PSC 615 ‑‑
American National Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Institutions
Fall 2005
Instructor: Steve Borrelli
306 ten Hoor,
(205) 348‑3802, 348‑5980
(main office),
Mailing Address:
Mailbox: Room 346A ten
Hoor, open
E‑Mail Address for
Questions, Comments, Notification of Absences, etc. sborrell@bama.ua.edu
E-Mail Address for Submitting Papers: sborrpapers@yahoo.com
Website for Handouts and
Syllabi: bama.ua.edu/~sborrell
OFFICE HOURS: Mondays 11 AM – 1 PM, Thursdays 2 – 4 PM, and
by appt.
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
An
overview of classic and contemporary original empirical research on the US
Congress, the US Presidency, and the US Supreme Court. Emphasis will be on learning not just the
substantive findings of this research, but who produced it, the theoretical
frameworks underlying it, the process by which it is is produced, and
(hopefully) how it all fits together.
COURSE OBJECTIVES:
Students
will
a.) Gain a basic familiarity with and
understanding of the major current issues, authors, and findings in the study
of Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, with some attention to the
politics of the executive branch;
b.) Learn how to evaluate critically research
done by other authors, pointing out strengths and weaknesses in logic,
definition of concepts and variables, research design and methodology, and/or
interpretation of evidence;
c.) Learn how to answer questions similar to
those that will appear on comprehensive exams in the area of American politics,
which will involve associating researchers with their work, and linking
research done by different authors at different points in time.
d.) Through the term paper exercise, gain
expertise either at translating recent research findings into teachable
material for undergraduates, or at
building on current research to propose a plausible new project of one’s own.
BOOKS TO PURCHASE.
1 How Congress Evolves
by
Nelson Polsby
Publisher:
2. Presidential Power (Power, Conflict, and
Democracy: American Politics into the 21st Century)
by
Robert Y. Shapiro (Editor), Martha Joynt Kumar (Editor),
Publisher:
3. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model
Revisited
by
Jeffrey Segal and Harold Spaeth.
Publisher:
ARTICLES TO DOWNLOAD AND
PRINT
The
bulk of the reading for this course will be articles from peer-reviewed
academic journals. Links are provided
for most of the articles so that they can be accessed directly from the online
syllabus.
Most
of the articles will be available at JSTOR
(www.jstor.org).
ASSIGNMENTS
A. TERM
PAPER (worth 30% of final grade)
RESEARCH OPTION: Write
a 12-15 pp. research proposal for an original research paper on some aspect of
Congress, the Presidency, or the Supreme Court.
Demonstrate how your proposed paper would fit in with previous research
on the topic in question (this means reviewing not only articles read for this
course but other unassigned articles and books you may find cited therein).
Discuss how your proposal would both build on previous work and address areas
of inconsistency, confusion, error, or neglect in previous work. Discuss in as
much detail as possible how you would conduct your research, most importantly
the specific kinds of quantitative and/or qualitative data you would need, how
it would be gathered or obtained from other sources, and how it would be
analyzed or interpreted (you do not have to specify a statistical technique,
but you do need to identify independent, dependent, and control variables, units
of analysis, etc..
A student who
plans to take this option should write a one or two page mini-proposal during the month of November to give
the instructor some idea of what he or she will be working on.
TEACHING OPTION:
Prepare 15-20 pp. chapter for an undergraduate textbook---aimed at
college sophomores and juniors---on one of the topics listed below. Your chapter should integrate basic factual
material that the students should know about the topic AND relevant findings
from recent scientific research on the topic (gathered mostly, but not
exclusively, from the syllabus for this course). Use footnotes to identify specific points or
discussions where original political science research is being cited (if you feel
that a particular author or work is of tremendous importance, you may mention
him or her in the text, but remember the book is aimed at undergraduates who
are more interested in what recent research has found than in who found it or
how). If you are unfamiliar with your
topic, you will probably have to consult existing textbooks in order to gain
some idea of what is typically covered.
You might also need to read, or at least skim, unassigned research
articles that you find cited in assigned articles.
Students choosing
the Teaching Option must “reserve” a topic with the instructor before
Thanksgiving Break; no two students will
be allowed to work on the same topic, so the earlier a topic is reserved the
better.
POSSIBLE TOPIC
AREAS FOR TEACHING PAPER:
Congressional
Elections
Congressmen's
Relations with their Constituents
Parties, Party
Leaders, and Partisanship in Congress
Congressional
Committees
Presidential Power
Presidential
Advisers and Staff
Presidents and the Public
Presidential-Congressional
Relations and the Impact of Divided Government
Presidential
Relations with, and Influence on, The Federal Bureaucracy
Selecting Supreme
Court Justices
How the Supreme
Court Decides What Cases to Decide
How the Supreme
Court Discusses and Rules on Cases
Students may write
on topics other than those listed here with instructor's permission.
