Advanced search options

Advanced Search Options 🞨

Browse by author name (“Author name starts with…”).

Find ETDs with:

in
/  
in
/  
in
/  
in

Written in Published in Earliest date Latest date

Sorted by

Results per page:

Sorted by: relevance · author · university · dateNew search

You searched for subject:(Congressional legislative process). Showing records 1 – 2 of 2 total matches.

Search Limiters

Last 2 Years | English Only

No search limiters apply to these results.

▼ Search Limiters

1. Lewallen, Jonathan Daniel. You better find something to do : lawmaking and agenda setting in a centralized Congress.

Degree: Government, 2017, University of Texas – Austin

The U.S. Congress has significantly curtailed its lawmaking activities in recent years, and many commentators, scholars, and legislators themselves point to a decline in the institution’s output. Two trends blur this focus. First, the number of substantive (non-commemorative) laws enacted by Congress did not significantly decline until very recently. Second, that the roots of this decline have been growing for several decades, in the committee system. Data from 1981 to 2012 show that congressional committees have significantly shifted their activity towards oversight and other non-legislative policymaking at the expense of advancing legislation. Congressional committees act as Congress’s agenda setting capacity by determining what issues the institution can and will address and how it does so. Any explanation for a decline in congressional lawmaking, therefore, must begin with committees. I develop a theory of committee policymaking in this dissertation based on the limited agenda space decisionmakers face. Making policy through legislative or non-legislative means involves opportunity costs, and committees face uncertainty about whether their legislative work will bear fruit. With this theory as a guide, I test three explanations for the longitudinal shift in committee activity away from legislation. While current and former members of Congress, commentators, and other observers blame political gridlock and an expanding executive branch, I find that changes made to the legislative process itself have altered the incentives for committees to compete for agenda space and make policy through legislation. Members of both parties have centralized agenda setting responsibilities under party leaders over the last three decades, which has altered the contours and availability of legislative authority. My findings have important implications for Congress’s role in the policy process and how scholars and citizens evaluate the institution, including the importance of committee incentives and capacity for congressional agenda setting. Advisors/Committee Members: Theriault, Sean M., 1972- (advisor), Jones, Bryan D (committee member), Wlezien, Christopher (committee member), Jessee, Stephen (committee member), Workman, Samuel (committee member).

Subjects/Keywords: U.S. Congress; Agenda setting; Lawmaking; Policy process; United States Congress; Lawmaking decline; Congressional lawmaking; Congressional committee system; Congressional committees; Congressional oversight; Congressional committee policymaking; Congressional committee activity; Congressional legislative process; Legislative authority; Congressional legislation; Congressional committee incentives

…illustrates the need for a broader view of the legislative process and congressional policymaking… …58 Table 4-1. Changes to Legislative Authority and Congressional Committee Policymaking… …First, the legislative process encompasses more than its endpoint.1 Lawmaking studies tend to… …legislative (Galloway 1953); as Woodrow Wilson put it in Congressional Government (… …activities. Congressional committees are holding relatively fewer legislative referral hearings in… 

Record DetailsSimilar RecordsGoogle PlusoneFacebookTwitterCiteULikeMendeleyreddit

APA · Chicago · MLA · Vancouver · CSE | Export to Zotero / EndNote / Reference Manager

APA (6th Edition):

Lewallen, J. D. (2017). You better find something to do : lawmaking and agenda setting in a centralized Congress. (Thesis). University of Texas – Austin. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2152/47283

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Lewallen, Jonathan Daniel. “You better find something to do : lawmaking and agenda setting in a centralized Congress.” 2017. Thesis, University of Texas – Austin. Accessed March 23, 2019. http://hdl.handle.net/2152/47283.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Lewallen, Jonathan Daniel. “You better find something to do : lawmaking and agenda setting in a centralized Congress.” 2017. Web. 23 Mar 2019.

