS: Political Science & Politics 30 (12): 699–702.Google Scholar
Cooper, Joseph. 1975. “Strengthening the Congress.” Harvard Journal on Legislation 12 (04): 307–68.Google Scholar
Cooper, Joseph. 1981. “Organization and Innovation in the House of Representatives.” In The House at Work, ed. Cooper, Joseph and McKenzie, G. Calvin. Austin: University of Texas Press. Pp. 319–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Joseph. [1960] 1988. Congress and Its Committees. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and Brady, David. 1981. “Institutional Context and Leadership Style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn.” American Political Science Review 75 (06): 411–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and Young, Garry. 1997. “Partisanship, Bipartisanship, and Crosspartisanship in Congress Since the New Deal.” In Congress Reconsidered, 6th ed., ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly. Pp. 246–73.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1994. “Bonding, Structure, and the Stability of Political Parties: Party Government in the House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19 (05): 215–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1997. “Toward a Theory of Legislative Rules Changes: Assessing Schickler and Rich's Evidence.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (10): 1376–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damon, Richard E. 1971. The Standing Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives. Ph.D. diss. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Roger H. 1986. “Congressional Committees as Moving Targets.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 11 (02): 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Roger H. 1990. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 and the Advent of the Modern Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 15 (08): 357–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dion, Douglas. 1997. Turning the Legislative Thumbscrew: Minority Rights and Procedural Change in Legislative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, C. Lawrence, and Oleszek, Walter J.. 1997. Congress under Fire: Reform Politics and the Republican Majority. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1965. “The Internal Distribution of Influence: The House.” In The Congress and America's Future, ed. Truman, David B.. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 52–76.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fink, Evelyn C., and Humes, Brian D.. 1997. “Party Conflict and Rules Changes in the United States House of Representatives, lst–104th Congresses.” Revised version of paper presented at the 1996 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Froman, Lewis A. Jr. 1967. The Congressional Process: Strategies, Rules, and Procedures. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Froman, Lewis A. Jr., and Ripley, Randall B.. 1965. “Conditions for Party Leadership: The Case of the House Democrats.” American Political Science Review 59 (03): 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, George B., and Wise, Sidney. 1976. History of the House of Representatives, 2d ed. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, and King, David C.. 1997. “Committee Theories and Committee Institutions.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hasbrouck, Paul. 1927. Party Government in the House of Representatives. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J., and Snyder, James M. Jr. 1996. “Linear Probability Models of the Demand for Attributes with an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences of Legislators.” University of Chicago. Typescript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, James. 1967. Congressional Insurgents and the Party System, 1909–1916. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles O. 1968. “Joseph G. Cannon and Howard W. Smith: An Essay on the Limits of Leadership in the House of Representatives.” Journal of Politics 30 (08): 617–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Peter. 1994. A Guide to Econometrics, 3d ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, Roderick D., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1991. The Logic of Delegation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
King, David C. 1997. Turf Wars: How Congressional Committees Claim Jurisdiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. “Where's the Party?” British Journal of Political Science 23 (04): 235–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1996. “Committee Power, Leadership, and the Median Voter: Evidence from the Smoking Ban.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 12 (01): 234–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith, and Rivers, Douglas. 1988. “The Analysis of Committee Power: An Application to Senate Voting on the Minimum Wage.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (11): 1151–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapham, Lewis J. 1954. Party Leadership and the House Committee on Rules. Ph.D. diss. Harvard University.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Income Redistribution and the Realignment of American Politics. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Alison. 1998. “Just Whose Party Is It? A G.O.P. House Divided.” New York Times, 11 12, 1998.Google Scholar
Peters, Ronald M. 1997. The American Speakership, 2d ed. Baltimore, MD, and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 1968. “The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 62 (03): 144–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1980. “Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 74 (06): 432–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1994. “Parties and Committees in the House: Member Motivations, Issues, and Institutional Arrangements.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19 (08): 341–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schickler, Eric, and Rich, Andrew. 1997a. “Controlling the Floor: Parties as Procedural Coalitions in the House.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (10): 1340–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schickler, Eric, and Rich, Andrew. 1997b. “Party Government in the House Reconsidered: A Response to Cox and McCubbins.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (10): 1387–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schickler, Eric, and Sides, John. N.d. “Intergenerational Warfare: The Senate Decentralizes Appropriations, 1899.” Legislative Studies Quarterly. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1989. “Congressional Institutions and Behavior: The Changing Textbook Congress.” In American Political Institutions and Problems of Our Time, ed. Chubb, John E. and Peterson, Paul E.. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Pp. 238–66.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1994. “House Special Rules and the Institutional Design Controversy.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19 (08): 477–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1995. Legislators, Leaders, and Lawmaking. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1998. “Do Parties Matter?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Stewart, Charles H. 1989. Budget Reform Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.