This article examines the effects of committee specialization and district characteristics on speech participation by topic and congressional forum. It argues that committee specialization should increase speech participation during legislative debates, while district characteristics should affect the likelihood of speech participation in non-lawmaking forums. To examine these expectations, we analyze over 100,000 speeches delivered in the Chilean Chamber of Deputies between 1990 and 2018. To carry out our topic classification task, we utilize the recently developed state-of-the-art multilingual Transformer model XLM-RoBERTa. Consistent with informational theories, we find that committee specialization is a significant predictor of speech participation in legislative debates. In addition, consistent with theories purporting that legislative speech serves as a vehicle for the electoral connection, we find that district characteristics have a significant effect on speech participation in non-lawmaking forums.
AgorWeston H.1971. The Chilean Senate: Internal Distribution of Influence. Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press.
2.
AlcántaraManuel (dir.) 2019. Proyecto Élites Latinoamericanas (PELA-USAL). Salamanca, Spain: Universidad de Salamanca (1994-2021).
3.
AlemánEduardoMicozziJuan Pablo. 2021 “Parliamentary Rules, Party Norms, and Legislative Speech.” International Political Science Review, doi:10.1177/0192512120985508.
AninatCristóbal. 2006. “Balance de Poderes Legislativos en Chile: Presidencialismo Exagerado o Base de un Sistema Político Cooperativo?” Política: Revista de Ciencia Política47: 128–148.
6.
BäckHannaBaumannMarkusDebusMarcMüllerJochen. 2019. “The Unequal Distribution of Speaking Time in Parliamentary-Party Groups.” Legislative Studies Quarterly44 (1): 163–193.
7.
BäckHannaDebusMarcFernandesJorge M. (eds). 2021. The Politics of Legislative Debates. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
BayerHaraldVergaraRodrigo. 2006. “Delincuencia en Chile: Determinantes y Rol de Las Políticas Públicas.” In Camino al Bicentenario: Doce propuestas para Chile. Santiago, Chile: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 17–46.
9.
BevanShaun. 2019. “Gone Fishing: The Creation of the Comparative Agendas Project Master Codebook.” In Comparative Policy Agendas: Theory, Tools, and Data, edited by BaumgartnerFrank R.BreunigChristianGrossmanEmiliano, 17–34. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
CASEN. 2017. Survey: Encuesta de caracterización socioeconómica nacional. Ministerio de Desarrollo Social y Familia, Chile.
DammertLuciaMaloneMary Fran T.. 2003. “Fear of Crime or Fear of Life? Public Insecurities in Chile.” Bulletin of Latin American Research2 (1): 79–101.
13.
DiermeierDaniel. 1995. “Commitment, Deference, and Legislative Institutions.” American Political Science Review89 (2): 344–355.
14.
DockendorffAndrés. 2018. Legislative Behaviour in Chile: Three Essays Examining the Effects of Presidentialism and Party Politics on Chilean Members of Congress. Colchester, UK: PhD thesis, University of Essex.
15.
DonaireClaudia. 2016. “Empleo Rural en Chile: Cómo se Compone y Cuáles Son Sus Características?” Lecture. Ministerio del Trabajo y Previsión Social, Santiago, Chile. December 15, 2016.
16.
FennoRichard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
17.
FernandesJorge MGoplerudMaxWonMiguel. 2019. “Legislative Bellwethers: The Role of Committee Membership in Parliamentary Debate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly44 (2): 307–343.
18.
GamboaRicardoToroSergio Y.. 2018. “The Electoral Connection in Presidential Systems: Non-Legislative Actions Inside the Chilean Congress.” The Journal of Legislative Studies24 (3): 249–271.
19.
Gaviria UribeAlejandroPagésCarmen. 1999. “Patterns of Crime Victimization in Latin America. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank. Working Paper #408.
20.
GilliganThomas W.KrehbielKeith1987. “Collective Decisionmaking and Standing Committees: An Informational Rationale for Restrictive Amendment Procedures.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization3 (2): 287–335.
21.
GiannettiDanielaPedrazzaniAndrea. 2016. Rules and Speeches: How Parliamentary Rules Affect Legislators’ Speech‐Making Behavior. Legislative Studies Quarterly41(3): 771–800.
