Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:58:38.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Representation in Congress: The Case of the House Agriculture Committee

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Charles O. Jones
Charles O. Jones*
Affiliation:
Wellesley College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Students of American politics are told that our political system is fundamentally a representative democracy. Concepts of representaion, since Burke, have commonly employed his distinction between action taken in response to instructions from constituents and action based on an independent appraisal of the national interest. A very recent analysis has offered a refinement of this, by distinguishing three types: “delegate,” “trustee” and “politico.” Theory and history alike tell us, however, that a representative does not invariably act in only one of these roles. There have been a number of empirical studies of representatives, few of which concentrate on specific policy fields; and studies also of the play of interests in the enactment of specific legislation, but without a systematic account of the legislative committee members involved, acting in their representative capacities as they saw them. How then can we tell when to expect a representative to view his role in one way rather than another? The aim of this article is to shed a little light on some aspects of this broad question by means of a case study.

The subjects of the study were the members of the House Agriculture Committee and their action on the omnibus farm legislation (H. R. 12954 and S. 4071) in 1958 (85th Congress, second session). Most of the data were obtained from interviews with thirty of the thirty-four Committee members but, in addition, the specific stands of members in subcommittees, the full committee, and on the House floor were traced, through the printed hearings and the Congressional Record of floor debates. Finally, other interested and knowledgeable people were interviewed, newspaper accounts were studied, and the characteristics of constituencies were examined.

Type
Studies in Congressional Organization
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , June 1961 , pp. 358 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1961

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.)

Footnotes

*

The author wishes to acknowledge the generosity of Congressman E. Y. Berry (R.—South Dakota) in providing office space and other aids, as well as the helpful suggestions and comments of Leon D. Epstein and Ralph K. Huitt, University of Wisconsin; Samuel C. Patterson, Oklahoma State University; and Wayne G. Rollins, Wellesley College.

References

1 Some of the most useful studies of representation are: Beard, Charles and Lewis, J. D., “Representative Government in Evolution,” this Review, Vol. 26 (04, 1932), pp. 223–40Google Scholar; Carney, Francis M., “Concepts of Political Representation in the United States Today,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles 1956 Google Scholar; de Grazia, Alfred, Public and Republic (New York, 1951)Google Scholar; Fairlie, John A., “The Nature of Political Representation,” this Review, Vol. 34 (04 and 06, 1940), pp. 236–48 and 456–66Google Scholar; Gosnell, H. F., Democracy, The Threshold of Freedom (New York, 1948)Google Scholar; Hogan, James, Election and Representation (Oxford, 1945)Google Scholar. For an extended bibliography see Jones, Charles O., “The Relationship of Congressional Committee Action to a Theory of Representation,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1960, pp. 413–28Google Scholar, from which materials for this article were drawn.

2 Eulau, Heinz et al, “The Role of the Representative: Some Empirical Observations on the Theory of Edmund Burke,” this Review, Vol. 53 (09, 1959), pp. 742–756 Google Scholar.

3 Two studies which do concentrate on specific policies are: Dexter, Lewis, “The Representative and His District,” Human Organization, Vol. 16 (Spring, 1957), 2–13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gleeck, L. E., “96 Congressmen Make up Their Minds,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 4 (03, 1940), 3–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 I selected a committee which is more likely than most to be constituency-oriented. Commonly, representatives from farm areas are anxious to get on this committee to represent their constituency interests, though interviews with Republican members indicate that this generalization would now need modification since recent farm policies have not been notably successful. See the accompanying article by Masters, Nicholas A., “House Committee Assignments,” in this issue of the Review, above, pp.345–357 Google Scholar.

5 Focused interviews were conducted in March, 1959. An interview guide was followed but it was kept flexible. I wrote as the respondents discussed the questions and typed the responses immediately after the interview. All respondents were guaranteed anonymity.

6 Four, if Hill were also assigned to it. Anfuso is assigned to the diversified (non-basics) group because he does not fit elsewhere. The overlap between the corn and livestock, and the dairy, livestock, small grains group is explained by the fact that livestock production is important to both but corn is more important in one and dairy products in the other.

7 Recent Democratic victories in the middle west have changed the pattern somewhat. There are more Democrats from corn, livestock, and dairy constituencies than previously.

8 Anfuso almost monopolized the Committee hearings on the extension of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, since many New York City firms were testifying. His activity in these hearings provided unexpected evidence of constituency-representative relationships.

9 The titles were: I—Foreign Trade; II—Rice; III—Cotton; IV—Wool; V—Wheat; VI—Milk; VII—Feed Grains; and VIII—Miscellaneous. Titles I and IV in particular were included because they were popular programs.

10 The reported vote in Committee was 21–10. The House vote on H. Res. 609 was 171–214.

11 The dairy situation illustrates the infighting. Evidently the cotton and rice Democrats were opposed to any dairy legislation. Hearings were held but only after long delays. The Secretary of Agriculture's objections to the “self-help” bill proposed by dairy representatives were given the spotlight of a full committee hearing rather than a less sensational subcommittee hearing. The title which resulted was developed at the last minute and had little support, even among the national dairy groups.

12 See The Congressional Digest, Vol. 37 (03, 1958), pp. 75–7Google Scholar, for details of the Administration's recommendations.

13 Some tobacco representatives noted the importance of the wheat and feed grain titles for their constituencies. They thought these might eventually affect their livestock farmers (using the slogan, “cheap feed means cheap livestock”). Many of their farmers relied on wheat as an alternative crop.

14 Above, note 2.

15 Minority party members are more likely to feel conflicting demands since the majority party's commodities will probably be favored. Some majority party members will find, however, that they are not as directly concerned with the legislation and so will be less actively involved at all stages of action.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.