The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The logic of congressional action
Abstract
Congress regularly enacts laws that benefit particular groups or localities while imposing costs on everyone else. Sometimes, however, Congress breaks free of such parochial concerns and enacts bills that serve the general public, not just special interest groups. In this important and original book, R. Douglas Arnold offers a theory that explains not only why special interests frequently triumph but also why the general public sometimes wins. By showing how legislative leaders build coalitions for both types of programs, he illuminates recent legislative decisions in such areas as economic, tax, and energy policy. Arnold's theory of policy making rests on a reinterpretation of the relationship between legislators' actions and their constituents' policy preferences. Most scholars explore the impact that citizens' existing policy preferences have on legislators' decisions. They ignore citizens who have no opinions because they assume that uninformed citizens cannot possibly affect legislators' choices. Arnold examines the influence of citizens' potential preferences, however, and argues that legislators also respond to these preferences in order to avoid future electoral problems. He shows how legislators estimate the political consequences of their voting decisions, taking into account both the existing preferences of attentive citizens and the potential preferences of inattentive citizens. He then analyzes how coalition leaders manipulate the legislative situation in order to make it attractive for legislators to support a general interest bill.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change
Pierson, P. (1993) · World Politics · doi:10.2307/2950710 · Cited by 2,600
Have American's Social Attitudes Become More Polarized?
DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/230995 · Cited by 1,250
Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy
HALL, R. L., & DEARDORFF, A. V. (2006) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055406062010 · Cited by 1,172
Examining the Role of Health Services Research in Public Policymaking
Lavis, J. N., Ross, S. E., & Hurley, J. E. (2002) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00005 · Cited by 402
Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014
CAUGHEY, D., & WARSHAW, C. (2018) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055417000533 · Cited by 340
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1991-04-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 08
- Pages
- 28-4778-28-4778
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W2080554424
- Cited by
- 1,813
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The logic of congressional action. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.28-4778
- The paper
- The logic of congressional action. (1991). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.28-4778
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.