Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Der Kongress in den USA: Repräsentation, Machtkontrolle und Gestaltungswille

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbuch Politik USA

  • 548 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Der US-amerikanische Kongress gilt im internationalen Vergleich als ein besonderes Parlament. Aus funktionaler Sicht ist er ein Musterbeispiel für Effektivität in der Gesetzgebung, in der Exekutivkontrolle, und in der Repräsentation der Wähler. Auf der strukturellen Ebene gilt der Kongress als Prototyp einer individualisierten Vertretungskörperschaft mit vergleichsweise schwach ausgeprägten Parteistrukturen. Dieser Beitrag zeigt in einem ersten Teil, wie sich diese funktionalen und strukturellen Besonderheiten der US-amerikanischen Legislativen auf der Handlungsebene niederschlagen bzw. welche typischen Handlungsstrategien der Kongressmitglieder damit jeweils verbunden sind. In einem zweiten Teil thematisiert der vorliegende Beitrag wichtige Unterschiede und Veränderungen im Zeitverlauf. Ein dritter und abschließender Teil diskutiert die Gründe für die skizzierten Unterschiede im Quer- und Längsschnitt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Siehe auch http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Congressional_offices_and_staff#note-0 (Zugegriffen am 25.04.2014)

  2. 2.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics. Zugegriffen am 30.03.2014.

Literatur

  • Aberbach, Joel D. 1991. Keeping a Watchful Eye. The Politics of Congressional Oversight. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center. Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. Yale: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagehot, Walter. 1990 [1867]. The House of Commons. In Legislatures, Hrsg. Philip Norton, 36–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, Frank R., und Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, Sarah. 2003. Stalemate. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishin, Benjamin G. 2000. Constituency ifluence in congress: Do subconstituencies matter? Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 389–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, David W., Joseph Cooper, und Patricia A. Hurley. 1979. The decline of party in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1887–1968. Legislative Studies Quarterly 4(3): 381–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, David H., und Hahrie Hahn. 2004. An extended historical view of congressional party polarization. Working Paper prepared for presentation at Princeton University, Dec. 2. Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Bruce E., John A. Ferejohn, und Morris P. Fiorina. 1984. The constituency service basis of the personal vote for U.S. Representatives and British Members of Parliament. The American Political Science Review 78(1): 110–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Bruce E., John A. Ferejohn, und Morris P. Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote. Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA, London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, Joshua D. 2006. Representation in congress: Constituents and roll calls in the 106th house. Journal of Politics 68: 397–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collie, Melissa P. 1988. Universalism and the parties in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1921–1980. American Journal of Political Science 32(4): 865–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Joseph, und David W. Brady. 1981. Institutional context and leadership style. American Political Science Review 75: 411–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crespin, Michael H., und Charles J. Finnochiaro. 2013. Elections and the politics of pork in the US Senate. Social Science Quartely 94(2): 506–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Roger H., und Walter J. Oleszek. 1996. Congress and Its Members, 5th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Roger H. 1988. Der Kongreß als Repräsentative Institution. In US-Kongress und Deutscher Bundestag, Hrsg. Uwe Thaysen, Roger H. Davidson und Robert G. Livingston, 49–72. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Roger H., Walter J. Oleszek, und Frances E. Lee. 2008. Congress and Its Members, 11th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Roger H., Walter J. Oleszek, Frances E. Lee, und Eric Schickler. 2013. Congress and Its Members, 14. Aufl. Los Angeles, CA: Sage und CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depauw, Sam. 1999. Parliamentary party cohesion and the scarcity of sanctions in the Belgian Chamber of Representatives (1991–1995). Res Publica 41: 15–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diermeier, D., und T.J. Feddersen. 1998. Cohesion in legislatures and the vote of confidence procedure. American Political Science Review 92(3): 611–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esaiasson, Peter, and Soeren Holmberg. 1996. Representation from Above. Members of Parliament and Representative Democracy in Sweden. Dartmouth: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C.L., und Walter J. Oleszek. 1997. Congress Under Fire. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenno, Richard. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenno, Richard. 1978. Homestyle. House Members in their Districts. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. The case of the vanishing margins: The bureaucracy did it. The American Political Science Review 71(1): 177–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, Morris P. 2011. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. Boston: Longman Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Louis. 2007. Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President, 5th ed. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleisher, Richard, und Jon Bond. 2004. The shrinking middle in the US congress. British Journal of Political Science 34(3): 429–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Sally. 2007. Dilemmas of Representation: Local Politics, National Factors, and the Home Styles of Modern U.S. Congress Members. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellner, Winand, und Martin Kleiber. 2012. Das Regierungssystem der USA, 2nd ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, Mark J. 2009. Putting Polarization in Perspective. British Journal of Political Science 39(2): 413-448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, John. 1996. Rationalizing Parliament: Legislative Institutions and Party Politics in France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, Gary C. 2013. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 8th ed. New York, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jewell, Malcom E., and Samuel C. Patterson. 1973. The Legislative Process in the United States. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, David R., und Monika L. McDermott. 2010. Americans, Congress, and Democratic Responsiveness. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Richard S. 2007. Political Institutions in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, John W. 1973. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Frances E. 2009. Beyond Ideology. Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, Burdett A. 2011. The US Senate: From Deliberation to Dysfunction. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowell, A.L. 1901. The influence of party upon legislation in England and America. Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1901 1: 319–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, Thomas E. 2010. Congress. In Developments in American Politics 6, Hrsg. Gillian Peele, Christopher J. Bailey, Bruce E. Cain und B. Guy Peters, 117–131. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT und London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Edward E., und Donald Stokes. 1963. Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review 57: 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ornstein, Norman J., Thomas E. Mann, Michael J. Malbin, und Andrew Rugg. 2013. Vital Statistics on Congress. Washington, D.C.: www.brookings.edu/vitalstats.

