This study, based on surveys of legislators in South Dakota, Texas, and Kentucky, measures the members' perceptions of the goals of reforms adopted a few years ago in the legislatures of these states. It shows that there are large differences among members in their perception of goals—differences not generally explained by party or faction, members' status (chairmanships), or seniority. Reforms are more likely to be associated with transitive than with reflective goals; that is, they are related to the legislature and its environment and are not internally oriented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barnard, C.I. (1938) The Function of the ExecutiveCambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
2.
Cooper, J. (1977) "Congress in organizational perspective," pp. 140-159 in L. Dodd and B. Oppenheimer (eds.) Congress Reconsidered.New York: Praeger.
3.
Davidson, R. and W. Oleszek (1976) "Adaptation and consolidation: structural innovation in the U.S. House of Representatives."Legislative Studies Q.1: 37-65.
4.
Declerq, E. ( 1977) "Legislative efficiency and legislative reform."Prepared for the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association.
5.
Downs, A. (1967) Inside BureaucracyBoston: Little, Brown.
6.
Downs, G. Jr. and L. Mohr (1976) "Conceptual issues in the study of innovation."Administrative Sci. Q.21: 700-714.
7.
Etzioni, A. (1960) "Two approaches to organizational analysis: a critique and a suggestion."Administrative Sci. Q., 5: 257-278.
8.
Fenno, R.F., Jr. (1973) Congressmen in CommitteesBoston : Little, Brown.
9.
Georgiou, P. (1973) "The goal paradigm and notes toward a counter paradigm."Administrative Sci. Q.18: 291-310.
10.
Gross, E. (1969) "The definition of organizational goal."British J. of Sociology, 20: 277-294.
11.
Grumm, J. (1976) "The effects of legislative reform on the policy responsiveness of legislatures : a quasi-experiment."Prepared for the University of Nebraska symposium on legislative reform and public policy.
12.
Hedlund, R. and K. Hamm (1976a) "Conflict and perceived group benefits from legislative rules changes."Legislative Studies Q.1: 181-200.
13.
——— (1976b) "Institutional innovation and performance effectiveness in public policy making."Prepared at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.
14.
Jewell, M.E. and E.W. Cunningham ( 1968) Kentucky PoliticsLexington: Univ. of Kentucky Press.
15.
Jones, C.O. (1976) "How reform changes Congress."Prepared for the University of Nebraska symposium on legislative reform and public policy.
16.
Karnig, A. and L. Sigelman (1975) State legislative reform and public policy: another look."Western Pol. Q.28: 548-552.
Leloup, L.T. (1976) "The policy consequences of state legislative reform."Prepared for the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.
19.
Lyons, W. and R. Smith (1976) "Assessing legislative reform in the states."Prepared for the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association.
20.
Mohr, L. (1973) "The concept of organizational goal."Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.67: 470-481.
21.
Patterson, S. ( 1977) "Conclusions: on the study of legislative reform," in S. Welch and J. G. Peters (eds.) Legislative Reform and Public Policy.New York: Praeger .
22.
Perrow, C. (1961) "The analysis of goals in complex organization."Amer. Soc. Rev.26: 854-866.
23.
Ritt, L. (1973) "State legislative reform: does it matter?"Amer. Politics Q. 1: 499-510.
24.
Shaw, L.E. (1977) "A prolegomenon to responsible legislative reform."Policy Studies J.5: 395-401.
25.
Simon, H. (1976) Administrative BehaviorNew York: Free Press.
26.
——— (1964) "The concept of organizational goal."Admin. Sci. Q.9: 1-22.
27.
Winters, R. (1976) "Legislative reform and legislative cleavages."Prepared for the University of Nebraska symposium on legislative reform and public policy.
