IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/2136.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Theory of Competitive Partisan Lawmaking

Author

Listed:
  • Krehbiel, Keith

    (Stanford University)

  • Meirowitz, Adam

    (Princeton University)

  • Wiseman, Alan E.

    (Vanderbilt University)

Abstract

Motivated by polar extremes of monopartisanship and nonpartisanship in existing literature on parties in legislatures, we introduce and analyze a more moderate theory of competitive partisan lawmaking. The distinguishing feature of competitive partisanship is that the minority party, although disadvantaged, has some guaranteed opportunities to influence lawmaking. Our analytic framework focuses on two dimensions of parties in legislatures: agenda-based competition, operationalized as a minority party right to make an amendment to the majority party's proposal, and resource-based competition, characterized as the ability of both party leaders to use transferable resources when building winning or blocking coalitions. We find that giving voice to the minority party in either one of these ways alone results in outcomes that, on the whole, are less lopsided, more-moderate, and more prone to gridlock than those predicted by the existing monopartisan and nonpartisan models.

Suggested Citation

  • Krehbiel, Keith & Meirowitz, Adam & Wiseman, Alan E., 2013. "A Theory of Competitive Partisan Lawmaking," Research Papers 2136, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:2136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/RP2136.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weingast, Barry R & Marshall, William J, 1988. "The Industrial Organization of Congress; or, Why Legislatures, Like Firms, Are Not Organized as Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(1), pages 132-163, February.
    2. Thomas Romer & Howard Rosenthal, 1978. "Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 27-43, December.
    3. Hetherington, Marc J., 2009. "Review Article: Putting Polarization in Perspective," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 413-448, April.
    4. Dewan, Torun & Spirling, Arthur, 2011. "Strategic Opposition and Government Cohesion in Westminster Democracies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 337-358, May.
    5. David P. Baron, 2006. "Competitive Lobbying and Supermajorities in a Majority‐rule Institution," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 108(4), pages 607-642, December.
    6. Ernesto Dal Bo, 2000. "Bribing Voters," Economics Series Working Papers 39, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    7. James M. Snyder, 2005. "Why Roll Calls? A Model of Position-Taking in Legislative Voting and Elections," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 153-178, April.
    8. Jones, Charles O., 1968. "The Minority Party and Policy-Making in the House of Representatives," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 62(2), pages 481-493, June.
    9. Binder, Sarah A., 1996. "The Partisan Basis of Procedural Choice: Allocating Parliamentary Rights in the House, 1789–1990," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(1), pages 8-20, March.
    10. Ernesto Dal Bó, 2007. "Bribing Voters," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 789-803, October.
    11. Weingast, Barry R., 1989. "Floor Behavior in the U.S. Congress: Committee Power Under the Open Rule," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(3), pages 795-815, September.
    12. Schickler, Eric, 2000. "Institutional Change in the House of Representatives, 1867–1998: A Test of Partisan and Ideological Power Balance Models," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 269-288, June.
    13. Silvia Console-Battilana & Kenneth A. Shepsle, 2009. "Nominations for Sale," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 413-449, October.
    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. Matthias Dahm & Amihai Glazer, 2012. "How An Agenda Setter Induces Legislators to Adopt Policies They Oppose," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2012-11-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.
    2. 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.
    3. Maik T. Schneider, 2010. "The Larger the Better? The Role of Interest-Group Size in Legislative Lobbying," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 10/126, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    4. Dahm, Matthias & Glazer, Amihai, 2015. "A carrot and stick approach to agenda-setting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 465-480.
    5. Lee, Barton E., 2022. "Gridlock, leverage, and policy bundling," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    6. Glenn Parker & Matthew Dabros, 2012. "Last-period problems in legislatures," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 789-806, June.
    7. Monica Martinez-Bravo, 2014. "The Role of Local Officials in New Democracies: Evidence from Indonesia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(4), pages 1244-1287, April.
    8. Krehbiel, Keith & Meirowitz, Adam & Woon, Jonathan, 2004. "Testing Theories of Lawmaking," Research Papers 1860, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    9. Jaehoon Kim & Lawrence S. Rothenberg, 2008. "Foundations of Legislative Organization and Committee Influence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 20(3), pages 339-374, July.
    10. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7723 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Daniel Diermeier & Keith Krehbiel, 2003. "Institutionalism as a Methodology," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(2), pages 123-144, April.
    12. Kenneth Shepsle & Barry Weingast, 2012. "Why so much stability? Majority voting, legislative institutions, and Gordon Tullock," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 83-95, July.
    13. University of Montreal & Alessandro Riboni, 2009. "Ideology and Endogenous Constitutions," 2009 Meeting Papers 988, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    14. Brian Knight, 2000. "The flypaper effect unstuck: evidence on endogenous grants from the Federal Highway Aid Program," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2000-49, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    15. repec:wvu:wpaper:09-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Winschel, Evguenia, 2012. "Coalition formation for unpopular reform in the presence of private reputation costs," Working Papers 13-08, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    17. Scartascini, Carlos, 2007. "The Institutional Determinants of Political Transactions," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 1961, Inter-American Development Bank.
    18. Krehbiel, Keith & Diermeier, Daniel, 2001. "Institutionalism as a Methodology," Research Papers 1699, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    19. Feld, Lars P. & Kirchgassner, Gebhard, 2000. "Direct democracy, political culture, and the outcome of economic policy: a report on the Swiss experience," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 287-306, June.
    20. Russell Sobel & Matt Ryan, 2012. "Seniority and anti-competitive restrictions on the legislative common pool: tenure’s impact on the overall production of legislation and the concentration of political benefits," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 171-190, October.
    21. Mat McCubbins & Roger Noll & Barry Weingast, 2005. "The Political Economy of Law: Decision-Making by Judicial, Legislative, Executive and Administrative Agencies," Discussion Papers 04-035, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    22. Matsusaka, John G, 1995. "Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last 30 Years," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(3), pages 587-623, June.

    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:ecl:stabus:2136. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    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.