Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:49:54.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Better Committee Assignments Meaningfully Benefit Legislators? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in the Arkansas State Legislature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2015

David E. Broockman  and
Daniel M. Butler
David E. Broockman
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, 210 Barrows Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA; e-mail: broockman@berkeley.edu
Daniel M. Butler
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1063, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899, USA; e-mail: daniel.butler@wustl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A large literature argues that the committee assignment process plays an important role in shaping legislative politics because some committees provide legislators with substantial benefits. However, evaluating the degree to which legislators benefit from winning their preferred assignments has been challenging with existing data. This paper sheds light on the benefits legislators accrue from winning their preferred committee assignments by exploiting rules in Arkansas’ state legislature, where legislators select their own committee assignments in a randomized order. The natural experiment indicates that legislators reap at most limited rewards from winning their preferred assignments. These results potentially raise questions about the robustness of widely held assumptions in literatures on party discipline and legislative organization.

Keywords

Committeesparty leadersstate politicsnatural experimentre-election
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , Winter 2015 , pp. 152 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2015 

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

Anzia, S. F. and Jackman, M. C. 2013. “Legislative Organization and the Second Face of Power: Evidence from U.S. State Legislatures.” Journal of Politics 75 (1): 210–224.Google Scholar
Bullock, C. S. III. 1972. “Freshman Committee Assignments and Re-election in the United States House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 66 (3): 996–1007.Google Scholar
Bullock, C. S. III. 1976. “Motivations for Congressional Committee Preferences: Freshmen of the 92nd Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 1 (2): 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, B. E., Ferejohn, J. and Fiorina, M. P. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carsey, T. M., Berry, W. D., Niemi, R. G., Powell, L. W. and Snyder, J. M. 2007. State Legislative Election Returns, 1967–2003 (ICPSR 21480).Google Scholar
Coker, D. C. and Crain, M. W. 1994. “Legislative Committees as Loyalty-Generating Institutions.” Public Choice 81: 195–221.Google Scholar
Cox, G. W. and McCubbins, M. D. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, G. W. and McCubbins, M. D. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crain, M. W. and Sullivan, J. T. 1997. “Committee Characteristics and Re-Election Margins: An Empirical Investigation of the US House.” Public Choice 93 (3): 271–285.Google Scholar
Crook, S. B. and Hibbing, J. R. 1985. “Congressional Reform and Party Discipline: The Effects of Changes in the Seniority System on Party Loyalty in the US House of Representatives.” British Journal of Political Science 15 (2): 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dow, J. K., Endersby, J. W. and Menifield, C. E. 1998. “The Industrial Structure of the California Assembly: Committee Assignments, Economic Interests, and Campaign Contributions.” Public Choice 94 (2): 67–83.Google Scholar
Fenno, R. F. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Fowler, L. L., Douglass, S. R. and Clark, W. D. Jr 1980. “The Electoral Effects of House Committee Assignments.” Journal of Politics 42 (1): 307–319.Google Scholar
Grier, K. B. and Munger, M. C. 1991. “Committee Assignments, Constituent Preferences, Campaign Contributions.” Economic Inquiry 29 (1): 24–43.Google Scholar
Grier, K. B. and Munger, M. C. 1993. “Comparing Interest Group PAC Contributions to House and Senate Incumbents, 1980–1986.” Journal of Politics 55 (3): 615–643.Google Scholar
Grimmer, J. and Powell, E. 2013. “Congressmen in Exile: The Politics and Consequences of Involuntary Committee Removal.” Journal of Politics 75 (4): 907–920.Google Scholar
Grose, C. 2014. “Field Experimental Work on Political Institutions.” Annual Review of Political Science 17: 355–370.Google Scholar
Heberlig, E. S 2003. “Congressional Parties, Fundraising, and Committee Ambition.” Political Research Quarterly 56: 151–162.Google Scholar
Hedlund, R. D. and Patterson, S. C. 1992. “The electoral antecedents of state legislative committee assignments.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (4): 539–559.Google Scholar
Hogan, R. E. 2004. “Challenger Emergence, Incumbent Success and Electoral Accountability in State Legislative Elections.” Journal of Politcs 66 (4): 1309–1329.Google Scholar
Kanthak, K. 2004. “Exclusive Committee Assignments and Party Pressure in the US House of Representatives.” Public Choice 121: 391–412.Google Scholar
Kanthak, K. 2009. “US State Legislative Committee Assignments and Encouragement of Party Loyalty: An Exploratory Analysis.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 9 (3): 284–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. N. and Sala, B. R. 1996. “Careerism, Committee Assignments, and the Electoral Connection.” American Political Science Review 90: 21–33.Google Scholar
Kellerman, M. and Shepsle, K. A. 2009. “Congressional Careers, Committee Assignments, and Seniority Randomization in the US House of Representatives.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 4: 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltzman, F. 1997. Competing Principals: Committees, Parties, and the Organization of Congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manley, J. F. 1970. The Politics of Finance: The House Committee on Ways and Means. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Milyo, J. 1997. “Electoral and Financial Effects of Changes in Committee Power: The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Reform, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and the Money Committees in the House.” Journal of Law and Economics 40 (1): 93–111.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. M. and Smith, S. S. 2003. “Procedural Contexts, Party Strategy, and Conditional Party Voting in the US House of Representatives, 1971–2000.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (2): 305–317.Google Scholar
Rogowski, J. C. and Sinclair, B. 2012. “Estimating the Causal Effects of Social Interaction with Endogenous Networks.” Political Analysis 20: 316–328.Google Scholar
Rohde, D. W. and Shepsle, K. A. 1973. “Democratic Committee Assignments in the House of Representatives: Strategic Aspects of a Social Choice Process.” American Political Science Review 67: 889–905.Google Scholar
Romer, T., and Snyder, J. M. 1994. “An Empirical Investigation of the Dynamics of PAC Contributions.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (3): 745–769.Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, M. and Sonnenschein, H. 1981. “Strategy-proof Allocation Mechanisms at Differentiable Points.” Review of Economic Studies 48 (4): 587–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, K. A. 1978. The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle: Democratic Committee Assignments in the Modern House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, B. 1995. Legislators, Leaders, and Lawmaking. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, S. S. and Deering, C. J. 1983. “Changing Motives for the Committee Preferences of New Members of the United-States House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 8: 271–281.Google Scholar
Stratmann, T. 2000. “Congressional Voting Over Legislative Careers: Shifting Perceptions and Changing Constraints.” American Political Science Review 94 (3): 665–676.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Broockman and Butler supplementary material

Appendix

Download Broockman and Butler supplementary material(File)
File 575 KB