Intended Consequences: Jurisdictional Reform and Issue Control in the U. S. House of Representatives

Intended Consequences: Jurisdictional Reform and Issue Control in the U. S. House of Representatives

The power of congressional committees rests in large part on their ability to set the legislative agenda in particular issue areas. But how do committees acquire their issue jurisdictions? Existing research points to informal committee turf wars—not collective reforms—as the roots of jurisdictional...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Legislative studies quarterly Vol. 33; no. 1; pp. 85 - 112
Main Authors: Adler, E. Scott, Wilkerson, John D.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Comparative Legislative Research Center of the University of Iowa 01-02-2008
Subjects:
Commerce
Committees
Congressional committees
Entropy
Farm commodities
Farm exports
Jurisdiction
Legislators
National security
Standing committees
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The power of congressional committees rests in large part on their ability to set the legislative agenda in particular issue areas. But how do committees acquire their issue jurisdictions? Existing research points to informal committee turf wars—not collective reforms—as the roots of jurisdictional allocations (King 1994, 1997). Yet the House of Representatives has made nearly 150 formal changes to its committees'jurisdictions since 1973. We investigated the effects of one prominent instance of extensive jurisdictional changes, the Bolling-Hansen reforms of 1975, and found that this body of reforms advanced collective goals of improved policy coordination and enhanced information sharing.
ISSN:0362-9805
1939-9162