This article explores under what institutional conditions senator-initiated bills pass. We explore how bill content and committee referral interact with presidential urgency motions, chamber leadership/seniority, and changes in lawmaking rules shape the probability of enactment. Using an original data set of 2993 Senate bills (1990–2022), we estimate logistic models and visualise predicted probabilities by bill content, committee referral, authorship resources, and institutional signals. Presidential urgency motions are the strongest correlates of passage; leadership positions and seniority increase success, whereas committee membership does not. Bills on symbolic or low-conflict topics pass at higher rates than national policy proposals; constitutional-committee referrals fare better than economic-committee referrals. Reforms in 2005 and 2010 expanded legislative entrepreneurship but reduced average success as bill volume surged. These results refine executive-dominance accounts: in Chile, a legislator’s initiative become law primarily when the presidency validates it and when leadership and experience align to push it forward.
AlemanE (2008) Policy positions in the Chilean senate: An analysis of coauthorship and roll call data. Brazilian Political Science Review3(SE): 74–93.
2.
AlemanECalvoE (2008) Analyzing legislative success in Latin America: The case of democratic Argentina. In: O’DonnellGTulchinJHVarasA (eds) New Voices in the Study of Democracy in Latin America. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
3.
AlemanEDockendorffA (2024) Seeking friends and influencers: Business and labor groups lobbying in the Chilean congress. Business and Politics26(4): 665–683.
4.
AlemanENaviaP (2009) Institutions and the legislative success of ‘strong’ presidents: An analysis of government bills in Chile. Journal of Legislative Studies15(4): 401–419.
5.
AlemanENaviaP (2016) Presidential power, legislative rules and law making in Chile. In: AlemánETsebelisG (eds) Legislative Institutions and Lawmaking in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.92–121.
6.
AlemanETsebelisG (2016) Legislative Institutions and Lawmaking in Latin America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
AlemanEMicozziJPVallejo VeraS (2023) Congressional committees, electoral connections, and legislative speech. Political Research Quarterly76(2): 994–1011.
8.
AndersonWDBox-SteffensmeierJMSinclair-ChapmanV (2003) The keys to legislative success in the US House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly28(3): 357–386.
9.
AvellanedaCNBoteroFEscobar-LemmonM (2012) Policymaking in parochial legislatures: What laws pass the Colombian legislature?The Latin Americanist56(2): 7–33.
10.
BagashkaTClarkJH (2016) Electoral rules and legislative particularism: Evidence from US state legislatures. American Political Science Review110(3): 441–456.
11.
BerríosFGamboaR (2006) El Congreso Nacional chileno y el ejercicio de sus funciones legislativa y fiscalizadora (1990–2006). Política47: 99–125.
12.
BursteinPBauldrySFroeseP (2005) Bill sponsorship and congressional support for policy proposals, from introduction to enactment or disappearance. Political Research Quarterly58(2): 295–302.
13.
CainBEFerejohnJFiorinaMP (1987) The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
14.
CalvoE (2014) Legislator Success in Fragmented Congresses in Argentina: Plurality Cartels, Minority Presidents, and Lawmaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
CalvoESagarzazuI (2011) Legislator success in committee: Gatekeeping authority and the loss of majority control. American Journal of Political Science55(1): 1–15.
16.
CalvoETowA (2009) Cajoneando el debate: el papel de los presidentes de las comisiones en la productividad del Congreso argentino. Desarrollo Económico49: 451–477.
17.
Campos-ParraHNaviaPD (2022) La Cohesión legislativa en la cámara más valorada: El caso del Senado de Chile, 1990–2018. América Latina Hoy. DOI: 10.14201/alh.25398.
18.
CareyJ (1998) Term Limits and Legislative Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
CarrollRPachónM (2016) The unrealized potential of presidential coalitions in Colombia. In: AlemanETsebelisG (eds) Legislative Institutions and Lawmaking in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.127–147.
20.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (1993) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Sacramento, CA. University of California Press.
21.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
CoxGWMorgensternS (2001) Latin America’s reactive assemblies and proactive presidents. Comparative Politics33(2): 171–189.
23.
CrispBFSimoneauWM (2018) Electoral systems and constituency service. In: The Oxford handbook of electoral systems, 345–361. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
CrispBFEscobar-LemmonMCJonesBS, et al (2004) Vote-seeking incentives and legislative representation in six presidential democracies. Journal of Politics66(3): 823–846.
25.
DockendorffA (2021) Why are some parliamentarians’ bills more likely to progress? Sponsorship as a signal. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations23(1): 139–157.
EdwardsGCIIIBarrettAPeakeJ (1997) The legislative impact of divided government. American Journal of Political Science41: 545–563.
28.
