Course Professor Term Meetings

PSCI 6331 Executives, Legislatures, and Public Policy Tom Brunell Fall 2011 Friday 4:00-6:45, GR 3.108

Professors Contact Information Office Phone 972-883-4963 Office Location GR 3.104 Email Address tbrunell@utdallas.edu Office Hours Tue/Thurs 11-12 and by appointment General Course Information Course This class examines current research and a wide range of theories about Description the U.S. Congress Learning Objectives Objectives of the course are to understand the role that the legislature and executive institutions of American government play in the public policy process. Students will be familiar with theories about the organization of Congress; the impact of the redistricting revolution; the role that elections play in representation and policymaking. Course assignments aim to develop students analytical ability and oral presentation skills. There are 6 books to purchase for the class Keith Krehbiel. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gary Cox and Mathew McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frances Lee. 2009. Beyond Ideology. University of Chicago Press. Required Texts & Materials Diana Evans. 2004. Greasing the Wheels: Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brunell, Thomas. 2008. Representation and Redistricting: Why Competitive Elections are Bad for America. New York: Routledge. Sulkin, Tracy. Issue Politics in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The rest of the required readings are from journals and can be found 1

on JSTOR.org or at the library. Course Policies Grading (credit) Criteria Attendance o Class Participation/Weekly questions: 25% o Discussion Leader/critical summary 25% o Research Paper: 50% Class attendance is required. You are responsible for all announcements and information given in class. Weekly questions: Each week (when you are not leading discussion) you should submit two discussion questions about the weeks readings. These questions will be the basis for class discussion and will be used to guide how we address the material each week. These questions are due by noon on the day of class. You will post them to WebCT so that everyone can read them and think about them. As a rule, no extensions are granted for written work. Unexcused late papers will be penalized one full grade per day. However, in case of an emergency, contact the professor as soon as possible to see if an exception can be made at the discretion of the professor. Documentation will be required of any emergency. Students should be attentive during class and be prepared to actively participate in each seminar. You are to treat your fellow classmates with respect and are expected to listen carefully when others are speaking. Disruptive students will be asked to leave and may be subject to disciplinary action. We will be using WebCT for the class, so you need to log on to WebCT regularly and post your discussion questions there. Paper Objectives and Guidelines Substantive Expectations (Critical summary and discussion leader): In the week that you lead the seminar discussion you will write a critical summary of the weeks readings. This paper should be 5-7 pages double space typed. The object of this critical review should be to identify the central issues that assigned readings for the week address. Students writing papers will present their analysis in class (~15 minutes). To accommodate seminar discussion, the critical analyses will be due no later than 24 hours in advance of seminar meeting time. Students shall post the paper on webct for the other students at least 24 hours in advance of the class and the paper author shall also place one copy in the instructors mailbox. In addition, you should be able to evaluate different theories and approaches, identifying the relevant assumptions, definitions, strengths, and weaknesses of each. Finally, you should be able to create a critical, engaged argument, using the texts as evidence. The paper should take into account the following questions: 1. What is the purpose of the readings, what is the theoretical concern, and what concepts are developed? 2. What is being studied, i.e. what is the unit of analysis and the scope of the study? 3. How is it being studied, in terms of what variables? 4. Are the conclusions suggestive or proven? Do the data support the inference? 5. What is the books significance? How does it fit into the literature? 2

Weekly Questions

Late Work

Classroom Citizenship Webct

6. How does the book challenge or add to our understanding of development? 7. What are the strengths and shortcomings of the book?

Schedule & Readings 8/26 Introduction/Syllabus Polsby and Shickler. 2002. Landmarks in the Study of Congress since 1945. Annual Review of Political Science. 5: 333-367. 9/2 No class APSA meeting 9/9 Congress as an Institution Nelson Polsby. 1969. The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives American Political Science Review. Jonathan Katz and Brian Sala. 1995. Careerism, Committee Assignments, and the Electoral Connection American Political Science Review. Erik Engstrom and Samuel Kernell. 2005. Manufactured Responsiveness: The Impact of State Electoral Laws on Unified Party Control of the President and House of Representatives, 18401940. American Journal of Political Science July: 547-565. Sarah Binder. 1996. The Partisan Basis of Procedural Choice: Allocating Parliamentary Rights in the House 1789-1990. American Political Science Review. Eric Schickler. 2000. Institutional Change in the House of Representatives, 1867-1998: A Test of Partisan and Ideological Power Balance Models. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, No. 2. (Jun., 2000), pp. 269-288. 9/16 Voting in Congress, Its about Ideology Keith Krehbiel. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 9/23 Parties as Cartels Gary Cox and Mathew McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 9/30 Connecting Campaigns to Voting Behavior Sulkin, Tracy. 2006. Issue Politics in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10/7 Committees Weingast, Barry and William J. Marshall. 1988. Industrial Organization of Congress: or Why Legislatures, Like Firms, Are Not Organized as Markets. Journal of Political Economy 96. King, David C. 1994. The Nature of Congressional Committee Jurisdictions. American Political Science Review. Groseclose, Tim, and Charles Stewart III. 1998. The Value of Committee Seats in the House, 1947-91. American Journal of Political Science 42:453-74. Baumgartner, Jones, and MacLeod. 2000. The Evolution of Legislative Jurisdictions. Journal of Politics. Gamm and Shepsle. 1989. Emergence of Legislative Institutions: Standing Committees in the House and Senate, 1810-1825. Legislative Studies Quarterly. Hall, Richard and Bernard Grofman. 1990. The Committee Assignment Process and the Conditional Nature of Committee Bias. American Political Science Review. 10/14 Voting Behavior John Kingdon, 1977. Models of Legislative Voting Journal of Politics Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal 1991. Patterns of Congressional Voting American Journal of Political Science. Joshua Clinton, Simon Jackman, and Douglas Rivers. 2004. The Statistical Analysis of RollCall Data. American Political Science Review. Steven Levitt, 1996. How Do Senators Vote? American Economic Review. 10/21 Congress and the Bureaucracy John D. Huber, Charles R. Shipan, Madelaine Pfahler. Legislatures and Statutory Control of Bureaucracy American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 330-345 John D. Huber; Charles R. Shipan. The Costs of Control: Legislators, Agencies, and Transaction Costs. Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Feb., 2000), pp. 25-52 Mathew McCubbins and Thomas Schwartz, 1984. Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols vs. Fire Alarms American Journal of Political Science.

Mathew McCubbins, Roger Noll, and Barry Weingast. Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 10/28 Incumbency Advantage Steven D. Levitt, Catherine D. Wolfram. Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Feb., 1997), pp. 45-60 Fenno, Richard. 1977. US House members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration. American Political Science Review 72(3): 883-917. Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina. 1984. The Constituency Service Basis of the Personal Vote for U.S. Representatives and British Members of Parliament. American Political Science Review 78(1): 110-125. Scott W. Desposato, John R. Petrocik. The Variable Incumbency Advantage: New Voters, Redistricting, and the Personal Vote. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 18-32. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and James Snyder. 2000. Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Estimate the Incumbency Advantage. American Journal of Political Science. 11/4 Ideology and Partisanship Frances Lee. 2009. Beyond Ideology. University of Chicago Press. 11/11 - Earmarks Diana Evans. 2004. Greasing the Wheels: Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 11/18 A Better Way? Brunell, Thomas. 2008. Why Competitive Elections are Bad for America: Redistricting and Representation. New York: Routledge. 11/25 Thanksgiving 12/2 Student Presentations