What Do Parties Do in Congress? Explaining the Allocation of Legislative Specialization

Ponce, Aldo F (2013): What Do Parties Do in Congress? Explaining the Allocation of Legislative Specialization.

Abstract

This article studies the determinants of the concentration of legislative specialization of parties across policy jurisdictions. Greater concentration of legislative specialization leads parties to concentrate their legislative efforts on a smaller set of policy jurisdictions. Through enhancing their concentration of legislative specialization in certain policy areas, parties can more clearly signal their policy concerns and interests to voters. This study argues and shows that relatively low electoral volatility and a low number of political parties (institutional traits) boost the concentration of legislative specialization. Greater electoral stability increases the incentives for parties to specialize further on certain policy jurisdictions. I also argue and verify that lower legislative fragmentation, producing larger parties, reduces the opportunity costs of legislative specialization. As I explain below, understanding the configuration of legislative specialization might help illuminate the evolution of key characteristics of party systems such as its degree of programmaticness and its degree of institutionalization, and to which extent parties are able to construct issue ownership.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: legislative specialization, programmatic parties, congress, Latin America
• Subjects: H - Public Economics > H1 - Structure and Scope of Government; H - Public Economics > H1 - Structure and Scope of Government > H11 - Structure, Scope, and Performance of Government; H - Public Economics > H4 - Publicly Provided Goods > H41 - Public Goods

References

Albert, James, and Siddartha Chib. 1993. “Bayesian Analysis of Binary and Polychotomous Response Data. Journal of the American Statistical Association,” 88, 422: 669-679.

Alcántara Sáez, Manuel, and Flavia Freidenberg, eds. 2001. Partidos Políticos de América Latina (three volumes). Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.

Aldrich, John, and John Griffin. 2003. The Presidency and the Campaign: Creating Voter Priorities in the 2000 Election. In Michael Nelson (ed.), The Presidency and the Political System, seventh ed. Congressional Quarterly, Washington, DC, 239-256.

Alemán, Eduardo, Aldo F. Ponce, and Iñaki Sagarzazu. 2011. “Legislative Parties in Volatile, Nonprogrammatic Party Systems: The Peruvian Case in Comparative Perspective,” Latin American Politics and Society, 53, 3: 57-81.

Alemán, Eduardo and Sebastián M. Saiegh. 2007. “Legislative Preferences, Political Parties, and Coalition Unity in Chile,” Comparative Politics, 39, 3: 253-272.

Alemán, Eduardo, Ernesto Calvo, Mark P. Jones, and Noah Kaplan. 2009. “Comparing Cosponsorship and Roll Call Ideal Points,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34: 87–116.

Ames, Barry. 2001. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar. 1994. “Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership over Issues: The Joint Effects of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 58: 335-357.

Baron, David and John Ferejohn. 1989. “Bargaining in Legislatures.” The American Political Science Review, 83: 1181-1206

Bélanger, Eric, and Bonny Meguid. 2008. “Issue Salience, Issue Ownership and Issue-Based Vote Choice: Evidence from Canada,” Electoral Studies, 27, 3: 477-491.

Bellucci, Paolo. 2006. “Tracing the Cognitive and Affective Roots of "Party Competence": Italy and Britain, 2001,” Electoral Studies, 25: 548-569.

Benton, Denise, and K. Krishnamoorthy. 2002. “Performance of the Parametric Bootstrap Method in Small Sample Interval Estimates,” Advances and Applications in Statistics, 2, 3: 269-285.

Budge, Ian, and Dennis Farlie. 1983. Explaining and Predicting Elections Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Carey, John. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, Harold, David Sanders, Marianne Stewart, and Paul Whiteley. 2004. Electoral Choice in 2001. In Harold Clarke, Sanders, Marianne Stewart, and Paul Whiteley, eds., Political Choice in Britain. Oxford University Press, 79-129.

Cox, Gary, and Matthew McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Creedy, John. 1998. The Dynamics of Inequality and Poverty: Comparing Income Distributions. Northhampton, MA: E. Elgar.

Damore, David. 2004. “The Dynamics of Issue Ownership in Presidential Campaigns,” Political Research Quarterly, 57: 391-397.

Edwards, George, William Mitchell, and Reed Welch. 1995. “Explaining Presidential Approval: The Significance of Issue Salience,” American Journal of Political Science, 39: 108-134.

Efron, B. 1979. “Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife,” The Annals of Statistics, 7: 1-26.

Fournier, Patrick, Andre Blais, Richard Nadeau, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Neil Nevitte. 2003. “Issue Importance and Performance Voting,” Political Behavior, 25: 51-67.

Gilligan, Thomas, and Keith Krehbiel. 1987. Collective Decision-Making and Standing Committees: An Informational Rationale for Restrictive Amendment Procedures. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3: 287-335.

Gilligan, Thomas, and Keith Krehbiel. 1989. Asymmetric Information and Legislative Rules with a Heterogeneous Committee. American Journal of Political Science, 33: 459-490.

Green, Jane, and Sara Hobolt. 2008. “Owning the Issue Agenda. Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections,” Electoral Studies, 27: 460-476.

Griffiths, William, R. Carter Hill, and Peter Pope. 1987. “Small Sample Properties of Probit Model Estimators.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82: 929- 937.

Hayes, Danny. 2005. “Candidate Qualities through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait Ownership,” American Journal of Political Science, 49: 908-923.

Hoff, Peter. 2009. A First Course in Bayesian Statistical Analysis. New York: Springer

Holian, David. 2004. “He's Stealing my Issues! Clinton's Crime Rhetoric and the Dynamics of Issue Ownership,” Political Behavior, 26: 95-124.

Horowitz, John, John List, and K.E. McConnell. 2004. Diminishing Marginal Value. Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado.

