editor's introduction

Editor's IntroductionAuthor(s): Malcolm E. JewellSource: Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Aug., 1977), pp. 229-232Published by: Comparative Legislative Research CenterStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/439339 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 01:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Comparative Legislative Research Center is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto Legislative Studies Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:26:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clrc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/439339?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Editor's Introduction

No topic is more fundamental to legislative studies than that of representation. And no concept has been defined and operationalized in more varied and often contradictory ways. Heinz Eulau and Paul Karps have chosen an apt title for the opening article in this issue: "The Puzzle of Representation."

If we are to understand the representative process in this or any country, we must learn more about how legislators interpret the term and what they actually do to perform as "representatives." We must also learn more about constituents' perceptions of representation and what they expect of those they elect to legislative bodies. Too often in recent years studies of "representation" have been limited to asking members a few questions about roles, a shortcut that makes it possible to classify legislators (as dele- gates or trustees, for example) but not necessarily to understand much about the complex process of representation.

The provocative article by Eulau and Karps challenges several of the research approaches used in the past, and suggests that several dimensions of representation deserve more careful attention from scholars. They are particularly critical of research that equates representation, or "responsiveness," with congruence between the attitudes of constituents and the attitudes and voting behavior of representatives. They also criticize the notion that the initiative in representational relations always lies with constituents rather than with legislators. They remind us of the pitfalls of using causal analysis in the absence of adequate theories about the direction of causality.

Eulau and Karps call attention to three dimensions of responsiveness that constitute representation, in addition to policy responsiveness: service, allocation, and symbolic responsiveness. There are a number of indications that scholars in the United States and other countries are paying greater attention to the service and allocation dimensions of representation. One example, cited by Eulau and Karps, is Richard Fenno's classic and soon to be published paper on "Congressmen in their Constituencies," in which the author develops the concept of a representative's "home style"-how he

LEGISLATIVE STUDIES QUARTERLY, II, 3, August 1977 229



Legislative Studies Quarterly

behaves in his community. To study this topic, Fenno used an unusual but simple research strategy: he went to congressmen's constituencies, followed them around, and observed what they did. Another author who is concerned with the service and allocation dimensions is Morris Fiorina. His recent article on "The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It," in the American Political Science Review and a new book, Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment, develop the same theme: Congress has estab- lished a large number of federal programs that have a direct impact on constituents; congressmen must frequently intervene in the implementation of these programs to gain benefits for (or prevent damage to) their constituents and their district; congressmen gain credit with the voters from such inter- vention; and these activities enhance the incumbents' chances of being re- elected. In short, the service and allocation aspects of representation have become the most important aspects for both congressmen and their constituents. A number of studies in other countries have emphasized the importance, and provided useful descriptions, of the service and allocation roles of legislators. For example, most of the articles in the August, 1976 issue of the Legislative Studies Quarterly on parliamentary politicians in Asia devoted considerable attention to these topics.

The article by Eulau and Karps may help to stimulate both new theoretical approaches to representation and more varied and imaginative empirical research on the topic. We welcome both types of articles in the Quarterly.

In the May, 1977 issue of the Quarterly, John Lees reviewed recent efforts by political scientists to identify the factors that enhance or under- mine the prospects for effective legislative oversight. In this issue, Fred Kaiser examines one committee of the U. S. House-International Relations-which has substantially increased its oversight activities in recent years. The increase is demonstrated by several indicators, including hearings, field investigations, and studies by staff and congressional service agencies. His study emphasizes the large number of factors that contributed to oversight activity, including the political and foreign policy environment during the Nixon years, structural factors such as subcommittee autonomy and staff resources, and the personal interest and assertiveness of subcommittee chairmen who were critical of Nixon's policies. Kaiser concludes that oversight of foreign policy is affected by most of the same factors that influence oversight of domestic affairs, but he does not try to measure the Committee's success in influencing policy outcomes and administration-which may be less in the foreign than in the domestic area.