Escobedo AránguizINaviaP (2020) What motivates a legislator to sponsor a bill that will never become law? The case of members of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, 1990–2014. Democratization27(8): 1436–1457.
29.
EulauHKarpsPD (1977) The puzzle of representation: Specifying components of responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly2: 233–254.
30.
Faúndez CaicedoVFigueroa GutiérrezVNaviaPPérez AburtoC (2024) The success of legislators’ bills in strong presidential systems: Chile, 1990–2018. The Journal of Legislative Studies30: 25–43.
31.
FrantzichS (1979) Who makes our laws? The legislative effectiveness of members of the US Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly4: 409–428.
32.
FuentesC (2015) Shifting the Status Quo: Constitutional reforms in Chile. Latin American Politics and Society57(1): 99–122.
33.
GammGKousserT (2010) Broad bills or particularistic policy? Historical patterns in American state legislatures. American Political Science Review104(1): 151–170.
34.
HeitshusenVYoungGWoodDM (2005) Electoral context and MP constituency focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science49(1): 32–45.
35.
IngallRECrispBF (2001) Determinants of home style: The many incentives for going home in Colombia. Legislative Studies Quarterly26: 487–512.
36.
Jaime-GodoyJNaviaP (2023) A more precise way to assess the success of the president’s legislative agenda: The success of presidential priority bills in Chile, 1990–2018. Democratization30(2): 238–258.
37.
KellermannM (2013) Sponsoring early day motions in the British House of Commons as a response to electoral vulnerability. Political Science Research and Methods1(2): 263–280.
38.
KrehbielK (1992) Information and legislative organization:. University of Michigan Press.
39.
KrehbielK (2004) Legislative organization. Journal of Economic Perspectives18(1): 113–128.
40.
KrutzGS (2005) Issues and institutions: ‘Winnowing’ in the US Congress. American Journal of Political Science49(2): 313–326.
41.
LeeFE (2016) Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42.
LondreganJB (2000) Legislative Institutions and Ideology in Chile. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43.
MartínezCA (2018) Capítulo 3. La presidencia en el Chile de la posdictadura. In: El sistema político de Chile. LOM Ediciones, 85–117.
44.
MayhewD (1991) Divided We Govern. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
MayhewDR (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection, vol. 26: Yale University Press.
46.
MimicaNNaviaP (2022) Party affiliation and individual incentives: Committee assignments in the chamber of Deputies in Chile, 1990–2018. Revista De Ciencia Política42(3).
47.
MimicaNNaviaP (2024) Where did hyper-presidentialism go? The origin of bills and laws passed in Chile, 1990–2022. Journal of Politics in Latin America16(1): 27–49.
48.
MorgensternS (2002) Explaining Legislative Politics in Latin America. In: MorgensternSNacifB (eds) Legislative Politics in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
MorgensternSNacifB (eds) (2002) Legislative Politics in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
50.
ParkerDCW (2021) Looking after constituency interests: The utilisation of MP expenses and Early Day Motions to craft constituency service home styles. Parliamentary Affairs74(1): 158–179.
51.
PereiraCMuellerB (2004) A theory of executive dominance of congressional politics: The committee system in the Brazilian chamber of deputies. The Journal of Legislative Studies10(1): 9–49.
52.
PolsbyNWGallaherMRundquistBS (1969) The growth of the seniority system in the US House of Representatives. American Political Science Review63(3): 787–807.
53.
RomerTRosenthalH (1978) Political resource allocation, control agendas and the status Quo. Public Choice33: 27–44.
54.
SearingD (1994) Westminster’s World: Understanding Political Roles. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55.
ShepsleKAWeingastBR (1987) The institutional foundations of committee power. The American Political Science Review81: 85–104.
56.
ShugartMSCareyJM (1992) Presidents and Assemblies. Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
57.
SiavelisP (2000) The President and Congress in Post-authoritarian Chile: Institutional Constraints to Democratic Consolidation. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
58.
Soto VelascoS (2015) Congreso legislativo y proceso legislativo. Teoría y práctica. Santiago: Thompson Reuters.
59.
Toro-MaureiraSHurtadoN (2016) The executive on the battlefield: Government amendments and cartel theory in the Chilean Congress. The Journal of Legislative Studies22(2): 196–215.
60.
ViscontiG (2011) Comportamiento Diacrónico del Congreso en Chile. Revista de Ciencia política31(1): 91–115.
61.
VoldenCWisemanAE (2007) Bargaining in legislatures over particularistic and collective goods. American Political Science Review101(1): 79–92.
62.
VoldenCWisemanAE (2014) Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Congress: The Lawmakers. Cambridge University Press.
63.
WeingastBRMarshallWJ (1988) The industrial organization of Congress; or, why legislatures, like firms, are not organized as markets. Journal of Political Economy96(1): 132–163.
