Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:48:22.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finally, Nebraska: A Synthetic Control Analysis of Legislative Structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

William B. Hankins Open the ORCID record for William B. Hankins [Opens in a new window]
William B. Hankins*
Affiliation:
Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL, USA
*
William B. Hankins, Department of Finance, Economics & Accounting, Jacksonville State University, SBI Complex, 115 College Street SW, Jacksonville, AL 36265, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I estimate the impact of Nebraska's 1937 switch from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature on state-level government expenditures. Using the synthetic control method I create a counterfactual Nebraska from a weighted average of other potential control states and compare spending in this “synthetic Nebraska” to spending in the real Nebraska. Relative to the synthetic control, Nebraska experiences a sharp decrease in expenditures per capita immediately following the switch to a unicameral legislature; however, the difference appears to diminish over time. Placebo tests show that if the change in Nebraska's legislative structure were randomly assigned among the sample of states, and legislative structure had no real impact on spending, the likelihood of obtaining a treatment-effect estimate as large as Nebraska's would be 0.0213. While the initial drop in expenditures per capita lends support to the theory that bicameralism, by requiring more veto players, is associated with higher levels of government spending, the fact that the difference between Nebraska and synthetic Nebraska diminishes suggests that legislators are able to circumvent this constraint.

Keywords

bicameralismNebraskasynthetic control methodunicameralism
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 3 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019

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

Abadie, Alberto, Diamond, Alexis, and Hainmuller, Jens. 2010. “Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California's Tobacco Control Program.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 105 (490): 493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abadie, Alberto, Diamond, Alexis, and Hainmueller, Jens. 2015. “Comparative Politics and the Synthetic Control Method.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (2): 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abadie, Alberto, and Gardeazabal, Javier. 2003. “The Economic Costs of Conflict: A Case Study of the Basque Country.” American Economic Review 93:113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Gerry. 2011. “Bill Would Rearrange Maine's Legislature, Eliminating the House.” Bangor Daily News, April 5..Google Scholar
Adrian, Charles R. 1952. “The Origin of Minnesota's Nonpartisan Legislature.” Minnesota History 33 (4): 155–163.Google Scholar
Berens, Charlyne Ruth. 2000. “Power to the People: Nebraska's Unicameral Legislature and the Populist/Progressive Ideal. A Social Choice Approach.” PhD thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.Google Scholar
Bradbury, John C., and Crain, W. Mark. 2001. “Legislative Organization and Government Spending: Cross-Country Evidence.” Journal of Public Economics 82 (3): 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, John C., and Crain, W. Mark. 2002. “Bicameral Legislatures and Fiscal Policy.” Southern Economic Journal 68 (3): 646–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Neil. 2013. “Ireland: The Seanad Needs Reform, but not Abolition.” The Guardian, October 3..Google Scholar
Buchanan, James, and Tullock, Gordon. 1962. The Calculus of Consent—Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Burham, W. Dean. 1984. Partisan Division of American State Governments: 1834–1985. Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Susan B., Gartner, Scott Sigmund, Haines, Michael R., Olmstead, Alan L., Sutch, Richard, and Wright, Gavin. 2006. Historical Statistics of the United States: Millennial Edition Online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Congleton, Roger. 2006. “On the Merits of Bicameral Legislatures: Intragovernmental Bargaining and Policy Stability.” In Democratic Constitutional Design and Public Policy, Analysis and Evidence, eds. Congleton, Roger D. and Swedenborg, Birgitta. Cambridge: MIT Press, 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulaney, Michael S. 2002. A History and Description of the Nebraska Legislative Process. Lincoln: National Council of School Administrators.Google Scholar
Fellman, David. 1946. “The Liberalism of Senator Norris.” American Political Science Review 40 (1): 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Financial Statistics of States. Various Years. U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
Fowler, Anthony. 2013. “Electoral and Policy Consequences of Voter Turnout: Evidence from Compulsory Voting in Australia.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8 (2): 983–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grier, Kevin, and Maynard, Norman. 2016. “The Economic Consequences of Hugo Chavez: A Synthetic Control Analysis.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 125:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, William B. 1997. “Bicameralism and Budget Deficits: The Effect of Parliamentary Structure on Government Spending.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (4): 485–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaul, Ashok, Klößner, Stefan, Pfeifer, Gregor, and Schieler, Manuel. 2018. Synthetic Control Methods; Never Use All Pre-Intervention Outcomes Together with Covariates, Mimeo. Munich: University Library of Munich.Google Scholar
Keele, Luke, Malhotra, Neil, and McCubbins, Colin H.. 2013. “Do Term Limits Restrain State Fiscal Policy? Approaches for Causal Inference in Assessing the Effects of Legislative Institutions.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 38 (3): 291–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kousser, Thad, McCubbins, Mathew D., and Moule, Ellen. 2008. “For Whom the TEL Tolls: Can State Tax and Expenditure Limits Effectively Reduce Spending?” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 8 (4): 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Dongwon, Borcherding, Thomas E., and Kang, Youngho. 2014. “Public Spending and the Paradox of Supermajority Rule.” Southern Economic Journal 80 (3): 614–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Soomi. 2014. “The Effect of Supermajority Vote Requirements for Tax Increase in California: A Synthetic Control Method Approach.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 14 (4): 414–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Soomi. 2018. “Do States Circumvent Constitutional Supermajority Voting Requirements to Raise Taxes?” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 18 (4): 417–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masket, Seth, and Shor, Boris. 2015. “Polarization without Parties: Term Limits and Legislative Partisanship in Nebraska's Unicameral Legislature.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 15 (1): 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, George W. 1945. Fighting Liberal: The Autobiography of George W. Norris. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Plümper, Thomas, and Martin, Christian W.. 2003. “Democracy, Government Spending, and Economic Growth: A Political-Economic Explanation of the Barro-Effect.” Public Choice 117 (1-2): 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Povoledo, Elisabetta. 2016. “Italy's Constitutional Referendum: What You Need to Know.” The New York Times, December 2..Google Scholar
Primo, David M. 2006. “Stop Us before We Spend Again: Institutional Constraints on Government Spending.” Economics & Politics 18 (3): 269–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primo, David M., and Snyder, James M.. 2010. “Party Strength, the Personal Vote, and Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 354–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James R. 2001. “An Informational Rationale for Congruent Bicameralism.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 13 (2): 123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James R. 2003. “The Impact of Bicameralism on Legislative Production.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 28 (4): 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics of Income. Various Years. U.S. Internal Revenue Service.Google Scholar
Sylla, Richard E., Legler, John B., and Wallis, John. 1995. State and Local Government: Sources and Uses of Funds, State Financial Statistics, 1933–1937. Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1959. “Problems of Majority Voting.” Journal of Political Economy 67 (6): 571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, Stefan. 2011. “Positive Constitutional Economics II—A Survey of Recent Developments.” Public Choice 146 (1-2): 205–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Johnsen, Christopher. 1981. “The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics.” Journal of Political Economy 89 (4): 642–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, Susan, and Carlson, Eric H.. 1973. “The Impact of Party on Voting Behavior in a Nonpartisan Legislature.” American Political Science Review 67 (3): 854–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitmire, Kyle. 2016. “Alabama Senator Proposes Disbanding Alabama Senate.” AL.com, February 2..Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C., and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2002. “The Influence of Party: Evidence from the State Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 96 (2): 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar