Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T09:28:00.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Kenneth A. Shepsle  and
Barry R. Weingast
Kenneth A. Shepsle
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Barry R. Weingast
Affiliation:
Washington University and Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Legislative committees have fascinated scholars and reformers for more than a century. All acknowledge the central strategic position of committees in legislatures. The consensus, however, centers on empirical regularities and stylized facts, not on explanations. We seek to explain why committees are powerful. We formulate an institutionally rich rational-choice model of legislative politics in which the sequence of the legislative process is given special prominence. Committees, as agenda setters in their respective jurisdictions, are able to enforce many of their policy wishes not only because they originate bills but also because they get a second chance after their chamber has worked its will. This occurs at the conference stage in which the two chambers of a bicameral legislature resolve differences between versions of a bill. A theory of conference politics is offered and some evidence from recent Congresses is provided.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 85 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1987

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

Axelrod, Robert. 1981. The Emergence of Cooperation among Egoists. American Political Science Review 75:306–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bach, Stanley. 1984. Resolving Legislative Differences in Congress: An Introduction to Conference Committees and Amendments between the Chambers. Congressional Reference Service. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Bolling, Richard. 1965. House out of Order. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Bryce, James. 1893. The American Commonwealth. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Denzau, Arthur, and Mackay, Robert. 1983. Gate-keeping and Monopoly Power of Committees. American Journal of Political Science 27:740–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzau, Arthur, Riker, William, and Shepsle, Kenneth. 1985. Farquharson and Fenno: Sophisticated Voting and Home Style. American Political Science Review 79:1117–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eulau, Heinz, and McCluggage, Vera. 1984. Standing Committees in Legislatures: Three Decades of Research. Legislative Studies Quarterly 9: 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farquharson, Robin. 1969. Theory of Voting. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1966. The Power of the Purse. New York: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John. 1975. Who Wins in Conference Committee? Journal of Politics 37:1033–46.Google Scholar
Kreps, David, and Wilson, Robert. 1982. Sequential Equilibrium. Econometrica 50:863–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael. 1981. The Politics of Private Desires. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.Google Scholar
MacNeil, Neil. 1963. Forge of Democracy. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
McConachie, Lauros. 1898. Congressional Committees. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
McCown, Ada. 1927. The Congressional Conference Committee. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, George. 1945. Fighting Liberal: The Autobiography of George Norris. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Reeves, Richard. 1974. Isn't it Time We Had a Senator?New York Times, 25 February.Google Scholar
Rogers, Lindsay. 1922. Conference Committee Legislation. North American Review 215: 300–307.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth. 1978. The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle: Democratic Committee Assignments in the Modern House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth, and Weingast, Barry. 1981. Structure and Strategy: The Two Faces of Agenda Power. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth, and Weingast, Barry. 1984. When Do Rules of Procedure Matter? Journal of Politics 46:206–21.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven, and Deering, Christopher. 1984. Committees in Congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Strom, Gerald, and Rundquist, Barry. 1977. A Revised Theory of Winning in House-Senate Conferences. American Political Science Review 71:448–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogler, David. 1970. Patterns of One-House Dominance in Congressional Conference Committees. Midwest Journal of Political Science 14:303–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, Barry, and Marshall, William. 1986. The Industrial Organization of Congress; or, Why Legislatures, Like Firms, Are not Organized as Markets. Hoover Institution Working Paper in Economics P-86–5.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry, and Moran, Mark. 1983. Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control: Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Political Economy 91: 765–800.Google Scholar
Wilson, Woodrow. 1885. Congressional Government. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.