22.
González EstebanÁngel Luis. 2016. “The Economic Determinants of Crime: Santiago de Chile 2001–2009.” America Latina Hoy73: 143–179.
23.
HallRichard L.1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
HuneeusCarlosBerríosFabiolaRodrigoCordero. 2006. “Legislatures in Presidential Systems: The Latin American Experience.” The Journal of Legislative Studies12 (3–4): 404–425.
25.
IshimaHideo. 2020. “How Electoral Reform Alters Legislative Speech: Evidence from the Parliament of Victoria, Australia 1992-2017.” Electoral Studies67: 102–192.
26.
KimChongL.PattersonSamuelC. 1998. Parliamentary Elite Integration in Six Nations. Comparative Politics20(4): 379–399.
27.
KrehbielKeith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
28.
KrehbielKeith. 2004. “Legislative Organization.” Journal of Economic Perspectives18 (1): 113–128.
29.
LinNickOsnabrüggeMoritz. 2018, Making Comprehensible Speeches When Your Constituents Need It. Research and Politics; July: 1–8, doi:10.1177/20531680187955.
30.
LindstädtRenéSlapinJonathan B.WielenRyan J. Vander. 2011.“Balancing Competing Demands: Position Taking and Election Proximity in the European Parliament.” Legislative Studies Quarterly36 (1): 37–70.
MatthewsDonald R. 1960. U.S. Senators and their World. New York, NY: Vantage.
33.
MattsonIngvarStrømKaare. 1995. “Parliamentary Committees.” In Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe, edited by HerbertDöring, 249–307. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
34.
NaviaPatricioMimicaNicolás. 2021. Determinants of Bicameral Conflict: The Formation of Conference Committees in Chile, 1990-2018. Latin American Politics and Society63(4): 74–95.
35.
NúñezJavierRiveraJorgeVillavicencioXavierMolinaOscar. 2003. “Determinantes Socioeconómicos y Demográficos del Crimen en Chile.” Estudios de Economía30 (1): 55–85.
36.
OlsonMichael P.RogowskiJon C.. 2020. “Legislative Term Limits and Polarization.” The Journal of Politics82 (2): 572–586.
ProkschSven-OliverSlapinJonathan B.. 2010. “Position Taking in European Parliament Speeches.” British Journal of Political Science40 (3): 587–611.
39.
ProkschSven-OliverSlapinJonathan B.. 2015. The Politics of Parliamentary Debate. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40.
QuinnKevin M.MonroeBurt L.ColaresiMichaelCrespinMichael H.RadevDragomir R.. 2010. “How to Analyze Political Attention with Minimal Assumptions and Costs.” American Journal of Political Science54 (1): 389–400.
41.
RoccaMichael S.2007. “Nonlegislative Debate in the US House of Representatives.” American Politics Research35 (4): 489–505.
42.
RybickiElizabeth. 2008. “The “Clearance Process” in the Senate and Measures Approved in the 110th Congress Through June 30, 2008. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service Memo.
43.
SaieghSebastian M.2010. “Active Players or Rubber Stamps? An Evaluation of the Policymaking Role of Latin American Legislatures.” In How democracy works. Political institutions, Actors and Arenas in Latin American Policymaking, edited by SteinErnestoTommasiMarianoScartasciniCarlos, 47–75. Cambridge, UK: Inter-American Development Bank/David Rockerfeller Center.
44.
SchwarzDanielTraberDeniseBenoitKenneth. 2017. “Estimating Intra-Party Preferences: Comparing Speeches to Votes.” Political Science Research and Methods5 (2): 379–396.
45.
ShepsleKenneth. 1988. “Representation and Governance: The Great Legislative Trade-Off.” Political Science Quarterly103 (3): 461–484.
46.
TuckerEthan C.CappsColton J.ShamirLior. 2020. “A Data Science Approach to 138 years of Congressional Speeches.” Heliyon6 (8): e04417.
47.
Vallejo VeraSebastianGómez VidalAnalía. 2021. “The Politics of Interruptions: Gendered Disruptions of Legislative Speeches.” The Journal of Politics84: 1384–1402. doi:10.1086/717083.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
