Advertisement

Der Kongress in den USA: Repräsentation, Machtkontrolle und Gestaltungswille

Living reference work entry
  • 334 Downloads

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.

Schlüsselwӧrter

Amerikanischer Kongress Abgeordnete Politisches Handeln Politische Parteien 

Literatur

  1. Aberbach, Joel D. 1991. Keeping a Watchful Eye. The Politics of Congressional Oversight. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  2. Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center. Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bagehot, Walter. 1990 [1867]. The House of Commons. In Legislatures, Hrsg. Philip Norton, 36–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, Frank R., und Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Binder, Sarah. 2003. Stalemate. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  6. Bishin, Benjamin G. 2000. Constituency ifluence in congress: Do subconstituencies matter? Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 389–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Clinton, Joshua D. 2006. Representation in congress: Constituents and roll calls in the 106th house. Journal of Politics 68: 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper, Joseph, und David W. Brady. 1981. Institutional context and leadership style. American Political Science Review 75: 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davidson, Roger H., und Walter J. Oleszek. 1996. Congress and Its Members, 5th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Davidson, Roger H., Walter J. Oleszek, und Frances E. Lee. 2008. Congress and Its Members, 11th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Diermeier, D., und T.J. Feddersen. 1998. Cohesion in legislatures and the vote of confidence procedure. American Political Science Review 92(3): 611–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
  22. Esaiasson, Peter, and Soeren Holmberg. 1996. Representation from Above. Members of Parliament and Representative Democracy in Sweden. Dartmouth: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  23. Evans, C.L., und Walter J. Oleszek. 1997. Congress Under Fire. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  24. Fenno, Richard. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  25. Fenno, Richard. 1978. Homestyle. House Members in their Districts. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  26. Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. The case of the vanishing margins: The bureaucracy did it. The American Political Science Review 71(1): 177–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fiorina, Morris P. 2011. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. Boston: Longman Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Fisher, Louis. 2007. Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President, 5th ed. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  29. Fleisher, Richard, und Jon Bond. 2004. The shrinking middle in the US congress. British Journal of Political Science 34(3): 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Gellner, Winand, und Martin Kleiber. 2012. Das Regierungssystem der USA, 2nd ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  32. Hetherington, Mark J. 2009. Putting Polarization in Perspective. British Journal of Political Science 39(2): 413-448.Google Scholar
  33. Huber, John. 1996. Rationalizing Parliament: Legislative Institutions and Party Politics in France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jacobson, Gary C. 2013. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 8th ed. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  35. Jewell, Malcom E., and Samuel C. Patterson. 1973. The Legislative Process in the United States. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, David R., und Monika L. McDermott. 2010. Americans, Congress, and Democratic Responsiveness. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  37. Katz, Richard S. 2007. Political Institutions in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kingdon, John W. 1973. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  39. Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  40. Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee, Frances E. 2009. Beyond Ideology. Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Loomis, Burdett A. 2011. The US Senate: From Deliberation to Dysfunction. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT und London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Miller, Edward E., und Donald Stokes. 1963. Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review 57: 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ornstein, Norman J., Thomas E. Mann, Michael J. Malbin, und Andrew Rugg. 2013. Vital Statistics on Congress. Washington, D.C.: www.brookings.edu/vitalstats.
  48. Polsby, Nelson. 1984. Political Innovation in America. The Politics of Policy Initiation. New Haven, CT und London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Rohde, D.W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Shaw, Malcom. 1979. Conclusion. In Committees in Legislatures, Hrsg. John D. Lees und Malcom Shaw. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Shepsle, Kenneth A., und Barry R. Weingast. 1994. Positive theories of congressional institutions. Legislative Studies Quarterly 19(2): 149–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sieberer, Ulrich. 2006. Party unity in parliamentary democracies. A comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies 12: 150–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sinclair, Barbara. 1989. The Transformation of the U.S. Senate. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Verlag.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, Steven S. 1989. Floor Politics in the House and Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Sundquist, James L. 1981. The Decline and Resurgence of Congress. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Theriault, Sean M. 2006. Party polarization in the US congress. Party Politics 12(4): 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. Uslaner, Eric M. 1999. The Movers and the Shirkers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. White, W.S. 1956. The Citadel. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Zittel, Thomas. 2010. Mehr Responsivität durch neue digitale Medien? Die elektronische Wählerkommunikation von Abgeordneten in Deutschland, Schweden und den USA. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goethe-UniversitätFrankfurtDeutschland

Personalised recommendations