IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v87y1993i03p657-671_10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Destruction of Issue Monopolies in Congress

Author

Listed:
  • Jones, Bryan D.
  • Baumgartner, Frank R.
  • Talbert, Jeffery C.

Abstract

Scholars studying congressional committees have noted the potential for members to seek membership on particular committees, leading to bias. Underpinning this line of scholarship is what might be termed a theory of comparative committee statics, characterized by a cross-sectional empirical approach. We present a new approach that focuses on the dynamics of jurisdictional control. By following a series of issues through the committee hearing process, we show that there is indeed significant issue bias in particular committee venues. However, we also find that new committees often claim jurisdiction over issues as they are redefined in the political process. The degree of jurisdictional monopoly enjoyed by different committees has been overlooked in the literature on this topic in spite of its importance in determining the nature of representation of interests in Congress.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones, Bryan D. & Baumgartner, Frank R. & Talbert, Jeffery C., 1993. "The Destruction of Issue Monopolies in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 657-671, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:87:y:1993:i:03:p:657-671_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400100899/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. John de Figueiredo, 2013. "Committee jurisdiction, congressional behavior and policy outcomes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 119-137, January.
    2. Frank M Häge, 2020. "Allocating political attention in the EU’s foreign and security policy: The effect of supranational agenda-setters," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 634-656, December.
    3. Guillermo M. Cejudo & Philipp Trein, 2023. "Pathways to policy integration: a subsystem approach," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 9-27, March.
    4. Michiel Vries, 2005. "Institutional Fleecing: The Slow Death of Dutch Provinces," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 295-315, November.
    5. Xuejun Jin & Xiao Pan, 2023. "Government Attention, Market Competition and Firm Digital Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-27, June.
    6. Deserai A. Crow, 2010. "Policy Punctuations in Colorado Water Law: The Breakdown of a Monopoly," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(2), pages 147-166, March.
    7. Sitko, Nicholas j. & Babu, Suresh & Hoffman, Barak, 2017. "Practitioner’S Guidebook And Toolkit For Agricultural Policy Reform: The P.M.C.A. Approach To Strategic Policy Engagement," Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research Papers 259556, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security (FSP).
    8. Michael Gruszczynski & Sarah Michaels, 2012. "The evolution of elite framing following enactment of legislation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(4), pages 359-384, December.
    9. John M. de Figueiredo, 2011. "Committee Jurisdiction, Congressional Behavior and Policy Outcomes," NBER Working Papers 17171, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:87:y:1993:i:03:p:657-671_10. 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.