Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:01:38.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Avarice and Ambition in Congress: Representatives' Decisions to Run or Retire from the U.S. House

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Richard L. Hall  and
Robert P. Van Houweling
Richard L. Hall
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Robert P. Van Houweling
Affiliation:
Office of Senator Thomas A. Daschle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over two centuries ago, Adam Smith wrote of two passions that motivate those seeking public distinction: avarice and ambition. By investing these categories with appropriately concrete meaning, we develop a model of House members' career decisions. Like other individuals contemplating retirement options, politicians act with an eye to their financial interests, but not all financial interests are alike. The financial factor that matters most involves perennial considerations of post-retirement pension benefits, not fleeting opportunities to exploit ethically questionable sources of outside income. Second, we embed in the model a theory of intra-institutional ambition. Members impute value both to leadership positions they expect to retain and positions they expect to obtain. Majority members well-positioned to exert future legislative leverage are less likely to retire. Finally, several sources of electoral insecurity increase retirement probability. In the main, members may be reelection-seekers but will not pay any price to seek something they may not find.

Type
Research Notes
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 89 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 121 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1995

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.)

References

Achen, Christopher. 1978. “Measuring Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 21:805–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, John. 1954. The Political Writings of John Adams. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Ahuja, Sunil, and Beavers, Staci, Berreau, Cynthia, Dodson, Anthony, Hourigan, Patrick, Showalter, Steven, Walz, Jeff, and Hibbing, John R.. 1993. “Modern Congressional Election Theory Meets the 1992 House Elections.” University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Typescript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale Press.Google Scholar
Brady, David W. 1988. Critical Elections and Congressional Policy Making. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brealey, Richard, and Myers, Stewart. 1985. Principles of Corporate Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Chaffee, Kevin. 1991. Saving for a Rainy Day: How Congress Turns Leftover Campaign Cash into “Golden Parachutes.” Washington: Center for Public Integrity.Google Scholar
Cheney, Richard. 1989. “An Unruly House: A Republican View.” Public Opinion, Jan.-Feb, pp. 41–44.Google Scholar
“Congress Hikes Pay, Revises Ethics Law.” Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1989:51–60.Google Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and West, William. 1981. “Voluntary Retirement, Incumbency, and the Modern House.” Political Science Quarterly 96:279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan. Berkelye: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr., 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Foerstel, Karen. 1992. “In Surprise, Rep. Coughlin (R-PA) To Retire.” Roll Call, 24 February, p. 7.Google Scholar
“For the Record.” 1990. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, June, pp. 1750–53.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Timothy, and Krehbiel, Keith. 1994. “Golden Parachutes, Rubber Checks, and Strategic Retirements from the 102nd House.” American Journal of Political Science 38:75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R. 1982. “Voluntary Retirement from the U.S. House of Representatives: Who Quits?” American Journal of Political Science 30:651–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary, and Kernell, Samuel. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Eledions. New Haven: Yale Press.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and Zeng, Langche. 1993. “An Analysis of Congressional Career Decisions, 1947–1986.” American Political Science Review 87:928–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, David C. 1994. “The Nature of Congressional Committee Jurisdictions.” American Political Science Review 88:48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1968. Candidates for Office. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Loomis, Burdett. 1988. The New American Politician. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas, 1978. Unsafe at Any Margin. Washington: AE1 Press.Google Scholar
Ornstein, Norman. 1989. “You Get What You Pay For” Newsweek, January 16, 10.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson. 1968. “The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 62:144–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfro, William. 1992. “Green Pastures.” Atlantic Monthly, February, pp. 24–25.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, Joseph. 1966. Ambition in Politics: Political Careers in the United States. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1978. The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1801. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. 9th ed.London:Google Scholar
Twain, Mark. 1873. Letter to the Editor. New York Daily Tribune, 10 March, p. 5.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1992. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1992. Washington: GPO.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1965. Politics as a Vocation. Philadelphia: Fortress.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.