Bruce I. Oppenheimer

Policy Effects of U. S. House Reform: Decentralization and the Capacity to Resolve Energy Issues

This study examines the effects of internal reforms of the 1970s on the capacity of the U.S. House of Representatives to make policy. House efforts to write major energy legislation in the 94th and 95th Congresses provide the vehicle for this analysis. Receiving particular attention is how decentralization of decision-making processes in the House has had markedly different effects on its capacity for policy mobilization than was found by Price (1972) in his Senate study. Through the use of participant observation and elite interviewing as well as an examination of the public record, the author describes the impact of reforms on the efforts of the House to resolve the key energy issues, analyzes the efforts of the House party leadership to cope with the consequences of reform, and finds that the reforms of the 1970s have created new avenues for legislative obstruction that differ in kind from those of the 1950s and 1960s but have much the same effect.

How Legislatures Shape Policy and Budgets

Research on legislative policy making consists of work on Congress, on U.S. state legislatures, and on those non-American legislatures that affect policy. The bulk of research is on Congress. Early work on Congress dealt with policy through case studies or through research on process. Recently scholars have studied policy directly, and have investigated the impact of congressional reforms on policy. Policy research on U.S. state legislatures is sparse, perhaps because of diversity among states and low academic interest in state legislatures. Policy-oriented research on legislatures outside the U.S. is on European legislatures, particularly those that are reactive rather than active. These legislatures have only a modest impact on public policy.

Split Party Control of Congress, 1981-86: Exploring Electoral and Apportionment Explanations

This research investigates why the Democratic and Republican parties achieved different levels of success in Senate and House elections for the 97th-99th Congresses, a period of split party control. Five potential explanations are examined. Of these, two apportionment explanations, the disproportionate success of Republicans in small-population state Senate contests and turnout differences in House districts within states, accounted for much of the difference in party success in House and Senate elections. Surprisingly, an explanation based on the incumbency advantage of Democrats in the House of Representatives made only a small contribution to the difference in success. The results of this analysis suggest that, without a major partisan upheaval, Republicans will be unable to challenge Democrats for control of the House but should remain competitive for control of the Senate.

Senate Apportionment: Competitiveness and Partisan Advantage

This paper examines two unanticipated consequences of the equal representation of states on Senate elections-competitiveness and partisan advantage. Using a fixed-effects (LSDV) model that controls for important intervening variables to test the hypothesis that variation in state population size affects the competitiveness of Senate elections, we find a far stronger relationship between state population and electoral competitiveness than have previous works. In addition, Senate apportionment has had implications for the partisan composition of the Senate. When we compare the actual outcomes of Senate elections over time with hypothetical outcomes, which we derive by holding state population constant, we find that Senate apportionment has had important consequences for the partisan composition of the Senate in several periods. From the mid-1970s until (but not including) 1994, Senate apportionment enabled Republicans to hold seats disproportionate to their partys share of the national Senate vote.

A Review of “Cheese Factories on the Moon: Why Earmarks Are Good for American Democracy”

(e.g., a larger number of open seat races due to retirements), they do offer a data-rich exploration of political ambition more generally, and of women’s political ambition in seeking elective office. This study is especially of value in adding understanding to what has happened since “the Year of the Woman.” Some political observers thought the increase in percentages and numbers of women elected to Congress, especially in the House of Representatives, would continue on an upward trajectory. Instead, while there has been some increase in the number of women in Congress, the percentage increase has never again been as dramatic as in 1992, and the numbers of women appear to have reached a plateau. Lawless and Fox note, “Our research debunks the literature that purports to explain women’s underrepresentation on the grounds of structural impediments and institutional inertia alone” (p. 17). Rather, political ambition is “the critical missing link in the research that explores women’s underrepresentation” (p. 15). Political ambition, in terms of representation, is a two-stage process: (1) considering whether to run; and (2) acting on that decision to enter a race. The approach of the authors is to move the analysis back to an earlier decision point. Rather than look at women in office or candidates in selected races, their multiple data gathering strategies focus on the pool of potential candidates, before a decision has even been made to enter a race. This is where the authors find a gender gap in “candidate emergence.” Significantly, “the gender gap in political ambition is rooted in patterns of traditional gender socialization” (p. 17). The authors share with the readers the richness of the qualitative data recorded in their interviews. Given the number of variables involved with each case presented (level of position—e.g., federal, local, state); success of potential candidate’s party in prior contest; incumbency or open seat; the qualitative data could be drawn upon in a more analytic way without sacrificing the richness of the data. The value of this database and study is enormous in providing an empirical basis not only for studies of gender, but more specifically in advancing our understanding of political ambition, and political participation overall. The authors are most careful in examining their data in the context of other studies, and they offer a fine nuancing in their explanations. Janet M. Martin Bowdoin College