Vancouver:

Lewallen JD. You better find something to do : lawmaking and agenda setting in a centralized Congress. [Internet] [Thesis]. University of Texas – Austin; 2017. [cited 2019 Mar 23]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/47283.

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation

Council of Science Editors:

Lewallen JD. You better find something to do : lawmaking and agenda setting in a centralized Congress. [Thesis]. University of Texas – Austin; 2017. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/47283

Note: this citation may be lacking information needed for this citation format:
Not specified: Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation


Virginia Tech

2. Mullen, Patrick R. Congressional Reporting: A Management Process to Build a Legislative-Centered Public Administration.

Degree: PhD, Public Administration and Public Affairs, 2006, Virginia Tech

Congressional reporting requirements are an integral part of congressional oversight. These oversight-reporting activities are an important element of the concept of a legislative-centered public administration (Rosenbloom, 2000) â derived from the major discussions, decisions, and actions taken by Congress with regard to federal administration.â This dissertation first describes the development of congressional reporting requirements by presenting selected agency cases. Based on these cases, common themes are identified that help in understanding the requirements and the problems associated with congressional reporting. The dissertation then makes specific recommendations for enhancing reporting requirement activities (e.g., tracking, monitoring and feedback) as part of the congressional oversight process. A proposed management approach to improve the congressional oversight process to build a legislative-centered public administration is presented at the conclusion of the dissertation. The dissertation process used a research approach that included selected cases, interviews with key individuals in the reporting process and analysis of data, including databases maintained by the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate. The dissertation is composed of three parts with two chapters in each part. Part I covers background information about congressional reporting requirements, the objectives and approach used in writing the dissertation, and the key theoretical literature that underpins the discussion of congressional reporting requirements. Part II of the dissertation discusses management and growth of reporting requirements. Part III of the dissertation discusses ways to gain control of congressional reporting requirements and increase their usefulness. The dissertation concludes that there is little evidence to indicate that congressional reporting requirements are being systematically managed in a way that achieves the objective for which they are created. The most serious substantive shortcoming is the lack of an institutional process to support and encourage discussion between Congress and the agencies preparing reports to provide for feedback and to identify reporting requirements that are no longer necessary. A comprehensive and systematic management approach is needed and a proposed management approach is discussed. Comprehensive and systematic management will bring about greater collaboration between congressional committees and their agency partners in an enhanced legislative-centered public administration. Advisors/Committee Members: Wolf, James F. (committeechair), Boster, Ronald S. (committee member), Dudley, Larkin S. (committee member), Hult, Karen M. (committee member).

Subjects/Keywords: congressional reporting requirements; performance reporting; congressional oversight; legislative â centered public administration; management process

Record DetailsSimilar RecordsGoogle PlusoneFacebookTwitterCiteULikeMendeleyreddit

APA · Chicago · MLA · Vancouver · CSE | Export to Zotero / EndNote / Reference Manager

APA (6th Edition):

Mullen, P. R. (2006). Congressional Reporting: A Management Process to Build a Legislative-Centered Public Administration. (Doctoral Dissertation). Virginia Tech. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10919/27049

Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition):

Mullen, Patrick R. “Congressional Reporting: A Management Process to Build a Legislative-Centered Public Administration.” 2006. Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Tech. Accessed March 23, 2019. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/27049.

MLA Handbook (7th Edition):

Mullen, Patrick R. “Congressional Reporting: A Management Process to Build a Legislative-Centered Public Administration.” 2006. Web. 23 Mar 2019.

Vancouver:

Mullen PR. Congressional Reporting: A Management Process to Build a Legislative-Centered Public Administration. [Internet] [Doctoral dissertation]. Virginia Tech; 2006. [cited 2019 Mar 23]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10919/27049.

Council of Science Editors:

Mullen PR. Congressional Reporting: A Management Process to Build a Legislative-Centered Public Administration. [Doctoral Dissertation]. Virginia Tech; 2006. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10919/27049

.