Rethinking Rules: Creativity and Constraint in the U.S. House of Representatives

Abstract

Rules are a characteristic feature of political institutions. They govern the order and conduct of business within institutions and the distribution of power and authority among them. Rules also structure the behavior of goal-oriented actors, for example, by establishing the parameters for strategic interaction. Rules, in other words, define the scope of permissible actions. As a source of constraint, rules are a part of the regulative, normative, and cognitive structures that shape the alternatives actors confront (Clemens and Cook 1999).But rules have a double-edged quality; they do more than limit alternatives or set the parameters for strategic interaction. Rules also provide actors with creative leeway. In this way, rules are at once constraining and empowering. Consider, for example, how rules operate as a component of a game. According to the game designers Frank Lantz and Eric Zimmerman (1999), the rules of a game engender play. Whereas the rules, "the laws that determine what can and cannot happen," may be fixed and rigid, play, the human experience of a game "set into motion by the players' choices and actions," is creative and improvisational (Lantz and Zimmerman 1999). As they describe the process: Within the strictly demarcated confines of the rules, play emerges and ripples outwards, bubbling up through the fixed and rigid rule-structure in unexpected For comments on earlier versions, the author would like to thank

Regional Innovation Policy Beyond ‘Best Practice’: Lessons from Sweden

“…and individuals (North 1990, Mahoney andThelen 2010a). Sheingate (2010) argues that institutions are constraining insofar as they establish parameters for action, but they are also empowering individuals to develop innovation in practice.…”

Gender and Political Recruitment

“…As such, there is a great deal of 'play' in both the interpreted meaning of particular rules and in the way that these rules are continually enacted in everyday practice (Mahoney and Thelen, 2010;Sheingate, 2010). These 'gaps' and 'soft spots' that exist between institutions and their actual interpretation, enactment and enforcement on the ground provide spaces for institutional actors to disrupt and challenge institutional power relationships.…”

“…61 In contrast, for outsiders, rules imposed constraints. These actors were positioned as outside the game, making it considerably more difficult for them to 'work' or navigate the complex interplay between formal and informal rules (see Sheingate, 2010). At the same time, outsider candidates were expected to follow the rules of the game, and were informally sanctioned for challenging the status quo.…”

Researching Ritual and the Symbolic in Parliaments: An Institutionalist Perspective

“…A couple of recent analyses do deal with questions of institutional emergence and change from a position more informed by historical institutionalism and demonstrate how this approach can be utilised. Both Sarah Binder (2007) and Adam Sheingate (2010) have analysed how different congressional institutions, such as the blue slip and various rule changes, came into being and have changed over time. Binder (2007, p. 14) suggests that 'institutional development occurs as social actors, constrained by the weight of inherited practice, innovate at the margins in pursuit of their short-term goals -often with unanticipated, but no less consequential results'.…”

“…There is sometimes a great deal of 'play' in the interpreted meaning of particular rules. Rules are therefore ambiguous and the subject of political skirmishing as Sheingate (2010) argues. When circumstances change and new developments confound rules, it is possible to have rule creation or to extend existing rules to change institutions.…”