Abstract
In this article, we advance a generic theory of institutional change and illustrate it through a study of the Gas Deregulation Act of 1977-78. The passage of the Act provides an informative case study about institutional change as an innovative postcloture filibuster was implemented, and then defeated, in the course of the debate. Contrary to Shepsle's argument that institutions determine outcomes, we argue that the legislative majority shaped the institution to get the policy outcome it wanted. We find evidence that negotiations among competing coalitions constrained outcomes to be inside the uncovered set. When the filibuster-related rules threatened to lead to an outcome outside of the uncovered set, the rules were changed to avoid this outcome. Our analysis calls into question both the view of majority rule as generically leading to chaos and the view that institutions are the essential tool to overcome such instability.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 430-445 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | Journal of Politics |
| Volume | 76 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Apr 2014 |
| Externally published | Yes |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Sociology and Political Science
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'How preferences change institutions: The 1978 energy Act'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver