Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:39:10.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parties, Pivots, and Policy: The Status Quo Test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2011

JESSE RICHMAN
JESSE RICHMAN*
Affiliation:
Old Dominion University
*
Jesse Richman is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Old Dominion University, BAL 7000, Norfolk VA 23529 (jrichman@odu.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Identifying policy status quo locations is a precondition for testing key predictions of many spatial models of legislative politics, but such measures have proved to be extremely difficult to construct. This study applies a novel technique that measures policy locations in relation to legislators’ preferences. The resulting status quo estimates allow for a direct test of the policy consequences predicted by pivotal politics and party cartel theories of legislative politics. The empirical tests indicate that parties interact with pivotal politics to contribute to policy gridlock and shape policy change. By bringing pressure to bear on pivotal politics “pivots” and by blocking policy changes that would “roll” the party, parties increase the range of policies subject to gridlock in the American political system.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 105 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 151 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

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

Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2001a. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 136–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2001b. “The Effects of Party and Preferences on Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (4): 533–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David W., and Volden, Craig. 1998. Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Carter to Clinton. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Chiou, Fang-Yi, and Rothenberg, Lawrence S.. 2003. “When Pivotal Politics Meets Partisan Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 503–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiou, Fang-Yi, and Rothenberg, Lawrence S.. 2009. “A Unified Theory of U.S. Lawmaking: Preferences, Institutions, and Party Discipline.” Journal of Politics 71 (4): 1257–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua. 2007. “Lawmaking and Roll Calls.” Journal of Politics 69 (2): 457–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, and Meirowitz, Adam. 2001. “Agenda Constrained Legislator Ideal Points and the Spatial Voting Model.” Political Analysis 9 (3): 242–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, and Meirowitz, Adam. 2003. “Integrating Voting Theory and Roll Call Analysis: A Framework.” Political Analysis 11: 381–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, and Meirowitz, Adam. 2004. “Testing Explanations of Strategic Voting in Legislatures: A Reexamination of the Compromise of 1790.” American Journal of Political Science 48: 675–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Covington, Cary R., and Bargen, Andrew A.. 2004. “Comparing Floor-dominated and Party-dominated Explanations of Policy Change in the House of Representatives.” Journal of Politics 66 (4): 1069–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, James H. 2006. “Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks.” Political Analysis 14: 456–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 1985. “The Neglected Role of the Status Quo in Models of Issue Voting.” Journal of Politics 47 (1): 230–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Thomas H., and Miller, Gary J.. 1987. “The Core of the Constitution.” American Political Science Review 81 (4): 1155–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, James. 1997. “Weighted Estimation and xtgee.” www.stata.com/support/faqs/stat/xtweight.html (accessed January 9, 2011).Google Scholar
Jeong, Gyung-Ho. 2008. “Testing the Predictions of the Multidimensional Spatial Voting Model with Roll Call Data.” Political Analysis 16 (2): 179–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1995. “Cosponsors and Wafflers from A to Z.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 906–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of US Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith, Meirowitz, Adam, and Woon, Jonathan. 2005. “Testing Theories of Lawmaking.” In Social Choice and Strategic Decisions: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey S. Banks, eds. Austen-Smith, David and Duggan, John. Berlin: Springer, 249–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, Eric D., Maltzman, Forrest, and Smith, Steven S.. 2006. “Who Wins? Party Effects in Legislative Voting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31: 33–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Jeff, and Poole, Keith. 2009. “111th Senate Rank Ordering.” http://www.voteview.com/oc.asp (accessed January 27, 2011).Google Scholar
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2010. “Table 5.1—Budget Authority by Function and Subfunction: 1976–2015.” www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ (accessed January 9, 2011).Google Scholar
Peress, Michael. 2008. “Estimating Proposal and Status Quo Locations Using Voting and Cosponsorship Data.” Unpublished working paper, University of Rochester. http://www.rochester.edu/College/faculty/mperess/Proposals_and_Status_Quos.pdf (accessed January 9, 2011).Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2000. “Non-parametric Unfolding of Binary Choice Data.” Political Analysis 8: 211–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2008. “DW Nominate Common Space Legislator Estimates.” http://www.voteview.com/dwnomjoint.asp (accessed December 20, 2008).Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology and Congress. London: Transaction.Google Scholar
Project Vote Smart. 2008. “National Political Attitude Test.” (http://www.votesmart.org/npat_about.php accessed January 27, 2011).Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W. 2004. “Roll Call Voting Data for the United States House of Representatives, 1953–2004”. Compiled by the Political Institutions and Public Choice Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Saeki, Manabu. 2009. “Gridlock in the Government of the United States: Influence of Divided Government and Veto Players” British Journal of Political Science 39: 587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, Edward H., and Weingast, Barry R.. 2010. “Agenda Control in Congress: Evidence from Cut Point Estimates and Ideal Point Uncertainty” Legislative Studies Quarterly 35 (2): 157–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
True, James L. 2009. “Historical Budget Records Converted to the Present Functional Categorization with Actual Results for FY 1947–2008.” http://www.utexas.edu/cola/_webservices/policyagendas/files/Budget.xls (accessed January 27, 2011).Google Scholar
Williams, Richard. 2006. “Generalized Ordered Logit/Partial Proportional Odds Models for Ordinal Dependent Variables.” Stata Journal 6 (1): 58–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woon, Jonathan. 2008. “Bill Sponsorship in Congress: The Moderating Effect of Agenda Positions on Legislative Proposals.” Journal of Politics 70 (1): 201–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C., and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2002. “The Influence of Party: Evidence from the State Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 92 (2): 367–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar