IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v47y2003i3p503-522.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Pivotal Politics Meets Partisan Politics

Author

Listed:
  • Fang‐Yi Chiou
  • Lawrence S. Rothenberg

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed many efforts to understand legislative productivity and gridlock. However, despite theoretical and empirical contributions to how preferences and institutions shape political gridlock's level (e.g., Krehbiel 1996, 1998) and empirical evidence about how parties may affect political gridlock (e.g., Binder 1999; Coleman 1999), we lack a comprehensive perspective theoretically and empirically examining preferences, institutions, and parties. We overcome this deficiency by modeling conditions for gridlock as a function of preferences and institutions—incorporating bicameralism and presidential influence—and of parties. By generating equilibrium gridlock intervals for empirical testing using Poole's (1998) common space scores, and showing that gridlock intervals associated with models in which parties have no effect or an agenda‐setting role do not explain policy gridlock but that those linked to models with party‐unity effects and strong presidential leadership do, we demonstrate the importance of accounting for party and leadership roles in explaining legislative choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Fang‐Yi Chiou & Lawrence S. Rothenberg, 2003. "When Pivotal Politics Meets Partisan Politics," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(3), pages 503-522, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:47:y:2003:i:3:p:503-522
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-5907.00036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00036
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-5907.00036?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. Steven A. Matthews, 1989. "Veto Threats: Rhetoric in a Bargaining Game," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 104(2), pages 347-369.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alan E. Wiseman & John R. Wright, 2008. "The Legislative Median and Partisan Policy," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 5-29, January.
    2. Justin Fox, 2006. "Legislative Cooperation among Impatient Legislators," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 18(1), pages 68-97, January.
    3. Chris Den Hartog & Nathan Monroe, 2015. "The Jeffords switch and legislator rolls in the U.S. Senate," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 25-43, October.
    4. Christian Bjørnskov & Niklas Potrafke, 2012. "Political Ideology and Economic Freedom Across Canadian Provinces," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 143-166.
    5. Martin Gross & Marc Debus, 2018. "Gaining new insights by going local: determinants of coalition formation in mixed democratic polities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 61-80, January.
    6. Krehbiel, Keith, 2005. "Pivots," Research Papers 1865r1, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    7. Thomas R. Gray & Jeffery A. Jenkins, 2017. "Unpacking pivotal politics: exploring the differential effects of the filibuster and veto pivots," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(3), pages 359-376, September.
    8. Ryan J. Vander Wielen & Michael J. Vander Wielen, 2020. "Unpacking the unknown: a method for identifying status quo distributions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 182(1), pages 49-72, January.
    9. Thomas H. Hammond, 2015. "A unified spatial model of American political institutions," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 11, pages 182-200, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. David M. Primo & Sarah A. Binder & Forrest Maltzman, 2008. "Who Consents? Competing Pivots in Federal Judicial Selection," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 471-489, July.
    11. Fang-Yi Chiou & Lawrence S. Rothenberg, 2016. "Presidential unilateral action: partisan influence and presidential power," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 145-171, April.
    12. Shu-Hsien Liao & Da-Chian Hu & Huan-Lun Chou, 2022. "Consumer Perceived Service Quality and Purchase Intention: Two Moderated Mediation Models Investigation," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.

    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. Tim Besley & Rohini Pande, 1998. "Read my lips: the political economy of information transmission," IFS Working Papers W98/13, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Nunnari, Salvatore, 2021. "Dynamic legislative bargaining with veto power: Theory and experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 186-230.
    3. Adrian de Groot Ruiz & Theo Offerman & Sander Onderstal, 2011. "An Experimental Study of Credible Deviations and ACDC," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-153/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Navin Kartik & Andreas Kleiner & Richard Van Weelden, 2021. "Delegation in Veto Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(12), pages 4046-4087, December.
    5. , & ,, 2014. "Rhetoric in legislative bargaining with asymmetric information," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(2), May.
    6. Austen-Smith, David & Banks, Jeffrey S., 2000. "Cheap Talk and Burned Money," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 1-16, March.
    7. Adrian Groot Ruiz & Theo Offerman & Sander Onderstal, 2014. "For those about to talk we salute you: an experimental study of credible deviations and ACDC," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(2), pages 173-199, June.
    8. Debraj Ray & Rajiv Vohra, 2015. "The Farsighted Stable Set," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83(3), pages 977-1011, May.
    9. Fabrice Lehoucq & Gabriel Negretto & Francisco Aparicio & Benito Nacif & Allyson Benton, 2005. "Instituciones políticas, procesos de diseño de políticas y resultados de las políticas en México," Research Department Publications 3205, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    10. Matthews, Steven A. & Okuno-Fujiwara, Masahiro & Postlewaite, Andrew, 1991. "Refining cheap-talk equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 247-273, December.
    11. Lehoucq, Fabrice & Negretto, Gabriel & Aparicio, Francisco Javier & Nacif, Benito & Benton, Allyson Lucinda, 2005. "Political Institutions, Policymaking Processes, and Policy Outcomes in Mexico," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 3354, Inter-American Development Bank.
    12. Steven A. Matthews & Andrew Postlewaite, 1992. "On Modeling Cheap Talk in Bayesian Games," Discussion Papers 992, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    13. Gad Allon & Achal Bassamboo, 2011. "Buying from the Babbling Retailer? The Impact of Availability Information on Customer Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(4), pages 713-726, April.
    14. Groseclose, Timothy J. & McCarty, Nolan, 1999. "The Politics of Blame: Bargaining before an Audience," Research Papers 1617, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    15. Kwiek, Maksymilian & Marreiros, Helia & Vlassopoulos, Michael, 2019. "Voting as a war of attrition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 104-121.
    16. 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.
    17. Françoise Forges & Jérôme Renault, 2021. "Strategic information transmission with sender’s approval," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(2), pages 475-502, June.
    18. Françoise Forges & Jérôme Renault, 2020. "Strategic information transmission with sender's approval," Working Papers hal-02440627, HAL.
    19. Sémirat, S. & Forges, F., 2021. "Strategic information transmission with sender's approval: the single-crossing case," Working Papers 2021-03, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    20. Saori Chiba, 2024. "Information Transmission and Countervailing Biases in Organizations," Games, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-25, May.

    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:wly:amposc:v:47:y:2003:i:3:p:503-522. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.