Socializing California Freshmen Assemblymen: The Role of Individuals and Legislative Sub-Groups

Price, Charles M.; Bell, Charles G.

doi:10.2307/446550

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This literature has focused on political socialization in the family during a future legislator’s childhood (e.g., Clarke and Price, 1977; Prewitt et al, 1966; more recently see also Fox and Lawless, 2005) or the impact of political events during their adolescence (Gruber, 2009; Herzog, 1975). Other studies have explored the socialization processes that take place once MPs have arrived in the legislature (e.g., Garand, 1988; Price and Bell, 1970). Again others have looked at the socializational role played by political parties (e.g., Clarke and Price, 1977; Dodson, 1990; Kornberg, 1966; Patzelt, 1999; Saalfeld, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Party membership, pre-parliamentary socialization and party cohesion

Rehmert

2021

Party Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Party membership seems to lose relevance for political careers in many established democracies. Increasing numbers of parties are recruiting non-members as candidates. Yet, what are the implications of a lack of long-term party membership for party cohesion? In this paper, I argue that pre-parliamentary party membership is in fact crucial for cohesion. Using data from the Comparative Candidate Survey and voting behavior of ca. 2,000 MPs of the German Bundestag on free votes from 1953 to 2013, I examine the effect of length of previous party membership and the age of joining the party on indicators of party cohesion. Examining free votes allows for credibly controlling alternative explanations of unified voting behavior. Results are in line with expectations generated from social identity theory and underscore the importance of party membership for party cohesion. The paper concludes with a discussion on the findings’ implications in light of recent developments in parties’ candidate recruitment.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Party membership, pre-parliamentary socialization and party cohesion

Rehmert

2021

Party Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The importance placed on occupation and committee composition is also evident in a number of state legislative studies that have shown that occupation or background is related to the determination of committee assignments (Clark and Lippitt 1978, 11; Hamm 1986, 333–35; Jewell 1962, 99; Jewell and Miller 1988, 115; Jewell and Patterson 1986, 166; Lewis 1952, 30; Price and Bell 1970, 173; Rosenthal 1981, 185; Stanley 1975, 59; Winslow 1931, 64; Zeller 1954, 72). While these studies provide substantial empirical evidence regarding the general importance of the occupation variable, systematically evaluating its role in committee membership within the perspective of information theory remains incomplete.…”

Section: Previous Literaturementioning

confidence: 97%

“… 1. This extensive literature, rich in formal theory, includes Clark and Lippitt (1978), Francis (1989), Hamm (1986, 321), Haynes (1900a; 1900b; 1900c; 1900d), Hyneman (1940), Jewell (1962), Jewell and Miller (1988), Jewell and Patterson (1986), Lewis (1952), Palmer (1964), Price and Bell (1970), Reinsch (1907), Rosenthal (1981), Stanley (1975), Winslow (1931), Zeller (1954). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Committee Specialization in U.S. State Legislatures during the 20th Century: Do Legislatures Tap the Talents of Their Members?

Hamm

Hedlund

Post

2011

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors use an informational-theoretical perspective to examine the appointment of legislative committees, using new measures of knowledge and expertise as well as a unique database. While competing theories (distributive and partisan) do not deny that legislative committees are a source of vital knowledge and expertise necessary for legislative policy making, information theory places the wisdom and expertise needs of collective decision making—that is, specialization—on very complex topics by legislative generalists as the raison d'être for a committee system. Thus, the authors investigate one of the fundamental arguments of information theory—that committees are formed to meet the basic knowledge and expertise needs of a legislative body. The findings from U.S. state legislative data indicate that significant member differences regarding prior knowledge and expertise exist by committee jurisdiction, state, and session, reinforcing the applicability of information theory while also suggesting the impact of setting and organizational factors. The authors also explore implications of these findings.

show abstract

“…Its members are all first-term legislators. First-term legislators are thought to be more partisan than their more senior colleagues because they lack relationships with peers across the aisle (Price and Bell 1970;Sarbaugh-Thompson et al 2006). To the extent novice legislators are particularly partisan or uninformed about policy proposals or one another, they may be uniquely responsive to discussion.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Its members are all first‐term legislators. First‐term legislators are thought to be more partisan than their more senior colleagues because they lack relationships with peers across the aisle (Price and Bell 1970; Sarbaugh‐Thompson et al. 2006).…”

Section: Experimental Context and Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Talking Shops: The Effects of Caucus Discussion on Policy Coalitions

Zelizer

2021

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group discussion of legislation is a defining feature of parliaments and legislatures. However, there is little evidence that these conferences influence legislators' policy positions or the disposition of legislation. This article examines how, and to what extent, group discussion influences policy coalitions. It reports results from two field experiments in which state legislators spoke about randomly selected bills in a bipartisan caucus. Chosen bills received twice as much support from caucus members as unselected bills. Estimated effects are similar in magnitude within and across party lines. Discussion did not appear to affect bill-level outcomes such as bill content or bill passage, but power limitations make studying such policy-level outcomes infeasible. Qualitative data from the experiments suggest that reputation and reciprocity are key mechanisms underlying influence, but that partisan voters and media are obstacles to bipartisanship in a contemporary American legislature.

show abstract

Socializing California Freshmen Assemblymen: The Role of Individuals and Legislative Sub-Groups

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Party membership, pre-parliamentary socialization and party cohesion

Party membership, pre-parliamentary socialization and party cohesion

Committee Specialization in U.S. State Legislatures during the 20th Century: Do Legislatures Tap the Talents of Their Members?

Talking Shops: The Effects of Caucus Discussion on Policy Coalitions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About