Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T19:12:17.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Committee Assignment Process and the Conditional Nature of Committee Bias

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Richard L. Hall  and
Bernard Grofman
Richard L. Hall
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Bernard Grofman
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The view that congressional committees tend to be biased subsets of their parent chambers provides the foundations for a substantial body of theoretical literature on distributive politics and legislative structure. More recent revisionist work suggests that committees composed of preference outliers are in fact rare. We reject the categorical account of preference outliers a priori and elaborate conditions under which committees should be unrepresentative of their parent chambers. We argue that the most widely available and frequently used data—floor roll call votes—are inappropriate to the task of assessing outlier predictions in any form. Finally, we conduct a differentiated set of hypothesis tests within one policy jurisdiction to illustrate the characteristics of evidence and analysis necessary to evaluate alternative theoretical accounts of legislative organization. The appearance of policy-relevant biases in congressional work groups, we conclude, is not so much rare as it is conditional, and we suggest several conditions on which future models of legislative organization should build.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 84 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 1149 - 1166
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1990

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

Arnold, R. Douglas. 1979. Congress and the Bureaucracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Blalock, Hubert. 1979. Social Statistics, 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Cowart, Susan C. 1981. “Representation of High-Demand Constituencies on Review Committees.” Public Choice 37:337–42.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Roger H. 1981. “Subcommittee Government: New Channels for Policymaking.” In The New Congress, Mann, Thomas E. and Ornstein, Norman, eds. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John. 1983. “Congress and Redistribution.” In Making Economic Policy in Congress, ed. Schick, Allen. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1989. “Asymmetric Information and Legislative Rules with a Heterogeneous Committee.” American Journal of Political Science 33:459–90.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1990. Organization of Informative Committees by. a Rational Legislature.” American Journal of Political Science 34:531–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Griffin, Robert and Glazer, Amihai. 1990. “Identical Geography, Different Party: A Natural Experiment on the Magnitude of Party Differences in the U.S. Senate, 1960–1984.” In Developments in Electoral Geography, eds. Taylor, Peter J., Johnston, Ronald, and Shelley, Fred M.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haeberle, Steven H. 1978. “The Institutionalization of the Subcommittee in the United States House of Representatives.” Journal of Politics 40:1054–65.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L. 1987. “Participation and Purpose in Committee Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 81:105–28.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L. 1990. “Participation in Congress.” University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Typescript.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Evans, C. Lawrence. 1990. “The Power of Subcommittees.” Journal of Politics 52:335–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinckley, Barbara. 1975. “Policy Content, Committee Membership, and Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science 19:543–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1974. Constituencies and Leaders in Congress. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, John E., and King, David C.. 1989. “Public Goods, Private Interests, and Representation.” American Political Science Review 83:1143–64.Google Scholar
Jackson, John E., and Kingdon, John W.. 1990. “Ideology, Interest Group Ratings, and Legislative Votes.” University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Typescript.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles O. 1961. “Representation in Congress: The Case of the House Agriculture Committee.” American Political Science Review 55:358–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julnes, George, and Mohr, Lawrence B.. 1989. “Analysis of No-Difference Findings in Evaluation Research.” Evaluation Review 13:628–55.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1981. Congressmen's Voting Decisions. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Kirkland, Lane. 1986a. “A Report on Congress.” AFL-CIO News, 15 02.Google Scholar
Kirkland, Lane. 1986b. “A Report on Congress.” AFL-CIO News, 27 09.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1989. “Information and Legislative Organization.” Stanford University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1990. “Are Congressional Committees Composed of Preference Outliers?” American Political Science Review 84:149–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Donald R. 1973. U.S. Senators and Their World. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
National Farmers Union. 1981. “1981 Voting Record—Senate.” National Farmers Union Newsletter, 5 02.Google Scholar
National Farmers Union. 1986a. “1985 Voting Record: First Session of the 99th Congress.” National Farmers Union Newsletter, 14 02.Google Scholar
National Farmers Union. 1986b. “1986 Voting Record: Second Session of the 99th Congress.” National Farmers Union Newsletter, 17 10.Google Scholar
Niskanen, William A. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
Ornstein, Norman J. 1974. “Towards Restructuring the Congressional Committee System.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 411:147–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieselbach, Leroy N. 1986. Congressional Reform. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Rohde, David, and Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1973. “Democratic Committee Assignments in the House of Representatives: Strategic Aspects, of a Social Choice Process.” American Political Science Review 67:889–905.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1978. The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry. 1987. “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.” American Political Science Review 81:85–104.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven S. 1988. “An Essay on Sequence, Position, Goals, and Committee Power.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 13:151–76.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven S., and Deering, Christopher J.. 1984. Committees in Congress. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Stanfield, Rochelle L. 1988. “Plotting Every Move.” National Journal, 26 03.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., and Marshall, William. 1987. “The Industrial Organization of Congress.” Journal of Political Economy 96:132–63.Google Scholar