Electoral Change and Policy Representation in Congress: Domestic Welfare Issues from 1956–1972

Abstract

Many students of the United States Congress have contended that the institution is too closely tied to the interests of members' local constituencies. While the responsiveness this charge implies may seem laudable, the localism said to exist, especially in the House, weakens national agents of representation such as the political parties. Institutional features like seniority and the norm of reciprocity are often criticized for the premium they place upon members' success in their local constituencies, and the narrow, particularistic policy which results. Those who prefer a legislature responsive to national interests lament the disproportionate influence of constituencies with well-placed representatives on the committees and subcommittees in the House, and the fragmented, ‘distributive’ character of the legislative process.

Beyond the Demand-Input Model: A Theory of Representational Linkages

“…No comparable analyses exist for later periods, but data on mass attitudes toward social welfare and especially on the notable increase in support for such policies in the 1980s in Page and Shapiro (1992, 117-71) suggest the issue was salient from the 1950s through the end of their analyses in 1990. 11 For analyses of dyadic representation that demonstrate changes in the strength of linkage over a portion of this time period that are compatible with our argument, but that cannot fully address the issue of the direction of that linkage, see Page et al (1984) and Stone (1982). We emphasize, too, that our characterization of general social welfare as a hard party-defining issue applies to the 1970s and 1980s.…”

“… 11 For analyses of dyadic representation that demonstrate changes in the strength of linkage over a portion of this time period that are compatible with our argument, but that cannot fully address the issue of the direction of that linkage, see Page et al (1984) and Stone (1982). We emphasize, too, that our characterization of general social welfare as a hard party‐defining issue applies to the 1970s and 1980s.…”

“…Pomper's analysis (1975, 167-73) of public opinion shows that polarization between Democratic and Republican partisan identifiers on social welfare issues increased over the period 1956-1964, but declined thereafter, as our argument about increasing issue complexity implies should be the case. Mass perceptions of the parties' ideological differences, however, actually increased (see Stone 1982), indicating that the issue remained party defining. 10 In sum, the number and nature of "considerations" (Zaller 1992) raised in arguments about social welfare issues were few in the late 1950s, but grew considerably in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s.…”

“…Yet, newer work on the subject raises doubts about the universal applicability of the static demand‐input model of the representational process underlying such research by demonstrating that public opinion is not necessarily an exogenous and fixed force in the political system. Rather, public opinion itself can at times be influenced by events, elite political actors, or by public policy itself (see, among others, Cunningham and Moore 1997; Gerber and Jackson 1993; Hartley and Russett 1992; Hill and Hinton‐Andersson 1995; Hill and Hurley 1999; Page and Shapiro 1983, 1992; Stimson, MacKuen, and Erikson 1995; Stone 1982; Wlezien 1995).…”

How Policy and Procedure Shape Citizens' Evaluations of Senators

“…Other scholars have raised a similar question about representation from the perspective of an individual legislator: should a representative prioritize her particular constituents' preferences and interests over those of the national public (e.g., Rehfeld )? This can be thought of as a question about the “focus” (or “locus”) of representation a given representative provides, where “nationally focused” representation refers to responsiveness to the national public and “locally focused” representation refers to responsiveness to one's particular constituents—e.g., a Senator's responsiveness to people in her state (Eulau et al ; Fairlie ; Miller and Stokes ; Pitkin ; Stone ). Locally focused representation is closely tied to the concept of dyadic representation, and nationally focused representation is conceptually related to collective representation.…”