Divided Politics: Bicameralism, Parties, and Policy in Democratic Legislatures

Literature Cited

1. Alt JE, Lowry RC. 1994. Divided government, fiscal institutions, and budget deficits: Evidence from the states. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev 88:811–28 [Google Scholar]
2. Bach S. 1982. Germaneness rules and bicameral relations in the U.S. Congress. Legis. Stud. Q 7:341–57 [Google Scholar]
3. Baylis TA. 1989. Governing by Committee: Collegial Leadership in Advanced Societies Albany: State Univ. NY Press [Google Scholar]
4. Binder SA. 1999. The dynamics of legislative gridlock, 1947–1996. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev 93:519–33 [Google Scholar]
5. Binder SA. 2003. Stalemate Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. [Google Scholar]
6. Bottom WP, Eavey CL, Miller GJ, Victor JN. 2000. The institutional effect on majority rule instability: bicameralism in spatial policy decisions. Am. J. Polit. Sci 44:523–40 [Google Scholar]
7. Boudreau C, McCubbins MD. 2006. The visible hand in the marketplace of ideas: theory and experiments regarding competition and citizen learning. Work. pap., Univ. Calif. San Diego
8. Bowler S, Farrell DM, Katz R. 1999. Party cohesion, party discipline, and parliaments. In Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government ed. S Bowler, DM Farrell, RS Katz pp. 3–22 Columbus: Ohio State Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
9. Bradbury JC, Crain WM. 2001. Legislative organization and government spending: cross-country evidence. J. Public Econ 82:309–25 [Google Scholar]
10. Bradbury JC, Crain WM. 2002. Bicameral legislature and fiscal policy. South. Econ. J 68:646–59 [Google Scholar]
11. Budge I, McDonald MD. 2007. Election and party system effects on policy representation: bringing time into a comparative perspective. Elect. Stud. In press [Google Scholar]
12. Calvert RL. 1987. Reputation and legislative leadership. Public Choice 55:81–119 [Google Scholar]
13. Campion L. GCB. 1953–1954. Second chambers in theory and practice. Parliam. Aff. 7:17–32 [Google Scholar]
14. Carey JM, Shugart MS. 1995. Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Elect. Stud 14:417–39 [Google Scholar]
15. Coakley J, Laver M. 1997. Options for the future of the Seanad Éireann. In Second Progress Report: Seanad Éireann ed. All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution pp. 32–107 Dublin: Stationery Off. [Google Scholar]
16. Congleton RD. 2003. On the merits of bicameral legislatures: policy stability within partisan polities. In European Governance. Jahrbuch für Neue Politische Ökonomie ed. MJ Holler, H Kliemt, D Schmidtchen, ME Streit pp. 29–49 Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck [Google Scholar]
17. Cox GW. 1987. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
18. Cox GW. 2007. The organization of democratic legislatures. In Oxford Handbook of Political Economy ed. BR Weingast, D Wittman Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press [Google Scholar]
19. Cox GW, McCubbins MD. 1991. Divided control of fiscal policy. In The Politics of Divided Government ed. GW Cox, S Kernell pp. 155–75 Boulder, CO: Westview [Google Scholar]
20. Cox GW, McCubbins MD. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
21. Cox GW, McCubbins MD. 1994. Bonding, structure, and the stability of political parties: party government in the House. Legis. Stud. Q 19:215–31 [Google Scholar]
22. Cox GW, McCubbins MD. 2002. Agenda power in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1877 to 1986. In Party, Process, and Political Change: New Perspectives on the History of Congress ed. D Brady, MD McCubbins, pp.150–219. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
23. Cox GW, McCubbins MD. 2006. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S House of Representatives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
24. Cox GW, McKelvey RD. 1984. A ham sandwich theorem for general measures. Soc. Choice Welfare 1:75–83 [Google Scholar]
25. Cox GW, Tutt TN. 1984. Universalism and allocative decision making in the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. J. Polit 46:546–55 [Google Scholar]
26. de Dijn A. 2005. Balancing the constitution: bicameralism in post-revolutionary France, 1814–31. Eur. Rev. Hist. 12:(July)249–68 [Google Scholar]
27. de Miñón MH. 1975. The passing of bicameralism. Am. J. Comp. Law 23:236–54 [Google Scholar]
28. Diermeier D, Myerson RB. 1999. Bicameralism and its consequences for the internal organization of legislatures. Am. Econ. Rev 89:1182–96 [Google Scholar]
29. Donahoe AR. 2001. One size does not fit all: Do unicameral or bicameral parliaments work best. Parliamentarian 82:359–66 [Google Scholar]
30. Druckman JN, Martin LW, Thies MF. 2005. Influence without confidence: upper chambers and government formation. Legis. Stud. Q 30:529–48 [Google Scholar]
31. Druckman JN, Thies MF. 2002. The importance of concurrence: the impact of bicameralism on government formation and duration. Am. J. Polit. Sci 46:760–71 [Google Scholar]
32. Economist. 2006. Rattling Tony Blair. http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VGNNRVG
33. Edwards GC III. 1997. The legislative impact of divided government. Am. J. Polit. Sci 41:545–63 [Google Scholar]
34. Elliot W, Walker G. 1953–1954. Delaying power: two views. Parliam. Aff. 7:121–28 [Google Scholar]
35. Evans CL. 2001. Committees, leaders, and message politics. In Congress Reconsidered ed. LC Dodd, BI Oppenheimer pp. 217–39 Washington, DC: CQ Press [Google Scholar]
36. Evans CL, Oleszek MJ. 2001a. Message politics and partisan theories of Congress. Presented at Annu. Meet. Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc., Chicago
37. Evans CL, Oleszek MJ. 2001b. Message politics and Senate procedure. In The Contentious Senate: Partisanship, Ideology, and the Myth of Cool Judgement ed. CC Campbell, NC Rae pp. 107–27 Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield [Google Scholar]
38. Filippov M, Ordeshook PC, Shvetsova OV. 2004. Designing Federalism: A Theory of Self-Sustainable Federal Institutions Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
39. Freedom House. 2006. Freedom in the World Washington, DC: Freedom House [Google Scholar]
40. Hammond TH, Miller GJ. 1987. The core of the Constitution. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev 81:1155–74 [Google Scholar]
41. Heller WB. 1997. Bicameralism and budget deficits: the effect of parliamentary structure on government spending. Legis. Stud. Q 22:485–516 [Google Scholar]
42. Heller WB. 2001a. Making policy stick: why the government gets what it wants in multiparty parliaments. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 45:780–98 [Google Scholar]
43. Heller WB. 2001b. Political denials: the policy effect of intercameral partisan differences in bicameral parliamentary systems. J. Law Econ. Org. 17:34–61 [Google Scholar]
44. Heller WB. 2005. Bedfellow politics: the effect of institutional checks on preferences and policy. Presented at Conf. Legislative Behavior in Europe, the US, and Beyond, Berkeley, Calif.
45. Heller WB. 2006. Divided we stand: preferences, parties, and policy in bicameral legislatures. Presented at Annu. Meet. Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc., Chicago
46. Heller WB, Mershon C. 2004. Dealing in discipline: party switching and legislative voting in the Italian chamber of Deputies, 1988–2000. Work. pap., Binghamton Univ.
47. Heller WB, Mershon C. 2005a. Legislator preferences, party desires: party switching and the foundations of policy making in legislatures. Presented at Annu. Meet. Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc., Chicago
48. Heller WB, Mershon C. 2005b. Party switching in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1996–2001. J. Polit. 67:536–59 [Google Scholar]
49. Heller WB, Weldon JA. 2003. Reglas de votación y estabilidad en la Cámara de Diputados. In El Congreso Mexicano después de la alternancia pp. 79–112 Mexico City: AMEP/Inst. Investigaciones Legislativas de la Cámara de Senadores [Google Scholar]
50. Hinich MJ, Munger MC. 1997. Analytical Politics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
51. Hiroi T. 2005. Bicameralism and the dynamics of lawmaking in Brazil. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., Washington, DC
52. Interparliamentary Union. 2006. PARLINE database. http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/parlinesearch.asp
53. Jones CO. 1968. Joseph G. Cannon and Howard W. Smith: an essay on the limits of leadership in the House of Representatives. J. Polit. 30:617–46 [Google Scholar]
54. Katz JN, Sala BR. 1996. Careerism, committee assignments, and the electoral connection. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev 90:21–33 [Google Scholar]
55. Kiewiet DR, McCubbins MD. 1991. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
56. Krehbiel K. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
57. Krehbiel K. 1993. Where's the party. Br. J. Polit. Sci 23:235–66 [Google Scholar]
58. Krehbiel K. 1996. Institutional and partisan sources of gridlock: a theory of divided and unified government. J. Theor. Polit 8:7–40 [Google Scholar]
59. Krehbiel K. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of US Lawmaking Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
60. Laver M, Shepsle KA. 1996. Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
61. Laver M, Shepsle KA. 1999. How political parties emerged from the primeval slime: party cohesion, party discipline, and the formation of governments. In Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government ed. S Bowler, DM Farrell, RS Katz pp. 23–48 Columbus: Ohio State Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
62. Lijphart A. 1979. Consociation and federation: conceptual and empirical links. Can. J. Polit. Sci 12:499–515 [Google Scholar]
63. Lijphart A. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
64. Lijphart A. 1987. Bicameralism: Canadian senate reform in comparative perspective. In Federalism and the Role of the State ed. H Bakvis, WM Chandler pp. 101–12 Toronto: Univ. Toronto Press [Google Scholar]
65. Lupia A, McCubbins MD. 1994. Who controls? Information and the structure of legislative decision making. Legis. Stud. Q 19:361–84 [Google Scholar]
66. Lupia A, Strøm K. 1995. Coalition termination and the strategic timing of parliamentary elections. Am. J. Polit. Sci 89:648–65 [Google Scholar]
67. Madison J. 1947 (1778). In The Federalist: A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States ed. EG Bourne pp. 353–58 New York: Tudor [Google Scholar]
68. Martin S. 1995. Why committees? multiparty ministerial government and legislators’ preferences in comparative perspective Work. pap., Trinity College Dublin [Google Scholar]
69. McCarty N, Cutrone M. 2007. Does bicameralism matter. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy ed. BR Weingast, D Wittman Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press [Google Scholar]
70. McCubbins MD. 1991a. Government on lay-away: federal spending and deficits under divided party control. In The Politics of Divided Government ed. GW Cox, S Kernell pp. 113–54 Boulder, CO: Westview [Google Scholar]
71. McCubbins MD. 1991b. Party governance and U.S. budget deficits: divided government and fiscal stalemate. In Politics and Economics in the Eighties ed. A Alesina, G Carliner pp. 83–122 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
72. Miller GJ, Hammond TH, Kile C. 1996. Bicameralism and the core: an experimental test. Legis. Stud. Q 21:83–103 [Google Scholar]
73. Müller-Rommel F. 1988. Federal Republic of Germany: a system of chancellor government. In Cabinets in Western Europe ed. J Blondel, F Müller-Rommel pp. 171–91 London: Macmillan [Google Scholar]
74. Olson M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
75. Osborne MJ, Rubinstein A. 1990. Bargaining and Markets San Diego, CA: Academic [Google Scholar]
