Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T03:23:06.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Divided Government and Significant Legislation: A History of Congress from 1789 to 2010

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

Stephen Ansolabehere ,
Maxwell Palmer  and
Benjamin Schneer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents and analyzes the most comprehensive database to date of significant acts of Congress—from 1789 to 2010—to test whether divided party control of government affects the number of important acts Congress passes. We find that unified control corresponds with one additional significant act passed per Congress in the nineteenth century and four additional such acts in the twentieth century. However, party control of government cannot explain the broad historical trends in the rate at which Congress passes significant legislation. Nixon in 1969 was far more successful with a Democratic Congress than was McKinley in 1897 with a Republican one.

Type
Articles
Information
Social Science History , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , Spring 2018 , pp. 81 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association, 2017 

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

Aldrich, John H. (1995) Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Niemi, Richard G. (1996) “The sixth American party system: Electoral change, 1952–1992,” in Craig, Stephen C. (ed.) Broken Contract? Changing Relationships between Americans and Their Government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 87–109.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., Berger, Mark M., and Rohde, David W. (2002) “The Historical Variability in Conditional Party Government, 1877–1986,” in Brady, David W. and McCubbins, Mathew Daniel (eds.) Party, process, and political change in Congress: New perspectives on the history of Congress. Vol. 1. Stanford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Palmer, Maxwell, and Schneer, Benjamin (2016) “What has Congress done?,” in Gerber, Alan S. and Schickler, Eric (eds.) Governing in a Polarized Age: Elections, Parties, and Political Representation in America. New York: Cambridge University Press: 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. (1999) “The dynamics of legislative gridlock, 1947–96.” American Political Science Review 93 (3): 519–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowling, Cynthia J., and Ferguson, Margaret R. (2001) “Divided government, interest representation, and policy differences: Competing explanations of gridlock in the fifty states.” Journal of Politics 63 (1): 182–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David W., and Volden, Craig (1998) Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Carter to Clinton. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Brady, David W., Cooper, Joseph, and Hurley, Patricia A. (1979) “The decline of party in the US House of Representatives, 1887–1968.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 75 (2): 381–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castel, Albert, and Gibson, Scott L. (1975) The Yeas and the Nays: Key Congressional Decisions, 1774–1945. Kalamazoo: New Issues Press, Institute of Public Affairs, Western Michigan University.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., and Lapinski, John S. (2006) “Measuring legislative accomplishment, 1877–1994.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (1): 232–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, John J. (1999) “Unified government, divided government, and party responsiveness.” American Political Science Review 93 (4): 821–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and Brady, David W. (1981) “Institutional context and leadership style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn.” American Political Science Review 75 (2): 411–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D. (1993) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D. (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CQ Almanac. n.d. Congressional Quarterly, Inc.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Edwards III, George C., Barrett, Andrew, and Peake, Jeffrey (1997) “The legislative impact of divided government.” American Journal of Political Science 91 (3): 545–63.Google Scholar
Epstein, David, and O'Halloran, Sharyn (1996) “Divided government and the design of administrative procedures: A formal model and empirical test.” The Journal of Politics 58 (2): 373–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. (1996) Divided Government. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Frymer, Paul (1994) “Ideological consensus within divided party government.” Political Science Quarterly 109 (2): 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, George B., and Wise, Sidney (1976) History of the House of Representatives. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Grant, J. Tobin, and Kelly, Nathan J. (2008) “Legislative productivity of the US Congress, 1789–2004.” Political Analysis 16 (3): 303–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Thomas R., and Jenkins, Jeffrey (2016) “Pivotal politics and the ideological content of landmark laws.” Paper presented at the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, September.Google Scholar
Howell, William, Adler, Scott, Cameron, Charles, and Riemann, Charles (2000) “Divided government and the legislative productivity of Congress, 1945–94.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25 (2): 285– 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. (1990) The Electoral Origins of Divided Government: Competition in US House Elections, 1946–1988. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Josephy, Alvin M. (1975) The American Heritage History of the Congress of the United States. New York: American Heritage Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Kelly, Sean Q. (1993) “Divided we govern? A reassessment.” Polity 25 (3): 475–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith (1998) Pivotal Politics: A Theory of US Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 21–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith (2006) “Macropolitics and micromodels: Cartels and pivots reconsidered,” in Adler, E. Scott and Lapinski, John (eds.) The Macropolitics of Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kriner, Douglas, and Schwartz, Liam (2008) “Divided government and congressional investigations.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 33 (2): 295–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapinski, John S. (2013) The Substance of Representation: Congress, American Political Development, and Lawmaking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
The Library of Congress (2015a) “Bill Texts,” https://www.congress.gov/.Google Scholar
The Library of Congress (2015b) A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: US Congressional Documents and Debates 1774–1875, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Susanne, and O'Halloran, Sharyn (1994) “Divided government and US trade policy: Theory and evidence.” International Organization 48 (4): 595–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew D (1998) The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Ornstein, Norman J. (2013) It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. (1991) Divided We Govern. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan M., Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard (2006) Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Parker, David C. W., and Dull, Matthew (2009) “Divided we quarrel: The politics of congressional investigations, 1947–2004.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 319–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Mark A. (1990) Legislating Together: The White House and Capitol Hill from Eisenhower to Reagan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard (1997) Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. (1991) Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Melody (2001) “Losing control: The intraparty consequences of divided government.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 31 (4): 679–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silbey, Joel H. (1996) “Divided government in historical perspective, 1789–1996,” in Galderisi, Peter F., Herzberg, Roberta Q., and McNamara, Peter (eds.) Divided Government: Change, Uncertainty, and the Constitutional Order. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield: 9–34.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda (1993) “America's first social security system: The expansion of benefits for Civil War veterans.” Political Science Quarterly 108 (1): 85–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda (1995) Protecting Soldiers and Mothers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skowronek, Stephen (1982) Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stathis, Stephen W. (2014) Landmark Legislation 1774–2012: Major US Act and Treaties, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Andrew J. (1998) “Explaining government productivity.” American Politics Research 26 (4): 439–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorson, Gregory R. (1998) “Divided government and the passage of partisan legislation, 1947–1990.” Political Research Quarterly 51 (3): 751–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wawro, Gregory J., and Katznelson, Ira (2014) “Designing historical social scientific inquiry: How parameter heterogeneity can bridge the methodological divide between quantitative and qualitative approaches.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 526–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ansolabehere et al supplementary material

Appendices A-C

Download Ansolabehere et al supplementary material(File)
File 46.1 KB