Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T06:56:06.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Goods, Private Interests, and Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 1989

John E. Jackson  and
David C. King
John E. Jackson
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
David C. King
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We estimate a model of House members' roll call voting decisions embodying some hypotheses about representation, including estimates of the influence of district opinion on broad collective issues relative to personal economic interests, of the effect of electoral security on constituency responsiveness, and of the difference in constituency and party voting among Republicans and Democrats. This model is estimated with votes taken during deliberations on the 1978 Tax Reform Act, important because it was a significant change from the tax reforms passed in the late 1960s and 1970s, marked the first appearance of the Kemp-Roth proposed tax cut, and represented a concerted effort by Republicans to make tax policy a broad national issue. Findings indicate that constituent preferences for redistribution are important influences on representatives' decisions and that Republicans exhibited a greater degree of party voting than the Democrats while the Democrats better represented their constituent's preferences.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 83 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 1143 - 1164
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1989

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

Achen, Christopher H. 1978. “Measuring Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 22:475–510.10.2307/2110458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Douglas R. 1979. Congress and the Bureaucracy: A Theory of Influence. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Asher, Herbert. 1973. “The Learning of Legislative Norms.” American Political Science Review 67:499–513.10.2307/1958780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Bruce, Ferejohn, John, and Fiorina, Morris. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674493285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlin, John R., and Courant, Paul. 1983. “Representative Deliberations and Representative Decisions: Proportional Representation and the Borda Rule.” American Political Science Review 77:718–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collie, Melissa P. 1983. “Voting Behavior in Legislatures.” In Handbook of Legislative Research, ed. Loewenberg, Gerhard, Patterson, Samuel C., and Jewell, Malcolm E.. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dubin, Jeffrey A., and Rivers, R. Douglas. 1987. Statistical Software Tools. Pasadena: Dubin/Rivers Research.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr., 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr., 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1975. “Constituency Influence: A Generalized Model and Its Implications for Statistical Studies of Roll-Call Behavior.” Political Methodology 2:249–66.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H., and Jackson, John E.. 1986. “Structural Estimation with Limited Variables.” In Political Science: The Science of Politics, ed. Weisberg, Herbert F.. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L. 1987. “Participation and Purpose in Committee Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 81:105–28.10.2307/1960781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanushek, Eric A., and Jackson, John E.. 1977. Statistical Methods for Social Scientists. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, Michael R., and Jackson, John E.. 1987. “The Individual Political Economy of Federal Tax Policy.” American Political Science Review 81:757–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1974. Constituencies and Leaders in Congress: Their Effects on Senate Voting Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674418752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1983. “Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality with Survey Data.” Journal of Politics 45:335–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1989. “Estimation of Small Area Properties with National Data.” Political Analysis 1:157–80.10.1093/pan/1.1.157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John E., and Kingdon, John W.. 1989. “Of Ideology, ADA Scores, and Legislative Votes.” University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor. Photocopy.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1983. The Politics of Congressional Elections. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1981. “Sociotropic Voting: The American Case.” British Journal of Political Science 11:129–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1981. Congressmen's Voting Decisions. 2d ed. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore. 1979. The End of Liberalism. 2d ed. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Maass, Arthur. 1983. Congress and the Common Good. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David B. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Meehl, Paul E. 1977. “The Selfish Voter Paradox and the Throw-away Vote Argument.” American Political Science Review 71:11–30.10.1017/S0003055400259273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57:45–56.10.2307/1952717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, Richard A., and Musgrave, Peggy B.. 1980. 3d ed. Public Finance in Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Nerlove, M., and Press, S. J.. 1973. Univariate and Multivariate Log-linear and Logistic Models. R-1306-EDA/NIH. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, A. Mitchell, and Rubinfeld, Daniel L.. 1977. “Property Values and the Benefits of Environmental Improvements: Theory and Measurement.” In Public Economics and the Quality of Life, ed. Wingo, L. and Evans, A.. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, Lynda W. 1982. “Issue Representation in Congress.” Journal of Politics 44:658–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David O., Hensler, Carl P., and Speer, Leslie K.. 1979. “Whites' Opposition to Busing: Self-Interest or Symbolic Racism?” American Political Science Review 73:369–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David O., Lau, Richard R., Tyler, Tom, and Allen, Harris M. Jr., 1980. “Self-Interest versus Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting.” American Political Science Review 74:670–84.10.2307/1958149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1984. “Political Solutions to Market Problems.” American Political Science Review 78:417–34.10.2307/1963373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurow, Lester. 1971. “The Income Distribution As a Pure Public Good.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 85:327–36.10.2307/1880707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissberg, Robert. 1978. “Collective versus Dyadic Representation in Congress.” American Political Science Review 72:535–46.10.2307/1954109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, James Q., and Banfield, Edward C.. 1964. “Public-Regardingness As a Value Premise in Voting Behavior.” American Political Science Review 58:876–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, James Q., and Banfield, Edward C.. 1971. “Political Ethos Revisited.” American Political Science Review 65:1048–62.10.2307/1953497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1986. “Alternative Measures of Political Involvement.” Presented at the annual Political Methodology Conference, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.