Abstract
This analysis examines initiatorsof specific issues within one large and encompassingpolicy domain in Congress, agriculture. The data arefrom an extensive survey of congressional members andstaff from stratified random samples of 113 individualoffices. One purpose is to determine differences betweenmembers with an agenda of new issues and those whobehave as maintainers of existing policy. The analysisalso finds that the circumstances of a postreformCongress enhance the importance of district effects onissue selection. These effects create substantiallymore congressional players within the domain thanwould be expected in much of the literature. Moreover,the behavior of these issue initiators seems largelydetermined by identifiable characteristics of theirhome-district populations. Those and other findings,especially the high rate of initiator success, callinto serious question many existing assumptions aboutexclusivity and specialization in committeedeliberations. It suggests instead that home-stylebehavior comes to Washington politics in ways thatexpand significantly the range of policy players.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abler, D.G. (1989). Vote trading on farm legislation in the US House, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71: 583–591.
Bauer, R.A., de Sola Pool, I. & Dexter, L.A. (1963). American business and public policy. New York: Atherton.
Barton, W.V. (1976). Coalition-building in the US House of Representatives: Agriculture legislation, in J.E. Anderson (ed.), Cases in public policy. New York: Praeger.
Baumgartner, F.R. & Jones, B.D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Birnbaum, J.H. & Murray, A.S. (1987). Showdown at Gucci Gulch. New York: Random.
Berry, J.M. (1984). Feeding hungry people: Rulemaking in the food stamp program. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Bonnen, J.T. (1973). Implications for agricultural policy, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 55: 391–398.
Bosso, C.J. (1987). Pesticides and politics: The life cycle of a public issue. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Browne, W. P. (1988). Private interests, public policy, and American agriculture. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Browne, W. P. (1990). Organized interests and their issue niches: Asearch for pluralism in a policy domain, Journal of Politics 52: 477–509.
Browne, W.P.& Paik, W.K. (1993). Beyond the domain: Recasting network politics in the postreform Congress, American Journal of Political Science 37: 1054–1078.
Browne, W.P. & Paik, W.K. (1994). Farmers and the US Congress: Rethinking basic institutional assumptions about agricultural policy, Agricultural Economics 11: 125–141.
Burgin, E. (1991). Representatives' decisions on participation in foreign policy issues, Legislative Studies Quarterly 16: 521–546.
Cohen, R.E. (1992). Washington at work: Back rooms and clean air. New York: Macmillan.
Cressie, N.A.C. (1991). Statistics for spatial data. New York: Wiley.
Economic Research Service (1991). Production cost data by region. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, ERS, Office of the Administrator.
Fenno, R,F., Jr (1973). Congressmen in committees. Boston: Little, Brown.
Fenno, R.F., Jr (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
Ferejohn, J. (1986). Logrolling in an institutional context: A case study of food stamp legislation, in G. C. Wright Jr, L.N. Rieselbach& L.C. Dodd (eds.), Congress and policy change. New York: Agathon.
Hall, R.L. (1987). Participation and purpose in committee decision making, American Political Science Review 81: 105–127.
Hadwiger, D.F. (1982). The politics of agricultural research. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Hansen, J.M. (1991). Gaining access: Congress and the farm lobby, 1919–ti1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hill, J.S. & Williams, K.C. (1993). The decline of private bills:Resource allocation, credit claiming, and the decision todelegate, American Journal of Political Science 37: 1008–1031.
Jones, C.O. (1961). Representation in Congress: The case of theHouse Agriculture Committee,American Political ScienceReview 55: 358–367.
Laumann, E.O. & Knoke, D. (1987). The organizational state:Social choice in national policy domains. Madison: Universityof Wisconsin Press.
Light, P.C. (1992). Forging legislation. New York: W. W.Norton.
Lowi, T.J. (1979). The end of liberalism: The second republic ofthe United States. New York: W. W. Norton.
Mayhew, D.R. (1974).Congress: The electoral connection. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.
Peters, J.G. 1982. The 1981 Farm Bill, in D.F. Hadwiger & R.B. Talbot (eds.), Food policy and farm programs. New York: Academy of Political Science.
Pindyck, R.S. & Rubinfeld, D.L. (1981). Econometric modelsand economic forecasts, 2nd edn. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Redman, E. (1973). The dance of legislation. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Reichelderfer, K. (1990). Environmental protection and agricultural support, in K. Allen (ed.), Agricultural policies in a new decade. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future and National Planning Association.
Rohde, D.W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rosenstone, S.J. & Hansen, J.M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
Salisbury, R.H. (1991). Putting interests back into interest groups, in A.J. Cigler & B.A. Loomis (eds.), Interest group politics, 3rd edn. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Salisbury, R.H. & Shepsle, K.A. (1981). US Congressman as enterprise, Legislative Studies Quarterly 6: 559–576.
Schluter, J. (1991). Report on sector GNP. Washington, DC: Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Shepsle, K.A. (1989a). Studying institutions: Some lessons from the rational choice approach, Journal of Theoretical Politics 1: 131–147.
Shepsle, K.A. (1989b). The changing textbook congress, in J.E. Chubb & P. Peterson (eds.), Can the government govern? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Sinclair, B. (1989).The transformation of the US Senate: Toward a rational choice explanation of social change, in M.P. Fiorina & D.W. Rohde (eds.), Home style and Washington work: Studies of congressional politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Smith, S.S. (1989). Call to order: Floor politics in the House and Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings.
Smith, S.S. & Deering, C.J. (1990). Committees in Congress, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Talbot, R.B. & Hadwiger, D.F. (1968). The policy process in American agriculture. San Francisco: Chandler.
Thurber, J.A. (1989). Budget continuity and change: An assessment of the congressional budget process, in D.K. Adams (ed.), Studies in modern American politics. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Thurber, J.A. (1991). The dynamics of policy subsystems in American politics, in J. Cigler& B.A. Loomis (eds.), Interest group politics, 3rd edn. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Browne, W.P., Paik, W.K. Initiating home-style issues in a postreform Congress. Agriculture and Human Values 14, 81–95 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007379407594
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007379407594