The field of legislative studies, like most other fields in political science, often seems to be divided into relatively narrow segments. Various

230



Editor's Introduction

groups of researchers follow separate theoretical and topical approaches, and utilize different types of data and methodologies. Sometimes it seems as though these approaches, like parallel lines, will never meet. Harold and Dianne Wolman have noted that most studies of congressional decision- making and roll-call voting ignore the role of staff, the importance of which has been demonstrated in other studies. Their study of "The Role of the U. S. Senate Staff in the Opinion Linkage Process" is a modest step in the direction of overcoming that deficiency. They are interested in the congruence of senatorial and staff attitudes and perceptions of public opinion. Their data base is limited to a single issue-population policy-and one committee, and consequently their conclusions about the low level of congruence must be viewed with caution. But the study does suggest the need to incorporate the role of staff into theories of decision-making, and to examine more carefully the attitudes and interactions of legislators and their staffs.

Journal editors and referees often comment disparagingly about research that they perceive to be merely replication of other studies. But there is an obvious need for replication to determine, among other things, how broadly research findings may be applied to other times, places, and situations. Charles Bullock's study, "Explaining Congressional Elections" is a good example of useful replication. As several others have done, he has asked winners and losers in congressional races about why they thought they won or lost, and how the outcome differed from what they had expected. At first glance, the answers seem obvious and almost superficial: winners attri- bute their success to their personalities and the issues they used; losers blame their defeat on factors beyond their control-the partisan balance in the district and the effects of the presidential election. But Bullock shows that the results have more important consequences. The fact that losers frequently have unrealistic expectations about their prospects is one important reason why they are willing to run; if they were more realistic, the level of competi- tion for congressional seats would decline. The unrealistic optimism of challengers may be important to representative government, just as some have argued that it is important for representatives to believe the myth that many voters pay attention to their voting records. In the light of our earlier com- ments about dimensions of representation, it is noteworthy that neither incumbents nor challengers emphasized the advantages that incumbents now enjoy because of their greater opportunity to utilize the service and allocation roles. Perhaps the candidates were not very conscious of this development when they were surveyed in 1972, or perhaps they were not asked about this factor.

David Hadley's article on legislative role orientations and voting patterns in the Indiana House helps to fill a major gap in the area of role

231



Legislative Studies Quarterly

studies. As the author notes, on several occasions I have urged that legislative scholars pay more attention to the behavioral consequences or manifestations of roles. Roll-call voting is only one of the possible manifestations, but it is one of particular interest to American political scientists. Hadley finds that in the Indiana House the roles that represent orientations to party and to the governor have very little relationship with roll-call voting on bills on which the party and/or the governor has taken a stand. Style and areal roles have even less effect. A number of other variables, notably electoral ones, have greater effect on roll-call voting. In the November, 1976 issue of the Quar- terly, James Thurber reported on a related study in Indiana, in which various role orientations were partially explained by various types of partisan and electoral variables, but the Hadley study raises questions about whether role orientations in that state make any difference.

There are several additional points that might be made about the Hadley study. The role orientations are based on a few brief questions, a common practice in role analysis, but perhaps such answers may not be detailed and precise enough for accurate predictions about voting. It should also be emphasized that a negative finding in Indiana does not prove that role orientations would lack predictive value in other legislative bodies. Indiana is a state with strong norms of support for the party and for the governor, and on some issues the pressure on members to vote with their party is likely to overcome contrary role preferences. Roles pertaining to support of party or the governor may have greater predictive power in states where the norms of party and gubernatorial support are not quite so strong.

Forthcoming Issues

The February, 1978 issue will be devoted to preliminary reports of a research project on the role of parliaments in managing social conflict in three European countries: Belgium, Italy and Switzerland. The papers, by scholars from these three countries and from the United States, were first presented at a conference at the University of Iowa in May, 1977.

A subsequent issue of the Quarterly, in late 1978 or early 1979, will deal with Canadian legislative behavior and will include papers to be presented at a conference in Toronto in October, 1977.

-Malcolm E. Jewell

232



editor's introduction

Documents