We consider whether the manipulation of committee sizes can serve as a strategic tool of the majority party to further its influence over policy outcomes in the US House. Previous research notes the influence of the majority party’s preferences on the composition of committees but takes the size of committees as exogenous. We argue that the determination of sizes is an important first step and potential tool to shape committee composition, given vacancy constraints like the property rights norm. Using assignment and revealed legislator ideology data from the 80th to 111th Congresses, our results support this view of strategic expansion as a majority party strategy particularly for “prestige committees,” which are most central to a party’s agenda. Expansion indeed results in committees that are ideologically closer to the majority caucus median.
AldrichJHRohdeDW (1998) Measuring conditional party government. Presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, USA.
2.
AldrichJHRohdeDW (2000a)The consequences of party organization in the house: The role of the majority and minority parties in conditional party government. In: BondJFleischerR (eds) Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era. Washington: CQ Press, pp. 31–72.
3.
AldrichJHRohdeDW (2000b) The Republican revolution and the House Appropriations Committee. Journal of Politics62(1): 1–33.
4.
AldrichJHRohdeDW (2009) Congressional committees in a continuing partisan era. In: DoddLCOppenheimerBI (eds) Congress Reconsidered. 9th edition. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 217–240.
5.
AldrichJHBergerMMRohdeDW (2002) The historical variability in conditional party government, 1877–1994. In: BradyDWMcCubbinsMD (eds) Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 17–35.
6.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (1993) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
7.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
GrimerJPowellEN (2013) Congressmen in exile: The politics and consequences of involuntary committee removal. Journal of Politics75(4): 907–920.
10.
GrosecloseT (1994) Testing committee composition hypotheses for the U.S. Congress. Journal of Politics56: 440–458.
11.
HurwitzMAMoilesRJRohdeDW (2001) Distributive and partisan issues in agriculture policy in the 104th House. American Political Science Review95(4): 911–922.
12.
KanthakK (2004) Exclusive committee assignments and party pressure in the U.S. House of Representatives. Public Choice121: 391–412.
13.
KatzJNSalaBR (1996) Careerism, committee assignments, and the electoral connection. American Political Science Review90(1): 21–33.
14.
KiewetRDMcCubbinsMD (1991) The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
15.
LeeDJ (2008) Going once, going twice, sold! The committee assignment process as an all-pay auction. Public Choice135: 237–255.
16.
LeightonWALopezEJ (2002) Committee assignments and the cost of party loyalty. Political Research Quarterly55(1): 59–90.
17.
MaltzmanF (1998) Competing prinicples: Committees, parties, and the organization of Congress. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
18.
MungerMC (1988) Allocation of desirable committee assignments: Extended queues versus committee expansion. American Journal of Political Science32(2): 317–344.
19.
O’BrienM (2005) John F. Kennedy: A Biography. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
20.
PooleKTRosenthalH (2007) Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
21.
RayBASmithSS (1984) Committee size in the U.S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly9(4): 679–695.
22.
RohdeDW (1991) Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
SchickA (2007) The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process. 3rd editionWashington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
24.
ShepsleKA (1978) The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle: Democratic Committee Assignments in the Modern House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
SinclairB (1981) Majority party leadership strategies for coping with the new U.S. House. In: MackamenFC (ed.) Understanding Congressional Leadership. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 181– 205.
26.
SinclairB (2006) Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policy Making. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
27.
SmithSSGammG (2009) The dynamics of party government in Congress. In: DoddLCOppenheimerBI (eds) Congress Reconsidered. 9th edition. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 141–164.
28.
SmithSSRayBA (1983) The impact of congressional reform: House democratic committee assignments. Congress and the Presidency10: 219–240.
29.
WestefieldLP (1974) Majority party leadership and the committee system in the House of Representatives. American Political Science Review68(4): 1593–1604.
30.
YoungGHeitshusenV (2003) Party and the dynamics of congressional committee composition in the U.S. House, 1947–96. British Journal of Political Science33(4): 659–679.