B.) ARTICLE SUMMARIES AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
(collectively, worth 20% of final grade)
Each week, each
student will summarize and lead discussion on an assigned article or chapter
from the week’s readings. The order of
assignments will be alphabetical by student’s last name and will rotate (if
there are not enough readings for the week to cover all the students in the
class, the first assignment of the following week will go to the next student
in alphabetical order).
1.)
SUMMARY: Students will prepare both oral and written
summaries of their assigned article or chapter.
The written summary will be distributed to the entire class and should
be about 2 pp. long double-spaced. DO
NOT simply copy the article abstracts (this is an easily detectable form of
cheating!) The student will give a FIVE
MINUTE oral summary of his or her written summary; this time limit will be strictly
enforced! It is OK to use notes for
your oral summary, but you should NOT simply read your written summary out loud
(we can all do that for ourselves).
2.)
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: At the end of his or her summary, the student
will attach two questions for class discussion. The questions should be fruitful (i.e., not
“dead-end”) and designed to encourage participation. Ideally, the questions will relate to the
practical or academic implications of the article and/or the process by which
the research was done. The questions
can relate the article or chapter to current events, but be careful about
questions that would cause class discussion to degenerate into a political talk
show-style debate.
C.)
Final Exam (worth 30% of the
final grade). Wednesday, December 14. at
(PLEASE NOTE: This is
NOT the official date/time designated for classes that begin MWF at
D.)
CLASS PARTICIPATION (worth 20% of the final grade)
Midway through the
semester and again at the end of the semester, students will assign each other
participation grades (within the range 70-100), and the instructor will assign
all students participation grades. The
final participation score will computed as follows: 25% average evaluation score from other
students at midterm, 25% evaluation score from instructor at midterm, 25%
average evaluation score from other students during final week of classes, 25%
evaluation score from instructor during final week of classes.
SCHEDULE OF TOPICS AND
Introduction (no reading yet)
August 26
"Classic" Research on
Congressional Elections – September 2
Cover, Albert. 1977. One Good Term Deserves Another. American Journal of Political Science,
21: 523-542.
Ferejohn, John. 1977. On
the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review, 71 (March)
165-176.
Fiorina, Morris. 1988. The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It. American Political Science Review, 71 (March)
177-181
Johannes, John, and John MacAdams.
1981. The Congressional
Incumbency Effect: Is it Casework,
Policy Compatibility, or Something Else?
American Journal of Political Science, 25 (August) 512-542.
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Some Problems in Studying the Effect of
Resource Allocation in Congressional Elections.
American Journal of Political Science, 25 (August) 543-567.
Jacobson, Gary. 1989. Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of US
House Elections. American Political
Science Review, 83 (September) 773-793.
“Contemporary” Research on
Congressional Elections -- September 9
Cox, Gary, and Jonathan Katz.
1996. Why Did the Incumbency
Advantage in US House Elections Grow?
American Journal of Political Science, 40 (May) 478-497.
Desposato, Scott
W. and John R. Petrocik. 2003. “The Variable Incumbency Advantage: New
Voters, Redistricting, and the Personal Vote.”
American
Journal of Political Science.
Vol. 47 No. 1 Jan. pp. 18-32
ON MY WEBSITE:
Chapters from Congress Reconsidered by Oppenheimer (“Deep Red and Blue
Congressional Districts”) and Fiorina (“Keystone Revisited”)
Abramowitz,
Alan, Brad Alexander, and Matthew Gunning.
2005. “Incumbency, Redistricting,
and the Decline of Competition in US House Elections.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the
Southern Political Science Association,
Canes-Wrone,
Brandice, David Brady, and John Cogan.
2002. Out of Step, Out of
Office: Electoral Accountability and
House Members’ Voting. American
Political Science Review, 96 (March):
127.
Jones,
David, and Monika McDermott. 2004. The Responsible Party Government Model in
House and Senate Elections. American
Journal of Political Science, 48 (January) 1-12.
Polsby’s “How Congress Evolves” (entire) -- September 16
Congressional Procedures,
Partisanship, and Leadership September
23
Cooper, Joseph, and David Brady.
1981. Institutional Conflict and
Leadership Style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn. American Political Science Review, 75 (June)
411-425.
Binder, Sara. 1996. The Partisan Basis of Procedural Choice: Allocating Parliamentary Rights in the House,
1789‑1990. American Political
Science Review, 90: 8‑ 20.
