Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:19:09.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diffusion in Congress: Measuring the Social Dynamics of Legislative Behavior*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2016

René Lindstädt ,
Ryan J. Vander Wielen  and
Matthew Green
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While there is a substantial literature highlighting the presence of social dynamics in legislatures, we know very little about the precise processes that generate these social dynamics. Yet, whether social dynamics are due to peer pressure, frequency of interaction, or genuine learning, for example, has important implications for questions of political representation and accountability. We demonstrate how a recent innovation can be used to study the diffusion of behavior within legislatures. In particular, we study diffusion within the US House of Representatives by looking at the dynamic process underlying discharge petitions. The discharge procedure shares many characteristics with other forms of legislative behavior, yet it has one important advantage when it comes to studying social dynamics: we can observe when members decide to sign petitions. Based on data from 1995 to 2014, we find that the social dynamics underlying the discharge procedure tend to involve the rational evaluation of information conveyed by the behavior of previous petition signatories.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 511 - 527
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

*

René Lindstädt is the Head of the School of Law and Politics, Professor of Law, and Professor of Politics at Cardiff University, Law Building, Museum Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3AX, Wales (LindstaedtR@cardiff.ac.uk). Ryan J. Vander Wielen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and (by courtesy) the Department of Economics, Temple University, 457 Gladfelter Hall, 1115 West Berks Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA (vanderwielen@temple.edu). Matthew Green is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Catholic University of America, 315 Marist Hall, 620 Michigan Avenue, Washington, DC 20064, USA (greenm@cua.edu). To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.42

References

Arnold, Laura W., Deen, Rebecca E., and Patterson, Samuel C.. 2000. ‘Friendship and Votes: The Impact of Interpersonal Ties on Legislative Decision Making’. State & Local Government Review 32:142–147.Google Scholar
Bikhchandani, Sushil, Hirshleifer, David, and Welch, Ivo. 1992. ‘A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change in Informational Cascades’. Journal of Political Economy 100:992–1026.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A., Lawrence, Eric D., and Maltzman, Forrest. 1999. ‘Uncovering the Hidden Effect of Party’. Journal of Politics 61:815–831.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A., and Rouse, Stella M.. 2011. ‘Networks in the Legislative Arena: How Group Dynamics Affect Cosponsorship’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36:423–460.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2005. ‘The Discharge Petition as a Minority Party Strategy’. Paper presented at the 2005 American Politics Research Workshop, 21 November, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Patterson, Samuel C.. 1987. ‘Political Friendship in the Legislature’. Journal of Politics 49:953–975.Google Scholar
Campbell, Colton C. 2002. Discharging Congress: Government by Commission. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chaddock, Gail Russell. 2010. ‘How Tea Party Senators Stared Down Mitch McConnell on Earmark Ban; Pressure from Tea Party-Backed Republican Freshman Senators Led Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to Reverse Course: He Said Monday He Would Back an Earmark Ban’. The Christian Science Monitor, 15 November.Google Scholar
Cho, Wendy K. Tam, and Fowler, James H.. 2010. ‘Legislative Success in a Small World: Social Network Analysis and the Dynamics of Congressional Legislation’. Journal of Politics 72:124–135.Google Scholar
Crombez, Christophe, Groseclose, Tim, and Krehbiel, Keith. 2006. ‘Gatekeeping’. Journal of Politics 68:322–344.Google Scholar
Deffuant, Guillaume, Huet, Sylvie, and Amblard, Frederic. 2005. ‘An Individual-Based Model of Innovation Diffusion Mixing Social Value and Individual Benefit’. American Journal of Sociology 110:1041–1069.Google Scholar
Elkins, Zachary, and Simmons, Beth. 2005. ‘On Waves, Clusters, and Diffusion: A Conceptual Framework’. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 598:33–51.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H. 2006a. ‘Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks’. Political Analysis 14:456–487.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H. 2006b. ‘Legislative Cosponsorship Networks in the U.S. House and Senate’. Social Networks 38(4):454–465.Google Scholar
Gillman, Todd J. 2010. ‘Senate Republicans Agree to Moratorium on Earmarks’. The Dallas Morning News, 17 November.Google Scholar
Harward, Brian M., and Moffet, Kenneth W.. 2010. ‘The Calculus of Cosponsorship in the U.S. Senate’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 35:117–143.Google Scholar
Jacobs, David. 2012. Renewable Energy Policy Convergence in the EU: The Evolution of Feed-In Tarriffs in Germany, Spain and France. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John. 1981. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1995. ‘Cosponsors and Wafflers from A to Z’. American Journal of Political Science 39:906–923.Google Scholar
Kuran, Timur. 1991. ‘Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution of 1989’. World Politics 44:7–48.Google Scholar
Lindstädt, René, and Martin, Andrew D.. 2007. ‘Discharge Petition Bargaining in the House, 1995-2000’. Paper Presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, 6 April 2003, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Masket, Seth E. 2008. ‘Where You Sit is Where You Stand: The Impact of Seating Proximity on Legislative Cue-Taking’. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3:301–311.Google Scholar
Matthews, Donald R., and Stimson, James A.. 1975. Yeas and Nays: Normal Decision-Making in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mugny, Gabriel, and Papastamou, Stamos. 2006. ‘When Rigidity Does Not Fail: Individualization and Psychologization as Resistances to the Diffusion of Minority Innovations’. European Journal of Social Psychology 10:43–61.Google Scholar
Nicholson-Crotty, Sean. 2009. ‘The Politics of Diffusion: Public Policy in the American States’. Journal of Politics 71:192–205.Google Scholar
Patty, John W. 2007. ‘The House Discharge Procedure and Majoritarian Politics’. Journal of Politics 69:678–688.Google Scholar
Pearson, Kathryn, and Schickler, Eric. 2009. ‘Discharge Petitions, Agenda Control, and the Congressional Committee System, 1929-76’. Journal of Politics 71:1238–1256.Google Scholar
Saltiel, John, Bauer, James W., and Palakovich, Sandy. 2010. ‘Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: Diffusion, Farm Structure, and Profitability’. Rural Sociology 59:333–349.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric, Pearson, Kathryn, and Feinstein, Brian D.. 2010. ‘Congressional Parties and Civil Rights Politics from 1933 to 1972’. Journal of Politics 72:672–689.Google Scholar
Shipan, Charles R., and Volden, Craig. 2006. ‘Bottom-Up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from U.S. Cities to States’. American Journal of Political Science 50:825–843.Google Scholar
Shipan, Charles R., and Volden, Craig. 2008. ‘The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion’. American Journal of Political Science 52:840–857.Google Scholar
Weenig, Mieneke. 2006. ‘Communication Networks in the Diffusion of an Innovation in an Organization’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29:1072–1092.Google Scholar
Young, H. Peyton. 2009. ‘Innovation Diffusion in Heterogeneous Populations: Contagion, Social Influence and Social Learning’. American Economic Review 99:1899–1924.Google Scholar
Zhang, Yan, Friend, Andrew J., Traud, Amanda L., Porter, Mason A., Fowler, James H., and Mucha, Peter J.. 2008. ‘Community Structure in Congressional Cosponsorship Networks’. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 387:1705–1712.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Lindstädt et al. Dataset

Dataset

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CJZB8X
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Lindstädt supplementary material

Appendix

Download Lindstädt supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 282 KB