Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T20:08:56.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

William D. Berry ,
Michael B. Berkman  and
Stuart Schneiderman
William D. Berry
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Michael B. Berkman
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
Stuart Schneiderman
Affiliation:
Associated Press
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is well established that legislators from highly professionalized bodies are more likely to win reelection than members of less professionalized legislatures. We find that the effect of professionalization on incumbent electoral success is far more pervasive. As the level of professionalism of a legislature increases, the effects of external political and economic forces (such as coattails from higher level elections and national economic conditions) on a legislator's chances for reelection diminish in strength. This implies that legislative professionalization promotes institutionalization by establishing boundaries that insulate members from external shocks. We reach these conclusions by specifying and testing a district-level model of state legislative election outcomes, using as dependent variable the probability that an incumbent will win reelection. The model is estimated with probit using data for more than 42,000 state legislators from 1970 to 1989.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 94 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 859 - 874
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.)

References

REFERENCES

Aldrich, John H., and Nelson, Forrest D.. 1984. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Newbury Park: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basehart, Harry, and Comer, John. 1991. “Partisan and Incumbent Effects in State Legislative Redistricting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16 (02): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, King, Gary, and Zeng, Langche. 2000. “Improving Quantitative Studies of International Conflict: A Conjecture.” American Political Science Review 94 (03): 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Berkman, Michael B., and Schneiderman, Stuart. 2000. Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection [computer file] (Study #1227). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Bloom, Howard S., and Price, H. Douglas. 1975. “Comment.” American Political Science Review 69 (12): 1240–54.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: Directions for the 21st Century, ed. Weber, Ronald E. and Brace, Paul. New York: Chatham House. Pp. 71–96.Google Scholar
Bushnell, Eleanore, ed. 1970. Impact of Reapportionment on the Thirteen Western States. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Campagna, J. David, and Grofman, Bernard. 1990. “Party Control and Partisan Bias in 1980s Congressional Redistricting.” Journal of Politics 52 (11): 1242–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E. 1986. “Presidential Coattails and Midterm Losses in State Legislative Elections.” American Political Science Review 80 (03): 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E. 1993. The Presidential Pulse of Congressional Elections. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John M., Niemi, Richard G., and Powell, Lynda W.. 2000. “Incumbency and the Probability of Reelection in State Legislative Elections.” Journal of Politics 62 (08): 671–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chubb, John E. 1988. “Institutions, the Economy, and the Dynamics of State Elections.“ American Political Science Review 82 (03): 133–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and Brady, David W.. 1981. “Toward a Diachronie Analysis of Congress.” American Political Science Review 75 (12): 988–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Morgenstern, Scott. 1993. “The Increasing Advantage of Incumbency in the U.S. States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 18 (11): 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Morgenstern, Scott. 1995. “The Incumbency Advantage in the Multimember Districts: Evidence from the U.S. States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (08): 329–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1990. “Economic Conditions and the Congressional Vote: A Review of the Macrolevel Evidence.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (05): 373–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1983. “Who Is Held Responsible? Further Evidence on the Hibbing-Alford Thesis.” American Journal of Political Science 27 (02): 158–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1994. “Divided Government in the American States: A Byproduct of Legislative Professionalism.” American Political Science Review 88 (06): 304–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garand, James C. 1991. “Electoral Marginality in State Legislative Elections, 1968–1986.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16 (02): 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, Leroy, Heslop, Alan, and Anderson, Stuart, eds. 1981. Reapportionment Politics. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul S. 1998. Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington, 2d ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R. 1988. “Legislative Institutionalization with Illustrations from the British House of Commons.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (08): 681–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R. 1999. “Legislative Careers: Why and How We Study Them.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24 (05): 149–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Alford, John R.. 1981. “The Electoral Impact of Economic Conditions: Who Is Held Responsible?” American Journal of Political Science 25 (08): 423–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M., and Tidmarch, Charles M.. 1991. “Sophomore Surge in State Legislative Elections, 1968–86.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16 (02): 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, Samuel. 1965. “Congressional Responses to the Twentieth Century.” In The Congress and America's Future, ed. Truman, David B.. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp. 5–31.Google Scholar
Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). 1992. State Legislative Election Returns in the United States, 1968–1989 [computer file] (Study #8907), Part I. 5th ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor].Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1987. “The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952-1982.” American Journal of Political Science 31 (02): 126–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. The Electoral Origins of Divided Government: Competition in U.S. House Elections, 1946–1988. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1997. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 4th ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1991. “Constituency Service and the Incumbency Advantage.” British Journal of Political Science 21 (01): 119–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (04): 341–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H. 1971. “Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896–1964.” American Political Science Review 65 (03): 131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H. 1983. “The Ecological Fallacy Revisited: Aggregate versus Individual-Level Findings on Economics and Elections and Sociotropic Voting.” American Political Science Review 11 (03): 92–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasno, Jonathan, and Green, Donald Philip. 1988. “Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections.” Journal of Politics 50 (11): 920–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leyden, Kevin M., and Borrelli, Stephen A.. 1995. “The Effect of State Economic Conditions on Gubernatorial Elections: Does Unified Government Make a Difference?” Political Research Quarterly 48 (06): 275–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowry, Robert C., Alt, James E., and Ferree, Karen E.. 1999. “Fiscal Policy Outcomes and Electoral Accountability in the American States.” American Political Science Review 92 (12): 759–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moncrief, Gary F. 1999. “Recruitment and Retention in U.S. Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24 (05): 173–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moncrief, Gary F., and Thompson, Joel, eds. 1992. Changing Patterns in State Legislative Careers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PQlsby, Nelson W. 1968. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 62 (03): 144–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radcliff, Benjamin. 1988. “Solving a Puzzle: Aggregate Analysis and Economic Voting Revisited.” Journal of Politics 50 (05): 440–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Alan. 1996. “State Legislative Development: Observations from Three Perspectives.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 21 (05): 169–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Alan. 1998. The Decline of Representative Democracy: Process, Participation and Power in State Legislatures. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmore, Stephen A., and Salmore, Barbara G.. 1985. Candidates, Parties, and Campaigns: Electoral Politics in America. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Scammon, Richard M., and McGillivray, Alice V.. 1995. America Votes. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1992. “The Theory of Legislative Institutionalization and the California Assembly.” Journal of Politics 54 (11): 1026–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1997. Another Look at Legislative Professionalization and Divided Government in the States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (08): 417–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Robert M. 1990. “Economic Voting for Governor and U.S. Senator: The Electoral Consequences of Federalism.” Journal of Politics 52 (02): 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Wittenberg, Jason, and King, Gary. 1998. “CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.” Version 1.2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 09 16.Google Scholar
Tufte, Edward. 1975. “Determinants of the Outcomes of Midterm Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 69 (09): 812–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dunk, Emily, and Weber, Ronald E.. 1997. “Constituency-Level Competition in the U.S. States, 1968–1988: A Pooled Analysis.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (05): 141–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Ronald E., Tucker, Harvey J., and Brace, Paul. 1991. “Vanishing Marginals in State Legislative Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16 (05): 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Halbert. 1980. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica 48 (05): 817–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar