Date: March 18th, 2014.
GISA220, Sogang University.
American Politics and American Policy by professor Jaechun Kim.
Mathilde Fage Kjeldsen: G20149010

 Definition of divided government.
 How to evaluate the (alleged) impact of divided government in
American politics.
 Dual legitimacy.
 Discussion

• Divided government or divided party control refers to a situatio n in which one or both chambers of Congress is being controll ed by another party than the one holding the president.

Does it makes a difference in Am erican politics whether the gover nment is divided or unified?
No, not really, is the conclusion of
David R. Mayhew’s seminal work ’
Divided We Govern ’ (1991)

Mayhew tests two hypotheses about how divided government are thought to aff ect two kinds of activity in American politics:
• Divided government  less important laws are enacted.
•
Divided government  more congressional investigations of the executive
He investigates if unified governments are more productive , and if the divergen t policy preferences result in more oversight.
Mayhew finds no clear evidence in support of the above hypotheses.
He concludes that the enactments of important laws are correlated with the pres idential period cycle and with the public opinion (Mayhew, 1991: 177).
.

When asking the question:
“does it matter for American politics if one or both of the ch ambers of Congress are controlled by a different party than the one holding the presidency?” it is necessary to decide upon a standard or an aspect o f American politics , by which the impact of different gover nment compositions is evaluated.

The two kinds of activity studied by Mayhew are outcome-related activity
Another approach could be to look at inter-branch decision making dynamic s or the consequences of divided government for the political process (Krehbi el, 1996:7).
Congress and the presidency are forced to engage in a political process of bargaining and negotiation . This is the only way to make policy.
The increased (forced) bargaining can have more or less desirable consequen ces:
• Deadlock, or the prevail of status quo, where no considerable policy chang es are enacted.
• A deliberation-based and compromise-seeking political process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ILjp-FcepI
Negotiation may be more pronounced during divided party control, but that doe s not necessarily imply a more constructive political process as illustrated by th e historically use of the presidential veto power , which is much more pronou nced during divided government (Lowi, 2010: 239)

Does divided government not bring about any legislation that is not just an insig nificant change from status quo? One could take a look at the content of the le gislation that passes.
An advantage of divided government is that those reforms that are enacted are more likely to last instead of being reversed , when a new majority emerge.
As law-making during times of divided government requires bipartisan support, a shift in majorities is less likely to bring on serious changes or alterations (Nisk anen, 2003)
This is often seen in the Danish political system, where new parliamentary majo rities changes or pulls back reforms enacted by prior coalitions .
The more negotiations a bill has to go through the higher is the likelihood tha t it is revised in a manner so it is more inclusive, spreading the beneficiaries of the law to include a wider group (Lowi, 2010).

Which impact does divided government have on the bureaucracy?
There is broad academic consensus about that policy is no more than an e mpty abstraction before it gets implemented (Moe, 1990). Therefore, ov ersight is needed.
As the enacted laws are often vague due to the difficulty of reaching agree ment, this leave a lot of discretion – and thereby power – in the hands of th ose who controls the implementation process.
Also, because of this, Congress is less inclined to delegate powers to th e president in times of divided party (Lowi, 2010).
In this perspective, Congress spends a lot of resources and time on ke eping control with the bureaucracy or deals with tasks itself, which it in time s of unified government would have delegated.

Divided government has an impact on the public’s ability to place res ponsibility – both credit and blame .
As the president do not have the majority to pass legislation on his own
, he needs to gain bipartisan support.
The problem arises when things go wrong. Who is to blame? The pres ident? Senate? The House? Both? None? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzV-UXA-cTA
This can be difficult to figure out, and accountability becomes blurred. T his can have serious democratic consequences as it becomes impo ssible for the voters to evaluate the performance of their representative s, and thereby exercise their power.

 Popular elections at different times.
 Different constituencies, different evaluations.
 Power-balance-theory.
 Decline in partisanship and voter trust.

The issue of dual legitimacy arises during divided government as both t he president as well as Congress can claim to speak in the name of the people.
• Why do situations with divided governments occur?
• Why are divided government becoming the rule rather than the exce ption?
• What would the Founding Fathers think about the divided governme nt and dual legitimacy?
• Can the constitutional concern about the misuse of power really reall y legitimatise a rigid system?

• Kelly, Q. Sean (1993). Divided we govern? A Reassesment. Vol.25. No 3 (S pring, 1993). Pp. 475-484. Palgrave Macmillan Journals.
• Krehbiel, Keith (1996). Institutional and partisan sources of gridlock. A theor y of divided and unified government. Journal of Theoretical Politics 8(1). Sa ge publications.
• Lowi, Theodore J., et al, American Government: Power and Purpose,
10 th edition, New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 2004.
• Mayhew, David R. (1991). Divided we govern. Party control, lawmaking, and investigations 1946-1990. Vail-Ballou Press, New York.
• Moe, Terry M. (2012). “Delegation, Control, and the Study of Public Bur eaucracy”, The Forum 10, Iss. 2: Article 4
• Niskanen, William A (2003). A Case for Divided Government. A commentary.
Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/case-divided-go vernment
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/113th_United_States_Congress