IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v20y2008i2p201-220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Navigating the Legislative Divide

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew N. Beckmann

    (Department of Political Science & Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California, Irvine, 3151 Social Science Plaza, Irvine, CA 92697, USA, beckmann@uci.edu)

  • Anthony J. McGann

    (Department of Political Science & Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California, Irvine, 3151 Social Science Plaza, Irvine, CA 92697, USA, amcgann@uci.edu)

Abstract

Polarization hallmarks contemporary Washington's political landscape. While an increasing literature examines the factors propelling this schism, theoretical work investigating its consequences has just begun. Building from a simple bargaining model in which an exogenous actor (e.g. the president) strategically allocates scarce `political capital' to induce changes in legislators' preferences, we examine how varying the chamber's preference distribution affects the policies that result. Instead of miring presidents' preferred policies in gridlock, the model shows that ideological polarization — in the form of a bimodal distribution — can actually enable a president to pass policies closer to his ideal than would have been possible under greater ideological homogeneity.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew N. Beckmann & Anthony J. McGann, 2008. "Navigating the Legislative Divide," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 20(2), pages 201-220, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:20:y:2008:i:2:p:201-220
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629807085818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629807085818
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629807085818?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James M. Snyder, 1991. "On Buying Legislatures," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(2), pages 93-109, July.
    2. Fleisher, Richard & Bond, John R., 2004. "The Shrinking Middle in the US Congress," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 429-451, July.
    3. Groseclose, Tim, 1996. "An Examination of the Market for Favors and Votes in Congress," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(2), pages 320-340, April.
    4. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135-135.
    5. Canes-Wrone, Brandice & Shotts, Kenneth W., 2007. "When Do Elections Encourage Ideological Rigidity?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(2), pages 273-288, May.
    6. Groseclose, Tim & Snyder, James M., 1996. "Buying Supermajorities," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(2), pages 303-315, June.
    7. Coleman, John J., 1999. "Unified Government, Divided Government, and Party Responsiveness," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 821-835, December.
    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. Ernesto Dal Bo, 2000. "Bribing Voters," Economics Series Working Papers 39, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    2. Matthew N. Beckmann & Vimal Kumar, 2011. "How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(1), pages 3-20, January.
    3. De Figueiredo, John M. & De Figueiredo, Rui J. P. Jr., 2002. "The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation," Working papers 4247-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    5. Stuart Kasdin & Luona Lin, 2015. "Strategic behavior by federal agencies in the allocation of public resources," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 309-329, September.
    6. DAHM, Matthias & PORTEIRO, Nicolas, 2003. "The political economy of interest groups: pressure and information," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2003057, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. Sanford C. Gordon & Dimitri Landa, 2018. "Polarized preferences versus polarizing policies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 193-210, July.
    8. Silvia Console-Battilana & Kenneth A. Shepsle, 2009. "Nominations for Sale," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 413-449, October.
    9. Ali Lazrak & Jianfeng Zhang, 2023. "Democratic Policy Decisions with Decentralized Promises Contingent on Vote Outcome," Papers 2304.08008, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    10. Spenkuch, Jörg, 2014. "Backward Induction in the Wild: Evidence from the U.S. Senate," MPRA Paper 58766, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Dellis, Arnaud, 2023. "Legislative informational lobbying," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    12. John M. de Figueiredo & Rui J.P. de Figueiredo, 2002. "The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation," NBER Working Papers 8981, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Ash, Elliott & MacLeod, W. Bentley, 2021. "Reducing partisanship in judicial elections can improve judge quality: Evidence from U.S. state supreme courts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    14. Ulrich Matter & Paolo Roberti & Michaela Slotwinski, 2019. "Vote Buying in the US Congress," CESifo Working Paper Series 7841, CESifo.
    15. R. Aytimur, 2014. "Importance of status quo when lobbying a coalition government," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 203-219, August.
    16. Amy Pond, 2021. "Biased politicians and independent agencies," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(3), pages 279-299, July.
    17. Jan Zápal, 2017. "Crafting consensus," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 169-200, October.
    18. Chen, Ying & Zápal, Jan, 2022. "Sequential vote buying," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    19. Bils, Peter & Duggan, John & Judd, Gleason, 2021. "Lobbying and policy extremism in repeated elections," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    20. Schneider, Maik T., 2014. "Interest-group size and legislative lobbying," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 29-41.

    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:sae:jothpo:v:20:y:2008:i:2:p:201-220. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.