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决议程序。美国50个州中有49个州有两院，就像美国国会一样。当美国众议院和参议院意见不一致时，学者们通常很清楚会发生什么。在国家一级，如果某些法案获得足够的支持，议院就会使用会议委员会；在其他情况下，使用修正交易流程。大量的研究集中在促进成功解决的条件和导致立法失败的条件上，在每个议院都通过了一个版本的法案后，讨价还价发生了。一些学者声称意识形态的差异很重要，而另一些人则认为两院之间政策的不确定性更为重要。然而，我们在国会层面所知道的，并没有适用于各州。也不清楚各州的决议程序与国会使用的决议程序有多密切相关。特别是，虽然会议委员会的使用在最近的代表大会上有所下降，但学者们还没有确定这种模式是否在州一级成立。此外，各国有非常不同的程序，这可能影响到会议的利用。一些州还赋予少数党更大的权利来修改立法，并对多数党提出的妥协方案提出替代方案。与国家一级相比，州一级的这种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讨价还价阶段的失败率较低。为了阐明美国各州立法院之间的议价，本项目侧重于收集有关州决议程序的信息。这项研究考察了各州立法机构的规则和程序，并收集了有关通过的法案数量、成功解决的法案数量以及所使用的通过后决议程序类型（会议、修正案交易或其他方法）的数据。其他因素，如两院之间的意识形态差异和州长的权力范围也被考虑在内。这个项目的学术价值在于它有能力做出两大学术贡献。首先，这项研究将对各州解决两院之间分歧的程序进行分类和描述。这将使学者们了解程序和制度在各州之间的差异，以及与美国国会的不同。其次，该项目将解决主要的理论问题：各州在解决两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接受商会的妥协？例如，假设第一个州有一些程序，使州立法机关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并改变现状。相反，想象一下，第二个州有一个特殊的程序，使两院制决议的可能性大大降低；这将意味着，尽管受到民众对某项政策的支持等其他因素的影响，第二个国家改变现状的可能性较小。了解是什么导致了各州之间的这种差异，对于理解美国政治制度的运作至关重要。该项目更广泛的贡献与其学术贡献有关。尽管两院制具有（近乎）普遍的特征，但美国各州的立法程序差异很大。通过加强对州一级程序和制度的了解，该项目将帮助学者、政策制定者和公民了解哪些类型的制度和程序促进商会之间的妥协。如果像大多数学者所主张的那样，两院制限制了政策的变化，那么了解哪一种两院制最有可能保护现状，将加强对美国公共政策决定因素的理解。

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.