Binder, Sara, and Steven Smith.
1998. Political Goals and
Procedural Choice in the Senate. Journal
of Politics, 60: 398‑416.
Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. Where’s the Party? British Journal of Political Science,
23:235-66.
Snyder, James and Tim Groseclose.
2000. “Party Pressure in
Congressional Roll Call Voting.”
American Journal of Political Science, 44: 193-211.
*** Sinclair, Barbara.
2002. Do Parties Matter? In David Brady and Mathew McCubbins, ed.s,
Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress.
Roberts, Jason, and Steven Smith.
2003. Procedural Contexts, Party
Strategy, and Conditional Party Voting in the
Congressional Committees &
Interest Group Influence in Congress, September 30
Krehbiel, Keith. 1990. Are Congressional Committees Composed of
Preference Outliers? American Political
Science Review, 84 (March):149-163.
Hall, Richard, and Bernard Grofman. 1990. The
Committee Assignment Process and the Conditional Nature of Committee Bias. American Political Science Review, 84: 1149-1166.
Krehbiel, Keith, Kenneth Shepsle, and Barry Weingast. 1987.
Why are Congressional Committees Powerful? American Political Science Review,
81:929-948.
Baumgartner, Frank, Bryan Jones, and Michael MacLeod. 2000.
The Evolution of Legislative Jurisdictions. Journal of Politics, 62: 321-349.
Groseclose, Tim, and Charles Stewart III. 1998.
The Value of Committee Seats in the House 1947-1991. American Journal of Political Science
42:453-474.
Hall, Richard, and Frank Wayman.
1990. Buying Time: Moneyed Interest and the Nature of Bias. American Political Science Review, 84:
797-820.
Hojnacki, Marie, and David Kimball. 1998.
Organized Interests and the Decision of Whom to Lobby in Congress. American Political Science Review, 92"
775-790.
Congress and
Representation; Public Opinion Toward
Congress, October 7
Miller, Warren, and Donald Stokes.
1963. Constituency Influence in
Congress. American Political Science
Review, 57 (March) 45-56.
Achen, Christopher.
1978. Measuring
Representation. American Journal of
Political Science, 22 (August) 475-510.
Fenno, Richard. 1977. US House Members in their Constituencies: An Exploration. American Political Science Review, 71
(September) 883-917.
Oppenheimer, Bruce.
1996. The Representational
Experience: The Effect of State
Population on Senator-Constituency Linkages.
American Journal of Political Science, 40 (November) 1280-1299.
(The Following Should Be Read Together)
Lublin, David. 1999. Racial Redistricting and African-American
Representation: A Critique of (Epstein
and O’Halloran)” American Political
Science Review, 93 (March): 183-186.
Epstein, David, and Sharyn O’Halloran. 1999.
A Social Science Approach to Race, Redistricting, and
Representation. APSR, 93 (March):
187-192.
Durr, Robert, John Gilmour, and Christina Wolbrecht. 1997.
Explaining Congressional Approval.
American Journal of Political Science, 41 (January): 175-207.
Studying the Presidency: Theoretical Approaches October 14
From Shapiro et al. book:
Edwards, "Neustadt's Power Approach"
Gunnell, "Richard Neustadt in the History of American
Political Science"
Ragsdale, “Personal Power and Presidents”
Lieberman, "Political Time and Policy Coalitions"
Neustadt, "A Preachment from Retirement"
Jacobs and Shapiro, "Presidential Power, Institutions, and
Democracy"
Presidential Approval; Presidential Selection; the White House Staff October 21
Brace, Paul, and Barbara Hinckley.
1991. The Structure of
Presidential Approval. Journal of
Politics, 53: 993‑1017.
Nicholson, Stephen, Gary Segura, and Nathan Woods.
2002. Presidential Approval and
the Mixed Blessing of Divided Government.
Journal of Politics, 64 (August) 701-720.
Baum, Matthew, and Samuel
Kernell. 1999. Has Cable Ended the Golden Age of Presidential Television? American Political Science Review, 93 (March): 99-114.
From the Shapiro et al. book:
Rockman, “Staffing and
Organizing the Presidency”
Mayer and Weko, “The
Institutionalization of Power”
Dickinson, “Staffing the White
House”
Link, “The Presidential
Kaleidoscope”
Dickinson, Matthew, Kathryn Tenpas. 2002.
Explaining Increasing Turnover Rates Among Presidential Advisers,
1929-1997. Journal of Politics 62
(February) 88.
Flowers, Julianne, Audrey
Haynes, and Michael Crespin. 2003. The Media, the Campaign, and the
Message. American Journal of Political
Science, 47 (April) 259.
