Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:20:14.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Should We Measure Professionalism with an Index? A Note on Theory and Practice in State Legislative Professionalism Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Daniel C. Bowen  and
Zachary Greene
Daniel C. Bowen*
Affiliation:
The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ, USA
Zachary Greene
Affiliation:
University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
*
Daniel C. Bowen, Department of Political Science, The College of New Jersey, 2000 Pennington Rd., Ewing, NJ 08628, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Legislative professionalism has played a prominent role in state politics research for decades. Despite the attention paid to its causes and consequences, recent research has largely set aside questions about professionalism's conceptualization and operationalization. Usually measuring it as an aggregate index, scholars theoretically and empirically treat professionalism as a unidimensional concept. In this article, we argue that exclusive use of aggregate indices can limit state politics research. Using a new dataset with almost 40 years of data on state legislative resources, salary, and session length, we reconsider the validity of using an index to study professionalism across the states. We evaluate the internal consistency of professionalism components over time, the relationship between components and the Squire Index, and the degree to which professionalism components are unidimensional using classical multidimensional scaling. We find enough commonality and enough variation between professionalism components to support a range of measurement strategies like the use of unidimensional indices (such as the Squire Index), disaggregating the components and analyzing their effects individually, or formulating multidimensional measures. Scholars should take care to choose the appropriate measure of the concept that best fits the causal relationships under examination.

Keywords

legislative professionalismlegislative politicsstate legislaturesmeasurement theoryindicesmultidimensional scaling
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 277 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2014

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

American Political Science Association. 1969. American State Legislatures: Report of the Committee on American Legislatures. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., Berkman, Michael B., and Schneiderman, Stuart. 2000. “Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries.” American Political Science Review 94(4): 859–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, Ann, and Kearney, Richard. 1988. “Dimensions of State Government Capability.” The Western Political Quarterly 41(2): 341–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Ward, Daniel S.. 1999. “The Institutionalized Legislature and the Rise of the Antipolitics Era.” In American State and Local Politics, eds. Weber, Ronald E. and Brace, Paul, 71–96. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Citizens Conference on State Legislatures. 1971. The Sometime Governments: A Critical Study of the 50 American Legislatures. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Committee for Economic Development. 1967. Modernizing State Government: A Statement on National Policy by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development. New York: Committee for Economic Development.Google Scholar
Cortina, Jose M. 1993. “What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1): 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of State Governments. 1973–2012. Book of the States. Lexington: Council of State Governments.Google Scholar
Cronbach, Lee J. 1951. “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests.” Pschometrika 16(3): 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamm, Gerald, and Kousser, Thad. 2010. “Broad Bills or Particularistic Policy? Historical Patterns in American State Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 104(1): 151–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grumm, John. 1971. “The Effects of Legislative Structure on Legislative Performance.” In State and Urban Politics, eds. Hofferbert, Richard I. and Sharkansky, Ira. Boston: Little, Brown, p. 298–322.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1991. Data Theory and Dimensional Analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Application in the Social Sciences, Series No. 07–078. Newbury Park: SAGE.Google Scholar
King, James D. 2000. “Changes in Professionalism in U.S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25(2): 327–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kousser, Thad. 2005. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kousser, Thad, and Phillips, Justin. 2009. “Who Blinks First? Legislative Patience and Bargaining with Governors.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(1): 55–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, Joseph B., and Wish, Myron. 1978. Multidimensional Scaling. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series No. 07-011. Beverly Hills: SAGE.Google Scholar
Kurtz, Karl. 1992. “Understanding the Diversity of American State Legislatures.” APSA Legislative Studies Section Newsletter 15:2–5.Google Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey, and Phillips, Justin. 2012. “The Democratic Deficit in the States.” American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 148–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maestas, Cherie. 2000. “Professional Legislatures and Ambitious Politicians: Policy Responsiveness of State Institutions.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25:663–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, Neil. 2006. “Government Growth and Professionalism in U.S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31:563–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moncrief, Gary F. 1988. “Dimensions of the Concept of Professionalism in State Legislatures: A Research Note.” State and Local Government Review 20:128–32.Google Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 1994. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: An Evaluation of Five Indices.” State and Local Government Review 26(2):70–78..Google Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 1995. “Citizens, Structures, and Sister States: Influences on State Legislative Professionalism.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20(1):47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morehouse, Sarah McCally. 1981. State Politics, Parties and Policy. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Netemeyer, Richard G., Bearden, William O., and Sharma, Sabhash. 2003. Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ophiem, Cynthia. 1991. “Explaining the Differences in State Lobby Regulation.” The Western Political Quarterly 44(2): 405–21.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Alan. 1996. “State Legislative Development: Observations from Three Perspectives.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 21:169–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1992. “Legislative Professionalization and Membership Diversity in State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17(1): 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1993. “Professionalization and Public Opinion of State Legislatures.” The Journal of Politics 55(2): 479–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2007. “Measuring Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7(2): 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2012. The Evolution of American Legislatures: Colonies, Territories, and States, 1619-2009. Ann Arbor: University Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill, and Moncrief, Gary. 2010. State Legislatures Today: Politics under the Domes. Boston: Longman.Google Scholar
Woods, Neal, and Baranowski, Michael. 2006. “Legislative Professionalism and Influence on State Agencies: The Effects of Resources and Careerism.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31(4): 585–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar