Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-fnl2l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-10T14:39:46.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Rethinking Rules: Creativity and Constraint in the U.S. House of Representatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Adam Sheingate
Edited by
James Mahoney  and
Kathleen Thelen
James Mahoney
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Kathleen Thelen
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access

Summary

Rules are a characteristic feature of political institutions. They govern the order and conduct of business within institutions and the distribution of power and authority among them. Rules also structure the behavior of goal-oriented actors, for example, by establishing the parameters for strategic interaction. Rules, in other words, define the scope of permissible actions. As a source of constraint, rules are a part of the regulative, normative, and cognitive structures that shape the alternatives actors confront (Clemens and Cook 1999).

But rules have a double-edged quality; they do more than limit alternatives or set the parameters for strategic interaction. Rules also provide actors with creative leeway. In this way, rules are at once constraining and empowering. Consider, for example, how rules operate as a component of a game. According to the game designers Frank Lantz and Eric Zimmerman (1999), the rules of a game engender play. Whereas the rules, “the laws that determine what can and cannot happen,” may be fixed and rigid, play, the human experience of a game “set into motion by the players' choices and actions,” is creative and improvisational (Lantz and Zimmerman 1999). As they describe the process:

Within the strictly demarcated confines of the rules, play emerges and ripples outwards, bubbling up through the fixed and rigid rule-structure in unexpected patterns. During play, relationships between parts becomes [sic] a complex system, capable of producing intricate patterns.…Uncertainty, produced by randomness or by a rich palette of strategic choice is a necessary ingredient of successful gameplay. Just try to imagine a game without the pleasurable suspense of an uncertain ending.

(Lantz and Zimmerman 1999)
Type
Chapter
Information
Explaining Institutional Change
Ambiguity, Agency, and Power
 , pp. 168 - 203
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 2000. “The Consequences of Party Organization in the House: The Roles of the Majority and Minority Parties in Conditional Party Government.” In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, ed. Bond, John R. and Fleisher, Richard, ch. 3. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, Alva Stanwood. 1970 [1916]. History and Procedure of the House of Representatives. New York: Burt Franklin.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah. 1997. Minority Rights, Majority Rule: Partisanship and the Development of Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah. 2007. “Where Do Institutions Come From? Exploring the Origins of the Senate Blue Slip.” Studies in American Political Development 21 (March): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David, and Epstein, David. 1997. “Intraparty Preferences, Heterogeneity, and the Origins of the Modern Congress: Progressive Reformers in the House and Senate, 1890–1920.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 13 (April): 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemens, Elisabeth S., and Cook, James M.. 1999. “Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change.” Annual Review of Sociology 25:441–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Joseph. 1988 [1960]. Congress and Its Committees. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and Brady, David. 1981. “Institutional Context and Leadership Style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn.” American Political Science Review 75 (June): 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and Young, Cheryl D.. 1989. “Bill Introduction in the Nineteenth Century: A Study of Institutional Change.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 14 (February): 67–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Greenstone, J. David. 1986. “Political Culture and American Political Development: Liberty, Union, and the Liberal Bipolarity.” Studies in American Political Development 1:1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hechler, Kenneth W. 1940. Insurgency: Personalities and Politics of the Taft Era. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Herrigel, Gary. 2007. “Roles and Rules: Ambiguity, Experimentation and New Forms of Stakeholderism in Germany.” Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
Hinds, Asher C. 1907. Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States. Vols. 1–5. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles O. 1968. “Joseph G. Cannon and Howard W. Smith: An Essay on the Limits of Leadership in the House of Representatives.” Journal of Politics 30 (August): 617–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katznelson, Ira, and Lapinksi, John S.. 2006. “At the Crossroads: Congress and American Political Development.” Perspectives on Politics 4 (June): 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, David C. 1997. Turf Wars: How Congressional Committees Claim Jurisdiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Desmond S., and Smith, Rogers M.. 2005. “Racial Orders in American Political Development.” American Political Science Review 99 (February): 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantz, Frank, and Zimmerman, Eric. 1999. “Rules, Play and Culture: Towards an Aesthetic of Games.” Available at http://www.ericzimmerman.com/texts/RulesPlayCulture.htm.
Linhares, Alexandre. 2005. “An Active Symbols Theory of Chess Intuition.” Minds and Machines 15 (May): 131–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Roger Q. 1889. “Republican Tactics in the House.” North American Review 149 (December): 665–672.Google Scholar
Norris, George W. 1945. Fighting Liberal: The Autobiography of George W. Norris. New York: MacMillan Company.Google Scholar
Padgett, John F., and Ansell, Christopher K.. 1993. “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400–1434.” American Journal of Sociology 98 (May): 1259–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 1968. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 63 (March): 787–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Walter W., and Colyvas, Jeannette A.. 2008. “Microfoundations of Institutional Theory.” In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, ed. Sahlin-Andersson, Kerstin, Greenwood, Roysten, Oliver, Christine, and Suddaby, Roy, ch. 10. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Roberts, Jason M., and Smith, Steven S.. 2007. “The Evolution of Agenda-Setting Institutions in Congress: Path Dependency in House and Senate Institutional Development.” In Process, Party, and Policy Making: Further New Perspectives on the History of Congress, ed. Brady, David and McCubbins, Matthew, ch. 13. Palo Alto, CA: Sanford University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, William A. 1930. Thomas B. Reed, Parliamentarian. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric. 2001. Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1999. “Transformational Leader or Faithful Agent? Principal-Agent Theory and House Majority Party Leadership.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24 (August): 421–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strahan, Randall. 2007. Leading Representatives: The Agency of Leaders in the Politics of the U.S. House. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, Wolfgang, and Thelen, Kathleen. 2005. “Introduction: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies.” In Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, ed. Streeck, Wolfgang and Thelen, Kathleen, ch. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen. 2004. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, Kellee S. 2006. “Adaptive Informal Institutions and Endogenous Institutional Change in China.” World Politics. 59 (October): 116–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,United States Congress, House Committee on Rules. 1983. A History of the Committee on Rules: 1st to 97th Congress, 1789–1981. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×