Majority Party leaders are hypothesized, through their control of the legislative schedule in the House of Representatives, to use legislative success as a selective incentive to encourage majority party members to contribute to the collective goals of the party. Members can demonstrate party loyalty through floor voting and financial contributions to the party's re-election efforts. This article examines legislative success from the 103rd through 107th Congresses. The evidence shows that both demonstrations of party loyalty have a significant effect on legislative success.
Adler, E. Scott, T.J. Feeley, and John D. Wilkerson .2003. Bill sponsorship activity and success in Congress: Why we should change the way we study legislative effectiveness. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association.
2.
Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde.2001. The logic of conditional party government: Revisiting the electoral connection. In Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer (eds.), Congress reconsidered, 7th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly .
3.
Anderson, William D., Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, and Valeria Sinclair-Chapman .2003. The keys to legislative success in the U.S. House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly28:357-86.
4.
Bianco, William.1994. Trust: Representatives and constituents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and J. Tobin Grant.1999. All in a day's work: The financial rewards of legislative effectiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly24:511-23.
6.
Cook, Timothy.1979. Legislature vs. legislator: A note on the paradox of Congressional support. Legislative Studies Quarterly4:43-52.
7.
Cox, Gary, and Mathew McCubbins .1993. Legislative leviathan: Party government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
———. 2002. Agenda power in the U.S. House of Representatives 1977 to 1986. In David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins (eds.), Party, process, and political change in Congress: New perspectives on the history of Congress . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
Currinder, Marian L.2003. Leadership PAC contribution strategies and House member ambitions. Legislative Studies Quarterly28:551-77.
10.
Dodd, Lawrence.1977. Congress and the quest for power. In Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer (eds.), Congress reconsidered. New York: Praeger.
11.
———. 2005. Re-envisioning Congress: Theoretical perspectives on Congressional change—2004. In Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer (eds.), Congress reconsidered, 8th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
12.
Fenno, Richard.1973. Congressmen in committees. Boston: Little Brown.
13.
Fiorina, Morris P.1974. Representatives, roll calls, and constituencies. Lexington, MA: DC Health.
14.
Franzitch, Stephen.1979. Who makes our laws? The legislative effectiveness of members of the U.S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly4:409-28.
15.
Greene, William H.1997. Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16.
Heberlig, Eric S.2003. Congressional parties, fundraising, and committee ambition . Political Research Quarterly56:151-61.
17.
Hibbing, John.1991. Congressional careers: Contours of life in theU.S. House of Representatives. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
18.
Jacobson, Gary.2001. The politics of Congressional elections, 5th ed. New York: Longman .
19.
Krutz, Glen.2000. Congressional leaders and the winnowing of legislation . Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association.
20.
Long, J. Scott.1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
21.
Maltzman, Forrest.1997. Competing principals: Committees, parties, and the organization of Congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
22.
Matthews, Donald.1960. U.S. Senators and their world. New York: Random House.
23.
Mayhew, David.1974. Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
24.
Moore, Michael K., and Sue Thomas.1990. Explaining legislative success in the U.S. Senate: The role of the majority and minority parties. Western Political Quarterly44:959-70.
25.
Mouw, Calvin, and Michael Mackuen .1992. The strategic agenda in legislative politics. American Political Science Review86:87-105.
26.
Olson, Mancur.1965. The logic of collective action. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.
27.
Parker, Glenn, and Roger Davidson.1979. Why do Americans love their Congressmen so much more than their Congress?Legislative Studies Quarterly4:53-60.
28.
Rohde, David W.1991. Parties and leaders in the postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Rohde, David W., and Kenneth A. Shepsle .1973. Democratic committee assignments in the House of Representatives: Strategic aspects of a social choice process . American Political Science Review67:889-905.
30.
Sinclair, Barbara.1995. Legislators, leaders, and lawmaking: The U.S. House of Representatives in the postreform era. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
31.
Smith, Steven, and Bruce Ray.1983. The impact of Congressional reform: House Democratic committee assignments. Congress and the Presidency10:219-40.
32.
Smith, Steven, Jason Roberts, and Ryan Vander Wielen .2003. The American Congress, 3rd ed. [Online Version]. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
33.
Stein, Robert, and Kenneth Bickers .1995. Perpetuating the pork barrel . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
