IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v15y2003i3p345-360.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy-Making by Different Means

Author

Listed:
  • David C. Nixon

Abstract

Formal theories of majority voting suggest that the organizing rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS) present the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with the opportunity to sway the policy statements of the JCUS in favor of his preferred language. Existing political science literature on the Chief Justice demonstrates that Chiefs use their authority to pursue their policy agendas in a variety of other settings. The membership of the JCUS Executive Committee - a particularly important committee in the Conference - is examined over the 1970-98 period. Both Chiefs during this period consistently stacked the committee with conservative policy outliers, and did so in a sophisticated strategic fashion.

Suggested Citation

  • David C. Nixon, 2003. "Policy-Making by Different Means," Rationality and Society, , vol. 15(3), pages 345-360, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:15:y:2003:i:3:p:345-360
    DOI: 10.1177/10434631030153003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10434631030153003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10434631030153003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shepsle, Kenneth A. & Weingast, Barry R., 1987. "The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(1), pages 85-104, March.
    2. Hall, Richard L. & Grofman, Bernard, 1990. "The Committee Assignment Process and the Conditional Nature of Committee Bias," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(4), pages 1149-1166, December.
    3. Krehbiel, Keith & Shepsle, Kenneth A. & Weingast, Barry R., 1987. "Why are Congressional Committees Powerful?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(3), pages 929-945, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fang-Yi Chiou, 2011. "The role of procedural commitment in informational theories of legislative organization," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(4), pages 532-558, October.
    2. Kathleen Bawn & Gregory Koger, 2008. "Effort, Intensity and Position Taking," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 67-92, January.
    3. Ryan J. Vander Wielen, 2013. "Why conference committees? A theory of conference use in structuring bicameral agreement," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 3-35, January.
    4. Anne Rasmussen, 2008. "The EU Conciliation Committee," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 87-113, March.
    5. Moser, Peter, 1999. "The impact of legislative institutions on public policy: a survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-33, March.
    6. Eric Schickler, 2020. "Causal inference and American political development: common challenges and opportunities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 501-511, December.
    7. Amihai Glazer & Anthony McGann, 2005. "Direct Democracy and the Stability of State Policy," Working Papers 050615, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    8. Gonzalo Caballero Miguez, 2006. "The industrial organization of Congress in USA and Spain: a comparative institutional analysis," Revista de Analisis Economico – Economic Analysis Review, Universidad Alberto Hurtado/School of Economics and Business, vol. 21(2), pages 105-123, December.
    9. Randall S. Kroszner, 2000. "The economics and politics of financial modernization," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Oct, pages 25-37.
    10. Keith Krehbiel, 2004. "Legislative Organization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(1), pages 113-128, Winter.
    11. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    12. Stuart Kasdin & Luona Lin, 2015. "Strategic behavior by federal agencies in the allocation of public resources," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 309-329, September.
    13. Mariano Tommasi & Valeria Palanza & Carlos Scartascini, 2013. "A Tale of Two Latin American Congresses. Towards a Comparative Study of Institutionalization and Effectiveness," Working Papers 111, Universidad de San Andres, Departamento de Economia, revised Jun 2013.
    14. K. Kanthak, 2004. "Exclusive Committee Assignments and Party Pressure in the U.S. House of Representatives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 391-412, February.
    15. Caruso, Germán & Scartascini, Carlos & Tommasi, Mariano, 2015. "Are we all playing the same game? The economic effects of constitutions depend on the degree of institutionalization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 212-228.
    16. repec:gig:joupla:v:3:y:2011:i:3:p:95-126 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Randall S. Kroszner & Philip E. Strahan, 2001. "Obstacles to Optimal Policy: The Interplay of Politics and Economics in Shaping Bank Supervision and Regulation Reforms," NBER Chapters, in: Prudential Supervision: What Works and What Doesn't, pages 233-272, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Thomas König & Thomas Bräuninger, 1998. "The Inclusiveness of European Decision Rules," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 125-142, January.
    19. A. Abigail Payne, 2003. "The Effects of Congressional Appropriation Committee Membership on the Distribution of Federal Research Funding to Universities," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(2), pages 325-345, April.
    20. John M. de Figueiredo & Brian S. Silverman, 2002. "Academic Earmarks and the Returns to Lobbying," NBER Working Papers 9064, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Cheryl L. Eavey & Gary J. Miller, 1995. "Subcommittee Agenda Control," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 7(2), pages 125-156, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:15:y:2003:i:3:p:345-360. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.