Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ideology, “shirking”, and representation

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Asher, H., and Weisberg, H. (1978). Voting change in Congress: Some dynamic perspectives on an evolutionary process.American Journal of Political Science 22: 391–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, D. (1967). The central argument in Lewis Carroll's “The principles of parliamentary representation.”Papers on Non-market Decision Making 3: 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, C. (1981). Congressional voting and the 1982 congressional elections.Journal of Politics 45: 767–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clausen, A. (1973).How congressmen decide: A policy focus. New York: St. Martin's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P.E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D.E. Apter (Ed.),Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenno, R.F. (1978).Home style. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. (1974).Representatives, roll calls, and constituencies. Lexinton, MA: D.C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. (1989).Congress: Keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press (2nd Edition).

    Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, A. and Robbins, M. (1983). Voters and roll-call voting: The effect of congressional elections.Political Behavior 5: 377–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grier, K.B. (1993). Editor's introduction: Ideology and representation in American politics.Public Choice 76: 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinich, M.J. and Pollard, W. (1981). A new approach to the spatial theory of electoral competition.American Journal of Political Science 25: 323–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J.E. and Kingdon, J.W. (1992). Ideology, interest group scores, and legislative votes.American Journal of Political Science 36: 805–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalt, J.P. and Zupan, M.A. (1984). Capture and ideology in the economic theory of politics.American Economic Review 74: 279–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalt, J.P. and Zupan, M.A. (1990). The apparent ideological behavior of legislators: Testing for principal-agent slack in political institutions.Journal of Law and Economics 33: 103–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kau, J.B. and Rubin, P.H. (1993). Ideology, voting, and shirking.Public Choice 76: 151–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, K. (1993). Constituency characteristics and legislative references.Public Choice. 76: 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, M. and Poole, K.T. (1992). Last-term behavior of members of Congress. Manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University.

  • Lott, J.R., Jr. (1987). Political cheating.Public Choice 52: 169–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lott, J.R., Jr. and Bonars, S.G. (1993). Time series evidence on shirking in the U.S. House of Representatives.Public Choice 6: 125–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lott, J.R., Jr. and Davis, M.L. (1992). A critical review and an extension of the political shirking literature.Public Choice 74: 461–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, D. (1974).Congress: The Electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltzman, S. (1984). Constitutent interest and congressional voting.Journal of Law and Economics 27: 181–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltzman, S. (1985). An economic interpretation of the history of congressional voting in the twentieth century.American Economic Review 75: 656–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, H.F. (1967).The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, K.T. (1988). Recent developments in analytical models of voting in the U.S. Congress.Legislative Studies Quarterly 13: 117–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, K.T. and Rosenthal, H. (1991). Patterns of congressional voting.American Journal of Political Science 35: 228–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, L.E., Jr. and Munger, M.C. (1990). Shirking, representation, and congressional behavior: Voting on the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act.Public Choice 67: 11–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, W. (1980). The dynamics of constituency: Electoral control of the House.American Politics Quarterly 8: 399–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M.B. (1993). Shirking and political support in the U.S. Senate.Public Choice 76: 103–123.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, 15213, Pittsburgh, PA

    Keith T. Poole

  2. Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, 08544, Princeton, NJ

    Thomas Romer

Authors
  1. Keith T. Poole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Romer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

We thank Michael Munger and Mark Zupan for providing us with their data, Rod Fort for helping us with some data problems, members of the American Politics lunch group at Princeton for helpful conversations, and Michael Loomis and Don Dale for research assistance.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Poole, K.T., Romer, T. Ideology, “shirking”, and representation. Public Choice 77, 185–196 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049232

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049232

Keywords

Search

Navigation