Skip to main content

How we (should?) study Congress and history

Public Choice volume 185, pages 415–427 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Applying an array of quasi-experimental designs, proponents of causal inference approaches to studying American politics are setting their sights on the study of Congress. In many ways, that focus makes sense: improved research design allows us to draw stronger analytical inferences from observational data, bolstering our understanding of legislative politics. But are the pursuit and methods of causal inference equally well suited to the study of Congress and history? In this article, I consider the application of causal inference methods in historically oriented studies of Congress. Drawing from my coauthored work on the interdependence of Congress and the Federal Reserve over the Fed’s first century and earlier work on the institutional evolution of Congress, I point to the tradeoffs between knowledge and certainty that are endemic in causal inference approaches—and arguably especially so in the study of Congress and history.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Notes

  1. Also keep in mind that before 1995, the Federal Reserve did not announce its rate decisions publicly; analysts had to back out rate changes by observing shifts in inter-bank overnight lending.

References

  • Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, J. (1993). Rational choice theory and the study of American politics. In L. C. Dodd & C. Jillson (Eds.), The dynamics of American politics. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, J. (1995). Why parties? The origins and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. (2015). Mastering ‘metrics: The path from cause to effect. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archarya, A., Blackwell, M., & Sen, M. (2018). Deep roots: How slavery still shapes southern politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensel, R. (1984). Sectionalism and American political development, 1880–1990. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernanke, B. S. (2015). The Taylor rule: A benchmark for monetary policy? Ben Bernanke’s Blog, April 23. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2015/04/28/the-taylor-rule-a-benchmark-for-monetary-policy/.

  • Berry, C. R., & Fowler, A. (2016). Cardinals or clerics? Congressional committees and the distribution of pork. American Journal of Political Science, 60(3), 692–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, S. (2018). Dodging the rules in Trump’s Republican Congress. Journal of Politics, 80(4), 1454–1463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, S. A. (1997). Minority rights, majority rule: Partisanship and the procedural development of Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, S. A., & Smith, S. S. (1997). Politics or principle? Filibustering in the United States Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, S., & Spindel, M. (2017). The myth of independence: How congress governs the Federal Reserve. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, D. W. (1973). Congressional voting in a partisan era: A comparison of the McKinley House to the modern House. Lawrence: Kansas State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, D. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovations in executive agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, D. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, J. L., Engstrom, E. J., & Roberts, J. M. (2007). Candidate quality, the personal cote, and the incumbency advantage in Congress. American Political Science Review, 101(2), 289–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, J. L., & Roberts, J. M. (2013). Ambition, competition, and electoral reform: The politics of Congressional elections across time. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, J. L., & Sievert, J. A. (2018). Electoral incentives in Congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarida, R. H., Gali, J., & Gertler, M. (1999). The science of monetary policy: A new Keynesian perspective. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(December), 1661–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. J., Gray, T. R., & Lowande, K. (2018). Causal inference from pivotal politics theories. Journal of Politics, 80(1), 1082–1087.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. (1970). The origins of the standing committees and the development of the modern House. Typescript: Rice University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J., & Brady, D. W. (1981). Toward a diachronic analysis of Congress. American Political Science Review, 75(4), 988–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. (2000). On the effects of legislative rules. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25, 169–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Cuesta, B., & Imai, K. (2016). Misunderstandings about the regression discontinuity design in the study of close elections. Annual Review of Political Science, 19, 375–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dion, D. (1997). Turning the legislative thumbscrews: Minority rights and procedural change in legislative politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichengreen, B. (2015). Hall of mirrors: The great depression, the great recession, and the uses-and misuses-of history. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L. (1986). Parties in the American mold. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C. L. (2018). The whips. Ann Abor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenbaum, J. J., Fouirnaies, A., & Hall, A. B. (2017). The majority-party disadvantage: Revising theories of legislative organizations. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 12(3), 269–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. B., & Thompson, D. M. (2018). Who punishes extremist nominees? Candidate ideology and turning out the base in US elections. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 509–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. (2013). Is theory getting lost in the ‘identification revolution’? The Monkey Cage, June 14. Retrieved from http://themonkeycage.org/2013/06/is-theory-getting-lost-in-the-identification-revolution/.

  • Katznelson, I. (2011). Historical approaches to the study of congress: Toward a congressional vantage on American political development. In E. Schickler & F. L. Lee (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the American Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katznelson, I., & Lapinski, J. S. (2006). At the crossroads: Congress and American political development. Perspectives on Politics, 4(2), 243–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koger, G. (2010). Filibustering: A political history of obstruction in the House and Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madonna, A. J. (2011). Winning coalition formation in the U.S. Senate; the effects of legislative decision rules and agenda change. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 276–288.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, N., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2013). Political bubbles: Financial crises and the failure of American democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnaughy, C. M. (2013). The woman suffrage movement in America: A reassessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T. M. (2005). Power and political institution. Perspectives on Politics, 3(2), 215–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twentieth century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polsby, N. W. (1968). The institutionalization of the U.S. House of representatives. American Political Science Review, 62(1), 144–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polsby, N. (2004). How Congress evolves. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. (2009). This time is different: Eight centuries of financial folly. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. H. (1980). Implications from the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions. American Political Science Review, 74(2), 432–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schickler, E. (2001). Dosjointed pluralism: Institutional innovation and the development of the U.S. Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K. A. (1979). Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 27–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K. A. (1989). Studying institutions: Some lessons from the rational choice approach. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1(2), 131–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K. A. (2017). Rule breaking and political imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, B. (1989). The transformation of the United States Senate. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skocpol, T. (1995). Protecting mothers and soldiers: The political origins of social policy in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skowronek, S. (1982). Building a new American state: The expansion of national administrative capacities, 1877–1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. S. (2014). The senate syndrome. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. B. (1993). Discretion versus policy rules in practice. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 39, 195–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wawro, G., & Schickler, E. (2006). Filibuster: Obstruction and lawmaking in the U.S. Senate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weise, C. L. (2012). Political pressures on monetary policy during the US great inflation. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 4(2), 33–64.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Chris Tausanovitch and participants in the USC Causal Inference and American Political Development Conference for insightful comments and Eric Lawrence and Mark Spindel for helpful conversations and collaborations along the way.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Brookings Institution, George Washington University, 2215 G. St. NW, Washington, DC, 20052, USA

    Sarah Binder

Authors
  1. Sarah Binder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Binder.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Binder, S. How we (should?) study Congress and history. Public Choice 185, 415–427 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00693-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00693-5

Keywords

  • Congress
  • History
  • Federal Reserve
  • Monetary politics

JEL Classification

  • N00
  • H00
  • G28