Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In most contemporary democracies governments play a dominant role in the law-making process, as they introduce a significant proportion of bills to the legislature. However, the probability of success of these bills varies considerably. For example, in Argentina, the number of government bills approved as a percentage of all government-sponsored bills introduced in the Chamber of Deputies from 1983 to 1996 amounts to an average 64 percent(including and a minimum of 49% in 1986 and a maximum of 80% in the previous year). This paper studies how cross-voting affect governments' legislative success. I argue that
uncertainty about legislators' support for government bills and limited governmental resources to engage in "vote buying" explain why defeats occur. The paper shows that Argentine presidents' overall legislative success has not been very different from other presidential regimes. However, by looking at the content of those bills that never made it through congress, I identify a peculiar policymaking pattern that may account for Argentine governments' poor performance.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Plaid Cymru faces an important struggle between gender and nationalism. We see this elsewhere, and it makes it difficult for Plaid Cymru to incorporate women like it should. Further complicating this is the fact that Labour is doing better in this area. If Plaid Cymru doesn’t find a way to incorporate women, it may hurt the future of party, squander opportunities represented by the Welsh Assembly, and hurt Welsh women’s representation as well. At the same time, there seems to be within the history of Plaid Cymru, and in women’s political work in Wales, a way (perhaps) to merge feminism with nationalism. This is a potential way forward, for Plaid Cymru to regain momentum and for women to benefit from new opportunity for representation.

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: The volume and variety of ideas and accompanying policy research available to members of Congress and executive branch officials are enormous and have grown tremendously in the past thirty-five years. For all of the resources invested in the production of this work, there is remarkably little evidence of how it is used by policymakers to inspire, formulate, or improve the content of public policy (Shulock 1999, Rich and Weaver 1998, Whiteman 1985, 1995). It is well established that expertise can be influential in agenda-setting (Kingdon 1995, Baumgartner and Jones 1993) and that ideas can inform the direction of policy change (Derthick and Quirk 1985, Hall 1989, Campbell 2004). But how does that happen? And what are the differences between ideas and expertise – and among the types of expertise and ideas made available to policymakers?

In this paper, I examine how public policy think tanks package and present their ideas and research to inform – and influence – policymakers. I analyze, in particular, how the greatly expanded number of nonprofit think tanks have deliberately organized in ways to cater to demands from policymakers for supportive rather than original material. Aggressive marketing strategies have become dominant across the range of organizations involved in providing research in national policymaking (Rich 2004). And a tension has developed between the provision of ideas versus expertise by think tanks (Rich 2005).

The analysis draws on new data from a national survey of think tank leaders who take different approaches to producing and promoting their work. I combine these findings with qualitative findings from 65 new interviews with those at research organizations and those that support them at private foundations and within government. A major portion of the paper explores the relationships between funders and researchers – and the effects of these relationships on how think tanks seek to promote ideas and expertise in American policymaking. The paper reveals a diversity of strategies for how ideas – and expertise – achieve traction in policymaking.