76. Plott CR. 1991. Will economics become an experimental science. South. Econ. J 57:901–19 [Google Scholar]
77. Rasch BE. 1995. Parliamentary voting procedures. In Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe ed. H Döring pp. 488–527 Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag and St. Martin’s [Google Scholar]
78. Rasch BE. 2000. Parliamentary floor voting procedures and agenda setting in Europe. Legis. Stud. Q 25:3–23 [Google Scholar]
79. Raunio T. 1999. The challenge of diversity: party cohesion in the European parliament. In Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government ed. S Bowler, DM Farrell, RS Katz pp. 189–207 Columbus: Ohio State Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
80. Riker WH. 1980. Implications from the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev 74:432–46 [Google Scholar]
81. Riker WH. 1992. The justification of bicameralism. Int. Polit. Sci. Rev 13:101–16 [Google Scholar]
82. Rogers JR. 1998. Bicameral sequence: theory and state legislative evidence. Am. J. Polit. Sci 42:1052–60 [Google Scholar]
83. Rogers JR. 2001. An informational rationale for congruent bicameralism. J. Theor. Polit 13:123–51 [Google Scholar]
84. Rohde DW. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
85. Romer T, Rosenthal H. 1978. Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo. Public Choice 33:27–44 [Google Scholar]
86. Rosenthal H. 1990. The setter model. In Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting ed. JM Enelow, MJ Hinich pp. 199–234 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
87. Russell M. 2001a. The territorial role of second chambers. J. Legis. Stud. 7:105–18 [Google Scholar]
88. Russell M. 2001b. What are second chambers for. Parliam. Aff. 54:442–58 [Google Scholar]
89. Shepsle KA. 1978. The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle: Democratic Committee Assignments in the Modern House Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
90. Shepsle KA. 1979. Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. Am. J. Polit. Sci 23:27–59 [Google Scholar]
91. Snyder JM Jr., Ting MM. 2002. An informational rationale for political parties. Am. J. Polit. Sci 46:90–110 [Google Scholar]
92. Strøm K, Müller WC, Bergman T. ed. 2003. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
93. Thies MF. 2001. Keeping tabs on partners: the logic of delegation in coalition governments. Am. J. Polit. Sci 45:580–98 [Google Scholar]
94. Thorson GR. 1998. Divided government and the passage of partisan legislation, 1947–1990. Polit. Res. Q 51:751–64 [Google Scholar]
95. Tsebelis G. 1990. Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
96. Tsebelis G. 1995. Decision making in political systems: veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism, and multipartism. Br. J. Polit. Sci 25:289–326 [Google Scholar]
97. Tsebelis G. 1999. Veto players and law production in parliamentary democracies: an empirical analysis. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev 93:591–608 [Google Scholar]
98. Tsebelis G. 2000. Veto players and institutional analysis. Governance 13:441–74 [Google Scholar]
99. Tsebelis G. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work New York and Princeton: Russell Sage Found. and Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
100. Tsebelis G, Money J. 1995. Bicameral negotiations: the Navette system in France. Br. J. Polit. Sci 25:101–29 [Google Scholar]
101. Tsebelis G, Money J. 1997. Bicameralism Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
102. Tsebelis G, Rasch BE. 1995. Patterns of bicameralism. In Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe ed. H Döring pp. 365–90 New York: St. Martin's [Google Scholar]
103. Weingast BR. 1992. Fighting fire with fire: amending activity and institutional change in the postreform Congress. In The Postreform Congress ed. RH Davidson pp. 142–68 New York: St. Martin’s [Google Scholar]
104. Weldon JA. 1997. The political sources of presidencialismo in Mexico. In Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America ed. S Mainwaring, MS Shugart pp. 225–58 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
105. Weldon JA. 2004. Changing patterns of executive-legislative relations in Mexico. In Dilemmas of Political Change in Mexico ed. KJ Middlebrook pp. 133–67 London and San Diego: Inst. Latin-Am. Stud., Univ. London/Cent. U.S.-Mex. Stud., Univ. Calif. San Diego [Google Scholar]
106. Wheare KC. 1967. Legislatures London, Oxford, and New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]