Political Parties and the Porkbarrel
Party Conflict and Cooperation in House Public Works Committee Decision Making
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3379459 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James T Murphy (0000-0002-0502-5771, Wesleyan University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1974 |
| Volume | 68 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 169-185 |
| Publication date | 1974-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Political Science Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0003-0554 • E-ISSN: 1537-5943 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/1959749 |
| OpenAlex | W2316535680 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 17 |
| References cited | 17 |
This study of the House Public Works committee examines the relationship between membership goals and the degree of party conflict, identifies conditions of party conflict and cooperation, and links party conflict and cooperation to policies adopted by the House.Party conflict is the Public Works committee's most striking behavioral characteristic. This party conflict stems from (a) the issues processed by the committee and (b) the partisan program orientations of committee members. Beyond these initial sources of party conflict on Public Works, there is a norm of partisanship adopted by each of the parties on the committee in order to achieve an extra measure of party cohesion. Public Works committee party conflict is, to be sure, often modified by shared interests cutting across party lines. Committee party cooperation stems, however, not from widespread shared interests but, instead, from a fundamental distrust between the parties respecting the allocation of federal largesse. To preclude porkbarreling, Congress has adopted fixed allocation formulas for distributing the boodle on programs likely to involve a majority in each party, thereby constraining the parties on the committee to cooperate on such proposals.Whether Public Works is united or divided when reporting legislation, the House of Representatives will typically adopt its proposals. This success of the Public Works committee is attributable to a mixture of anticipation and influence
Business · Cohesion (chemistry · Distrust · House of Representatives · Legislation · Order (exchange · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Whip (tree · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Law · Public Administration
Setting the Agenda
Greasing the Wheels
Bureaucratic Reactions to Political Pressures
How Legislatures Shape Policy and Budgets
The Central Concepts in Fenno's Committee Studies
The Legislature and Distributive Policy Making in Formal Perspective
Factions in Committees
Electoral Structures and Pork Barrel Politics
Comparative Pork Barrel Politics
Majoritarian Incentives, Pork Barrel Programs, and Procedural Control
Allocation of Desirable Committee Assignments
Political Parties and the Distribution of Federal Outlays
Policy and Pork
Where's the Party
A Reevaluation of Realignments in American Politics
The Paradox of Vote Trading
The Allocation of Federal Aid Monies
Party leaders in the House of Representatives
Elections and the political order
Party Loyalty Among Congressmen
The Functions of Social Conflict
The Social Psychology of Groups
Muddy Waters
Exchange and Power in Social Life
Congress at Work
The Congress and America's Future
Exchange and power in social life
The Rules of the Game
The House Committee on Ways and Means
| Unique citing works | 17 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,33 |
| Citation span | 1975 - 2005 (31) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 17 |