Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T10:25:02.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Centralization on Capitol Hill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Roger H. Davidson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The consensus view of today's Congress — that its decentralized structure and dispersed power has pushed it to the edge of chaos — is badly in need of correcting. Despite the legacy of decentralization and fragmentation from the 1960's and 1970's reform era, the 1980's have seen a discernible trend toward leadership and order. Leading elements of this “new centralization” in congressional operations are described in this article. These include: contraction of the legislative workload; limitations in the numbers of participants at crucial junctures; resort to omnibus “mega-bills” to enact controversial policies; high levels of partisanship in voting; resurgence of leadership, especially in the House; and subtle shifts in power within the two chambers, primarily away from authorizing committees and toward fiscal committees. Taken together, these developments denote an institution markedly more cohesive and even hierarchical than portrayed in scholarly or journalistic accounts.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , Summer 1988 , pp. 345 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1988

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

Notes

1. Janda, Kenneth, Berry, Jeffrey M., and Goldman, Jerry, The Challenge of Democracy (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1987), p. 376.Google Scholar

2. Fritz, Sara, “Crisis on the Hill: Too Many Free Agents,” Los Angeles Times, 24 02 1988, Part I, 1 ff.Google Scholar

3. Smith, Hedrick, The Power Game: How Washington Works (New York: Random House, 1988), p. 39.Google Scholar

4. Reedy, George E., The U. S. Senate (New York: Crown Publishers, 1986).Google Scholar

5. Committee on the Constitutional System, A Bicentennial Analysis of the American Political Structure (Washington, DC: Committee on the Constitutional System, 1987), p. 6.Google Scholar

6. Smith, , The Power Game, p. 726.Google Scholar

7. Rapp, David, “Parties Close Ranks When Control Is at Stake,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 46 (16 01 1988), pp. 101–109Google Scholar. See also Cohen, Richard E. and Schneider, William, “Shift to the Left” National Journal (2 04 1988), pp. 873–78.Google Scholar

8. Pianin, Eric, “House Republicans Pursue Protest Tactics,” Washington Post, 3 11 1987, A21.Google Scholar

9. Davidson, Roger H., “Congressional Committees as Moving Targets,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 11 (02 1986): 32.Google Scholar

10. Fenno, Richard F. Jr., Congressmen in Committees (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973), pp. 137–38.Google Scholar

11. Among them Fenno, , Congressmen in CommitteesGoogle Scholar; Jones, Charles O., “Representation in Congress: The Case of the House Agriculture Committee,” American Political Science Review 55 (06 1961): 358–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Price, David E., Who Makes the Laws? (New York: Schenkman Publishing Co., 1972).Google Scholar

12. Davidson, Roger H. and Hardy, Carol, “Indicators of Senate Activity and Workload,” Congressional Research Service Report 87–497S (8 06 1987): 5, 32Google Scholar; “Indicators of House of Representatives Activity and Workload,” Congressional Research Service Report 87–136S (8 06 1987): 5–6, 27.Google Scholar

13. Schick, Allen, Congress and Money: Budgeting Spending and Taxing (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, 1980), chaps. 10, 11.Google Scholar

14. Mayhew, David R., Congress: The Electoral Connection (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

15. Davidson, and Hardy, , “Indicators of Senate Activity and Workload”Google Scholar; “Indicators of House of Representatives Activity and Workload.”

16. Tate, Dale, “Use of Omnibus Bills Burgeons Despite Members' Misgivings,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (25 09 1982), p. 2379.Google Scholar

17. The term “credit claiming” originated with Mayhew, , Congress: The Electoral Connection, pp. 52–61Google Scholar. Blame-avoidance strategies are discussed in Weaver, R. Kent, “The Politics of Blame,” The Brookings Review 5 (Spring 1987): 43–47.Google Scholar

18. Richardson, Sula P., “National Observances and other Commemorative Legislation,” Congressional Research Service Report 87–878GOV (30 10 1987): 1, 10.Google Scholar

19. Schick, , Congress and Money, p. 80.Google Scholar

20. Ellwood, John W., “The Great Exception: The Congressional Budget Process in an Age of Decentralization,” in Congress Reconsidered, ed. Dodd, and Oppenheimer, , 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: CQ, Press, 1985), pp. 315–42.Google Scholar

21. Thurber, James A., “The Consequences of Budget Reform for Congressional-Presidential Relations,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (09 1988, in press).Google Scholar

22. Hasbrouck, Paul D., Party Government in the House of Representatives (New York: Macmillan, 1927).Google Scholar

23. Congressional Record 134 (100th Congress, 2nd session), H3578 (24 05 1988, daily edition).Google Scholar

24. Smith, Steven S. and Bach, Stanley, “Craftsmanship on Capitol Hill: The Pattern of Diversity in Special Rules” (Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Political Science Association 14–16 04 1988).Google Scholar

25. Davidson, Roger H., Oleszek, Walter J., and Kephart, Thomas, “One Bill, Many Committees: Multiple Referrals in the House of Representatives,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 13 (02 1988): 3–28.Google Scholar

26. Hook, Janet, “Speaker Jim Wright Takes Charge in the House,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (11 07 1987), pp. 1483–1488Google Scholar; Cohen, Richard E., “Full Speed Ahead,” National Journal (30 01 1988), pp. 238–44.Google Scholar

27. Kenworthy, Tom, “Wright's High-Risk Strategy on Central America Pays Off,” Washington Post, 5 04 1988, A1.Google Scholar

28. Center for Responsive Politics, Congress Speaks—A Survey of the 100th Congress (Washington, DC: Center for Responsive Politics, 1988), pp. 1, 13.Google Scholar