  • Polsby, Nelson. 1984. Political Innovation in America. The Politics of Policy Initiation. New Haven, CT und London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polsby, Nelson. 1975. Legislatures. In Handbook of Political Science, Hrsg. Fred I. Greenstein und Nelson W. Polsby, 277–296. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohde, D.W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roper, John. 2010. The presidency. In Developments in American Politics 6, Hrsg. Gillian Peele, Christopher J. Bailey, Bruce E. Cain und B. Guy Peters, 102–116. London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, Malcom. 1979. Conclusion. In Committees in Legislatures, Hrsg. John D. Lees und Malcom Shaw. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, Kenneth A., und Barry R. Weingast. 1994. Positive theories of congressional institutions. Legislative Studies Quarterly 19(2): 149–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieberer, Ulrich. 2006. Party unity in parliamentary democracies. A comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies 12: 150–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, Barbara. 1989. The Transformation of the U.S. Senate. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Steven S. 1989. Floor Politics in the House and Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Steven S., und Gerald Gramm. 2013. The dynamics of party government in congress. In Congress Reconsidered, Hrsg. Lawrence C Dodd und Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Los Angeles, CA: Sage und CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundquist, James L. 1981. The Decline and Resurgence of Congress. Washington, DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Andrew J. 2012. Voting on the floor: Members’ most fundamental right. In New Directions in Congressional Politics, Hrsg. Jamie L. Carson. New York, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theriault, Sean M. 2006. Party polarization in the US congress. Party Politics 12(4): 483–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurber, James A. 2013. The dynamics and dysfunction of the congressional budget process: From inception to deadlock. In Congress Reconsidered, Hrsg. Lawrence C. Dodd und Bruce I. Oppenheimer, 319–345. Los Angeles, CA: Sage und CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, Eric M. 1996. The Decline of Comity in Congress: Representatives and Ideologues in the Senate. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, Eric M. 1999. The Movers and the Shirkers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, Eric M., und Thomas Zittel. 2006. Comparative legislative behavior. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, Hrsg. Rod A.W. Rhodes, Sarah Binder und Bert Rockman, 455–473. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volden, Craig, und Alan E. Wiseman. 2013. Legislative effectiveness and representation. In Congress Reconsidered, Hrsg. Lawrence C. Dodd und Bruce I. Oppenheimer, 237–265. Los Angeles, CA: Sage und CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ware, Alan. 2010. Political parties and the new partisanship. In: Developments in American Politics 6, Hrsg. Gillian Peele, Christopher J. Bailey, Bruce E. Cain und B. Guy Peters, 50–66. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, W.S. 1956. The Citadel. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zingher, Joshua N. 2014. An analysis of the changing social bases of America’s political parties: 1952–2008. Electoral studies. Online first at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2014.02.003

  • Zittel, Thomas. 2010. Mehr Responsivität durch neue digitale Medien? Die elektronische Wählerkommunikation von Abgeordneten in Deutschland, Schweden und den USA. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Goethe-Universität, Grüneburgplatz 1, Frankfurt, 60323, Deutschland

    Thomas Zittel

Authors
  1. Thomas Zittel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Zittel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Christan Lammert

  2. Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

    Markus Siewert

  3. JFK Institut für Nordamerikastudien Abteilung Politik, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Boris Vormann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this entry

Cite this entry

Zittel, T. (2014). Der Kongress in den USA: Repräsentation, Machtkontrolle und Gestaltungswille. In: Lammert, C., Siewert, M., Vormann, B. (eds) Handbuch Politik USA. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04125-0_9-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04125-0_9-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-04125-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Sozialwissenschaften und Recht

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation