 Divided party control of policymaking dramatically increases the time it takes to enact important legislation. These legislative delays are even greater when the two parties are ideologically polarized. In the U.S. federal government, the typical legislative environment consists of one party holding the presidency, the other party controlling one or both chambers of Congress, and a massive ideological gulf between the parties. Although this environment imposes significant legislative hurdles, many important bills are eventually passed into law. However, such bills often take a very long time to progress through the legislative process, which undermines the government’s ability to quickly tackle important policy problems. In new research, we find that high levels of party polarization exacerbates the problems of divided government, slowing down the legislative proves by a significant amount. Divided government happens when one political party controls the presidency and the opposition party maintains a majority in at least one chamber of Congress, as is the case now, with the Republicans controlling both the Senate and the House of Representatives after last November’s midterm elections. This is the norm in contemporary U.S. politics: Divided government defined 11 of the 14 two-year congressional sessions since 1989. At the same time, the ideological division between the parties increased steadily starting in 1970 and has continued up to today’s historically high levels of party polarization. Together, these factors create a difficult environment for the creation of public policy in Washington. Some political scientists argue divided government does not affect the number of significant laws passed over time. Other research indicates periods of divided government and high ideological polarization between the parties act separately to decrease the production of significant laws. This scholarly debate offers important insight into how the political environment shapes the final policy outputs of Congress, but this line of research ignores how long it takes public laws to be passed. Understanding how political factors, like divided government and party polarization, influence the length of the policy process is important because long, drawn-out political battles draw the ire of the general public, fostering distrust of policymaking institutions. These legislative battles also limit the ability of Congress to address other policy problems, because lawmakers have only so much attention to devote to issues. Even if a significant piece of legislation is passed into law, the excess time and debate required to pass that law can problematic for lawmakers and society more generally. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) is one such example. The original bill for this historic policy change was introduced on September 17, 2010, but the president did not sign the law until March 23, 2010—187 days later! The congressional agenda was highly constrained during this time, because debate over the PPACA began long before a bill was introduced, forcing congressional lawmakers to focus most of their attention on a single issue. The vitriol around this bill and its sluggish progress did not escape the public eye, and, according to Gallup, public approval of Congress dropped from 31 percent to 18 percent over this period. The end result of this process was a bill most experts regarded as imperfect. Keep in mind this law was passed while Democrats controlled the presidency and held a majority in both chambers of Congress. Such periods of unified government likely result in quicker passage of legislation, because the party in power encounters few, if any, legislative hurdles. On the other hand, divided government causes a host of political and institutional problems the parties must overcome if either party wishes to achieve any of their respective legislative goals. Our analysis of more than 2,200 important bills from 1949 to 2010 demonstrates how the presence of divided government affects the speed at which legislation is passed. As expected, we found divided government slows the legislative process for important bills. Our analysis suggests the average difference in the time to enactment for important legislation between periods of divided and unified government is roughly 60 days. Two full months is a significant amount of time within a two-year congressional session. Obviously, divided government dramatically slows the speed of the legislative process. Divided government weighs down the policymaking process because it requires compromise between the two parties. Democrats and Republicans must reach some modicum of agreement to create public laws, and it goes without saying there is little common ground between the parties in the current political context. The enormous ideological division between the parties intensifies any barriers to legislative compromise. Our results show the mere presence of ideological polarization does not affect the time to enactment for important legislation. Instead, the level of party polarization conditions whether or not divided government influences the pace of the legislative process. As Figure 1 shows, at low levels of polarization, party control of government does not impact how quickly (or slowly) important bills pass. When the parties are close together ideologically, consensus across the aisle becomes a realistic goal in spite of the presence of divided government. This dynamic relationship changes as the ideological distance between the parties grows. Figure 1 – Simulated effects of the interaction between presidential party strength and party polarization on survival time of important legislation Note: The dashed lines represent a 90 percent confidence interval. A point at which the confidence interval contains zero indicates an insignificant effect for party strength.Divided government only impacts the enactment of important bills at medium and high levels of party polarization. When divided government and an ideological separation of the parties occur, the legislative process is slowed by a significant amount. This relationship exists because party polarization is not conducive to compromise, which is necessary for the creation of public policy under divided government. The results of our analysis do not paint a pretty picture for future legislative outcomes. Divided government will be a political reality until at least 2017, and the trend of increased ideological polarization between the parties is expected to endure well into the future. Given these circumstances, the slow, cantankerous policy process in Washington should continue with important policies taking longer and longer to work their way through Congress. This article is based on the paper ‘Delay in the Legislative Process: Evidence From Important Bills, 1949-2010’, in American Politics Research. Featured image credit: Nick Olejniczak (Flickr, CC-BY-NC-2.0) Please read our comments policy before commenting. Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USApp– American Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1EhrEsO _________________________________ About the authors
_
In the United States, divided government describes a situation in which one party controls the executive branch while another party controls one or both houses of the legislative branch.
Divided government is seen by different groups as a benefit or as an undesirable product of the model of governance used in the U.S. political system. Under said model, known as the separation of powers, the state is divided into different branches. Each branch has separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the others. However, the degree to which the president of the United States has control of Congress often determines their political strength - such as the ability to pass sponsored legislation, ratify treaties, and have Cabinet members and judges approved.
The model can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in a parliamentary system where the executive and legislature (and sometimes parts of the judiciary) are unified. Those in favor of divided government believe that such separations encourage more policing of those in power by the opposition, as well as limiting spending and the expansion of undesirable laws.[1] Opponents, however, argue that divided governments become lethargic, leading to many gridlocks. In the late 1980s, Terry M. Moe, a professor of political science at Stanford University, examined the issue.[2] He concluded that divided governments lead to compromise which can be seen as beneficial, but he also noticed that divided governments subvert performance and politicize the decisions of executive agencies. Additionally, further research has shown that during divided governments, legislatures will pass laws with sunset provisions in order to achieve a political consensus.[3] Early in the 19th century, divided government was rare, but since the 1970s it has become increasingly common.
Party control of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives (including president's party): 1855-2021[4][5][6] D denotes the Democratic Party and R denotes the Republican Party Bold indicates a divided government.
*The 2000 election resulted in a 50–50 tie in the Senate, and the Constitution gives tie-breaking power to the vice president. The vice president was Democrat Al Gore from January 3, 2001 until the inauguration of Republican Richard Cheney on January 20, 2001. Then on May 24, 2001, Republican Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats as an independent, resulting in another shift of control.[7] **The 2020 election resulted in a 50–50 tie in the Senate, and the Constitution gives tie-breaking power to the vice president. The vice president has been Democrat Kamala Harris since January 20, 2021. Many presidents' elections produced what is known as a coattail effect, in which the success of a presidential candidate also leads to electoral success for other members of his or her party. In fact, all newly elected presidents except Zachary Taylor, Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush were accompanied by control of at least one house of Congress. Most columns are in numbers of years.
|
What occurs when one or more houses of the legislature are controlled by the party in opposition to the executive?
Related Posts
Copyright © 2024 themosti Inc.