Norrander, Barbara. 2000.
The End Game in Post-Reform Presidential Nominations. Journal of Politics, 62 (November): 999-1013.
Political Control of the
Bureaucracy October
28
Wood, B. Dan, and Richard Waterman. 1991.
The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 85
(September) 801-828.
Hedge, David, and Michael Schiccitano. 1994.
Regulating in Space and Time: The
Case of Regulatory Federalism. Journal
of Politics, 56: 134-153.
Rinquist, Evan. 1995. Political Control and Policy Impact in the
EPA's Office of Water Quality. American
Journal of Political Science, 39:336-363.
Balla, Steven. 1998. Administrative Procedures and Political
Control of the Bureaucracy. American
Political Science Review, 92: 663-673.
Howell, William, and David Lewis.
2002. Agencies by Presidential
Design. Journal of Politics, 64
(November): 1095.
Mete, Mihriye. 2002. Bureaucratic Behavior in Strategic
Environments: Politicians, Taxpayers, and the IRS. Journal of Politics, 64: 384-407
Executive-Legislative
Relations, and the Politics of Gridlock
November 4
Kiewiet,
Rod, and Matt McCubbins. 1988. Presidential Influence on Congressional
Appropriations Decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 32: 713-736.
Canes-Wrone,
Brandicee. 2001. The President’s Legislative Influence from
Public Appeals. American Journal of Political Science, 45 (April):
313-329.
Canes-Wrone,
Brandice, and Scott de Marchi. 2002.
Presidential Approval and Legislative Success.
Journal of Politics, 64: 491-509.
From
Shapiro et al. book:
Cameron,
"Bargaining and Presidential Power."
Epstein
and O'Halloran, "The Institutional Face of Presidential Power"
Binder,
Sarah. 1999. The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock,
1947-96. American Political Science
Review, 93 (September) 519-533.
Chiou,
Fang-Yi and
The Supreme Court: Nominations and Confirimations, and Public
Opinion (November 11)
Segal, Jeffrey, Charles Cameron, and Albert Cover. 1992.
A Spatial Model of Roll Call Voting: Senators, Constituents, Presidents,
and Interest Groups in Supreme Court Confirmations. American Journal of Political Science, Vol.
36, No. 1. (Feb., 1992), pp. 96-121.
Johnson, Timothy, and Jason Roberts. 2004.
Presidential Capital and the Supreme Court Confirmation Process. Journal of Politics, 66 (August), p. 663.
Fleming, Roy and B. Dan Wood.
1997. The Public and the Supreme
Court. American Journal of Political
Science, 41: 468.
Johnson, Timothy, and Andrew Martin. 1998.
The Public's Conditional Response to Supreme Court Decisions. American Political Science Review, 92:
299-309.
Durr, Robert, Andrew Martin, and Christina Wolbrecht. 2000.
Ideological Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court. 44 (October),
768-776.
The Supreme Court and the
Attitudinal Model, (November 18)
Spaeth and Segal book,
entire.
NO CLASS NOVEMBER 25th----THANKSGIVING
BREAK!!
Granting Cetiorari and the
Question of Sua Sponte, December 2
Ulmer,
Caldeira, Gregory, and John R. Wright. 1988.
Organized Interests and Agenda-Setting on the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 82
(December) 1109-1127.
McGuire, Kevin, and Barbara Palmer. 1995.
Issue Fluidity on the Supreme Court.
American Political Science Review, 89 (September): 691-702
Epstein, Lee, Jeffrey Segal, and Timothy Johnson. 1996.
The Claim of Issue Creation on the
McGurie, Kevin, and Barbara Palmer. 1996.
Issues, Agendas, and Decision Making on the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 90
(December), 853-865.
Stare Decisis, December 9
Segal, Jeffrey and Harold Spaeth.
1996. The Influence of Stare
Decisis on the Votes of
Brisbin, Richard.
1996. Slaying the Dragon: Segal,
Spaeth, and the Function of Law in Supreme Court Decisionmaking. American Journal of Political Science 40:1004
Knight, Jack and Lee Epstein.
1996. The Norm of Stare
Decisis. AJPS 40:1018.
Brenner, Saul and Marc Stier.
1996. Retesting Segal and
Spaeth’s Stare Decisis Model. AJPS
40:1036.
Songer, Donald and Stefanie Lindquist. 1996.
Not the Whole Story: The Impact of Judges Values on Supreme Court
Decisionmaking. AJPS 40:1049.
Spriggs, James, and Thomas Hansford. 2001.
Explaining the Overruling of US Supreme Court Precedent. Journal of Politics, 63: 1091-1111.