Partisanship and Integration in Two House Committees: Ways and Means and Education and Labor
| DOI | 10.1177/106591298103400309 |
| Published date | 01 September 1981 |
| Author | Douglas G. Feig |
| Date | 01 September 1981 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
PARTISANSHIP
AND
INTEGRATION
IN
TWO
HOUSE
COMMITTEES:
WAYS
AND
MEANS
AND
EDUCATION
AND
LABOR
DOUGLAS
G.
FEIG
Mississippi
State
University
VER
SINCE
1884
when
Woodrow
Wilson’s
Congressional
Government
was
first
published,
political
scientists
have
been
aware
of
the
impor-
tant
role
played
by
committees
in
the
operation
of
the
Congress.’
But
until
the
early
1960s,
this
awareness
tended
to
be
of
a
rather
general
sort,
centering
primarily
on
the
major
part
such
committees
played
in
the
making
of
policy
and
the
oversight
of
administration.
Since
then,
however,
there
has
been
a
greatly
increased
recognition
of
the
dramatic
differences
among
the
many
committees
of
the
House
and
Senate.
In
particular,
the
works
of
Fenno,
Manley
and
Jones
stand
out
in
this
regard.2
The
comparative
study
of
congressional
committees
has
answered
many
questions
raised
by
political
scientists,
but
it
has
also
opened
up
for
reexamination
some
matters
which
were
previously
thought
to
be
fairly
well
understood.
One
such
matter
con-
cerns
the
relationship
between
committee
integration
and
committee
par-
tisanship.
Fenno’s
early
work
on
the
House
Education
and
Labor
Committee
clearly
suggested
that
its
excessive
partisanship
was
at
least
partially
respon-
sible
for
its
lack
of
integration.3
On
the
other
hand,
his
study
of
the
Appro-
priations
Committees
attributed
their
high
levels
of
integration
to
their
rela-
tive
lack
of
partisanship,
among
other
things.4
In
both
cases,
committee
integration
and
committee
partisanship
were
found
to
be
inversely
related.
But
Manley’s
study
of
the
House
Ways
and
Means
Committee
found
it
to
be
both
well
integrated
and
highly
partisan,
although
its
partisanship
was
&dquo;re-
strained.&dquo;5
This
paper
seeks
confirmation
of
the
findings
of
these
two
au-
thors
concerning
the
relationship
between
integration
and
partisanship,
when
examined
with
a
methodology
different
from
the
ones
they
employed.
Two
committees
are
studied:
the
House
Committees
on
Education
and
Labor
and
Ways
and
Means.
First,
other
variables
influencing
committee
integration
and
partisanship
are
isolated,
and
then
empirical
measures
for
these
variables
are
developed
and
applied
to
data
from
both
committees
for
1
Woodrow
Wilson,
Congressional
Government
(New
York:
Meridian
Books,
1956).
2 Richard
F.
Fenno’s
works
include:
"The
House
of
Representatives
and
Federal
Aid
to
Educa-
tion,"
New
Perspectives
on
the
House
of
Representatives,
eds.
Robert
L.
Peabody
and
Nelson
W.
Polsby
(2nd
ed.;
Chicago:
Rand
McNally,
1969),
pp.
283-323;
"The
House
Appropriations
Committee
as
a
Political
System:
The
Problem
of
Integration,"
American
Political
Science
Review
56
(June
1962):
310-24;
The
Power
of the
Purse
(Boston:
Little,
Brown,
1966);
and
Congressmen
in
Committees
(Boston:
Little,
Brown,
1973).
John
F.
Manley’s
works
include:
"The House
Committee
on
Ways
and
Means:
Conflict
Management
in
a
Congressional
Committee,"
American
Political
Science
Review
59
(December
1965):
927-39
and
The
Politics
of
Finance:
The
House
Committee
on
Ways
and
Means
(Boston:
Little
Brown,
1970).
The
major
work
of
Charles
O.
Jones
which
is
relevant
here
is:
"Representation
in
Congress:
The
Case
of
the
House
Agriculture
Committee,"
American
Political
Science
Review
55
(June
1961):
358-67.
3 Fenno,
"The
House
of
Representatives,"
pp.
284-89.
4Richard
J.
Fenno,
"The
Appropriations
Committee
as
a
Political
System,"
New
Perspectives
on
the
House
of
Representatives,
eds.
Robert
L.
Peabody
and
Nelson
W.
Polsby
(2nd
ed.;
Chicago:
Rand
McNally,
1969),
pp.
140
and
152.
5
Manley,
The
Politics
of
Finance,
pp.
63-72.
To continue reading
Request your trial