We examine the extent to which governments consider the role of bicameral conflict resolution procedures in legislative agenda-setting. We argue that governments may use these institutions to promote policy change in the event of bicameral conflict, especially when facing uncertainty over bicameral policy preferences. We test our arguments using comprehensive original data on forty years of German legislation and find that bicameral conflict resolution committees play a more sophisticated role in governmental policy making than previously suspected.
BinderSarah A.2003. Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
2.
BräuningerThomasKönigThomas. 1999. “The Checks and Balances of Party Federalism: German Federal Government in a Divided Legislature.”European Journal of Political Research36 (2): 207–34.
3.
DruckmanJames N.MartinLanny W.ThiesMichael. 2005. “Influence Without Confidence: Upper Chambers and Government Formation.”Legislative Studies Quarterly30 (4): 529–48.
4.
DruckmanJames N.ThiesMichael. 2002. “The Importance of Concurrence: The Impact of Bicameralism on Government Formation and Duration.”American Journal of Political Science46 (4): 760–71.
5.
HammondThomas H.MillerGary J.1987. “The Core of the Constitution.”American Political Science Review81 (4): 1155–74.
6.
KedarOrit. 2006. “How Voters Work Around Institutions: Policy Balancing in Staggered Elections.”Electoral Studies25 (3): 509–27.
7.
KönigThomas. 2001. “Bicameralism and Party Politics in Germany: An Empirical Social Choice Analysis.”Political Studies49:411–37.
8.
KönigThomasLindbergBjornLechneSandraPohlmeierWinfried. 2007. “Bicameral Conflict Resolution in the European Union: An Empirical Analysis of Conciliation Committee Bargains.”British Journal of Political Science37 (2): 281–312.
9.
KrehbielKeith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
LehnertMatthias. 2008. “When the Compromise Engine Sputters: Outcomes of Conference Committee Negotiations.”German Politics17 (3): 323–39.
11.
LehnertMatthiasLinhartEric. 2009. “Der Einfluss der Mehrheitsverhältnisse im Vermittlungsausschuss auf den deutschen Gesetzgebungsprozess” [The Influence of the Conciliation Committee Majority in German Legislative Process]. In Jahrbuch für Handlungs und Entscheidungstheorie, edited by ShikanoSusumuBehnkeJoachimBräuningerThomasBand 5, 149–79. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
12.
LevmoreSaul. 1992. “Bicameralism: When are Two Decisions Better than One?”International Review of Law and Economics12 (2): 145–62.
13.
LijphartArend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
14.
ManowPhilipBurkhartSimone. 2007. “Legislative Self-Restraint under Divided Government in Germany, 1976–2002.”Legislative Studies Quarterly32 (2): 167–91.
15.
MartinLanny W.VanbergGeorg. 2005. “Coalition Policymaking and Legislative Review.”American Political Science Review99 (1): 93–106.
16.
MüllerWolfgang C.StrømKaare eds. 2000. Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
ProkschSven-OliverSlapinJonathan B.2006. “Institutions and Coalition Formation: The German Election of 2005.”West European Politics29 (3): 540–59.
18.
TsebelisGeorge. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
19.
TsebelisGeorgeMoneyJeannette. 1997. Bicameralism. New York: Cambridge Press.
20.
VanbergGeorg2001. “Legislative-Judicial Relations: A Game-Theoretic Approach to Constitutional Review.”American Journal of Political Science45 (2): 346–61.