Jackman, Simon. 2009. Bayesian Analysis for the Social Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Jenkins, Stephen. 2001. ‘ineqdec0.ado’. STATA Command. University of Essex.

Jones, Mark. 2005. The Role of Parties and Party Systems in the Policymaking Process. Paper prepared for Inter-American Development Bank Workshop on State Reform, Public Policies and Policymaking Processes, February 28-March 2, Washington, DC.

Kitschelt, Herbert, Kirk Hawkins, Juan Pablo Luna, Guillermo Rosas, and Elizabeth Zechmeister, eds. 2010. Latin American Party Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Krosnick, Jona. 1988. “The Role of Attitude Importance in Social Evaluation: A Study of Policy Preferences, Presidential Candidate Evaluations, and Voting Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55: 196-210.

Krosnick, Jona. 1990. “Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America.” Political Behavior, 12: 59-92.

Laakso, Markku, and Rein Taagepera. 1979. “Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe,” Comparative Political Studies, 12: 3-27.

Langston, Joy. 2011. Mexico's PRI from Hegemony to Democracy, 1980-2006. Manuscript.

Limongi, Fernando and Figueiredo, Argelina. 2000. ”Presidential power, legislative organization, and party behavior in Brazil,” Comparative Politics, 32, 2: 151-70.

Limongi, Fernando and Figueiredo, Argelina. 2007. “The Budget Process and Legislative Behavior: Individual Amendments, Support for the Executive and Government Programs,” World Political Science Review, 3, 3: 1-34.

Lipsmeyer, Christine. 2009. “Post-Communist Mandates,” Politics and Policy, 37, 4: 715-734.

Martin, Andrew, Kevin Quinn, and Jong Hee Park. 2009. MCMCpack: Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Package. R Package version 0.9-6. CRAN Repository.

Nadeau, Richard, André Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Neil Nevitte. 2001. Perceptions of Party Competence in the 1997 Election. In Hugh Thorburn and Alan Whitehorn, eds., Party Politics in Canada. Toronto: Prentice-Hall, 413-430.

Nicholson, Walter. 2002. Microeconomic Theory. Basic Principles and Extensions. South-Western; Thomson.

Norris, Pippa, John Curtice, David Sanders, Margaret Scammell, and Holli Semetko. 1999. On Message: Communicating the Campaign. London: Sage.

Palazzolo, Daniel. 2008. “Evaluating Majority Party Leaders,” The Forum, 6, 3: 1-16.

Pedersen, Mogens. 1979. “The Dynamics of European Party Systems: Changing Patterns of Electoral Volatility,” European Journal of Political Research, 7, 1: 1-26.

Petrocik, John. 1996. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study,” American Journal of Political Science, 40, 3: 825-50.

Petrocik, John, William Benoit, and Glenn Hansen. 2003. “Issue Ownership and Presidential Campaigning, 1952-2000,” Political Science Quarterly, 118, 4: 599-626

Ponce, Aldo F. 2012. Linking Citizens and Parties: How Legislatures Matter for Political Representation and Accountability. Dissertation.

Rabinowitz, G., J Ponthro, W Jacoby. 1982. “Salience as a Factor in the Impact of Issues on Candidate Evaluation,” Journal of Politics, 44: 41-63.

Roberts, Andrew. 2010. The Quality of Democracy in Eastern Europe: Public Preferences and Policy Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rohde, David. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Saiegh, Sebastián. 2005. The Role of Legislatures in the Policymaking Process. Prepared for delivery at the Workshop on State Reform, Public Policies and Policymaking Processes, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington D.C.

Scholz, F.W. 2007. The Bootstrap Small Sample Properties. Technical Report, Boeing Computer Services, Research and Technology.

Sellers, Patrick. 1998. “Strategy and Background in Congressional Campaigns.” American Political Science Review, 92: 159-171.

Shryock, Henry S., Jacob S. Siegel, and Associates. 1976. The Methods and Materials of Demography. New York: Academic Press.

Simon, Adam. 2002. The Winning Message: Candidate Behavior, Campaign Discourse, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stein, Ernesto, Mariano Tommasi, Koldo Echebarría, Eduardo Lora, and Mark Payne, eds., 2006. The Politics of Policies. Economic and Social Progress in Latin America. Cambridge: David Rockefeller Center.

Toka, Gabor, and Andrija Henjak. 2007. Party Systems and Voting Behavior in the Visegrad Countries 15 Years After the Transition. In Pavel Saradín and Eva Bradová, eds., Visegrad Votes: Parliamentary Elections 205-2006. Olomuc: Palacky University Press, 210-244.

van der Brug, Wouter. 2004. “Issue Ownership and Party Choice”, Electoral Studies, 23: 209-233.

Walgrave, Stefaan, and Knut De Swert. 2004. “The Making of the (Issues of the) Vlaams Blok: The Media and the Success of the Belgian Extreme-Right Party,” Political Communication, 21: 479-500.

Walgrave, Stefaan, and Knut De Swert. 2007. “Where Does Issue Ownership Come From? From Party or From the Media? Issue-Identification in Belgium, 1991-2005.” The Harvard International Journal of Press and Politics, 12: 37-66.

Walgrave, Stefaan, Jonas Lefevere, and Anke Tresch. 2011. The Associative Dimension of Issue Ownership. Conceptualization, Measurement, and Effect. Working paper, University of Antwerp.

Weingast, Barry R., and William J. Marshall. 1988. “The Industrial Organization of Congress; or, Why Legislatures, Like Firms, Are Not Organized as Markets.” Journal of Political Economy 96: 132-63.

Zellner, Arnold and Peter Rossi. 1984. “Bayesian Analysis of Dichotomous Quantal Response Models,” Journal of Econometrics, 25: 365-393.