IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v107y2013i04p663-678_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

No Strength in Numbers: The Failure of Big-City Bills in American State Legislatures, 1880–2000

Author

Listed:
  • GAMM, GERALD
  • KOUSSER, THAD

Abstract

Do big cities exert more power than less populous ones in American state legislatures? In many political systems, greater representation leads to more policy gains, yet for most of the nation's history, urban advocates have argued that big cities face systematic discrimination in statehouses. Drawing on a new historical dataset spanning 120 years and 13 states, we find clear evidence that there is no strength in numbers for big-city delegations in state legislatures. District bills affecting large metropolises fail at much higher rates than bills affecting small cities, counties, and villages. Big cities lose so often because size leads to damaging divisions. We demonstrate that the cities with the largest delegations—which are more likely to be internally divided—are the most frustrated in the legislative process. Demographic differences also matter, with district bills for cities that have many foreign-born residents, compared with the state as a whole, failing at especially high rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Gamm, Gerald & Kousser, Thad, 2013. "No Strength in Numbers: The Failure of Big-City Bills in American State Legislatures, 1880–2000," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(4), pages 663-678, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:107:y:2013:i:04:p:663-678_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055413000397/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. David Switzer, 2020. "The Context of Responsiveness: Resident Preferences, Water Scarcity, and Municipal Conservation Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(2), pages 260-279, March.

    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:cup:apsrev:v:107:y:2013:i:04:p:663-678_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.