Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science: Interchamber Bargaining in Congress and the States

该项目旨在了解美国各州的两院制解决程序。50个州中有49个州有两院，就像美国国会一样。学者们通常对美国参众两院发生分歧时会发生什么了如指掌。在国家一级，如果法案获得足够的支持，商会对一些法案使用会议委员会；在其他情况下，使用修正案交易程序。大量研究集中于促进成功解决的条件，以及在两院通过法案版本后的谈判期间导致立法失败的条件。一些学者声称，意识形态差异很重要，而另一些学者则断言，两院之间的政策不确定性更重要。然而，我们在国会层面所知道的并不适用于各州。目前也不清楚州决议程序与国会使用的程序有多密切的联系。特别是，虽然会议委员会的使用在最近的国会中有所下降，但学者们还没有确定这种模式是否适用于州一级。此外，各州有非常不同的程序，可能会影响会议的使用。一些州还给予少数人更大的权利来修改立法，并提出替代多数党所建议的妥协的方案。州一级相对于国家一级更大的灵活性可能会鼓励法案的通过，并可能导致立法在通过后谈判阶段的失败率较低。为了了解美国各州立法机构之间的谈判，这个项目侧重于收集关于州解决程序的信息。该研究审查州立法机构的规则和程序，并收集关于通过的法案数量、成功解决的法案数量以及所使用的通过后决议程序的类型(会议、修正案交易或其他方法)的数据。其他因素，如议院之间的意识形态差异和总督的权力范围也被考虑在内。这个项目的学术价值取决于它做出两大学术贡献的能力。首先，这项研究将对各州用来解决立法机构之间分歧的程序进行分类和描述。这将使学者们了解各州的程序和制度有何不同，以及与美国国会的程序和制度有何不同。其次，该项目将解决主要的理论问题：各州在解决众议院之间的分歧方面有多成功，是什么让一些州比其他州更成功？也就是说，是什么让一些州的机构比其他州更容易达成妥协？例如，假设第一个州的程序使州立法机构和州参议院相对容易地解决他们在法案上的分歧；这将意味着该州比另一个可比的州更有可能通过法律和改变现状。相反，设想第二个国家有一个特定的程序，使得两院制解决方案的可能性大大降低；这将意味着，尽管受到其他因素的影响，如民众对一项政策的支持，第二个国家改变现状的可能性将更小。了解是什么导致了各州之间的这种差异，对于了解美国政治机构的运作至关重要。该项目的更广泛贡献与其学术贡献有关。立法程序在美国各州有很大不同，尽管两美制具有(几乎)普遍的特征。通过加强对州一级程序和机构的了解，该项目将帮助学者、政策制定者和公民了解哪些类型的机构和程序促进了内庭之间的妥协。如果像大多数学者所说的那样，两院制限制了政策的变化，那么了解哪些类型的两院制最有可能保护现状，将有助于人们更好地理解美国公共政策的决定因素。

The project seeks to understand bicameral resolution procedures in the US states. Forty-nine of the 50 states have two chambers, as the US Congress does. Scholars generally have a good idea of what happens when the US House and US Senate disagree. At the national level, the chambers use conference committees for some bills, if the bills have sufficient support; in other cases, the amendment trading process is used. A large body of research has focused on the conditions promoting successful resolution and the conditions instead leading to the failure of legislation during the bargaining that occurs after each chamber has passed a version of a bill. Some scholars claim that ideological differences matter, whereas others assert that policy uncertainty between the chambers is more important. What we know at the Congressional level, however, has not been applied to the states. Nor is it clear how closely related state resolution procedures are to those used in Congress. In particular, whereas usage of the conference committee has declined in recent Congresses, scholars have not established whether this pattern holds at the state level. Further, states have very different procedures that may influence use of conferences. Some states also give the minority greater rights to amend legislation and to propose alternatives to the majority party's suggested compromise. This greater flexibility at the state level relative to the national level may encourage the resolution of bills and may result in a lower failure rate for legislation at the post-passage bargaining stage.To shed light on bargaining between legislative chambers in the US states, this project focuses on gathering information on state resolution procedures. The research examines state legislatures' rules and procedures, and collects data on the number of bills passed, the number of bills successfully resolved, and the type of post-passage resolution procedure used (conference, amendment trading, or some other method). Other factors such as the ideological differences between the chambers and the extent of the governor's power are also taken into account.The intellectual merit of this project rests on its capacity to make two major scholarly contributions. First, the research will catalog and describe the procedures used by states to resolve differences between legislative chambers. This will allow scholars to understand how procedures and institutions differ across states and differ from those in the US Congress. Second, the project will address the main theoretical question: How successful are states at resolving differences between the chambers, and what makes some states more successful than others? That is, what makes some states' institutions more amenable to chamber compromise than other states? For example, suppose that a first state had procedures that made it relatively easy for the state legislature and state senate to resolve their differences on a bill; this would mean that the state would be more likely to pass laws and change the status quo than another comparable state. Conversely, imagine that a second state had a particular procedure making bicameral resolution much less likely; this would mean that the second state would be less likely to change the status quo despite the influence of other factors such as popular support for a policy. Understanding what drives such differences across states is vital to understanding the workings of US political institutions.The project's broader contributions are linked to its scholarly contributions. Legislative procedures vary substantially across the US states, despite the (near) universal feature of bicameralism. By enhancing understanding of state-level procedures and institutions, the project will help scholars, policy makers, and citizens alike understand which types of institutions and procedures promote compromise between chambers. If bicameral systems constrain policy change, as most scholars contend, then understanding which types of bicameral systems are most likely to protect the status quo would enhance understanding of the determinants of public policy in the United States.