Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T19:26:11.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legislative Productivity of the U.S. Congress, 1789–2004

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2008

J. Tobin Grant  and
Nathan J. Kelly
J. Tobin Grant*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Mailcode 4501, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-4501
Nathan J. Kelly
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee, 1001 McClung Tower, Knoxville, TN 37996-0410, e-mail: nathan.j.kelly@gmail.com
*
e-mail: grant@siu.edu (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We measure legislative productivity for the entire history of the U.S. Congress. Current measures of legislative productivity are problematic because they measure productivity for a limited number of decades and because they are based on different aspects of productivity. We provide a methodology for measuring (1) a Legislative Productivity Index (LPI) and (2) a Major Legislation Index (MLI). We use the W-CALC algorithm of Stimson (1999, Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles, and swings. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press) to combine information from previously used indicators of productivity into measures of the LPI and the MLI. We provide examinations of content, convergent, and construct validity. The construct validity model includes potential determinants of legislative productivity. We conclude that the LPI and the MLI are superior measures of productivity than other measures used in the literature.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , Summer 2008 , pp. 303 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

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.)

Footnotes

Author's note: A previous version of this article was presented at the 2006 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. For suggestions and criticisms, we thank James Avery, Jason Barabas, Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Sean Ehrlich, Chuck Finocchiaro, Jason Gainous, Mark Hurwitz, Jennifer Jerit, Gregg Johnson, Jana Morgan, Scott McClurg, and four anonymous reviewers.

References

Adcock, Robert, and Collier, David. 2001. Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review 95: 529–46.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D. 2002. Policy dynamics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D. 2003. Representation and agenda setting. Paper presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D. 2004. The evolution of American government: Information, attention, and policy punctuations. Unpublished manuscript. Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah. 1999. The dynamics of legislative gridlock, 1947-1996. American Political Science Review 93: 519–33.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah. 2003. Stalemate: The causes and consequences of legislative gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Castel, Albert, and Gibson, Scott L. 1975. The Yeas and Nays: Key Congressional Decisions, 1774-1945. Kalamazoo, MI: New Issues Press, Institute of Public Affairs, Western Michigan University.Google Scholar
Christianson, Stephen G. 1996. Facts about the Congress. New York: The H.W. Wilson Company.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., and Lapinski, John S. 2006. Measuring legislative accomplishment, 1877-1994. American Journal of Political Science 50: 232–49.Google Scholar
Coleman, John J. 1999. Unified government, divided government, and party responsiveness. American Political Science Review 93: 821–35.Google Scholar
Howell, William E., Scott Adler, E., Cameron, Charles, and Riemann, Charles. 2000. Divided government and the legislative productivity of Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 285–312.Google Scholar
Kelly, Sean. 1993. Divided we govern? A reassessment. Polity 25: 475–84.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal politics: A theory of U.S. lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1991. Divided we govern: Party control, lawmaking and investigations, 1946-1990. 1st ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1993. Let's stick with the longer list. Polity 25: 485–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 2005. Divided we govern: Party control, lawmaking and investigations, 1946-2002. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smock, Raymond. 1999. Landmark documents on the U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, Harold W., and Niemi, Richard G. 2007. Vital statistics on American politics 2005-2006. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Stathis, Stephen. 2003. Landmark legislation: 1774-2002. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1999. Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles, and swings. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1975. Historical statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar