Political Analysis Advance Access originally published online on February 6, 2008
Political Analysis 2008 16(2):213-225; doi:10.1093/pan/mpm033
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taking the Measure of Congress: Reply to Chiou and Rothenberg
The Brookings Institution and George Washington University, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036
e-mail: binder{at}gwu.edu
Chiou and Rothenberg raise important questions about how to measure key concepts in the study of legislative stalemate in the U.S. Congress. In challenging my choice of measures to capture bicameral differences, Chiou and Rothenberg argue that my findings are the artifact of measurement error. In this reply, I review the hurdles involved in measuring policy views over time and across institutions and suggest that the preferred measure of Chiou and Rothenberg falls short for measuring bicameral differences. Second, I assess the extent to which measurement choices affect the robustness of my findings about the determinants of gridlock. Drawing on new measures and model specifications, I show that my results are robust to alternative specifications. I conclude with an assessment of the broader challenges posed by how we measure critical concepts in the study of congressional performance.