IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v80y1994i3-4p265-73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Committee Outlier Debate: A Review and a Reexamination of Some of the Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Groseclose, Tim

Abstract

An ongoing and controversial topic of congressional scholars is the question 'Are committees 'preference outliers' vis-a-vis their parent chamber?' Despite numerous research efforts showing isolated cases of outlying committees, little evidence shows a systematic tendency for committees to be representative of their legislature. A paper which comes close to being an exception is Weingast and Marshall's (1988) analysis of 'the industrial organization of Congress,' which reports evidence of many and very strongly outlying committees. However, the apparently strong evidence is due more to the authors' incorrectly executed methods than to a general tendency for committees to be outliners. In this note I review the state of the committee-outlier debate and also show that Weingast and Marshall's empirical results cannot be replicated. I accordingly provide the correct results once their statistical tests are properly executed. Copyright 1994 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Groseclose, Tim, 1994. "The Committee Outlier Debate: A Review and a Reexamination of Some of the Evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 80(3-4), pages 265-273, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:80:y:1994:i:3-4:p:265-73
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:80:y:1994:i:3-4:p:265-73. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.