Collaborative Research: Legislative Tactics and the Durability of Legislation

Regents Of The University Of Michigan - Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor MI

Investigators

Abstract

Scholars, lawmakers, and the general public have little understanding as to why some laws last a long period of time without the substantial amendment while others are either killed or substantially amended in a relative short period of time. What accounts for this difference? Are there certain tactics that Congress uses that increase the likelihood that a law will continue in its original form, unchanged by future Congresses? Are there conditions at the time of enactment that affect whether a law will live a long life? And what effect do subsequent conditions have? Do they influence the likelihood that a law will be amended in a significant way? In this project we build on and extend our earlier work (Maltzman and Shipan 2006; forthcoming) to examine why some laws are amended soon after passage while others remain untouched by future Congresses. The importance of understanding how a law can be designed to have a long lasting impact cannot be overstated. First, the longer a law lasts before it is amended, the greater the potential to shape the nation's economic, social, and political welfare. Second, much of the value of legislation--to legislators, to interest groups, to the general public, and so on--comes from the assumption that the law itself will have longevity. When this original agreement is revised through future amendments, such changes affect the value of that law to the original participants. Third, compliance with the law depends in large part upon a calculation regarding its longevity. If one believes a law is likely to be either rescinded or revised, rational actors will abstain from investing in compliance. Finally, we live in a period when the general public, pundits, and even lawmakers recognize that Congress's capacity to address all of society's problems is limited. Part of this limit reflects two issues that are beyond the scope of our project--the extent of the nation's problems and normative issues regarding the proper role of government. At the same time, however, this limit may reflect the fact that our lawmaking institutions repeatedly are called upon to address issues that had been confronted earlier, by previous Congresses. Our project has the potential to limit the need for consistently revisiting the issues that confront the nation.