The Deinstitutionalization (?) of the House of Representatives: Reflections on Nelson Polsby's “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives” at Fifty

IF 0.5 3区 社会学 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
J. Jenkins, Charles Stewart
{"title":"The Deinstitutionalization (?) of the House of Representatives: Reflections on Nelson Polsby's “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives” at Fifty","authors":"J. Jenkins, Charles Stewart","doi":"10.1017/S0898588X18000093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article revisits Nelson Polsby's classic article “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives” fifty years after its publication, to examine whether the empirical trends that Polsby identified have continued. This empirical exploration allows us to place Polsby's findings in broader historical context and to assess whether the House has continued along the “institutionalization course”—using metrics that quantify the degree to which the House has erected impermeable boundaries with other institutions, created a complex institution, and adopted universalistic decision-making criteria. We empirically document that careerism plateaued right at the point Polsby wrote “Institutionalization,” and that the extension of the careerism trend has affected Democrats more than Republicans. The House remains complex, but lateral movement between the committee and party leadership systems began to reestablish itself a decade after “Institutionalization” was published. Finally, the seniority system as a mechanism for selecting committee chairs—the primary measure of universalistic decision-making criteria—has been almost thoroughly demolished. Thus, most of the trends Polsby identified have moderated, but have not been overturned. We conclude by considering the larger set of interpretive issues that our empirical investigation poses.","PeriodicalId":45195,"journal":{"name":"Studies in American Political Development","volume":"32 1","pages":"166 - 187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0898588X18000093","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in American Political Development","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X18000093","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This article revisits Nelson Polsby's classic article “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives” fifty years after its publication, to examine whether the empirical trends that Polsby identified have continued. This empirical exploration allows us to place Polsby's findings in broader historical context and to assess whether the House has continued along the “institutionalization course”—using metrics that quantify the degree to which the House has erected impermeable boundaries with other institutions, created a complex institution, and adopted universalistic decision-making criteria. We empirically document that careerism plateaued right at the point Polsby wrote “Institutionalization,” and that the extension of the careerism trend has affected Democrats more than Republicans. The House remains complex, but lateral movement between the committee and party leadership systems began to reestablish itself a decade after “Institutionalization” was published. Finally, the seniority system as a mechanism for selecting committee chairs—the primary measure of universalistic decision-making criteria—has been almost thoroughly demolished. Thus, most of the trends Polsby identified have moderated, but have not been overturned. We conclude by considering the larger set of interpretive issues that our empirical investigation poses.
众议院的去机构化(?):对纳尔逊·波尔斯比《美国众议院的机构化》五十周年的反思
本文回顾了Nelson Polsby出版50年后的经典文章《美国众议院的制度化》,以检验Polsby所确定的经验趋势是否持续。这种实证探索使我们能够将波尔斯比的发现放在更广泛的历史背景下,并评估众议院是否继续沿着“制度化进程”前进——使用量化众议院与其他机构建立不可渗透的边界、创建复杂机构和采用普世决策标准的程度的指标。我们从经验上记录了,在波尔斯比写《制度化》的时候,野心主义就停滞不前了,而且野心主义趋势的延伸对民主党人的影响比共和党人更大。众议院仍然很复杂,但在《制度化》出版十年后,委员会和政党领导系统之间的横向运动开始重建。最后,作为选拔委员会主席机制的资历制度——普遍决策标准的主要衡量标准——几乎被彻底废除了。因此,波尔斯比确定的大多数趋势都有所缓和,但并未被推翻。最后,我们考虑了我们的实证调查提出的一系列更大的解释问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Studies in American Political Development (SAPD) publishes scholarship on political change and institutional development in the United States from a variety of theoretical viewpoints. Articles focus on governmental institutions over time and on their social, economic and cultural setting. In-depth presentation in a longer format allows contributors to elaborate on the complex patterns of state-society relations. SAPD encourages an interdisciplinary approach and recognizes the value of comparative perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信