Scholars have long bemoaned congressional disinterest in oversight. We explain varied congressional attention to oversight by advancing the contingent oversight theory. We show how the structure of congressional committees, partisan majorities, and theories of delegation together explain when, why, and for how long Congress investigated executive branch malfeasance between 1947 and 2004. Divided government, partisan committees, and committees characterized by broad statutory discretion generate more investigations, whereas distributive committees and unified government dampen Congress’ investigatory vigor. The conduct of oversight depends on more than a desire to produce good government or the incentive structures faced by individual members of Congress.
AberbachJoel. 2002. “What’s Happened to the Watchful Eye?” Congress & the Presidency29:3-23.
2.
AldrichJohn H.RohdeDavid W.1997. “The Transition to Republican Rule in the House: Implications for Theories of Congressional Parties.” Political Science Quarterly112:541-67.
3.
BallaSteven J.DeeringChristopher J.2001. “Oversight over Time and across Committees: An Operational Measure of Police Patrols and Fire Alarms.” Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
4.
BendorJonathan. 1988. “Formal Models of Bureaucracy.” British Journal of Political Science18:353-95.
5.
BinderSarah A.MannThomas E.OrnsteinNorman J.ReynoldsMolly. 2009. Mending the Broken Branch: Assessing the 110th Congress, Anticipating the 111th. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
6.
CoxGary W.McCubbinsMathew D.1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
EpsteinDavidO’HalloranSharyn. 1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.
FerejohnJohnShipanCharles. 1990. “Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization6:1-20.
11.
FiorinaMorris. 1987. “Alternative Rationales for Restrictive Procedures.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization3:337-45.
12.
FisherLouis. 2003. “Congressional Investigations: Subpoenas and Contempt Power.” CRS Report for Congress. April2, RL31836.
13.
GilliganThomas W.KrehbielKeith. 1990. “Organization of Informative Committees by a Rational Legislature.” American Journal of Political Science34:531-64.
14.
GilliganThomas W.KrehbielKeith. 1994. “The Gains from Exchange Hypothesis of Legislative Organization.” Legislative Studies Quarterly19:181-214.
15.
GilmourJohn B.1995. Strategic Disagreement: Stalemate in American Politics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
16.
GinsbergBenjaminShefterMartin. 2002. Politics by Other Means: Politics, Prosecutors, and the Press from Watergate to Whitewater. 3rd ed.New York: W.W. Norton.
17.
JonesBryan D.BaumgartnerFrank R.2005. The Politics of Attention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
KingDavid C.1997. Turf Wars: How Congressional Committees Claim Jurisdiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
KrehbielKeith. 1990. “Are Congressional Committees Composed of Preference Outliers?”American Political Science Review84:149-63.
21.
KrehbielKeith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
22.
KrehbielKeith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
KrinerDouglasSchwartzLiam. 2008. “Divided Government and Congressional Investigations.” Legislative Studies Quarterly33:295-322.
24.
LandisJames M.1926. “Constitutional Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation.” Harvard Law Review40 (2): 153-221.
25.
MannThomas E.OrnsteinNorman J.2008. The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
26.
MayhewDavid R.1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
27.
MayhewDavid R.1991. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946-1990. New Haven: Yale University Press.
28.
McCartyNolanPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Boston: MIT Press.
29.
McCubbinsMathewNollRoger G.WeingastBarry R.1987. “Administrative Procedures As Instruments of Political Control.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization3:243-77.
30.
McCubbinsMathewNollRoger G.WeingastBarry R.1989. “Structure and Process, Politics and Policy.” Virginia Law Review75:431-82.
31.
McCubbinsMathewNollRoger G.WeingastBarry R.1999. “The Political Origins of the Administrative Procedure Act.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization15:180-217.
32.
McCubbinsMathewSchwartzThomas. 1984. “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms.” American Journal of Political Science2:165-79.
33.
MillerGary J.2005. “The Political Evolution of Principal-Agent Models.” Annual Review of Political Science8:203-25.
34.
MoeRonald C.1999. “At Risk: The President’s Role As Chief Manager.” In The Managerial Presidency, edited by PfiffnerJames P., 2nd ed. 265-84. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
ParkerDavid C. W.DullMatthew. 2009. “Divided We Quarrel: The Politics of Congressional Investigations, 1947-2004.” Legislative Studies Quarterly34:319-45.
39.
PooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
RohdeDavid W.1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
ScherSeymour. 1963. “Conditions for Legislative Control.” The Journal of Politics25:526-51.
42.
ShepsleKenneth A.WeingastBarry R.1987. “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.” American Political Science Review81:85-104.
43.
ShepsleKenneth A.WeingastBarry R.1995. “Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions.” In Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions, edited by ShepsleKenneth A.WeingastBarry R.5-35. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
44.
TaylorTelford. 1955. The Grand Inquest: The Story of Congressional Investigations. New York: Simon and Shuster.
45.
TomzMichaelWittenbergJasonKingGary. 2001. “Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.” Available at http://gking.harvard.edu/clarify
